AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Traffic Control => Topic started by: FLRoads on January 20, 2009, 04:01:44 PM

Title: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on January 20, 2009, 04:01:44 PM
Okay, we've all seen them and did a double-take when we did.  Yup, I'm talking about sign goofs.  We know they're out there, now let's see how many sign errors the DOT's and sign companies have put up across the country.  Here's one to get it started (which I have already posted on another thread)

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/VA_37.jpg)

A US 37 in Virginia??  No, don't get your hopes up, it's actually suppose to be VA 37.  This is located along southbound I-81 in Virginia.  The other signs at this interchange show the correct VA 37 but whoever crafted this particular sign didn't read the full instructions and decided to make all the numbers with US highway shields...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 04:13:11 PM
some goofs from Montana:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fw43545.jpg&hash=7403e4d927f988ee607342457e674a0938c6951d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fw43559.jpg&hash=0870c3b0749b1648b48f8842862f753ca58e779d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fw43630.jpg&hash=14d91ba493d61eb28bd4052004416b0f73a3d7a3)

the worst part about that US-47 (should be MT-47) is that I remember when they had an older style US-47 there in Hardin (similar to the 39 with the narrower numbers).  When it came time to replace the shields ... yep, they replaced them all right.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on January 20, 2009, 04:59:32 PM
The Lake Ontario State Parkway at Dewey Avenue says that the exit is for NY 18.  NY 18 is at least a mile away from the exit.  This has even managed to survive a recent sign rehab on that part of the parkway.  Sorry, I don't have a pic of this.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on January 20, 2009, 05:04:41 PM
Some more sign goofs...

This sign should be put out of its misery, one for being the wrong shield style and two, it's ugly...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fflorida300%2Fcr-393_sb_app_us-090.jpg&hash=df0eadca498da09afea903b5ff3e5f4823e9535f)

Another Virginia sign goof
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/US_211_eb.jpg)

Suppose to be US 29, but I guess the sign guys had some extra Florida 29 shields in their stockpile...
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/US_29_century.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Darkchylde on January 20, 2009, 05:17:16 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg99.imageshack.us%2Fimg99%2F8285%2Fexit3qh0.jpg&hash=1be94b22483292ea895762e48166ed43fe06c98c)

It's a bit blurry, but this is from I-59 South in Louisiana. The error is that the exit is listed for LA 1092, which has not existed in about 30 years, and when it did it didn't interchange with I-59. The other signs at that interchange get it right, signing the exit for LA 1090.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 05:24:51 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fx7388.jpg&hash=cdc9d76c2da6083903d731d2a3b72c69254da8a2)

how about this Florida absurdity?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 05:37:59 PM
Acid Shield

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/cr-002_wb_after_cr-181.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 05:41:30 PM
wow, melting Florida Negative Two for the win.

I wonder if they ever blatantly screwed up the Floridachrome - a red US-90, or something?

here's some mucked up Floridachrome (wrong shape for sure, and also wrong tint - should be coral, not orange), as well as a cutout for green sign biffing a state highway into a US.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Ff%2Ffl%2Fx0084.jpg&hash=84cd80c5aeac3a2467fafbe6f911ee7288fe92e4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Ff%2Ffl%2Fx0012.jpg&hash=51babfb51ff84bc533937785e7b6ef69f5319a4b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on January 20, 2009, 05:44:33 PM
Were those horrible 41 shields located in Naples??  They look familiar...

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 05:48:21 PM
yes, southern terminus of county road 8XX.  832 maybe?

the 807 is in West Palm Beach.

so we stop picking on Florida, here is a goof from Litchfield, Illinois.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Ff%2Fca%2Fx4520.jpg&hash=68f5b2979f42ec4a9627b557e52b99c50e8416fa)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 05:48:49 PM
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northwest/us-395_sb_after_us-730.jpg)

First 395 shield south of U.S. 730.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 05:50:50 PM
They like messing up Interstate 55 in Illinois

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fishields%2Fimages%2Fi-055_il_03.jpg&hash=1ce3732b4dc75d9e9e2d26e430d285c0240d7586)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 05:57:47 PM
Oregon has so many state/US goofs...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fw14963.jpg&hash=ed1d32b06b4429bd238fbd67b662169cf8a5d6a1)

and going the other way:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fw14597.jpg&hash=466a5306b7a7da0c05dbeb2b2067a23c167ecec4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fw14965.jpg&hash=b810374027ffe0b09bb32e8bda6feac9b4f407fc)

and here is one from Ohio...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Ff%2Fc2%2Fx7581.jpg&hash=fc89bcc2140d292ac281c31de98cfc09d6ec8ecb)

and this cutout NJ shield that I found while looking for the Ohio:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Ff%2Fc2%2Fx7441.jpg&hash=22825ddc8eb9b555dd6977726a99dfa14f02080a)

Ironic since NJ does not use the cutouts on green signs - they have black squares.

speaking of NJ:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Ff%2Fc2%2Fx7456.jpg&hash=fd44a230203b6a24a231a4e355bdf558b2f587e2)

and just across the river in PA:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Ff%2Fc2%2Fx7454.jpg&hash=4d36664de2059533a77998bf16ba944d6fb117d5)

and further down in PA:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Ff%2Fc2%2Fx7541.jpg&hash=9405d0de4d23e9addff9ab8a56c54890d4416445)

the really interesting ones are US/interstate or state/interstate biffs.  Anyone have any photos of those?  I missed out on the I-99, I-152, and I-2 shields in CA.  I can't find my I-52 photo in La Jolla, but it is still there as of last week...

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 05:59:26 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fx10733.jpg&hash=b6840509a9b6d0c44e420f6be47e7b527a7e55c4)

here is a 101.  There also were 50 and 1 shields in construction zones...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 20, 2009, 06:13:49 PM
VA 33 at VA 298. The secondary route shield should be a primary one; it's since been fixed.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2323%2F2522640713_694cd0bb7f.jpg&hash=56b9c1ed4f09a74780b685c8a349d226f9e48f89) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2522640713/in/set-72157603899722828/)

VA 460 ALT (right behind a correct US 460 ALT shield, to boot):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2332%2F2268640726_a28f2418e5.jpg&hash=186f9ed55852325992451d72dc499bb12a27be89) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2268640726/in/set-72157603899722828/)

Creepy mutant VA 10 shield in Hopewell:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3006%2F2969966023_d1abf4df7b.jpg&hash=1e49b5fe88393d4b4c677ba02be3cb948ac8270c) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2969966023/in/set-72157603899722828/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 06:17:58 PM
Virginia also biffs the state/US distinction a lot, as well as the primary/secondary.

do you know of any erroneous cutouts in Virginia?

I don't recall offhand any shields in the wild that are a) old enough to be cutouts, and b) erroneous - they would have had to survive quite a long time in their mistaken form...

I do have, on my wall, a NH/US/102 cutout shield.  I've also seen an embossed 1930s North Dakota state route 85 but alas when it was on eBay, I failed to land it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 06:29:48 PM
The Interstate 50 - http://www.interstate-guide.com/ishields/images/i-050_ca.jpg
Interstate 905 prematurely signed - http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_003_02a.jpg

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/ma-136_nb_after_us-006.jpg)

Several of these circle shields posted along Massachusetts 136.

I've also seen circle shields for U.S. 202 and Pennsylvania 309 signed in the field too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager on January 20, 2009, 06:31:11 PM
I had no idea Avenues could be Interstates...  :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 06:37:01 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fw10786.jpg&hash=d3d4298131392621b00032d2c66d5a8fd4502b09)

no comment.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager on January 20, 2009, 07:18:43 PM
Must be somewhere in Wyoming...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 07:22:31 PM
nope, Tonawanda NY.  it replaced this classic shield (Doug Kerr photo, as seen on alpsroads.net)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fi-290%2Fold.jpg&hash=7bdebdf62e536b7a8de293356f63363aed8e0f6e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 20, 2009, 07:38:13 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 06:17:58 PM
Virginia also biffs the state/US distinction a lot, as well as the primary/secondary.

do you know of any erroneous cutouts in Virginia?

I don't recall offhand any shields in the wild that are a) old enough to be cutouts, and b) erroneous - they would have had to survive quite a long time in their mistaken form...

I do have, on my wall, a NH/US/102 cutout shield.  I've also seen an embossed 1930s North Dakota state route 85 but alas when it was on eBay, I failed to land it.

When I think of erroneous cutouts in Virginia, I think of VA 102 (photos from the VA Highways Project (http://www.vahighways.com/errors/va102error.htm)):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fi102error.jpg&hash=0738d445a6836b382128ffd828a2fd0781824504)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2Fva102.jpg&hash=305306d9d2f521df323d0fdc1abcb459ced42d60)

In addition to the weird I-102 cutouts, there are also some strange triangle-shaped ones in the Bluefield area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager on January 20, 2009, 07:40:14 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.pacbell.net%2Fhywaymn%2Fimages%2Fcarpool_error.jpg&hash=cb9819e3432c680b231f12ff0827e35a74ab7d4d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager on January 20, 2009, 07:42:04 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.pacbell.net%2Fhywaymn%2Fimages%2F47w_old_11_close.jpg&hash=a7633d034295d7577fa449e4f91a0a8f8f8d36be)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 07:43:47 PM
where is that??  I don't know of any CA-11s left in the wild.  they switched over to I-110 and CA-110 in 1980.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager on January 20, 2009, 07:45:03 PM
This sign has been replaced since. Used to be near Long Beach.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 07:47:59 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 07:43:47 PM
where is that??  I don't know of any CA-11s left in the wild.  they switched over to I-110 and CA-110 in 1980.

Joel Windmiller's site - http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Caltrans_Bloopers_Page.html
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager on January 20, 2009, 07:49:33 PM
Unfortunately only one of the counties still works.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 20, 2009, 07:51:36 PM
The pages are still there; for the most part you have to change "highwaymanpacb" to "hywaymn" in each URL for each page to work.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 07:52:00 PM
If not try it on the web archive: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Caltrans_Bloopers_Page.html

I got this to come up: http://web.archive.org/web/20070328232406/home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/images/154_sb_white_shield.jpg
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 07:55:27 PM
you gotta manipulate the URLs by hand, and also note that he typoed the page for District 4.

http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-1.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-2.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-3.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-Distirct-4.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-5.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-6.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-7.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-8.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-9.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-10.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-11.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-12.html

for all the snarking he does about Caltrans errors, he sure makes a lot of them himself ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 07:58:00 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 07:55:27 PM
for all the snarking he does about Caltrans errors, he sure makes a lot of them himself ;)

He should donate his CHPW's  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on January 20, 2009, 07:59:27 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 06:37:01 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fw10786.jpg&hash=d3d4298131392621b00032d2c66d5a8fd4502b09)

no comment.

None needed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 08:27:01 PM
what is a CHPW?  I know what a CHP is ...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager on January 20, 2009, 08:34:20 PM
Awww, CA 21...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.pacbell.net%2Fhywaymn%2Fimages%2F680Sac1.jpg&hash=ca5df91ae85528d1d881dd23ccf7f7efdac49689)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 09:10:59 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 08:27:01 PM
what is a CHPW?  I know what a CHP is ...

Ask Andy, they are an old publication that the state used to produce. I'm not sure of the acronym meaning (California Highway Public Works?), but the magazines have a lot of old highway photos covering infrastructure, signage, etc.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 09:13:29 PM
oh right, that!  I had not remembered it by acronym.

he definitely needs to cough up his supply ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 10:20:07 PM
Quote from: ComputerGuy on January 20, 2009, 10:06:00 PM
Wow. Caltrans records their mistakes. :banghead:
no, a guy named Joel does.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager on January 20, 2009, 10:23:46 PM
Back on topic...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.pacbell.net%2Fhywaymn%2Fimages%2F15-40_Shield_Barstow.jpg&hash=5820408c00098df3bd19a3f845bc4f472e8b971a)

Well, at least Caltrans is conserving their road signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 20, 2009, 10:37:10 PM
Interesting...  :confused:

The only one I can think of off the top of my head is simply the I-64 East signs for when the highway's actually heading west and vice-versa. Not very exciting, I know.  :-/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 21, 2009, 01:20:28 PM
This one's a bit old, but a classic:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3229%2F2944727946_3530f9fe78.jpg&hash=990cbd4b561912776d2482529154f6594f663221)

#1: That should be US 270
#2: That should be US 65B
#3: East 270 should be AR 365S  :pan:

Of course, there's this one, as well:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3175%2F2294014407_82e3c2241f_m.jpg&hash=7bfd082405ab0ef164840520b163c4bbc5693497)


BGS errors are rare, if non-existant, in Arkansas. At least, I've not found any.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 21, 2009, 04:07:40 PM
Florida 922 eastbound at Florida 909/915 in North Miami

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/fl-922_eb_app_fl-909_915.jpg)

Photo taken 03/25/06 (since been replaced with correct shields)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 04:13:31 PM
it's almost plausible that a branch of US-15 makes it down that far.  US-9, not so much.  Well, then again, US-2 doesn't get much farther south than upstate New York, and US-202 ends in Delaware, so anything is possible.

Lake Moses, WA biffing the business loop specs.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Ff%2Fc2%2Fx9028.jpg&hash=dffad7198477032aa5b9e9096dfaf705862bf860)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on January 21, 2009, 04:46:59 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3216%2F3144680511_ab1f85c3e9_o.jpg&hash=c9bafeaee1898cb6563c6140f4df114957d2413e)
This is at the end of the I-75 South off-ramp to Business Loop I-75 in Valdosta...the business loop is signed with a state name interstate shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on January 21, 2009, 04:57:13 PM
Ah, you mean for the virtually dead BL I-75 in Valdosta??  It is scarcely signed along its route, especially on the northern end of the loop.  It pretty much disappears after turning north on US 41 in downtown.  Whether or not it is officially still on the books with GADOT is anyones guess.

Is this pic on the north end of the Business Loop coming from the northbound off ramp off of I-75?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on January 21, 2009, 05:10:55 PM
It is on the north end of the business loop, but the pic is coming from the southbound off-ramp from I-75. I just took this picture on December 27, and it was correctly signed as a business loop on all the BGSs approaching the exit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on January 21, 2009, 08:54:39 PM
Quote from: okroads on January 21, 2009, 05:10:55 PM
It is on the north end of the business loop, but the pic is coming from the southbound off-ramp from I-75. I just took this picture on December 27, and it was correctly signed as a business loop on all the BGSs approaching the exit.

Yes, yes, I see that now.  I forgot that this is a loop ramp coming from southbound 75 onto southbound 41.  And I shouldn't have forgotten that since I was just up there in September.  :pan:  But as I said, once off the interstate the BL is not signed very well.  It's a real shame too, as it seems Georgia is letting their Business Loop interstates go by the wayside...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 21, 2009, 10:43:30 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 04:13:31 PM
Lake Moses, WA biffing the business loop specs.

Still, it's a nice looking sign  :nod:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 10:45:41 PM
abandoned business loops are a good thing - they lead to forgotten old signs.  there are some lovely old Business Loop 5 shields all over California, including one a few blocks from my house.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 21, 2009, 10:53:51 PM
The 807 looks like what Oklahoma sometimes uses for US Business or Alt Routes.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3158%2F2901060636_9352248f44_m.jpg&hash=37e7262ba7afcab521a6f342e07b2b45e8a9d6cf)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 10:57:41 PM
those Oklahomas are very strange indeed.  surface-level shields with no borders always fascinate me.  Texas used to use them back in the day. 

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.auctiva.com%2Fimgdata%2F1%2F0%2F3%2F1%2F5%2F1%2F1%2Fwebimg%2F215826364_tp.jpg&hash=540565f81e7a30ce3e7c41bad1d4f638bf8c4447)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 21, 2009, 11:01:05 PM
Here's a couple from Missouri
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3070%2F2474259299_550392b8f3_m.jpg&hash=ebaa729ddb173a693bf582be98e12e3b5bd2ced5)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2062%2F2233842798_0d7b42c974_m.jpg&hash=47c1383332e734dd9ed0109afd07486640d0a1db)

71 is just north of the AR/MO State Line
160 is east of Branson  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 11:06:05 PM
the 71 may have been replaced ... at least, I don't recall seeing it when I was there last May.  Then again I had gone 60+ hours without sleep and had to make a flight in Houston ten hours later, so there's a lot that I may not have remembered.  US-71 in Arkansas, that's a fun route doing 85 around the curves!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 21, 2009, 11:23:48 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 11:06:05 PM
the 71 may have been replaced ... at least, I don't recall seeing it when I was there last May.  Then again I had gone 60+ hours without sleep and had to make a flight in Houston ten hours later, so there's a lot that I may not have remembered.  US-71 in Arkansas, that's a fun route doing 85 around the curves!

It's long gone. This was 4-5 years ago when 71 was initially 4Laned north of the state line. MoDOT fixed those fairly quickly.

At least now you CAN do 85 on the curves with all the trucks on 540  :clap:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 11:43:20 PM
I mean the part south of Fort Smith, the two-lane road!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 21, 2009, 11:56:17 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 11:43:20 PM
I mean the part south of Fort Smith, the two-lane road!

Oh, you mean south of Greenwood (it's 4 Lanes to just south of Greenwood, unless you count CR 151 which is old 71 ;-) )
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on January 22, 2009, 06:19:06 AM
Oklahoma has too many errors to count. Oh, wait, I am counting them. Right now, we're up to.... ah.... 42 errors (http://www.denexa.com/roadgeek/errors/). A few of them have been fixed. The missing assurance shield I complained to ODOT about in 2005 has not been posted yet.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager on January 22, 2009, 06:22:18 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 10:45:41 PM
abandoned business loops are a good thing - they lead to forgotten old signs.  there are some lovely old Business Loop 5 shields all over California, including one a few blocks from my house.

Especially in northern California along the old 99-W. There are tons of them that are dissapearing in cities such as Arbuckle and others going north.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 04:32:59 PM
there's an Business 5 shield just south of Orland on southbound old 99W.  A couple in Dunsmuir, which I think is still an active business loop, and some in Weed, which for sure is still active.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 22, 2009, 07:28:21 PM
There's also this glitch where OK 20 meets AR 43:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2018%2F2305207634_1d6b55c636.jpg&hash=0b77544862435c949bbd23f0b58cf49abac6ba8b)

Of course, it's merely a juxtoposition of signs. :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 07:33:12 PM
yes, that sounds about right.  It starts four-laning a few miles north of Texarkana from what I remember.

interesting part of Texarkana is the Arkansas-maintained signs on one side of US-71, and the Texas-maintained ones on the other.  I wonder if at any time there were Texas US 71 shields down one side and Arkansas US 71 shields up the other.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 07:34:57 PM
wow, three states on one gantry, excellent.  I've seen some double-reassurance gantries in that area... including one that is clearly in one state and not the other.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Ff%2Fc2%2Fx1181.jpg&hash=c338136c53159fb2268dede0c496c7dabf7c432c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 22, 2009, 07:36:00 PM
Is that pic actually at the border of the three states!? Or is that Missouri one supposed to be an Arkansas one?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 07:41:38 PM
looks to be close to the triple point.  the landscape seems familiar.

my photo was taken while I stood a few inches from the triple point marker and looked southbound down the street with a zoom lens.  The road hugs the state line (first MO/OK and then AR/OK) before curving to the west just south of the triple point and entering solely Oklahoma ...

... where it, peculiarly, continues to be signed as AR-43. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 22, 2009, 07:43:29 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 07:33:12 PM
Interesting part of Texarkana is the Arkansas-maintained signs on one side of US-71, and the Texas-maintained ones on the other.  I wonder if at any time there were Texas US 71 shields down one side and Arkansas US 71 shields up the other.

Sort of is now on a technicality: Arkansas uses the 60's style square US blanks, but Texas uses the "new improved" 80's style:

Texas:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3163%2F3059238332_19bbb35fd5.jpg&hash=97450e402645cf76f25d400f02ad548116e007ab)

Arkansas:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3228%2F3058401825_7b9cba9ce5_b.jpg&hash=5ffd7239ebfedfb70cf4e074b5ec17833648f872)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 07:45:41 PM
I like the classic shape... the 1980s style just looks bloated.

there are very few classic-shaped shields left in Texas.  I know of a couple US-90s in Houston and that's all I can think of offhand.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 22, 2009, 07:50:25 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on January 22, 2009, 07:36:00 PM
Is that pic actually at the border of the three states!? Or is that Missouri one supposed to be an Arkansas one?

Missouri is about 5 1/2 miles to the north, actually, which IS a tri-corner (AR/MO/OK). NB from where the signs are it's dually signed OK20/MO 43,  but SB it's OK 20/AR 43
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 07:52:00 PM
wait, I thought that south of Missouri, it was signed exclusively OK-20/AR-43... with the last Missouri shields showing up at the state line.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 22, 2009, 07:59:25 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 07:52:00 PM
wait, I thought that south of Missouri, it was signed exclusively OK-20/AR-43... with the last Missouri shields showing up at the state line.

It's complicated  :crazy:

Technically, it's OK 20/AR 43 since the road runs (mostly) along the OK/AR State Line. BUT it appears as if someone (Missouri?) has posted MO 43 going north (though the general sign assembly is from Oklahoma).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3084%2F2305207852_5e58d9844a_m.jpg&hash=b6ff34d89fae6869be2d1affd6e7ef29c4378006)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2409%2F2305208140_ef05146af0_m.jpg&hash=cf24fe87092ef22120ea0d8fa90e070c5686dc11)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on January 22, 2009, 10:19:34 PM
Here's one from PA:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg443.imageshack.us%2Fimg443%2F5826%2Fus51andus65inpakz4.jpg&hash=8eb79a7942b844b08985a28a856b0e11886c79dd)

And one from Nebraska.  There should also be a "TO" banner for 34.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg238.imageshack.us%2Fimg238%2F9660%2Fne34forus34withus281hu0.jpg&hash=cf10c8c55ac0c88e46514c1904d2528182205fcc)
EDIT Found a streetview of the assembly on the opposite side of US 281:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.90242,-98.381281&spn=0,359.912109&z=14&layer=c&cbll=40.902315,-98.381266&panoid=9p5uLX8XUEdU3EyPTPtN0w&cbp=12,88.58552835236509,,0,-1.6260962305738462 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.90242,-98.381281&spn=0,359.912109&z=14&layer=c&cbll=40.902315,-98.381266&panoid=9p5uLX8XUEdU3EyPTPtN0w&cbp=12,88.58552835236509,,0,-1.6260962305738462)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: John on January 22, 2009, 10:22:08 PM
I've got a whole bunch of weird ones, even km/h signs around me. I'll try to grab a few pics.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bryant5493 on January 23, 2009, 02:36:07 PM
A road irregularity that I've noticed is on I-75. The exit sign on I-75 North for exit 235 (US 19/41/SR 3) reads "Old Dixie Highway - US 19/41"; however, upon exiting onto the federally numbered highway, a traffic light-mounted street name sign reads, "Old Dixie Road." Further north of the intersection, at I-285, Old Dixie Road and Old Dixie Highway run parallel to one another. Old Dixie Highway is a county maintained highway, and Old Dixie Road carries US 19/41/SR 3. There needs to be some kind of conformity, to cut down on motorist confusion.

Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 23, 2009, 02:50:11 PM
Here's some oddities at Sapulpa, OK:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3279%2F2968504470_78052ef97e_m.jpg&hash=6fd146fc810d9252180974bb9ef3955f2ebe88ad)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3025%2F2885805969_5b540e479c_m.jpg&hash=010d8cf8524e60a84419285336f3750310a692c5)

Further down the road, it's posted as Alternate US 75.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bryant5493 on January 23, 2009, 08:20:04 PM
^^ That's a lot of money wasted, when that (route confusion) could've been corrected before being posted.


Good find,

Bryant
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager on January 23, 2009, 09:00:01 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.pacbell.net%2Fhywaymn%2Fimages%2FOdd_Shaped_680.jpg&hash=a39833e237cb5b8db729f1c02e64e7d77a1b6bbe)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 23, 2009, 09:13:46 PM
That's actually quite tastefully done  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SimMoonXP on January 23, 2009, 10:13:21 PM
That funny, Voyager...because the 680 font seem too small for Caltrans FHWA font.. should be enlarge FHWA font for "680" to able the driver to see it even better as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager on January 23, 2009, 10:15:41 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.pacbell.net%2Fhywaymn%2Fimages%2FUS-20_Mileage_Sign.gif&hash=2c9cf3980389f4c3bc92981b08db9ec17abe1d79)

Never knew U.S. 20 migrated down to the Clear Lake area of California, I need to get out more!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 23, 2009, 10:16:44 PM
Quote from: SimMoonXP on January 23, 2009, 10:13:21 PM
That funny, Voyager...because the 680 font seem too small for Caltrans FHWA font.. should be enlarge FHWA font for "680" to able the driver to see it even better as well.

That's why it's an erroneous road sign.  ;-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: exit322 on January 24, 2009, 09:41:06 AM
I don't have pictures, but Ohio's been recently replacing a number of US signs (30 and 250 in particular, as that's where I'm at) with OH signs.  I know in Wilmot there's a US 250 intersection sign on 62 that's in an Ohio shield (it us US 30 and US 250), and the JCT 30/250 sign on OH 3 northbound near Wooster has both route in Ohio shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on January 24, 2009, 10:57:42 AM
If time and weather allows me next weekend, i'll have to go up and see if i can get a few snaps of the wrong-headed signs
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 24, 2009, 08:49:56 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fw0670.jpg&hash=8dde193088bb9e5f0e793f4347856c113692e383)
found my "interstate 52" photo.  It's in La Jolla and should be CA-52.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on January 24, 2009, 09:29:45 PM
You would think they could get it right, given that there's a correct sign just nearby. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 24, 2009, 11:22:39 PM
This has been up since 2000 and its still in place as of late December 2008:

(https://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware200/us-202_de-141_nb_exit_001b_01.jpg)

It should be the first U.S. 202 shield, but they got Delaware 141 mixed up on its classification!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 25, 2009, 12:56:24 AM
Now that's just pathetic. Do construction workers for Caltrans even pay attention to what they're doing at all?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 25, 2009, 01:18:44 AM
Don't tell anyone, but US 301's southern terminus is actually in Bowling Green, Virginia. ;)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%2F1406%2F1427425742_034fb35b3f.jpg&hash=85a9df9a33e840750ddafcd4f99b29046dc1ac59)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 25, 2009, 01:26:54 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3213%2F2943867931_63e80bc6c0.jpg&hash=15cad72d38aa7646fa1ce1c5290a7b9d62d371c0)

Someone should tell Arkansas that US 59 is in Oklahoma.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager on January 27, 2009, 01:09:31 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.pacbell.net%2Fhywaymn%2Fimages%2FBR-54-Interstate-Sign.jpg&hash=dac4d082e4ce193a49f0f91a07a56ef23e4eb23f)

Not only does California now have an Interstate 54, but also a business loop!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 27, 2009, 02:12:06 PM
Are everyone of Joel's photos going to get a post?

There are more Business Loop I-54 shields posted here: http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/bl-054_ca.html (http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/bl-054_ca.html) I know that they were still posted in 2005, and I'm sure that there are still some today.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 27, 2009, 04:16:29 PM
there were some around as late as March, 2008.  Have not checked since then.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on January 27, 2009, 09:02:34 PM
Here is just a little goof: http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5296153253093202818 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5296153253093202818)

It says as though you are on I-287 and NY 17 along with I-87 and the NY State Thruway. Though NY 17 and I-287 only JUNCTION ahead. You aren't on I-287 and NY 17 right here, so this would be considered an error. Though about 1/2 mile ahead, there is an I-287/I-87 multiplex.

Also a bit of an error on the New Jersey Turnpike (hope I got the info right)
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewJerseyTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5296155482803826306 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewJerseyTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5296155482803826306)



i.c.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on January 28, 2009, 06:00:07 PM
Quote from: I.C.Ligget on January 27, 2009, 09:02:34 PM
Also a bit of an error on the New Jersey Turnpike

Okay, so you're not there immediately, but that exit does take you to I-276 and US 130, so it's not incorrect.

And on the topic of "wrong shield", I know I've seen a couple of US 15 shields in Fairfield county, CT (should be CT 15). One on old route 7 ("secret route" 719) and another on route 110. Pretty sure the one on old route 7 isn't still there. As for the one on route 110... dunno, I haven't been there in a while. Now if only I'd had a camera back when I was in high school and noticing these things...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on January 28, 2009, 06:06:00 PM
I don't think this really counts because Wisconsin made an "attempt" to show it's a MN shield, but on the US 8 crossing westbound into MN on the St. Croix River, the "JCT MN 95 shield" is a WI 95 shield with "MINN" inside it. Don't know if it's still there anymore, just thought it would be interesting to note.

Since WI and US shields look annoyingly similar, there are several places where a WI shield is used where a US shield should. Coming westbound on I-90 into MN from WI, I remember the BGSs having "WI 61" shields. I think the US 14 shield was right though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on January 28, 2009, 06:16:38 PM
Quote from: aaroads on January 24, 2009, 11:22:39 PM
This has been up since 2000 and its still in place as of late December 2008:

(https://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware200/us-202_de-141_nb_exit_001b_01.jpg)

It should be the first U.S. 202 shield, but they got Delaware 141 mixed up on its classification!

Shouldn't the "bridges ice before highway" be a yellow diamond sign as well instead of a white rectangle?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 28, 2009, 06:19:41 PM
Here's a county road sign that got it wrong in Oklahoma
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3097%2F2640111161_f4ee7474cc_b.jpg&hash=fe449bd1101884c09d4b2406ca7be3fa14b4824a)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 28, 2009, 08:12:07 PM
In Ashland, Virginia, for some reason there are I-95 trailblazers that lead traffic down Hill Carter Parkway, which is right before I-95 on VA 54. However, the trailblazers on Hill Carter Parkway actually lead traffic right into the parking lot of a Wal-Mart. I've already emailed the mayor about this, because I know her personally and she has a grudge against Wal-Mart. ;)

Interestingly, if you go the OTHER way on Hill Carter Parkway, there are tons of I-95 trailblazers telling you to turn around. You know, in case you missed the big overheads right past the intersection. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on January 28, 2009, 08:14:39 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 28, 2009, 06:06:00 PM
I don't think this really counts because Wisconsin made an "attempt" to show it's a MN shield, but on the US 8 crossing westbound into MN on the St. Croix River, the "JCT MN 95 shield" is a WI 95 shield with "MINN" inside it. Don't know if it's still there anymore, just thought it would be interesting to note.

Since WI and US shields look annoyingly similar, there are several places where a WI shield is used where a US shield should. Coming westbound on I-90 into MN from WI, I remember the BGSs having "WI 61" shields. I think the US 14 shield was right though.
Correct...here is my pic of this sign from July 2005:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.okroads.com%2F071205%2Fi90mnexit275_01.JPG&hash=feaf58a77c7591245586346da56cc37574924d5a)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 28, 2009, 08:44:21 PM
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on January 28, 2009, 08:12:07 PM
In Ashland, Virginia, for some reason there are I-95 trailblazers that lead traffic down Hill Carter Parkway, which is right before I-95 on VA 54. However, the trailblazers on Hill Carter Parkway actually lead traffic right into the parking lot of a Wal-Mart. I've already emailed the mayor about this, because I know her personally and she has a grudge against Wal-Mart. ;)

Interestingly, if you go the OTHER way on Hill Carter Parkway, there are tons of I-95 trailblazers telling you to turn around. You know, in case you missed the big overheads right past the intersection. :P

Lol... that's a good one!  :-D I'll have to look for it next time I'm up that way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 28, 2009, 10:20:38 PM
Street signs along Pennsylvania 10 in Chester County often displayed it as "US 10" when I took the road several times in the 1990s. I'm unsure if they are still there, but I always thought they were an ode to the route's previous existence as U.S. 122.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on January 28, 2009, 10:23:24 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 28, 2009, 06:06:00 PM
I don't think this really counts because Wisconsin made an "attempt" to show it's a MN shield, but on the US 8 crossing westbound into MN on the St. Croix River, the "JCT MN 95 shield" is a WI 95 shield with "MINN" inside it. Don't know if it's still there anymore, just thought it would be interesting to note.

Since WI and US shields look annoyingly similar, there are several places where a WI shield is used where a US shield should. Coming westbound on I-90 into MN from WI, I remember the BGSs having "WI 61" shields. I think the US 14 shield was right though.

Actually the St Croix River Crossing had it right both ways. (last time I saw it that is)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: akotchi on January 28, 2009, 10:36:45 PM
Also a bit of an error on the New Jersey Turnpike (hope I got the info right)
[/quote]

Most motorists do not even realize that the I-276 designation disappears (or starts, depending on direction) on the Delaware River Turnpike Bridge (PA/NJ State Line).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 29, 2009, 09:18:51 AM
really?  there are definitely New Jersey I-276 shields in existence.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on January 29, 2009, 05:21:24 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 29, 2009, 09:18:51 AM
really?  there are definitely New Jersey I-276 shields in existence.

I always thought I-276 continued to the N. J. Turnpike.

But, in a few years it won't matter.  When the I-95/PA Turnpike exit is completed that section will be signed I-95.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 29, 2009, 05:25:15 PM
There is no official mileage (Route Log Finder List) within the state of New Jersey, which corroborates the fact that Interstate 276 ends at the Delaware River Bridge. The signs on the N.J. Turnpike that reflect Interstate 276 were newer installs (early 2000s?). They probably included the designation as a convenience as Interstate 276 has gained recognition with replacement of original button copy signs along the PA Turnpike.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ComputerGuy on February 01, 2009, 02:07:39 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fblog%2Fsoutheast%2Fend_us-080.jpg&hash=dcf0765936145f56092a3c875ef6345cfba9b71e)

US 80 doesn't end in San Deigo anymore. (US 80 east end in Georgia)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager on February 01, 2009, 03:27:23 PM
In Sacramento the sign for US 50's other end used to say Ocean City, MD 3073 miles. The sign in MD said Sacramento, CA, 3037 miles. I'm pretty sure the latter was correct and they changed the signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: akotchi on February 01, 2009, 08:22:04 PM
Quote from: aaroads on January 29, 2009, 05:25:15 PM
There is no official mileage (Route Log Finder List) within the state of New Jersey, which corroborates the fact that Interstate 276 ends at the Delaware River Bridge. The signs on the N.J. Turnpike that reflect Interstate 276 were newer installs (early 2000s?). They probably included the designation as a convenience as Interstate 276 has gained recognition with replacement of original button copy signs along the PA Turnpike.

The guide signs on the Turnpike that show I-276 went up when the U.S. 130 interchange was rebuilt.  The signs also show U.S. 130 because of the new access ramps.  (Previousloy, they showed only "Penn Turnpike.")Trailblazers along the Turnpike, now pretty old, all show "TO" banners.  The last eastbound mention of I-276 is on the Bristol entrance (last exit/entrance in Pa.), while the first westbound mention (aside from the mainline NJ Turnpike signing) is right out of the first mainline toll plaza in Pa.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 01, 2009, 11:47:46 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fva-ends%2Fva200%2Fva252_nt.jpg&hash=bc7c036ea44194e0235e772cc2fd69caf3326747)

VA 252 doesn't end there. Neither would I-252, if it existed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bryant5493 on February 02, 2009, 04:57:43 PM
^^ Yeah, it looks like the folks didn't know whether the sign was supposed to be for an Interstate or for a state route.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 02, 2009, 08:29:55 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 02, 2009, 04:47:20 PM
that is an magnificently terrible sign - can we use it in the AARoads shield gallery?

You'd need to contact Froggie or Mapmikey of the VA Highways Project for that, I didn't take the photo (though I wish I did).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 02, 2009, 11:33:45 PM
Well, on another note, today I noticed that there is a new speed limit sign facing the wrong direction on I-64 eastbound near the US 250 Short Pump exit. I thought I was seeing things until I looked in my rear view mirror and saw "SPEED LIMIT 65". It seems that it was mounted that way; it wasn't hit or otherwise forced into that position like a "Stop Ahead" sign on the off-ramp to VA 197 from I-195 in Richmond (it faces left for some reason, and VDOT hasn't fixed it yet despite doing work on the gantry nearby on several occasions)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mahaasma on February 03, 2009, 11:54:19 PM
Some interesting signs from Wisconsin.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weebly.com%2Fuploads%2F5%2F7%2F1%2F2%2F571255%2F5864905.jpg%3F352x263&hash=697b30b49d3d4a91b0085ba9842d4b0d7872ba54)

Interesting setup here. . .this is on the north side of Eau Claire.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weebly.com%2Fuploads%2F5%2F7%2F1%2F2%2F571255%2F7183377.jpg%3F330x246&hash=9b4dfb5f738b8e8e82114eb0815882e240ce1aa4)

They made a mistake on this new sign just of US-14 in Janesville.  I-90 is an east-west highway, not north-south.  A few months later I found it corrected; see below.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weebly.com%2Fuploads%2F5%2F7%2F1%2F2%2F571255%2F2668981.jpg%3F330x246&hash=6d77a07ba347fd69aafc851394ca9e418da0a3c1)

Below is another interesting sign near Poynette, Wisconsin.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weebly.com%2Fuploads%2F5%2F7%2F1%2F2%2F571255%2F8883228.jpg%3F317x237&hash=d97beb3b3e44f2fbe862417de4c05b588ebfab32)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: DanTheMan414 on February 04, 2009, 12:20:14 AM
Quote from: exit322 on January 24, 2009, 09:41:06 AM
I don't have pictures, but Ohio's been recently replacing a number of US signs (30 and 250 in particular, as that's where I'm at) with OH signs.  I know in Wilmot there's a US 250 intersection sign on 62 that's in an Ohio shield (it us US 30 and US 250), and the JCT 30/250 sign on OH 3 northbound near Wooster has both route in Ohio shields.

There is a photo of the OH 30/OH 250 signs you alluded to on the Ohio Sign Goofs page I maintain:

http://www.gribblenation.net/ohio/goofs/ (http://www.gribblenation.net/ohio/goofs/)

Note that interchanging US and OH shields is a frequent happenstance throughout the Buckeye State...especially along OH 103.  :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: akotchi on February 04, 2009, 01:04:43 PM
Seems pretty common also to see 3-digit route numbers in 2-digit shields, both interstate and U.S.  Erroneous, perhaps, only to designers like me . . .
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on February 04, 2009, 02:22:26 PM
Quote from: akotchi on February 04, 2009, 01:04:43 PM
Seems pretty common also to see 3-digit route numbers in 2-digit shields, both interstate and U.S.  Erroneous, perhaps, only to designers like me . . .


It became the Texas standard up until very recently (from the end of button copy signing until perhaps 2007), to put 3di's within 2di shields and 2di shields within 3di shields. Thankfully they are starting to get it right again.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on February 05, 2009, 11:01:16 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FRoad%2520Trip%2520Mar%252008%2FTOI-44.jpg&hash=9bfb8bcaad13901a076c710699815929e474fce0)
I took this in March 2008.  That should be NORTH US 281/287.  It appears this got fixed a couple of months later:
https://www.aaroads.com/texas/texas080/us-082_wb_281_287_nb_exit_436a_01.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/texas/texas080/us-082_wb_281_287_nb_exit_436a_01.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Marc on February 06, 2009, 01:56:31 AM
There is a sign along I-10 eastbound in Columbus, TX that claims the next exit is "4/10 Miles" away. They didn't even bother to reduce the fraction to 2/5! I wish I had a pic.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 06, 2009, 03:47:44 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2378%2F2267850897_83033bcb0b.jpg&hash=266cde29e4d49dff07ea44a72e0ba630736bbe1b) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2267850897/in/set-72157603903190787/)

VA 239 ends here, not up ahead. If you were to try to proceed from here, you'd likely be explaining your error to some Navy personnel with automatic weapons. It looks like the END tag was put on as an afterthought.

On another note, the American Map street atlas for the Lower Hampton Roads region misidentifies VA 239 between US 17 and VA 337 (near the Jordan Bridge) as part of VA 337.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 06, 2009, 10:50:15 AM
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on February 06, 2009, 03:47:44 AM
On another note, the American Map street atlas for the Lower Hampton Roads region misidentifies VA 239 between US 17 and VA 337 (near the Jordan Bridge) as part of VA 337.

Really? They usually are fairly accurate around here... Though I've learned to never trust them, and always just check routes myself.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on February 14, 2009, 02:42:50 PM
Quote from: US71 on January 22, 2009, 07:59:25 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 07:52:00 PM
wait, I thought that south of Missouri, it was signed exclusively OK-20/AR-43... with the last Missouri shields showing up at the state line.

It's complicated  :crazy:

Technically, it's OK 20/AR 43 since the road runs (mostly) along the OK/AR State Line. BUT it appears as if someone (Missouri?) has posted MO 43 going north (though the general sign assembly is from Oklahoma).


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3108%2F2873978201_09ed2afed3_o.jpg&hash=c994312074a6ba518f15b0a04d90aa774021b368)

That's what it looked like during the circle era.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on February 14, 2009, 02:50:14 PM
A couple:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3061%2F2874809478_f77e5001f7_o.jpg&hash=4baff0ae8701e9fbbdc6972724ee3cb7ec0fed28)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3092%2F2874809162_f6d3eb716a_o.jpg&hash=3835cf28cb2647bd7fa84db6f6292f882e8455e3)

(This sign has been corrected)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on February 14, 2009, 07:07:09 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2123%2F2249998644_f9cbc0a106.jpg&hash=7a7c82301045dfe30bb8f543b432d07f2a7fff3c)
This is in Stilwell, OK. Last I looked, it's still there

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3205%2F2959197577_384836d753.jpg&hash=d1850c142ed9ed401ed5f3e8c12ff6ef19e3ea07)
This is in Sulphur Springs, AR just outside Pine Bluff.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on February 14, 2009, 10:15:42 PM
(//www.alaskaroads.com/I-29-signgoof.jpg)

This is a sign goof I just remembered and wish I could have seen myself. Its from Oscar Voss' website: www.alaskaroads.com//signgoofs.htm (//www.alaskaroads.com/signgoofs.htm)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on February 14, 2009, 10:31:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2299%2F2474629075_42093eb566.jpg&hash=8163d1570931b6d7bd14a5c8f0c8aac80f49bbdf)
Should be US 159
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on February 15, 2009, 08:42:07 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3178%2F2626742398_0f5c39c84d.jpg&hash=1218b6c560fe87699a2008de965cebae17fab10f)

Along US 169 north of Kansas City
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: AZDude on February 16, 2009, 12:17:44 AM
At one time in Kingman, Arizona at the intersection of Beverly Ave, and Harrison Street there was a trailblazer shield showing a U.S. 40 sheild instead of an Interstate 40 shield!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3091%2F3284014914_d54a4605ef.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=535fb2a9fe7ccce0163f276c1a4531802e193596)

However this sign has since been corrected.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 18, 2009, 06:55:33 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi460.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fqq330%2Fnerdlydood%2Ffoe_toez%2FDSC01021.jpg&hash=953757da9540095b26a40219ac39ef63b868180d)
(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq330/nerdlydood/foe_toez/DSC01021.jpg)
Weird-looking US-11 shield in Roanoke, VA. Photo credits to nerdly_dood on Simtropolis, who says that most US route signs in downtown Roanoke look like that.

Never seen one like it before myself...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on February 18, 2009, 07:02:18 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 18, 2009, 06:55:33 PM
Weird-looking US-11 shield in Roanoke, VA. Photo credits to nerdly_dood on Simtropolis, who says that most US route signs in downtown Roanoke look like that.

That's a 1950's/early-mid 1960's square sign before the black background became standard. So I wouldn't call that "erroneous", but "vintage"  ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 18, 2009, 07:17:36 PM
Thanks for the answer, though he didn't believe the explanation.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on February 18, 2009, 08:17:35 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 18, 2009, 07:17:36 PM
Thanks for the answer, though he didn't believe the explanation.  :rolleyes:

There are many of them still around in Roanoke, and they include state routes as well. I also found a couple more white-box I-581 VA shields of the same vintage.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on February 18, 2009, 08:31:08 PM
Quote from: aaroads on February 18, 2009, 08:17:35 PM
There are many of them still around in Roanoke, and they include state routes as well. I also found a couple more white-box I-581 VA shields of the same vintage.

I'll have to get out that way sometime to look.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: algorerhythms on February 19, 2009, 01:15:05 PM
I don't know if this one's come up earlier in the thread, but here's one I stumbled onto in Google Street View:

"Pennsylvania Route 40" (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.011905,-79.865756&spn=0.007034,0.038581&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.011003,-79.867563&panoid=b1zwTk8aGWiYZIrAfmqLig&cbp=11,175.77210659078148,,0,3.387606303410217)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 19, 2009, 08:48:56 PM
More of an oddity than an error, but nonetheless, TO TOLL TO TOLL SOUTH VA 76:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3361%2F3293491953_0e83640646_b.jpg&hash=59c38526d435845ea0cc92b89a2e1c5d84e7f0d7)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 23, 2009, 12:17:13 AM
I didn't get a great photo of it, but on Atlee Road (SR 638) westbound near Meadowbridge Road (SR 627) in Hanover County, there is a "TO I-295" trailblazer that actually takes you away from I-295. To get to I-295, you should have turned right at the intersection with Meadowbridge.

The sign on SR 638 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.625287,-77.389272&spn=0,359.990344&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.625111,-77.389247&panoid=pO1BXo0--D3dpfJr1ymSfQ&cbp=12,8.499650327023053,,0,4.646776711226443)

Map of the area (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.626944,-77.385507&spn=0.015601,0.038624&z=15)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on February 25, 2009, 08:29:59 AM
Technically you do get to I-295 by following the sign.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2009, 02:09:48 PM
That you do, it's just the long way around. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager on April 11, 2009, 06:37:25 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20040518081812%2Fmdo20.0catch.com%2Froute%2Fwa%2Fiwa530.JPG&hash=ff2fd154b4cfaec3e9e8dd9e827f873bff73cfd3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ComputerGuy on April 11, 2009, 07:18:20 PM
I already showed that on the 'Funny signs' thread...

EDIT: A wrong-way concurrency:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F6%2F6c%2FNB77SB81.JPG&hash=a341c3d480001223883a46992492886ec7667f2a)

CG, this is time #6. I though you said you knew how to post images at a custom size? -DTP
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on April 12, 2009, 03:19:57 PM
Several years ago, I-20 was repaved from Simsboro, LA, to Grambling.  I don't know who did it or how, but the milemarkers were put in the wrong places.  This caused the state to renumber Simsboro's exit # from 76 to 77.  Not too long after the project was complete, somebody noticed this, and put the milemarkers back where they belong.  But they have yet to change the exit number back to 76. :confused: 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on April 13, 2009, 09:38:42 AM
A cluster of signs on US 53 south show the approaching junction of US 61, US 14 and WIS 16 and the end of US 53, but there are two instances of JCT US 61 on the cluster and no mention of WIS 16.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 15, 2009, 05:16:56 PM
How is a wrong-way concurrency an error(referring to ComputerGuy's I-77/I-81 and US 11/US 52 image) especially if its correct?? :nod:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 15, 2009, 05:31:22 PM
Re: ComputerGuy's "wrong way" concurrency post

I looked at MapQuest a little while back to check out the I-77/81/US 11/52 multiplex. It actually makes sense, in a strange way, although the routes are going due east/west.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 15, 2009, 05:43:10 PM
QuoteI looked at MapQuest a little while back to check out the I-77/81/US 11/52 multiplex. It actually makes sense, in a strange way, although the routes are going due east/west.

The multiplex is going east-west there but throughout VA all four roads are signed north-south  throughout their VA stay :nod:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 13, 2009, 03:43:08 PM
Another VA error that I have posted in two other threads this US 33/US 250 sign was actually right when it was put up before US 33 was truncated.  The view is going SB on N Monroe St.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FNMONROESTATUS250.jpg&hash=0a8d707f214336fa91781c82099c80e5a892a8b6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: signalman on May 13, 2009, 04:36:54 PM
I remember a big goof a few years back by NJDOT.  It was a sign pointing to a NJ state highway, but it was inside PA's keystone.  I first saw it while riding in my friend's car, so I did not have my camera with me.  I went back less than a week later to photograph it, but the sign had already been replaced.  Speaking of NJ, I saw several posts back about a NJ 206 sign, which should be US 206.  There are actually quite a few of those errors along the coridor.  Even though it is incorrect, in NJ's eyes it really isn't because they consider both interstate and US highways state highways.  Meaning, since I-80 is in NJ, they would never make an NJ 80, as an example.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on May 13, 2009, 04:58:21 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3178%2F2626742398_0f5c39c84d.jpg&hash=1218b6c560fe87699a2008de965cebae17fab10f)Kansas City, MO

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3070%2F2474259299_550392b8f3_m.jpg&hash=ebaa729ddb173a693bf582be98e12e3b5bd2ced5)
Near Jane, MO

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2123%2F2249998644_f9cbc0a106_m.jpg&hash=616e5cc49a6a680517560b799e1ab1e865eee996)
Stilwell, OK

Fixed first image's URL -DTP
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 25, 2009, 01:16:00 AM
I found this one today. It appears to have been here for at least two years, because it's also on Google Street View (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.519138,-77.350917&spn=0,359.980688&z=16&layer=c&cbll=37.519013,-77.350858&panoid=l03RgTK8UlrBbq_9wP8PKg&cbp=12,215.16,,0,-0.3).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2457%2F3562154564_a1fa04efe4.jpg&hash=df47d125cba59273ec46dcdd2d49536b8e271d61)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on May 25, 2009, 02:52:00 AM
 :-D

Where is that, around Richmond or Williamsburg? Looks like one of the two.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 25, 2009, 03:29:49 AM
Richmond, it's on Laburnum Avenue southbound. I did a double-take when I saw it. :spin:

I looked at it closely, and I don't think there has EVER been a 5 on that VA shield!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on May 25, 2009, 03:31:08 AM
I remember reading about a sign goof in Massachusetts that was big enough to have a newspaper article written about it. There was a need for a state highway marker to be put up and the guy making it flipped to the state highway section of his sign plan book and made the first sign he saw there.

Apparently his book had all the states' diagrams in it, in alphabetical order, because what got made and put up was an Alabama state route marker!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 25, 2009, 08:55:51 AM
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on May 25, 2009, 03:29:49 AM
Richmond, it's on Laburnum Avenue southbound. I did a double-take when I saw it. :spin:

I looked at it closely, and I don't think there has EVER been a 5 on that VA shield!
Well at least this wasn't VDOT's fault but the infamous Henrico County
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 25, 2009, 02:26:44 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 25, 2009, 08:55:51 AM
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on May 25, 2009, 03:29:49 AM
Richmond, it's on Laburnum Avenue southbound. I did a double-take when I saw it. :spin:

I looked at it closely, and I don't think there has EVER been a 5 on that VA shield!
Well at least this wasn't VDOT's fault but the infamous Henrico County

Actually, the sign has a VDOT decal on the back of it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on May 25, 2009, 07:52:14 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2009, 03:31:08 AM
I remember reading about a sign goof in Massachusetts that was big enough to have a newspaper article written about it. There was a need for a state highway marker to be put up and the guy making it flipped to the state highway section of his sign plan book and made the first sign he saw there.

Apparently his book had all the states' diagrams in it, in alphabetical order, because what got made and put up was an Alabama state route marker!

I remembered that well. Fortunately the article that reported the goof (complete with a photo) is still online!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/26/word_to_road_crews_tuscaloosa_is_over_1000_miles_thataway/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/26/word_to_road_crews_tuscaloosa_is_over_1000_miles_thataway/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 25, 2009, 08:38:44 PM
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on May 25, 2009, 02:26:44 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 25, 2009, 08:55:51 AM
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on May 25, 2009, 03:29:49 AM
Richmond, it's on Laburnum Avenue southbound. I did a double-take when I saw it. :spin:

I looked at it closely, and I don't think there has EVER been a 5 on that VA shield!
Well at least this wasn't VDOT's fault but the infamous Henrico County

Actually, the sign has a VDOT decal on the back of it.
That must be because it seems that VDOT maintains the US Routes in Henrico County(at least the traffic lights :-|)?????
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on May 25, 2009, 11:42:03 PM
I found this today near Idabel, OK
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3386%2F3564881823_da72c7617c_b.jpg&hash=8e10150a8bf453d7d79eaf7fdb0a9e7f3664774e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 25, 2009, 11:47:40 PM
reminds me of this problem. 

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Ff%2Fdet%2Fx1073.jpg&hash=d13145f5cddddd742c86992c186293f1a6fd14ec)

the sign was once mounted right side up - now it shows the wrong polarity!  Very dangerous at first glance.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on May 26, 2009, 04:34:37 AM
Quote from: US71 on May 25, 2009, 11:42:03 PM
I found this today near Idabel, OK

Idabel is like a nexus of poor signing. Same for Hugo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on May 26, 2009, 07:03:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 26, 2009, 04:34:37 AM
Quote from: US71 on May 25, 2009, 11:42:03 PM
I found this today near Idabel, OK

Idabel Oklahoma is like a nexus of poor signing.

fixed
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 01, 2009, 09:28:16 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 26, 2009, 04:34:37 AM

Idabel is like a nexus of poor signing. Same for Hugo.

Well, Arkansas isn't immune
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3229%2F2944727946_3530f9fe78.jpg&hash=990cbd4b561912776d2482529154f6594f663221)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: akotchi on June 01, 2009, 09:42:01 PM
Quote from: AARoads on May 25, 2009, 07:52:14 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2009, 03:31:08 AM
I remember reading about a sign goof in Massachusetts that was big enough to have a newspaper article written about it. There was a need for a state highway marker to be put up and the guy making it flipped to the state highway section of his sign plan book and made the first sign he saw there.

Apparently his book had all the states' diagrams in it, in alphabetical order, because what got made and put up was an Alabama state route marker!

I remembered that well. Fortunately the article that reported the goof (complete with a photo) is still online!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/26/word_to_road_crews_tuscaloosa_is_over_1000_miles_thataway/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/26/word_to_road_crews_tuscaloosa_is_over_1000_miles_thataway/)

The detail for the state highway shield in the Standard Highway Signs book happens to be an Alabama shield.  I suspect that had something to do with it . . .
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 03, 2009, 10:35:23 PM
Christiansburg, VA is a treasure trove of odd signs and goofs.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.villagephotos.com%2Fp%2F2005-10%2F1085993%2F121.jpg&hash=506aff51b689c47ef1bf2943ecf5ce4630096e64)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.villagephotos.com%2Fp%2F2005-10%2F1085993%2FDepotMain1.jpg&hash=c70675f43b4c0eb0433f4ebacfb2ae50846d55cd)

This one is on the nearby Virginia Tech campus.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.villagephotos.com%2Fp%2F2005-10%2F1085993%2Foddva314.jpg&hash=1a85732f14ff466a30ceabc0b2514d062a397356)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 03, 2009, 10:40:07 PM
Quote from: donutbandit on June 03, 2009, 10:35:23 PM
Christiansburg, VA is a treasure trove of odd signs and goofs.

Those are downright strange.  :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 03, 2009, 10:41:52 PM
I have a lot more of them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 03, 2009, 10:50:31 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.villagephotos.com%2Fp%2F2005-10%2F1085993%2Fw15885.jpg&hash=29b56ac39f11826021ad691bfc981c637445c982)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 03, 2009, 10:51:28 PM
Quote from: donutbandit on June 03, 2009, 10:41:52 PM
I have a lot more of them.

I have some scattered throughout my Flickr pages, such as the AR 270 pic, a MO 71 and AR 62 among others. Not a lot of state showing as US like the 152 sine in Kansas City, though Mark Roberts has a US V on his cosmos-monitor site: http://www.cosmos-monitor.com/mo/main/us-v-indep.html (http://www.cosmos-monitor.com/mo/main/us-v-indep.html)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 03, 2009, 10:58:06 PM
Sign geeks love Virginia.  :spin:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.villagephotos.com%2Fp%2F2005-10%2F1085993%2Fus250-11-va254-stauton-summa-2000.jpg&hash=f38269a30eef032a3a75815458c4deea5520308f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 03, 2009, 11:16:38 PM
Quote from: donutbandit on June 03, 2009, 10:58:06 PM
Sign geeks love Virginia.  :spin:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.villagephotos.com%2Fp%2F2005-10%2F1085993%2Fus250-11-va254-stauton-summa-2000.jpg&hash=f38269a30eef032a3a75815458c4deea5520308f)

EDIT: Never mind, I can't read. Oh well, I guess we know there's an interstate somewhere over there... :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on June 04, 2009, 06:55:16 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 01, 2009, 09:44:43 PM
QuoteThe detail for the state highway shield in the Standard Highway Signs book happens to be an Alabama shield.  I suspect that had something to do with it . . .

From what I recall, that had everything to do with it.

Also, the Alabama route marker is the only example of a state route marker in Standard Highway Signs.  What the fabricator needed to do, but in this case did not, is to refer to a state specification.  MHD now has a selection of traffic design guidance online (which I haven't yet checked in depth to see if there is a specification for state route markers).

IMO it does not help, either, that Massachusetts is one of the states where sign rehabilitation plans lack sign design sheets.  It is actually rare to see dimensioned drawings in a MHD signing plans set except for diagrammatic signs.

Edit:  See the pattern-accurate drawing for the M1-5 state route marker here:

http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/downloads/manuals/1996Mconst.pdf (http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/downloads/manuals/1996Mconst.pdf)

I am pretty sure this specification is duplicated in some other manuals accessible through this page, also:

http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/publicationmanuals&sid=about (http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/publicationmanuals&sid=about)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 06, 2009, 12:02:11 AM
Another oddity in Christiansburg - a VA 111 cutout under a speed limit sign.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.villagephotos.com%2Fp%2F2005-10%2F1085993%2FVA111.JPG&hash=29a9accb6f0094085fae53ed9f63e53f76370999)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 06, 2009, 12:05:24 AM
Between C'burg and Radford - state secondary route              - the road to nowhere.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.villagephotos.com%2Fp%2F2005-10%2F1085993%2Fva144-toblank-elkins.JPG&hash=d6c03856f68bf7243bafee804aeea5372b78c456)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 06, 2009, 12:09:09 AM
How weird is this?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.villagephotos.com%2Fp%2F2005-10%2F1085993%2Fus60-220-i64va-cforge-summa1997.jpg&hash=389c33e820169dd3639acbca64bfbde353cf71b6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 06, 2009, 12:24:28 AM
Quote from: donutbandit on June 06, 2009, 12:05:24 AM
Between C'burg and Radford - state secondary route              - the road to nowhere.

Here's one from Oklahoma
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2165%2F2285229536_246c947b8b.jpg&hash=e7735f13810dae1458e134c198efcc08590879d5)


And a set of weirdness from Texas:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2099%2F2528163969_f4d36d8177.jpg&hash=e6186942e03cc87a1d7983060c273053db998a89)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3021%2F2532480366_24d3c5cdac.jpg&hash=86d31f25c21084be0395c375baf3594c9c894e66)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2009, 12:52:05 AM
what's so bad about the Texas?  other than no state name on the I-20 shields?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 06, 2009, 12:55:07 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2009, 12:52:05 AM
what's so bad about the Texas?  other than no state name on the I-20 shields?

Just 3 different directions to the Interstate... very confusing to people not from the area.   :crazy:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 06, 2009, 01:14:38 AM
Quote from: akotchi on February 04, 2009, 01:04:43 PM
Seems pretty common also to see 3-digit route numbers in 2-digit shields, both interstate and U.S.  Erroneous, perhaps, only to designers like me . . .


I don't consider that to be a goof. I hate ... absolutely HATE ... the wide shields that sprang into use in Kentucky in the 1970s. I much prefer the square shields with the smaller numbers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2009, 02:11:37 AM
seems pretty sensible to me ... if the freeway is a bypass of a town, then you'd expect an exit at either end of town, and one down the middle where the perpendicular road goes out to the bypass.

the only thing that would make it confusing is if there were only partial interchanges at some of those, where for example you could only get on I-20 westbound at the westernmost exit.  I've never gotten the hang of those - especially not when the next exit to turn around at isn't for another 18 miles!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 06, 2009, 11:58:05 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 06, 2009, 01:14:38 AM
... I hate ... absolutely HATE ... the wide shields that sprang into use in Kentucky in the 1970s. I much prefer the square shields with the smaller numbers.

You'll see plenty in Arkansas along I-40 between West Memphis and Little Rock  :-D
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2060%2F2179278710_42db7b8c10.jpg&hash=3252f61a0722b4913a017c56e3b88187216a467e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on June 06, 2009, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 06, 2009, 01:14:38 AM

I don't consider that to be a goof. I hate ... absolutely HATE ... the wide shields that sprang into use in Kentucky in the 1970s. I much prefer the square shields with the smaller numbers.

Rhode Island has a countably small number of 3-digit shields.  The norm is still 2-digit width for every route.  Which is silly, because it's a rectangle so it's easy to expand.  NH is the same way, but I haven't seen more than 101 in that state.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on June 06, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: US71 on June 06, 2009, 11:58:05 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 06, 2009, 01:14:38 AM
... I hate ... absolutely HATE ... the wide shields that sprang into use in Kentucky in the 1970s. I much prefer the square shields with the smaller numbers.

You'll see plenty in Arkansas along I-40 between West Memphis and Little Rock  :-D
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2060%2F2179278710_42db7b8c10.jpg&hash=3252f61a0722b4913a017c56e3b88187216a467e)

LOVE that spiffy B font!  Dont know why, but i always like B fonts so i prefer square rather than rectangular shields myself
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2009, 04:05:44 PM
I prefer Series A to Series B.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AZ/AZ19636661i1.jpg)

I don't think anyone uses that anymore - it's been officially deprecated for about 20 years now since it was too thin and hard to read.  That said, I think it's just a more aesthetically pleasing font than B. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 06, 2009, 06:19:23 PM
Quote from: donutbandit on June 06, 2009, 12:05:24 AM
Between C'burg and Radford - state secondary route              - the road to nowhere.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.villagephotos.com%2Fp%2F2005-10%2F1085993%2Fva144-toblank-elkins.JPG&hash=d6c03856f68bf7243bafee804aeea5372b78c456)

Not only that, but VA 114 doesn't go east here. This is the eastern terminus of the route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on June 06, 2009, 07:46:13 PM
QuoteNot only that, but VA 114 doesn't go east here. This is the eastern terminus of the route.

Officially speaking, VA 114 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va101-120.htm#va114) extends east to the frontage road.  So on the face of it, the VA 114 sign is correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 06, 2009, 08:13:50 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2009, 04:05:44 PM
I prefer Series A to Series B.

I don't think anyone uses that anymore - it's been officially deprecated for about 20 years now since it was too thin and hard to read.  That said, I think it's just a more aesthetically pleasing font than B. 

Anyone know where I can download Series A ? I'd love to duplicate some stuff in photoshop and use it for my screensaver. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2009, 08:44:57 PM
no idea ... I don't even have it in vector form, alas.  Have never bothered to synthesize it. 

interestingly, it is the one series that is a different width in round than in square fonts.  Round Series A is just a tad bit narrower than Round Series B.  Square Series A is about half as wide as Square Series B!  It may be seen here:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Ff%2Fca%2Fx6194.jpg&hash=d29e489fdcd6845aa9de5b098a6d68b7b6ff9d30)

you can barely see it on this stop sign, spelling out "THRU TRAFFIC".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 06, 2009, 09:55:48 PM
Check out these odd CA state shields. (Probably one of yours, agentsteele.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.villagephotos.com%2Fp%2F2005-10%2F1085993%2FW16658.JPG&hash=c5402ecb86709b93ee45a07652f0dfc1156fd97f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 06, 2009, 11:14:50 PM
Is that a non-cutout US 395 shield? Is that setup even in California? :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2009, 11:44:12 PM
it's in Yosemite.  The National Parks Service administers the signs there, and clearly they pulled out a very wonky specification manual.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on June 10, 2009, 04:17:01 PM
Quote
Here's one from Oklahoma
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2165%2F2285229536_246c947b8b.jpg&hash=e7735f13810dae1458e134c198efcc08590879d5)

Funny thing is...those signs have been replaced in the past few years. The blank circle on the background sign was originally an OK 7 shield, back when it went that far east. On the new signs, OK 7 has reappeared.(even though it still ends several miles to the west in Atoka...)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3191%2F3087223591_e6fc6c8d48_o.jpg&hash=d0331f5a81d57b8d58d61f9797440c68282c26ca)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on June 10, 2009, 08:48:20 PM
I found this on my way down to southwest Florida last week:

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/fl-069_jct.jpg)
Sign assembly for Florida 69 and Calhoun County 274. Note the Florida 69 shields are in a non-standard format for Florida state routes. Photo taken 06/04/09.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2009, 08:49:02 PM
at least this way there's no problem if they're hung upside down!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on June 10, 2009, 09:03:28 PM
HAHA!! Only you would think of that!! Very cleaver...guess I'd better turn my head right side up now that the blood has rushed to it!!  :colorful:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2009, 10:09:56 PM
Quote from: flaroadgeek on June 10, 2009, 09:03:28 PM
HAHA!! Only you would think of that!! Very cleaver...guess I'd better turn my head right side up now that the blood has rushed to it!!  :colorful:
yep that about sums up how 69 works!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on June 11, 2009, 01:33:52 PM
This is an intersection I go through on a regular basis.  I took the picture just for the signs and didn't realize that the sign with the left arrow is to the right of the sign with the right arrow.  What is on the signs is correct though.

Also missing from these signs is that the road here is TN 96.  (However, I don't recall at the moment if those signs are elsewhere.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2476%2F3615373628_19296df255.jpg&hash=e138943e7e8dea108e20481ad07c18e8ee7a0a9e)
US31 US431 TN96 Franklin, TN by mightyace, on Flickr (http://"http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2476/3615373628_19296df255.jpg")
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: njroadhorse on June 13, 2009, 04:22:34 PM
Here's one in DuBois, PA
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.com%2Fpapics%2Fpasubs%2FPA-US219.jpg&hash=12e79443feaa098ef798cc6bf8980197c96b40ae)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on June 14, 2009, 07:12:51 AM
Yay, an excuse to post this pic again:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi167.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu126%2Fbugo348%2Fus72-266.jpg&hash=33f06bca1e49ce8e973fd56291176950235971e5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on June 17, 2009, 02:50:29 AM
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/theodore_dawes_rd_eb_at_us-090_cr-026.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/theodore_dawes_rd_eb_at_us-090_cr-026.jpg)

Found this just yesterday on Theodore Dawes Road eastbound at U.S. 90 and Mobile County 26. When county signing crews added new County Road 26 pentagons, they also extended Alabama 163 west from its southern terminus at Alabama 193! Furthermore, CR 26 shields are not found on either direction of U.S. 90 or on CR 26 itself. That's useful!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on June 18, 2009, 09:17:36 AM
Here are two from the same road, but different states...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FVirginia%2520Signs%2F20090503OOPSUS301inVA.jpg&hash=6b0793486fd3da9f423442b6af884d63367eb74e)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FMaryland%2520Signs%2F20090503OOPSUS301inMD2.jpg&hash=a540c1b5912a4b140f3941a33a3033d936b5dbea)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 18, 2009, 09:32:05 AM
QuoteHere are two from the same road, but different states...
Wow those sign goofs at VDOT allowed an SR 301(ironically I do live on SR 1301)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 18, 2009, 03:28:43 PM
That's only the second posting of a US highway in a secondary route shield I know of in Virginia, other than the SR 220 shields in Rocky Mount that the Virginia Hwys Project has photos of.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fsr220error.jpg&hash=3424101949975ad9b2c4a703cc54ee39bfe6818e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on June 18, 2009, 07:22:18 PM
My avatar is inspired by an instance of a stupid sign error, heading eastbound on the PA Turnpike before the Valley Forge interchange, instead of "East {I-276}", a Jersey Tpke. shield is stuck over that.  See: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-76/ (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-76/), about halfway down the page for the real thing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on June 18, 2009, 08:12:36 PM
This was taken on southbound I-75

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F19%2F105198746_353e989058_b.jpg&hash=a0b2e9f558b0ba79034b57565fa3afa6a63705fa)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on June 19, 2009, 10:29:59 AM
QuoteThat's only the second posting of a US highway in a secondary route shield I know of in Virginia, other than the SR 220 shields in Rocky Mount that the Virginia Hwys Project has photos of.

There's a set of new "SR 340" shields south of Front Royal, near the Page/Warren County line.  I have photos but haven't gotten to uploading them yet.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 19, 2009, 09:38:39 PM
Here is one from beautiful, downtown Minturn, CO.  This is supposed to be a trailblazer for US-24 and not CO-24.

By the way this is about 3 miles away from the moder-day western terminus of US 24 at I-70...Maybe C-DOT is looking to truncate US-24 even more??  :-D(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3305%2F3485630980_50c0b97bba.jpg&hash=5f792285e4b26be2c5e78c09a928caa4adda30aa)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on June 20, 2009, 09:42:28 AM
Quote from: Hellfighter on June 18, 2009, 08:12:36 PM
This was taken on southbound I-75

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F19%2F105198746_353e989058_b.jpg&hash=a0b2e9f558b0ba79034b57565fa3afa6a63705fa)

That is a goof alright...that is supposed to be BUSINESS LOOP 75 on old US 25 there (lived there for a few years back in the late 80s).....
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on June 20, 2009, 11:28:12 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F9%2F9f%2FErroneous_Old_VA_197_Sign_2.jpg&hash=305c1cacad6070a6d7156cf4fe2acdb734f9c199)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on June 22, 2009, 12:51:15 PM
^^ Wait... What?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hensepens on June 22, 2009, 04:32:34 PM
They told me to put the word EAST on. Nobody told me to remove NORTH. So, I don't   :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on June 29, 2009, 01:34:20 AM
Here's one that been posted all over the new area in Detroit. But why did we change states...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3178%2F3017930404_ef4cab296d_b.jpg&hash=5276a4dd7b5e5dcfc7f0147d192d21b86d3592fb)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 29, 2009, 07:56:51 PM
If only M-DOT would have would have erred with  a US Shield, then it would have been a nice nod to the past (when the Lodge Freeway was US 10).

The closest state from Detroit to use a circle shield would be about 250 miles to the south in Kentucky.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on June 29, 2009, 08:11:46 PM
This isn't the only instance. For example, when Oakland County replaces a state highway sign, they do this (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.493982,-83.436077&spn=0.00519,0.027874&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.493981,-83.436079&panoid=tjabumh7aXSTtyuAFAzYHg&cbp=11,21.91,,0,-3.8).

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 29, 2009, 10:16:38 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2009, 09:13:18 AM
A new one I noticed this morning:  we apparently have a "US 233" in Arlington, VA.  Even has a white border...


Where in Arlington is that one?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 30, 2009, 01:53:15 AM
Nothing very major, but I noticed when stuck in traffic the other day that the Exit 268 sign on I-64 Eastbound in Hampton shows VA-169 EAST, when VA-169 is signed North-South. East should be north.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi188.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz194%2Fdeathtopumpkins%2F06-27-09_1815.jpg&hash=1418e50d1b7a54b7bc16e842be0879de2385e78a)
(sorry for the poor photo quality, this was taken on my phone)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on June 30, 2009, 03:06:05 PM
Here's one, courtesy of rawmustard...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3228%2F2717149481_4b9bc7dd9c_b.jpg&hash=d8cfe3c64c9b9ccac5e572cdd2c24c85b29bb57f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on June 30, 2009, 03:14:32 PM
^^^ doh!

That might look right on 94 between Chicago and Milwaukee though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on June 30, 2009, 04:06:30 PM
and another rawmustard pic...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2345%2F2325291760_2069c67c9a_b.jpg&hash=5fcc621112f73fc69e537078de39b74ab096351f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 30, 2009, 04:21:21 PM
I found a couple on my trip last weekend to OKC. I'll post them as soon as I get them sorted.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on June 30, 2009, 05:16:52 PM
Quote from: Hellfighter on June 30, 2009, 04:06:30 PM
and another rawmustard pic...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2345%2F2325291760_2069c67c9a_b.jpg&hash=5fcc621112f73fc69e537078de39b74ab096351f)
from the department of redundancy department :rofl:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rawmustard on June 30, 2009, 06:08:51 PM
Quote from: Master son on June 30, 2009, 05:16:52 PM
Quote from: Hellfighter on June 30, 2009, 04:06:30 PM
and another rawmustard pic...

{gosh, I actually quoted an image in the past? Mere oversight}
from the department of redundancy department :rofl:

That one did get replaced with this one (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawmustard/2717966268), while the errant I-94 shield was replaced with an I-194 shield which was a two-digit blank. Last I knew, that assembly was still knocked down.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on June 30, 2009, 06:43:14 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2429%2F3624073960_61efc6101b_b.jpg&hash=bbbef61d6626cb470f7e7c34beee97c37a26cf14)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 30, 2009, 07:37:01 PM
what is the error on the Candy Mountain sign?  other than that it is aesthetically displeasing, and features a surface-level TO banner nailed up there?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 30, 2009, 07:47:26 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 30, 2009, 07:37:01 PM
what is the error on the Candy Mountain sign?  other than that it is aesthetically displeasing, and features a surface-level TO banner nailed up there?

I think he was going more for the fact that it says Candy Mountain on it. ;)

"It's a magical liopleurodon, Charlie!"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 01, 2009, 12:36:05 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%2F1228%2F536730219_9e6cdcd0e0_b.jpg&hash=787806f35ac36e362b82cd307218681f4f823eb5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on July 01, 2009, 12:48:58 PM
I wouldn't call sign that erroneous - I'd call that funny as hell! :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 01, 2009, 01:02:37 PM
Quote from: Master son on July 01, 2009, 12:48:58 PM
I wouldn't call sign that erroneous - I'd call that funny as hell! :-D

Someone might who isn't a roadgeek!   :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on July 04, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.doingitwrong.com%2Fwrong%2F20070924-000448.gif&hash=66fb80abe81ce89f7aa1459a4b0cbe7ca61a8e63)
I'm confused

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.doingitwrong.com%2Fwrong%2Fno-no.jpg&hash=365a1db31e239c0be9026d683efc0fb634ac2b58)
Well, so much for the car.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: City on July 05, 2009, 12:40:27 PM
Quote from: Master son on July 04, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.doingitwrong.com%2Fwrong%2F20070924-000448.gif&hash=66fb80abe81ce89f7aa1459a4b0cbe7ca61a8e63)
I'm confused

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.doingitwrong.com%2Fwrong%2Fno-no.jpg&hash=365a1db31e239c0be9026d683efc0fb634ac2b58)
Well, so much for the car.

For the first pic: drive slowly in the intersection, stopping and going every 10 feet, and receive a $101 dollar fine!  :pan:

Ok, honestly, that is a weird sign.

For the second sign: That is a lie! Lying sign! Okay.. as I was saying, you need a word with that state's or county's DOT.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 05, 2009, 01:56:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2021%2F2195869871_75e8e6dae0.jpg&hash=fe5ffb3cfcb5a67086234309ce01c38600f8b608)

Supposed to be US-202!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on July 05, 2009, 04:07:41 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi696.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv321%2FFLroadgeek%2FIM008921.jpg&hash=9fe1914f2296c6a29a19db3cb71495b80d976d8f)

Can a truck route and a mainline route duplex? (US 441 south at CR 19A in Lake County, FL.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi696.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv321%2FFLroadgeek%2FIM006520.jpg&hash=91f4633ba10c944f6335a16366e1ff0da0c502c6)

Seems like NJDOT invaded CR 65C in Gadsden County, FL.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi696.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv321%2FFLroadgeek%2Fyep2184.jpg&hash=070c5903fe49e773156758f1a2f617dbf246c020)

Not a road sign, but something is terribly wrong inside this Florida Welcome Station.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 05, 2009, 04:20:25 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3361%2F3293491953_0e83640646.jpg&hash=6f2ec9c02ea617d81ba5a0dc1daf3bcdb9e28c08)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 05, 2009, 06:47:08 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3386%2F3564881823_da72c7617c.jpg&hash=8de4b606213ecfbb59194dca2997ebc02ad5dbfd)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 05, 2009, 06:50:02 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 05, 2009, 06:47:08 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3386%2F3564881823_da72c7617c_b.jpg&hash=8e10150a8bf453d7d79eaf7fdb0a9e7f3664774e)

Does Not Compute!  :banghead:

This one has to do with the fonts...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2659%2F3679492268_6575724a1e_b.jpg&hash=ec11c5af95d519e6096fd64aafaf8f374006096f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on July 05, 2009, 07:22:38 PM
US71's post is pointing out the One-Way signs.  One of them points the wrong way from that vantage point
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on July 05, 2009, 07:30:24 PM
How's about these US-101 shields erected around Port Angeles?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F101%2F20to117%2F1.JPG&hash=01e6f8e1b26d9780d668835261348de12ffcec56)

and for that matter, these US-2 shields erected around Monroe

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F2%2F522to203%2F1.JPG&hash=031bb294d410f2614ac8f3dfdcfcc2b8b9c06302)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 05, 2009, 07:39:35 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2581%2F3678840046_a2a8066ed9.jpg&hash=e37f5a6282e6d6cf4e7524224c6fb7c80d5396a2)

Henryetta, OK
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 05, 2009, 07:43:55 PM
Here's one from Stilwell, OK
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2123%2F2249998644_f9cbc0a106.jpg&hash=7a7c82301045dfe30bb8f543b432d07f2a7fff3c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on July 05, 2009, 11:32:16 PM
Moses Lake Washington has that crazed business loop signage anomaly too

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F171%2F17to90%2F2.JPG&hash=ab9ecaadb8fab831779f0c66cf3a10afe9d7032c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 05, 2009, 11:47:21 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_vGM7FtU3Pdk%2FSlEnikCjArI%2FAAAAAAAAB1k%2FW66-jg4FRUI%2Fs512%2FP7040320.JPG&hash=4d8728a8fc2e0ecba295f8fdb993a6f75de42510)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_vGM7FtU3Pdk%2FSlEnhy7wWoI%2FAAAAAAAAB1g%2FBrJgw-y2BCE%2Fs512%2FP7040318.JPG&hash=7098bb5a884560c100ef882b0cdb3cce7f6b644a)

The error in this one is that this IS VA 337.

Finally, VA 168 is AWOL:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_vGM7FtU3Pdk%2FSlEnr_gwlII%2FAAAAAAAAB2o%2F10Qe8MGWAj8%2Fs512%2FP7040339.JPG&hash=a49c846737b39df13368545c68971419abfad46a)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 06, 2009, 09:47:43 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3213%2F2943867931_63e80bc6c0.jpg&hash=15cad72d38aa7646fa1ce1c5290a7b9d62d371c0)

Both should be Ar 59
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on July 06, 2009, 04:08:30 PM
Quote from: Hellfighter on July 05, 2009, 01:56:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2021%2F2195869871_75e8e6dae0.jpg&hash=fe5ffb3cfcb5a67086234309ce01c38600f8b608)

Supposed to be US-202!

Unless it's different in that part of NY, isn't US 202 North/South and not East/West?  (At least it is in DE/PA/NJ)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 07, 2009, 11:55:32 AM
I didn't have my camera with me, but I spotted two errors in Port Huron. On M-25 southbound, there's a South M-136 sign and right after that is a Jct M-136 sign. Douh! Also, on Business I-94, there's an East blazer on the west side!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 07, 2009, 12:01:15 PM
Taken in Sulphur Springs, AR
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3205%2F2959197577_384836d753.jpg&hash=d1850c142ed9ed401ed5f3e8c12ff6ef19e3ea07)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on July 07, 2009, 03:32:59 PM
Hallett is mispelled on the right BGS at this toll plaza on U.S. 412 East (Cimarron Turnpike) (Click on link below to see the bigger picture)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/3686264092_5e8cecdb11.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/3686264092_5e8cecdb11.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2478%2F3686264092_5e8cecdb11.jpg&hash=7b124eb8bd7558ecdffe56d6ce0c82f32df9f4fb)

This sign uses a mixture of upper & lower case:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2463%2F3685492495_d8ffb0a342.jpg&hash=9f14a5d8d1b82e9b653903d6c99a6813187b0fba)

U.S. 59 is signed "East" here when it should be signed "South":

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3552%2F3686303828_a61884aa89_d.jpg&hash=5778b388b505b23e4f028958885aca326e9d511b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on July 07, 2009, 07:46:49 PM
Quote from: mightyace on July 06, 2009, 04:08:30 PM


Unless it's different in that part of NY, isn't US 202 North/South and not East/West?  (At least it is in DE/PA/NJ)

E-W in NY, CT (though it may switch at US 44, I forget), NH, and ME.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on July 07, 2009, 10:15:51 PM
That's the second OK tollbooth that uses a bridge for cover  :-/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 08, 2009, 01:04:47 AM
I just got back from a trip to Yellowstone and southern Montana, and saw several mistakes.  Here are a few of them:

This is on MT 47 just north of I-90 in Hardin, MT
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FMT47Hardinsigngoof.jpg%3Ft%3D1247029373&hash=7e15b1ed589d12236f498f03e94a1129f69c42cc)

OR 82 in La Grande
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOR82LaGrandesigngoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1247029427&hash=572e31385b7b999d0c0869746de3a71f5a9f8c80)

On OR 201 south of Adrian, OR
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOR201Adriansigngoof2.jpg%3Ft%3D1247029319&hash=f3bea90a16f7c10b82c3cf158478a2377995d8d2)

One of the infamous US 20-395 goofs in the Burns, OR area:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FUS20-395Hinessigngoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1247029246&hash=0b0daee2a335514421cf1178fb8c9ac72f18e3af)

Last from the Department of Redundancy Department on I-15 in Idaho (this was the exit for US 26/BL 15 before those routes were relocated to a new exit 2 miles north):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FI15IdahoFallsexit1131.jpg%3Ft%3D1247029053&hash=15db3eb9ee3400ec1cbbbee1e266988391107ac5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 08, 2009, 01:28:17 AM
excellent, a US-201 error.  Have not seen that one. 

the 47 replaced an older US-47 shield!  Here is a US-39 with the older style.  Note the narrower numbers. 

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MT/MT19740391i1.jpg)

39 and 47 are notable for never having been US highway numbers. There also was not an 88, and I do not know if 37 or 86 were ever signed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 08, 2009, 02:04:36 AM
I have a photo of another US 39 (actually OR 39), but the error had been fixed the last time I passed the spot.

These kind of mistakes are all over the place in Oregon.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 12, 2009, 04:24:57 PM
What happened to Exit 150B?(there are actually two exits for SR 619 on I-95 SB) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FI-95SOUTH1MILENORTHOFSR619EXITS150B.jpg&hash=d9e072f9d9b0271847deffe3eb5142cc6a739b3c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on July 12, 2009, 06:17:36 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on July 08, 2009, 01:04:47 AM
OR 82 in La Grande
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOR82LaGrandesigngoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1247029427&hash=572e31385b7b999d0c0869746de3a71f5a9f8c80)

I'll probably see this one heading out to Lake Wallowa in a couple weeks.

A Jnct. US 224 shield northbound on SE 17th Ave between OR 99E and OR 224 in Milwaukie, OR.

One from a number of years ago: A US 92 East trailblazer just east of I-15 on UT 15.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 12, 2009, 09:18:08 PM
There were a few more US 224 signs down by Barton, but I think I saw they'd been fixed last time I went through.

Be careful you don't miss the US 82 sign.  If you exit the freeway and head east, you'll never see it -- it's on eastbound 82 one block after the highway's start off US 30, posted on a railroad overpass.  It's been there for years, so they don't seem to be in a hurry to fix the mistake.

I could write paragraphs describing all the instances of route mis-signage (is that a word?) in Oregon.  The four I posted earlier are the tip of the iceberg.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on July 12, 2009, 10:58:32 PM
NY's got quite a few US/state route signage errors. I actually remember driving up I-81, and pulling off of the freeway to get gas, and right at the bottom of the ramp, I saw a nice, shiny, sparkly, brand new...NY 11 shield.

The offramp from the other direction? Also had a nice, shiny, sparkly, brand new NY 11 shield.  :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 13, 2009, 12:27:26 AM
QuoteMilwaukie

that is not an error, but it certainly looks like one.  There is also Zilwaukee, Michigan.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on July 13, 2009, 07:20:03 AM
Quote from: cu2010 on July 12, 2009, 10:58:32 PM
NY's got quite a few US/state route signage errors. I actually remember driving up I-81, and pulling off of the freeway to get gas, and right at the bottom of the ramp, I saw a nice, shiny, sparkly, brand new...NY 11 shield.

The offramp from the other direction? Also had a nice, shiny, sparkly, brand new NY 11 shield.  :D

U.S. 62 is signed as NY 62 a few times in Niagara Falls.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on July 13, 2009, 11:43:48 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on July 12, 2009, 09:18:08 PM

Be careful you don't miss the US 82 sign.  If you exit the freeway and head east, you'll never see it -- it's on eastbound 82 one block after the highway's start off US 30, posted on a railroad overpass.  It's been there for years, so they don't seem to be in a hurry to fix the mistake.

I probably won't be driving, so we'll probably miss that one. But iirc, there is a standalone US 82 trailblazer further east past OR 207.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on July 13, 2009, 01:54:29 PM
Tennessee has an annoying habit of signing primary state highways as secondary and vice-versa.

However, it doesn't help that there is no apparent criteria for a number being a primary or secondary.

For example, TN 254 is a primary but TN 253 and 255 are secondaries.

Also, the same number is sometimes used for both types, though usually when the grade of highway changes.  For example, Briley Parkway around Nashville is TN primary 155 but the arterial portion of the loop (Whitebridge Rd., Woodmont Blvd., Thompson Lane) is TN secondary 255.  Also, from TN 100 north through Dickson TN 46 is a primary route and signed N-S.  A few miles east of TN Primary 46's southern end is the Western end of TN secondary 46, also at TN 100 near the current terminus of the western stub of TN 840.  And, TN secondary 46 is signed E-W!

I'll try and get some pictures to post.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 14, 2009, 12:14:30 AM
Quote from: okroads on July 13, 2009, 07:20:03 AM
U.S. 62 is signed as NY 62 a few times in Niagara Falls.

Ya mean like this?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FUS62NiagaraFalls5.jpg%3Ft%3D1247544763&hash=db2cd5d0e3e542a7a19ac02ce2cb0ff7bbda6ecb)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 14, 2009, 12:25:11 AM
I'll have to post the photo later, but I found US 93 near Texarkana  :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on July 16, 2009, 01:52:36 AM
Quote from: cu2010 on July 12, 2009, 10:58:32 PM
NY's got quite a few US/state route signage errors. I actually remember driving up I-81, and pulling off of the freeway to get gas, and right at the bottom of the ramp, I saw a nice, shiny, sparkly, brand new...NY 11 shield.

The offramp from the other direction? Also had a nice, shiny, sparkly, brand new NY 11 shield.  :D

Where on I-81?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on July 16, 2009, 09:40:45 AM
IIRC, Exit 14 at Tully had that at one point...not sure if that's the location, though...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on July 16, 2009, 09:47:05 AM
I don't exactly remember, but I'm pretty sure it was Exit 41 at Adams (they said TO NY11, since US11 is a short ways from the exit). This was a couple years ago, too, so NYSDOT may have fixed it. Probably not, though. :D

I also saw a NY11 shield ON I-81 northbound a few weeks ago as part of a detour sign assembly...but that was just a temporary sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 16, 2009, 01:54:23 PM
Many errors from the city of Petersburg, VA:
US 1 has never been on any portion of Crater Rd that I know of(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FVA36WESTNEARUS301ANDUS460BUSINESS.jpg&hash=8c7eca2533e90cfc54c6b9ef3c73517574a07b5b)  YAY Petersburg always reveres VA 36 here as a US Route. Wait I said VA 36  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FVA36WESTATFLEETST.jpg&hash=b0461001731425ddfed0934c2a50b1f5827a8b58)  Someone forgot the "ALT" banner here  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS1NORTHANDUS460BUSINESSEASTNEARUS3.jpg&hash=058b48ab938f8cf19aea2edaa0e7bb43dc604e73)  VA 36 is not multiplexed with US 460 Business here but this could involve the truck route though  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS460BUSINESSEASTATSJEFFERSONST.jpg&hash=8c5fe9e56fab3204437e6b3cc857995c6309199c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 16, 2009, 06:58:52 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3016%2F2963506023_9748e2f2d8_b.jpg&hash=f46b0c83cb8367c036b27f172c4b54084d1c44a2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 16, 2009, 07:20:23 PM
Odd, but not an error. :p
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 16, 2009, 07:36:08 PM
Yeah, that is odd, but it's legit. ;)  But I-81 and I-77 both go the opposite directions as well as US-11 and US-52 between Ft. Chiswell and Wytheville. ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on July 23, 2009, 02:07:54 PM
I'm not too sure if there's any errors here but is it normal for the font to be different in shields on the same gantry? Also the 1 at the bottom of the left sign seems a little small. And finally the black line around white shields, I guess this is just an Iowa thing.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedcam.co.uk%2Fd70%2Fexit239.jpg&hash=53b816688961117fe181cf0f6e2a9a3dbceb0cde)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on July 23, 2009, 02:12:40 PM
The black line around (US route) shields is also a South Carolina thing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 23, 2009, 02:14:07 PM
Quote from: florida on July 23, 2009, 02:12:40 PM
The black line around (US route) shields is also a South Carolina thing.

Oklahoma does that, too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 23, 2009, 02:41:18 PM
Another Petersburg sign error as US 460 should be US 460 Business ever since US 460 was put onto Wagner Rd and I-95 but I believe this was right when posted  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS460BUSINESSWESTNEARVA109.jpg&hash=aab35d55ecada66283e657e317e6b08cc84f1a0d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2009, 02:53:22 PM
New Mexico also puts the black outline on their shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Crewdawg on July 23, 2009, 03:50:49 PM
Quote from: corco on July 05, 2009, 07:30:24 PM
How's about these US-101 shields erected around Port Angeles?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F101%2F20to117%2F1.JPG&hash=01e6f8e1b26d9780d668835261348de12ffcec56)

and for that matter, these US-2 shields erected around Monroe

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F2%2F522to203%2F1.JPG&hash=031bb294d410f2614ac8f3dfdcfcc2b8b9c06302)

And doses,t US 101 go north/south
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2009, 05:23:37 PM
101 does a hook around the Olympic Peninsula.  It is signed north-south up the Pacific coast, then east-west along the northern shore of the peninsula, and then south-north as it goes inland to its terminus near Olympia.

Along all three segments, the cardinal directions match the physical direction of travel.  So when 101 starts out of Olympia, it is signed 101 north.  Therefore, 101 has two southern termini!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on July 23, 2009, 05:49:52 PM
Quote from: Truvelo on July 23, 2009, 02:07:54 PM
I'm not too sure if there's any errors here but is it normal for the font to be different in shields on the same gantry? Also the 1 at the bottom of the left sign seems a little small. And finally the black line around white shields, I guess this is just an Iowa thing.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedcam.co.uk%2Fd70%2Fexit239.jpg&hash=53b816688961117fe181cf0f6e2a9a3dbceb0cde)

I noticed that the route signs on the left BGS are much smaller than the ones on the right.  (I guess to squeeze them in.)  Does this happen often?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on July 23, 2009, 07:44:02 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 23, 2009, 02:14:07 PM
Quote from: florida on July 23, 2009, 02:12:40 PM
The black line around (US route) shields is also a South Carolina thing.


Oklahoma does that, too.

...As does Utah & Virginia.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on July 23, 2009, 07:44:52 PM
This here is an error:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5361449651553362242 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5361449651553362242)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on July 25, 2009, 06:31:18 PM
This one in Wisconsin (http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20090724/WDH0101/90724123/1981/WDHopinion) made the news in my area (albeit it was probably stock footage from the local station there)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 25, 2009, 11:51:46 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffailblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F07%2F128928674886416044.jpg&hash=edde5fd95f82b01f2c67e0610f2b11080ef92e9e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 26, 2009, 12:33:08 AM
Looks like this photo that I found on Flickr a while ago:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/walksonrocks/2735840756/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walksonrocks/2735840756/)

And this photo that I actually took:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3625%2F3309039083_4ecb77f0e5.jpg&hash=3e531a91a64af6bccd6721f8c75da5b263616dfc)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 26, 2009, 01:40:42 AM
I did not remember CA-266 ended at a *white* Welcome to Nevada sign!  I drove that entire silly loop (NV-266, CA-168, CA-266, NV-264) in 2007.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 26, 2009, 01:50:10 AM
Quote from: Hellfighter on July 25, 2009, 11:51:46 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffailblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F07%2F128928674886416044.jpg&hash=edde5fd95f82b01f2c67e0610f2b11080ef92e9e)
there is certainly nothing wrong with that sign.  Surely one must get to ... something ... if they take that right turn!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 26, 2009, 02:24:24 AM
But where to?  :-/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on July 26, 2009, 03:05:56 AM
Incorrect BGS on westbound WA 14 entering Washougal, signing for Bus US 14. Saw it and barely missed the photo-op  :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Crewdawg on July 26, 2009, 03:12:38 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 25, 2009, 06:31:18 PM
This one in Wisconsin (http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20090724/WDH0101/90724123/1981/WDHopinion) made the news in my area (albeit it was probably stock footage from the local station there)

This made the local news in Phoenix
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 26, 2009, 03:32:57 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 26, 2009, 03:05:56 AM
Incorrect BGS on westbound WA 14 entering Washougal, signing for Bus US 14. Saw it and barely missed the photo-op  :banghead:

I didn't:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FWA14SignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1248593525&hash=cbe89f7068cdda2fad70ea82e1eefb656778e41c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on July 26, 2009, 07:58:52 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi167.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu126%2Fbugo348%2Fnd52.jpg&hash=8a7910d098ff9792aefecbcf6966b9c1a817a7c3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:04:05 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 23, 2009, 02:14:07 PM
Quote from: florida on July 23, 2009, 02:12:40 PM
The black line around (US route) shields is also a South Carolina thing.

Oklahoma does that, too.

Used to.  None of the newer Clearview signs that I have seen use the black outline.

ODOT seems to use different designs for a short time then switch to something completely different.  The black outlines, the prison font signage, etc...hopefully Clearview will be just as short lived.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:05:15 PM
Quote from: mightyace on July 23, 2009, 05:49:52 PM
Quote from: Truvelo on July 23, 2009, 02:07:54 PM
I'm not too sure if there's any errors here but is it normal for the font to be different in shields on the same gantry? Also the 1 at the bottom of the left sign seems a little small. And finally the black line around white shields, I guess this is just an Iowa thing.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedcam.co.uk%2Fd70%2Fexit239.jpg&hash=53b816688961117fe181cf0f6e2a9a3dbceb0cde)

I noticed that the route signs on the left BGS are much smaller than the ones on the right.  (I guess to squeeze them in.)  Does this happen often?

I'm willing to guess the small shields were added when the silly IA 27 designation was added.  There was room for 2 full sized signs on the right, but not enough room for 3 on the left.  IA 27 is stupid.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: City on July 26, 2009, 08:17:34 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:23:31 PM
Quote from: City on July 26, 2009, 08:17:34 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.

Why would you want this to happen?  The roads would be boring if all signage conformed with the standard.  Would I have stopped to take a picture of that ND 52 error had it been a standard US 52 marker?  I wouldn't have even noticed it.  Errors, non-standard signage and other quirks are what make this hobby fun.  If everything looked the same there would be nothing interesting about roads.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on July 26, 2009, 08:41:31 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:23:31 PM
Quote from: City on July 26, 2009, 08:17:34 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.

Why would you want this to happen?  The roads would be boring if all signage conformed with the standard.  Would I have stopped to take a picture of that ND 52 error had it been a standard US 52 marker?  I wouldn't have even noticed it.  Errors, non-standard signage and other quirks are what make this hobby fun.  If everything looked the same there would be nothing interesting about roads.

I agree.  Look at anything that people collect.  What are some of the most valuable stamps, baseball cards, dolls, coins, etc.?  The GOOFS!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:59:37 PM
Quote from: mightyace on July 26, 2009, 08:41:31 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:23:31 PM
Quote from: City on July 26, 2009, 08:17:34 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.

Why would you want this to happen?  The roads would be boring if all signage conformed with the standard.  Would I have stopped to take a picture of that ND 52 error had it been a standard US 52 marker?  I wouldn't have even noticed it.  Errors, non-standard signage and other quirks are what make this hobby fun.  If everything looked the same there would be nothing interesting about roads.

I agree.  Look at anything that people collect.  What are some of the most valuable stamps, baseball cards, dolls, coins, etc.?  The GOOFS!

I still feel bad about that pair of OK 82 meatcleavers I inadvertently got removed from US 59 near Sallisaw.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 26, 2009, 10:20:25 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:59:37 PM
Quote from: mightyace on July 26, 2009, 08:41:31 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:23:31 PM
Quote from: City on July 26, 2009, 08:17:34 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.

Why would you want this to happen?  The roads would be boring if all signage conformed with the standard.  Would I have stopped to take a picture of that ND 52 error had it been a standard US 52 marker?  I wouldn't have even noticed it.  Errors, non-standard signage and other quirks are what make this hobby fun.  If everything looked the same there would be nothing interesting about roads.

I agree.  Look at anything that people collect.  What are some of the most valuable stamps, baseball cards, dolls, coins, etc.?  The GOOFS!

I still feel bad about that pair of OK 82 meatcleavers I inadvertently got removed from US 59 near Sallisaw.

I once got an erroneous "To Exit #351C" tab on a I-95 BGS removed.  However, they had permanently closed that exit in Jacksonville, FL as part of the I-10/I-95 interchange reconstruction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on July 27, 2009, 01:12:10 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 26, 2009, 01:40:42 AM
I did not remember CA-266 ended at a *white* Welcome to Nevada sign!  I drove that entire silly loop (NV-266, CA-168, CA-266, NV-264) in 2007.

How exactly do you know that sign was on CA-266?

Slightly OT: Also, I didn't think CA 168 was part of that loop, but provided the only California state highway link to CA 266
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 27, 2009, 01:24:20 AM
168 came first, several years before 266 did, so it kept its number.  168 has been on that corridor since 1937.  Originally, it went north out of Bishop, but when US-6 came along, it took over that route, so 168 was rerouted.

the image is tagged "CA 266".  I do not know all the CA/NV state lines *that* well!   :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: City on July 27, 2009, 07:04:51 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 26, 2009, 10:20:25 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:59:37 PM
Quote from: mightyace on July 26, 2009, 08:41:31 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:23:31 PM
Quote from: City on July 26, 2009, 08:17:34 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.

Why would you want this to happen?  The roads would be boring if all signage conformed with the standard.  Would I have stopped to take a picture of that ND 52 error had it been a standard US 52 marker?  I wouldn't have even noticed it.  Errors, non-standard signage and other quirks are what make this hobby fun.  If everything looked the same there would be nothing interesting about roads.

I agree.  Look at anything that people collect.  What are some of the most valuable stamps, baseball cards, dolls, coins, etc.?  The GOOFS!

I still feel bad about that pair of OK 82 meatcleavers I inadvertently got removed from US 59 near Sallisaw.

I once got an erroneous "To Exit #351C" tab on a I-95 BGS removed.  However, they had permanently closed that exit in Jacksonville, FL as part of the I-10/I-95 interchange reconstruction.

Wow, I didn't think that my thought wouldn't have been taken that way.  :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 27, 2009, 07:08:09 PM
Quote from: City on July 27, 2009, 07:04:51 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 26, 2009, 10:20:25 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:59:37 PM
Quote from: mightyace on July 26, 2009, 08:41:31 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:23:31 PM
Quote from: City on July 26, 2009, 08:17:34 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.

Why would you want this to happen?  The roads would be boring if all signage conformed with the standard.  Would I have stopped to take a picture of that ND 52 error had it been a standard US 52 marker?  I wouldn't have even noticed it.  Errors, non-standard signage and other quirks are what make this hobby fun.  If everything looked the same there would be nothing interesting about roads.

I agree.  Look at anything that people collect.  What are some of the most valuable stamps, baseball cards, dolls, coins, etc.?  The GOOFS!

I still feel bad about that pair of OK 82 meatcleavers I inadvertently got removed from US 59 near Sallisaw.

I once got an erroneous "To Exit #351C" tab on a I-95 BGS removed.  However, they had permanently closed that exit in Jacksonville, FL as part of the I-10/I-95 interchange reconstruction.

Wow, I didn't think that my thought wouldn't have been taken that way.  :ded:

There aren't not a not insufficient quantity of negatives not present in the post that is not this one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on July 27, 2009, 07:18:18 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 27, 2009, 07:08:09 PM
Quote from: City on July 27, 2009, 07:04:51 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 26, 2009, 10:20:25 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:59:37 PM
Quote from: mightyace on July 26, 2009, 08:41:31 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:23:31 PM
Quote from: City on July 26, 2009, 08:17:34 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.

Why would you want this to happen?  The roads would be boring if all signage conformed with the standard.  Would I have stopped to take a picture of that ND 52 error had it been a standard US 52 marker?  I wouldn't have even noticed it.  Errors, non-standard signage and other quirks are what make this hobby fun.  If everything looked the same there would be nothing interesting about roads.

I agree.  Look at anything that people collect.  What are some of the most valuable stamps, baseball cards, dolls, coins, etc.?  The GOOFS!

I still feel bad about that pair of OK 82 meatcleavers I inadvertently got removed from US 59 near Sallisaw.

I once got an erroneous "To Exit #351C" tab on a I-95 BGS removed.  However, they had permanently closed that exit in Jacksonville, FL as part of the I-10/I-95 interchange reconstruction.

Wow, I didn't think that my thought wouldn't have been taken that way.  :ded:

There aren't not a not insufficient quantity of negatives not present in the post that is not this one.

Dont use no double negatives....

and dont you not dare use no triple negatives....   :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 28, 2009, 01:23:54 AM
VDOT just put up the relevant signage for the connection between Watkins Centre in Chesterfield County with VA 288.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3543%2F3764091753_ce71436988.jpg&hash=17cc5e5d3fbeabc2714a049f0363715c436c43e5) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/3764091753/in/photostream/)

...erm, I mean US 288. There's not even a US 88! :p

Then again, I suppose it could be worse - a lot of locals refer to it as "I-288" in ads.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Chris on July 28, 2009, 06:42:21 AM
QuoteEvery Word Except "Exit" Spelled Wrong on Wisconsin Highway Sign

A sign pointing southbound travelers onto Business Highway 51 in Rothschild and Schofield bears an incorrect spelling for every word except "exit."

David Vieth, director of the bureau of highway operations for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, said the mistake was made by Decker Supply Company of Madison, which printed the sign.

The sign for exit 185 on southbound Highway 51 reads "Buisness 51 Rothschield Schofeild."

"How do I politely say it shows some incompetence on someone's part?"  said Rothschild Village President Neal Torney.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.godbitesman.com%2Fstorage%2Fbilde-1.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1248619009112&hash=8c285505727addff088620d4c722aa7fae0ac6a4)

:pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on July 28, 2009, 08:58:30 AM
Quote from: Chris on July 28, 2009, 06:42:21 AM
QuoteEvery Word Except "Exit" Spelled Wrong on Wisconsin Highway Sign

A sign pointing southbound travelers onto Business Highway 51 in Rothschild and Schofield bears an incorrect spelling for every word except "exit."

David Vieth, director of the bureau of highway operations for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, said the mistake was made by Decker Supply Company of Madison, which printed the sign.

The sign for exit 185 on southbound Highway 51 reads "Buisness 51 Rothschield Schofeild."

"How do I politely say it shows some incompetence on someone's part?"  said Rothschild Village President Neal Torney.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.godbitesman.com%2Fstorage%2Fbilde-1.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1248619009112&hash=8c285505727addff088620d4c722aa7fae0ac6a4)

:pan:

And where the heck is the exit arrow?!?!? I'm surprised they didn't use a state shield by mistake.  :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Marc on July 29, 2009, 01:51:14 AM
Here's the sign along I-10 in Columbus I mentioned way long ago in the thread.

Take a look at the milage indicated on the sign.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Columbus,+TX&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.77566,56.25&ie=UTF8&ll=29.712358,-96.492233&spn=0.105259,0.109863&z=13&layer=c&cbll=29.712326,-96.491987&panoid=ql8sEhYTiJFaqjIXN2X9Mg&cbp=12,108.33,,0,5 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Columbus,+TX&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.77566,56.25&ie=UTF8&ll=29.712358,-96.492233&spn=0.105259,0.109863&z=13&layer=c&cbll=29.712326,-96.491987&panoid=ql8sEhYTiJFaqjIXN2X9Mg&cbp=12,108.33,,0,5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on July 30, 2009, 10:27:21 PM
Poor US 40, downgraded to State Route status.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FMaryland%2520Signs%2F20090628OOPSMD40.jpg&hash=be7ba70ac75a3d667708119355c657a42cf7376b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 30, 2009, 10:33:53 PM
Quote from: mefailenglish on July 30, 2009, 10:27:21 PM
Poor US 40, downgraded to State Route status.


Ditto US 62
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3209%2F2474259353_da7ee29c71.jpg&hash=43d0bd2eabc6217f754c3ae2110933bafa6b2626)


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2259%2F2283115720_f6dd49d17d.jpg&hash=ed7e4b23daac1f490e255fef35a4952e8dcf427a)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 31, 2009, 12:03:12 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2FsouthUS57-northKY57goof.jpg&hash=1aeae18ce81e520af56f23e194dc9a9c8d97a343)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on July 31, 2009, 01:16:23 AM
No respect for U.S. 441 either:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fflorida400%2Ffl-429_nb_exit_033_09.jpg&hash=6a9c258a9ae657608f1c762cb992fe3665dbd97c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 31, 2009, 06:54:22 AM
Nor for U.S. 77:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Froadgeek%2Fv_fwy.jpg&hash=cbb75325200cfa368d3bd22c0c3b230c08296010)

(since corrected)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 31, 2009, 10:00:27 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on July 28, 2009, 08:58:30 AM
Quote from: Chris on July 28, 2009, 06:42:21 AM
QuoteEvery Word Except "Exit" Spelled Wrong on Wisconsin Highway Sign

A sign pointing southbound travelers onto Business Highway 51 in Rothschild and Schofield bears an incorrect spelling for every word except "exit."

David Vieth, director of the bureau of highway operations for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, said the mistake was made by Decker Supply Company of Madison, which printed the sign.

The sign for exit 185 on southbound Highway 51 reads "Business 51 Rothschield Schofeild."

"How do I politely say it shows some incompetence on someone's part?" said Rothschild Village President Neal Torney.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.godbitesman.com%2Fstorage%2Fbilde-1.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1248619009112&hash=8c285505727addff088620d4c722aa7fae0ac6a4)

:pan:

And where the heck is the exit arrow?!?!? I'm surprised they didn't use a state shield by mistake.  :banghead:
This was so bad it was actually shown on Headline News a couple of days before even though it has reportedly been fixed  :-D  Anyway now looking at the access road for US 17 Business SB from US 501 SB  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS501SOUTHAT8THAVENANDUS17BUSINESS.jpg&hash=cf7a257ea72ea7259d5b6a4a0ccecbf3e72172ac)  I know at one point US 17 Business was US 17 but US 17 was moved onto its "Myrtle Beach Bypass" over 20 years ago  :-o :wow:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on August 01, 2009, 05:48:22 PM
One from years ago, and there was a shopping center that signed U.S. 40 as State 40 on all of its signs at one point.

(https://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware010/us-040_eb_after_de-896b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 01, 2009, 05:56:39 PM
This goes back to sometime in 2002, a couple years after I-530 was created

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3229%2F2944727946_3530f9fe78.jpg&hash=990cbd4b561912776d2482529154f6594f663221)

1. Should be West US 270

2 Should be US 65B

3 East 270 should be AR 365S

This has long since been corrected
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on August 01, 2009, 07:44:33 PM
More images of "AR 270"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi167.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu126%2Fbugo348%2Fi530ar270.jpg&hash=15d00445ea06c8cd639b2e181351edb903f2e914)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi167.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu126%2Fbugo348%2Far270.jpg&hash=270f87eaa01631397a6c613a8e83800922a44284)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 01, 2009, 09:22:35 PM
This one is kind of subtle unless you know the area:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2238%2F2151172878_c7ba696632.jpg&hash=5a848d24d6542f2ef358ce4658cd1fb5168775c8)

You're looking due east into Arkansas from Oklahoma, so why does it show MO 43 going straight?


Two years later, Oklahoma put up the "meat cleaver" signs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2018%2F2305207634_1d6b55c636.jpg&hash=0b77544862435c949bbd23f0b58cf49abac6ba8b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2009, 01:34:32 AM
is it in general an error that AR-43 goes into Oklahoma for a bit?  (or is it OK-20 that goes into Arkansas for a bit ... I know they are multiplexed as they cross state lines near the AR-MO-OK tripoint.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 02, 2009, 02:53:09 AM
Not really an error, as the concurrency was intentional, but if you turn left to go northbound it is posted as MO-43 as well, even though it's still a few miles out from the tripoint. But it is AR-43 that goes into Oklahoma. I'm sure the curve in the road is to avoid some problem that ODOT didn't feel was worth paving over.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on August 02, 2009, 04:39:52 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on July 26, 2009, 03:32:57 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 26, 2009, 03:05:56 AM
Incorrect BGS on westbound WA 14 entering Washougal, signing for Bus US 14. Saw it and barely missed the photo-op  :banghead:

I didn't:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FWA14SignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1248593525&hash=cbe89f7068cdda2fad70ea82e1eefb656778e41c)
That's the one.

The US 82's on OR 82 have been replaced with the correct trailblazer shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 02, 2009, 01:53:21 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 02, 2009, 04:39:52 AM
The US 82's on OR 82 have been replaced with the correct trailblazer shields.

I'm sad to report the US 86 in Halfway and the US 245 near Baker are also gone.  However, the OR 199's in Grant Pass are still there in force, as is the cosignage of OR 99/US 199 through downtown GP (which is not the actual route of 199).  I'm not sure about the US 99 shields on OR 99 in the area; here's one by Gold Hill:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2F146.jpg%3Ft%3D1249235164&hash=8139dbb562e1e00ca81053f34245ba07086da8a1)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2F134.jpg%3Ft%3D1249235214&hash=49a704b97bfb7ff5d162b76bb529fe0701a0f943)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOR99GoldHillSignGoof2-1.jpg%3Ft%3D1249235646&hash=afea0bbece3b31e23a60041ffc795e047eb35193)

So, basically, there are a lot of wrong shields in the Grants Pass area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2009, 02:01:25 PM
yes, 199 is signed very poorly there ...

did you happen to come across any state named I-5 shields?  I've heard there's one supposedly somewhere in Grants Pass but I've never been able to find it.  Similarly, I've heard there's one supposedly somewhere in Ashland.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on August 02, 2009, 02:22:02 PM
White I-80 shield posted on BL-80 in Elko:

(https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada080/bl-080_nv-535_eb_app_jennings_way_02.jpg)

D.C. has a similar version but used for the wrong route type:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3547%2F3781291767_41a1665cdf.jpg&hash=bcecee226dda88f0f68bfdea75d8aad1bf058fb2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 02, 2009, 02:27:26 PM
This sign goof picture was taken in 2003...as of three weeks ago, it's still there...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.okroads.com%2F052403%2Fi44moexit161.JPG&hash=798583d91f2e01618726a1360db5b34f2f0bd315)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 02, 2009, 02:33:54 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2009, 02:01:25 PM
did you happen to come across any state named I-5 shields?  I've heard there's one supposedly somewhere in Grants Pass but I've never been able to find it.  Similarly, I've heard there's one supposedly somewhere in Ashland.

I've never seen either, but I haven't been in Ashland in awhile.  I probably will be down there in 2 weeks, so I'll look then.  Any clue exactly where either is?  I haven't seen a state-named shield in Oregon in years (except the I-5/I-105 in Eugene), but I always figure if one does still exist it would be on some obscure side-street.  Ditto state-named US Shields.

I still kick myself for somehow losing a box of old photos I had.  I know I had a photo of the US 20/OR 34/OR 99W triplex through Corvallis where all three shields were old-style.  Arghhhhhhh!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2009, 05:19:49 PM
as of June 2007, there was an 18x18 state named I-5 shield on an old US-99 alignment that is not OR-99. 

I had just heard rumors of the ones in Ashland and Grants Pass; not specific locations. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on August 03, 2009, 05:38:02 AM
Quote from: AARoads on August 02, 2009, 02:22:02 PM
White I-80 shield posted on BL-80 in Elko:
(https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada080/bl-080_nv-535_eb_app_jennings_way_02.jpg)

And, quite possibly, the largest "TO" I've ever seen on a sign  :-o
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 03, 2009, 09:51:26 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 02, 2009, 02:53:09 AM
Not really an error, as the concurrency was intentional, but if you turn left to go northbound it is posted as MO-43 as well, even though it's still a few miles out from the tripoint. But it is AR-43 that goes into Oklahoma. I'm sure the curve in the road is to avoid some problem that ODOT didn't feel was worth paving over.

NB it's posted as MO 43, SB it's AR 43. The signage is all ODOT, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on August 03, 2009, 01:58:03 PM
NOT in Georgia.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi696.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv321%2FFLroadgeek%2FGA111.jpg&hash=dcbcf6869cfb7e5381112bdab202aa96cdc4d635)

The error might be hard to spot.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi696.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv321%2FFLroadgeek%2FIM004232.jpg&hash=e719a32a4687cc1fa55bfa618fe1de24bc41ced7)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 03, 2009, 02:30:27 PM
is the 111 in Florida?

and what is wrong with the 263?  is it supposed to be unsigned there?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on August 03, 2009, 02:35:23 PM
Yeah, the 111 is on US 27 at the Georgia State Line. The older white car is on CR 157, the blue car is heading up the access road for GA 111.

263 doesn't come anywhere close to or being on Adams Street (SR 363). Someone only paid attention to the last two digits.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on August 04, 2009, 10:48:36 PM
And now for some signing goofs in the great state of New York:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fny_17c%2F96.jpg&hash=df00af0b1c0a517247ef4d9954a7aa5bf2f15b67)

The NY 96 shield is upside down, even though the shield above it is right-side up!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fny_69%2Fmills.jpg&hash=59dac3797a580531ef2bf205c50ae7c57dea4e7f)

Same as above.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fny_400%2Fs20a.jpg&hash=3645d89e718a95dedf108d2e621bbe4a07fac24d)

The one on the left should be US 20A. And there's plenty of others in the same area.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fi-86%2Fw56.jpg&hash=4fa7294d9664b563af0f7383c46d1b03b7687e06)

Wrong font.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fnypics%2Fregional%2Ferie%2Fnorthtowns%2F324-190on190n.jpg&hash=49cc7b094a99981badf21929c57b5351b4d229f6)

Same as above.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fnypics%2Fregional%2Ferie%2Fnorthtowns%2F265ct1.jpg&hash=b0cbb9def07aadea33652d556b5b3baba51c2b01)

Meet the square I-290 shield's long-lost cousin.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fnypics%2Fregional%2Fsteuben%2F15-21.jpg&hash=9d7e55b2b81922d2919e5141edbf10a8fa9aa92b)

Should be NY 15. (Granted, it might be a remnant from when NY 15 was US 15.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fnyends%2Fimages%2Ffarr%2F245us14a.jpg&hash=9cf3d97d7543c7e68eb1d375f14f6f3b92bf5a4c)

The one on the right should be NY 245.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fe1%2FNY_246_south_at_US_20A.jpg&hash=6e214803f0ba0e7527a9443edabddf0b6f42cb12)

The one on top should be US 20A.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 04, 2009, 11:01:38 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3178%2F2626742398_0f5c39c84d.jpg&hash=1218b6c560fe87699a2008de965cebae17fab10f)
Should be MO 152

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3205%2F2959197577_384836d753.jpg&hash=d1850c142ed9ed401ed5f3e8c12ff6ef19e3ea07)
US 54 doesn't exist in Arkansas

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3070%2F2474259299_550392b8f3.jpg&hash=0c708d39baf8b4832d818cc706d5bcd54c5b09d6)
Should be US 71
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 04, 2009, 11:13:28 PM
the 265 is a Connecticut shield.  I wonder if a Conn contractor goofed.

Do you have a higher-resolution version of the US 15 shield?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on August 05, 2009, 07:49:14 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 04, 2009, 11:13:28 PM

Do you have a higher-resolution version of the US 15 shield?

I do and its already posted: www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NY19700151t200150.jpg (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NY19700151t200150.jpg)

And FWIW, I remember that being a U.S. 15 shield in the late 1980s. So either it was carbon copied later, or its held up incredibly over the years...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on August 05, 2009, 07:50:14 AM
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19883901i1.jpg)

And this U.S. 15 shield at Exit 1 of Interstate 390. Not that I mind it, I wish U.S. 15 still traveled to Rochester...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 05, 2009, 01:11:35 PM
that 15 might also be an old shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on August 05, 2009, 01:31:20 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 30, 2009, 10:33:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2259%2F2283115720_f6dd49d17d.jpg&hash=ed7e4b23daac1f490e255fef35a4952e8dcf427a)
Route sign fail.

Quote from: AARoads on August 05, 2009, 07:50:14 AM
...I wish U.S. 15 still traveled to Rochester...
Me too!

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 05, 2009, 01:11:35 PM
that 15 might also be an old shield.
US 15 was truncated to Painted Post in 1974, and that shield looks too new.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 05, 2009, 01:50:13 PM
Quote from: Michael on August 05, 2009, 01:31:20 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 30, 2009, 10:33:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2259%2F2283115720_f6dd49d17d.jpg&hash=ed7e4b23daac1f490e255fef35a4952e8dcf427a)
Route sign fail.


It's the contractor's fault on this one. AHTD would never put up something that ugly
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 05, 2009, 02:27:19 PM
it is the older style with the C numbers and the classic shape.  I wonder if it sat unused as inventory for however many years?  Or if, indeed, it's an error US-15 manufactured in the early 90s or so.  The sign looks like it's been out there for 15 years but not significantly more than that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on August 05, 2009, 05:33:58 PM
Quote from: AARoads on August 05, 2009, 07:49:14 AMAnd FWIW, I remember that being a U.S. 15 shield in the late 1980s. So either it was carbon copied later, or its held up incredibly over the years...

It must've held up well, for you can see the same shield on Google Maps' street view: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=42.567722,-77.590524&spn=0.000433,0.001725&z=19&layer=c&cbll=42.567709,-77.590651&panoid=6ydbgS5f4M87WFLUnK6qFQ&cbp=11,97.75,,1,-2.06 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=42.567722,-77.590524&spn=0.000433,0.001725&z=19&layer=c&cbll=42.567709,-77.590651&panoid=6ydbgS5f4M87WFLUnK6qFQ&cbp=11,97.75,,1,-2.06)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on August 06, 2009, 07:02:52 PM
Also, I found another one:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fnyends%2Fimages%2Fperry%2Fny20.jpg&hash=ae2546db1185d690622dec67806631466e7b0d52)

NY 20 should be US 20.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on August 06, 2009, 11:21:44 PM
I just happened to stumble across this one on Google...There are multiple possible answers for this sign...There's your pop quiz for the day ;-)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Great+Falls,+MT&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=47.472007,-111.361182&spn=0.000896,0.001642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&panoid=6z6B27Nom7GlFSzs-FOcSg&cbp=12,41.14,,0,5 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Great+Falls,+MT&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=47.472007,-111.361182&spn=0.000896,0.001642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&panoid=6z6B27Nom7GlFSzs-FOcSg&cbp=12,41.14,,0,5)

(http://://maps.google.com/maps/sv?cbp=12,41.14,,0,5&amp;cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&amp;panoid=&amp;v=1&amp;hl=en&amp;gl=us"></iframe><br%20/><small><a%20href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=embed&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=Great+Falls,+MT&amp;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=34.396866,53.789062&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;ll=47.516621,-111.301718&amp;spn=0.000896,0.001642&amp;t=h&amp;z=14&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&amp;panoid=6z6B27Nom7GlFSzs-FOcSg&amp;cbp=12,41.14,,0,5"%20style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View%20Larger%20Map</a></small>)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on August 07, 2009, 12:04:37 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 06, 2009, 11:21:44 PM
I just happened to stumble across this one on Google...There are multiple possible answers for this sign...There's your pop quiz for the day ;-)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Great+Falls,+MT&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=47.472007,-111.361182&spn=0.000896,0.001642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&panoid=6z6B27Nom7GlFSzs-FOcSg&cbp=12,41.14,,0,5 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Great+Falls,+MT&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=47.472007,-111.361182&spn=0.000896,0.001642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&panoid=6z6B27Nom7GlFSzs-FOcSg&cbp=12,41.14,,0,5)

(http://://maps.google.com/maps/sv?cbp=12,41.14,,0,5&amp;cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&amp;panoid=&amp;v=1&amp;hl=en&amp;gl=us"></iframe><br%20/><small><a%20href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=embed&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=Great+Falls,+MT&amp;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=34.396866,53.789062&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;ll=47.516621,-111.301718&amp;spn=0.000896,0.001642&amp;t=h&amp;z=14&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&amp;panoid=6z6B27Nom7GlFSzs-FOcSg&amp;cbp=12,41.14,,0,5"%20style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View%20Larger%20Map</a></small>)

Either a Business I-15 or I-315?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 07, 2009, 01:28:55 AM
Quote from: florida on August 07, 2009, 12:04:37 AM
Either a Business I-15 or I-315?

Probably Business 15, as I-315 isn't signed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on August 07, 2009, 09:13:07 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 07, 2009, 01:28:55 AM
Quote from: florida on August 07, 2009, 12:04:37 AM
Either a Business I-15 or I-315?

Nailed it.

Probably Business 15, as I-315 isn't signed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: allniter89 on August 13, 2009, 01:30:19 AM
Hmmm,  that hwy 90 photo looks like it could be the intersection of Okaloosa Co 393 and US90?? I've noticed alot  of US90 signs in Okaloosa & Walton counties as being signed as FL90. I thought perhaps the state was "decommisioning" US90 but then I remembered US90's state designation is FL10. It seems I even saw a FL90 sign on the actual row of US90, I'll have to look for that and get a pic.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 14, 2009, 06:59:50 PM
I found this one yesterday
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2649%2F3821093303_2aed3a12a7.jpg&hash=5a822acc274a64328d180ab0e14d8bda332bbaa0)

It's actually 2 errors   :nod:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2009, 07:14:56 PM
how many directions does north 265 go in again??
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on August 14, 2009, 07:27:05 PM
Speaking of US routes erroneously signed as state routes:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fus_219%2Fs39.jpg&hash=b9a41092b4943f36b5da36a97ed6d33b0b0d63a5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on August 14, 2009, 07:30:27 PM
since it IS in Arkansas, 6 i think.....     :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 14, 2009, 09:19:27 PM
In this instance, North 265 goes to the right. Straight ahead is South 265, to the left is somebody's yard.   :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on August 15, 2009, 10:14:16 PM
I seem to remember this being posted before, but...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3424/3825113600_12edcb8002_o.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3424/3825113600_12edcb8002_o.jpg)

WIS 14?

The county is in charge of these signs as the route is under local control.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2009, 02:28:14 AM
I know of a similar WIS 141, as well as a state route shield of that style that says US 8.  I really need to process my photos of my November MI/WI/IL/MN trip!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dougtone on August 16, 2009, 08:16:06 AM
I've been noticing many more NY route shields being posted with US route shields recently.  In Cobleskill, NY, you can go to the intersection of US 10 and US 145.  There is also a bevy of US 10 shields in Delaware County.  Recently, I saw a shield for US 89 on NY 89 near Trumansburg, as well as a shield for US 290 on NY 290 in East Syracuse.  The US 290 shield looks to just be a temporary shield for reconstruction though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 22, 2009, 02:39:18 PM
The error that never ends in Richmond.  US 33 hasn't reached I-95 since 1981.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FI-95SOUTHATUS250WESTEXIT74C.jpg&hash=6857905fd2acefc3db56f9f780777c6b73414965)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 22, 2009, 03:24:50 PM
It gets worse on the other side of I-95, with overheads showing US 33 going in BOTH directions on Broad. I emailed VDOT two years ago and they feel that the exit doesn't see enough traffic to warrant them coming out to fix it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 22, 2009, 04:00:10 PM
QuoteIt gets worse on the other side of I-95, with overheads showing US 33 going in BOTH directions on Broad. I emailed VDOT two years ago and they feel that the exit doesn't see enough traffic to warrant them coming out to fix it.
How is there not enough traffic????  That's one of the main exits into downtown which isn't a freeway or toll road   :colorful:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 22, 2009, 07:49:40 PM
Here's the text of the email I got from VDOT when I contacted them two years ago:

QuoteWe reviewed the location yesterday, and found your complaint to be
valid; the signs for Rte 250 / 33 will be changed to the Rte 33 state
primary shields whenever our budget allows. Although theses signs have
been inappropriately marked, since they do not directly affect travelers
ability to identify what stretch of road they are located or their
immediate traveling safety, this is not one of our main priorities at
the time. Especially considering the number of improvement and safety
projects we are currently engaged in. Nonetheless, we will address these
concerns as soon as possible.

In other words, never, because given that VDOT's resources are stretched thin due to the economy, it's not likely they'll be fixed any time soon. They do have a point, though, that it doesn't really affect navigation here; it's downtown Richmond. The average driver or tourist will be looking for Broad Street, not necessarily US 33 or 250.

It should also be noted that their intent to change the shields to VA 33 shields would also be wrong, as VA 33 isn't on this part of Broad either (but it used to be).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on September 01, 2009, 09:02:06 PM
QuoteAlso, I found another one:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fnyends%2Fimages%2Fperry%2Fny20.jpg&hash=ae2546db1185d690622dec67806631466e7b0d52)

NY 20 should be US 20.

Just a quick update: I passed by this sign assembly last month and the error has been corrected.

Also:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upstatenyroads.com%2Fsubmit%2Fregion-5%2FHPIM3142.JPG&hash=53fe57874a5ea3e02e6106f3354ae441a7b38b9f)

So you're telling me I have to go on NY 16 North in order to detour NY 16 North?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 01, 2009, 10:54:51 PM
I noticed this NY 20A shield for US 20A on one of my recent updates:

(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york020/us-020a_ny-039_eb_split.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 01, 2009, 11:31:05 PM
This is sort of an error;
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3254%2F2890630009_6363f23839.jpg&hash=e2ada1485e29fe35aea2855942fc513b37335a0e)  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on September 01, 2009, 11:40:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2586%2F3680876196_1e78e58abf.jpg&hash=3d5de61c56e4672f498d6e67a9a7b351f0a5e11b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 02, 2009, 12:03:47 AM
None of those shields is in error, Hellfighter. The I-195 shield looks a little strange, but it's not wrong. :p
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on September 02, 2009, 12:14:26 AM
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on September 02, 2009, 12:03:47 AM
None of those shields is in error, Hellfighter. The I-195 shield looks a little strange, but it's not wrong. :p

Okay then...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%2F1331%2F1306372143_1a48613394.jpg&hash=cfdc60e51f9ed00c1fdcd7f9294d209c9d08c981)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 02, 2009, 02:11:42 AM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on September 01, 2009, 09:02:06 PM
http://www.upstatenyroads.com/submit/region-5/HPIM3142.JPG (http://www.upstatenyroads.com/submit/region-5/HPIM3142.JPG)

So you're telling me I have to go on NY 16 North in order to detour NY 16 North?

I saw something similar on US-17 near I believe it was Hertford, NC. The Business 17 route was closed due to a bridge repair, so the entire length of Business 17 was detoured onto regular US-17 and consistently signed. Wish I had gotten a pic of one of the US 17 NORTH / BUSINESS US 17 NORTH shield assemblies.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on September 02, 2009, 01:30:07 PM
^^^ I've also seen detours that have to go the opposite direction.  For example, when a bridge on NY 31 was being replaced, there was a long detour.  To follow it, people trying to go east on NY 31 east of the start of the detour had to go in the opposite (west) direction to get to the "beginning".  Signs in that area said "NY 31 WEST/DETOUR NY 31 EAST".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 02, 2009, 01:46:56 PM
QuoteI've also seen detours that have to go the opposite direction.  For example, when a bridge on NY 31 was being replaced, there was a long detour.  To follow it, people trying to go east on NY 31 east of the start of the detour had to go in the opposite (west) direction to get to the "beginning".  Signs in that area said "NY 31 WEST/DETOUR NY 31 EAST".

I found such a set-up in Springfield, MO
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2572%2F3783174302_ea014400a4.jpg&hash=52262f322c5110c02d6058895def1dee70606399)

AND

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3157%2F3783174094_898163929a.jpg&hash=b492d2fdf5cc57deae306d297757a962afa7bddb)

This is when the Diverging Diamond Interchange was under construction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on September 02, 2009, 02:09:36 PM
Quote from: Michael on September 02, 2009, 01:30:07 PM
I've also seen detours that have to go the oppositedirection.  For example, when a bridge on NY 31 was being replaced, there was a long detour.  To follow it, people trying to go east on NY 31 east of the start of the detour had to go in the opposite (west) direction to get to the "beginning".  Signs in that area said "NY 31 WEST/DETOUR NY 31 EAST".

The times I've seen it are when entrance ramps are closed for construction.

For a hypothetical example, on HWY 123 only the WB entrance ramp to I-999 is open.  Traffic for I-999 East is told to get on I-999 West, get off at the next exit and then enter on I-999 east.  In such a situation you would see, I-999 West, DETOUR I-999 East after getting on that exit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on September 02, 2009, 02:17:05 PM
That's it!  I was having a hard time describing it.  US71's first picture has exactly what I was talking about, only with I-44.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on September 02, 2009, 07:42:55 PM
Quote from: AARoads on September 01, 2009, 10:54:51 PM
I noticed this NY 20A shield for US 20A on one of my recent updates:

(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york020/us-020a_ny-039_eb_split.jpg)

It looks like the 20A shield in the background is also erroneously signed as a state route rather than a US route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 02, 2009, 08:29:58 PM
In NY, you never know what you'll find:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3433%2F3728303938_f7eaff0178_b.jpg&hash=9a18a3e027868d1787d284d7b00f02023ef0f006)

Puerto Rico much?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 02, 2009, 08:36:58 PM
I saw a lower res version of that goof once. Never ceases to amaze me. You ought to have this added to the AARoads Shield Gallery. :p
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 02, 2009, 10:30:43 PM
cause Steve Alpert has a copy as well. I found it and got my own
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on September 03, 2009, 03:08:51 PM
Would that be on US 1 in NYC?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 03, 2009, 04:14:47 PM
Yep.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on September 08, 2009, 12:38:53 PM
Here is a sign goof I snapped this weekend:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2444%2F3891389954_03875b288a_b.jpg&hash=14e766460ec83223ce447b941dada99c1336cfcc)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on September 08, 2009, 08:51:54 PM
What's the goof?

Not being familiar with the area, the only thing that seems odd in that photo is "Trfwy" (which I assume means "trafficway").
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on September 08, 2009, 10:39:53 PM
U.S. 269 is supposed to be Missouri 269. The sign is on I-35 South in North Kansas City, MO.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 09, 2009, 01:53:58 AM
I found US 15 in Oklahoma this past weekend ;)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2663%2F3902998310_20171f5af1.jpg&hash=6d61e18f2d51cf1a8f71ab5f0317b990cd3fd45a)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on September 09, 2009, 01:06:59 PM
^^^
Quote from: US71 on September 09, 2009, 01:53:58 AM
I found US 15 in Oklahoma this past weekend ;)

Man, wrong state and wrong direction.  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 09, 2009, 03:28:50 PM
there was a US-11 error somewhere in Oklahoma in late 2006.  I cannot remember where, but it was part of a construction zone.  I'd love to say I have a photo of it on the shield gallery, but I appear to be some sort of a demon slug so I do not.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 09, 2009, 03:37:45 PM
Quotethere was a US-11 error somewhere in Oklahoma in late 2006.  I cannot remember where, but it was part of a construction zone.  I'd love to say I have a photo of it on the shield gallery, but I appear to be some sort of a demon slug so I do not.

There's a US 51 sign near Stilwell and an OK 64 circle shield near Tulsa.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 09, 2009, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: US71 on September 09, 2009, 03:37:45 PM
There's a US 51 sign near Stilwell and an OK 64 circle shield near Tulsa.

I always like "state routes signed with a US shield" errors more than their converse, for some reason.  Could you get me photos of each, especially the US 51?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on September 09, 2009, 05:17:10 PM
Quotethere was a US-11 error somewhere in Oklahoma in late 2006.  I cannot remember where, but it was part of a construction zone.  I'd love to say I have a photo of it on the shield gallery, but I appear to be some sort of a demon slug so I do not.

It was at I-35 & OK 11 (Exit 222):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.okroads.com%2F060907%2Fi35exit222_02.JPG&hash=92cfa1a9a6e1a92e4708e298604bedbe42070b61)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 09, 2009, 05:20:34 PM
I definitely remember how that road was closed.  I got off the freeway there to get gas, and at 4am the layout of the construction zone was not intuitive, so I think at one point I drove down some new concrete I was not supposed to!

here is my photo.  trust me, it's an 11 pair.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fx5983.jpg&hash=d9a7bdac257c66d8aff68da082c71f2eff298b6b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 09, 2009, 08:52:35 PM
Not sure if this is "erroneous" or not

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2656%2F3904782623_f5084ed748.jpg&hash=ff2d18c06e6884611c9d928535536c6cc1543485)

To read it literally, it's NO "No U Turn"  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 09, 2009, 08:56:56 PM
QuoteI always like "state routes signed with a US shield" errors more than their converse, for some reason.  Could you get me photos of each, especially the US 51?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2123%2F2249998644_f9cbc0a106_b.jpg&hash=ea287c809e3817e59a79b5722fa3df4006da9007)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 09, 2009, 09:35:38 PM
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/MaineTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5377391089234192162 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/MaineTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5377391089234192162)

Here is an "error". It is for US 1 Business in Damariscotta, Maine. It is a US 1B shield. Its not US 1B Business, its just plain US 1 Business. Its Maine's way by mixing 1 and Business in one shield. I haven't seen another like it, so thats why I call it an error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 09, 2009, 11:02:36 PM
Quotehttp://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/MaineTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5377391089234192162

That's how Arkansas does it. Business routes are xxB, often posted with a Business Banner
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2086%2F2474628403_e4b0398008.jpg&hash=f6f00842957b3f38f065846a4b9526c87adb7577)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on September 10, 2009, 04:21:30 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 09, 2009, 03:41:11 PMI always like "state routes signed with a US shield" errors more than their converse, for some reason.

Then this will be right up your alley:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fnyends%2Fimages%2Fnitzman%2Fus-62a.jpg&hash=d9d85176562bc6220df69241523a5d0479de5276)

US 62A should be NY 62A. (Note that NY 62A has since been redesignated as Business US 62.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on September 10, 2009, 04:31:27 PM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on September 10, 2009, 04:21:30 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 09, 2009, 03:41:11 PMI always like "state routes signed with a US shield" errors more than their converse, for some reason.

Then this will be right up your alley:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fnyends%2Fimages%2Fnitzman%2Fus-62a.jpg&hash=d9d85176562bc6220df69241523a5d0479de5276)

US 62A should be NY 62A. (Note that NY 62A has since been redesignated as Business US 62.)

At least this sign was in an area near the actual US 62!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 10, 2009, 05:13:54 PM
sweet, can we put that on the gallery?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on September 10, 2009, 05:33:14 PM
Here's a gantry in Sacramento that was correct when it was posted, but since 1982 has not been:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-h.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc1%2Fhs172.snc1%2F6449_775547584293_3216777_44338135_996046_n.jpg&hash=369f5b645da115f983bebe649c9404bfd03255ae)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 10, 2009, 05:50:01 PM
what's wrong with it?  is it referring to Business 80 with the regular 80 shield?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on September 10, 2009, 11:32:22 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2456%2F3847074744_e397e93e2c.jpg&hash=dd19eb8a76a06ac1b180c5e87eac677a2bb9cac6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on September 11, 2009, 12:25:21 AM
Quote from: Hellfighter on September 10, 2009, 11:32:22 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2456%2F3847074744_e397e93e2c.jpg&hash=dd19eb8a76a06ac1b180c5e87eac677a2bb9cac6)

I had to look at a map to figure that one out as there actually is a TN Sec 79, but it's nowhere near US 70A and, not surprisingly, the 79 sign should be a US route.

Talk about disrespect!  Not only downgrading US 79 to a state route but a secondary one at that!  :thumbdown:

BTW Where exactly was that sign found?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on September 11, 2009, 12:30:21 AM
Quote from: mightyace on September 11, 2009, 12:25:21 AM
BTW Where exactly was that sign found?

I forgot, I was surfing flickr. Here's one from Synthetic Dreamer...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3434%2F3891886482_576bcde05a.jpg&hash=c3bdddf3d9f7e7733ce014a3b6b66ffb938eb3f7)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wandering drive on September 11, 2009, 01:59:04 AM
RE: Master son (I can't get the quote button to work)
This was the "WIS" 14 error (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2543/3909050182_f033e58788_b.jpg) that was posted before.  I had to go out and find it myself. (almost easier than finding it in the forums  :ded:  )

That WIS 14 error (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/3909051090_f68a5db3ab_b.jpg) is part of old City US 14, now Business US 14, north of Janesville.  Three assemblies (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/3909074214_5b0e0b0ddf_b.jpg) along Bus 14 north of Janesville city limits have this error.  This one (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/3908269437_8e9c5f3e1d_b.jpg) doesn't even have the "Business" sign.

Bonus WIS 14 errors:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2600%2F3879793255_89ffd215b3_o.jpg&hash=fbee8fdc88ab54f9d68a9d8460a7e7ec91f6c992)

Found in Janesville, not on City US 14.  The design is relatively new and the traffic is usually heavy, but I suppose it costs too much to fix it right now.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2665%2F3879793465_0dec190013.jpg&hash=6cc4db5e82e50896f6b83538b903c6d4d7fff293)

This one was in Middleton while some entrance ramps along the beltline were closed.  Also should be US 14. 
Another construction sign (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2604/3880590192_b6901c8eed_o.jpg) shows state 12 instead of US.  This kind of error is fairly common with DOT construction signs; I recall seeing TO WIS-14 shields along 39/90 when the road east of Janesville was closed, and there were probably plenty around the Marquette interchange in Milwaukee.  I also saw WIS-43 on some side road in south Milwaukee, didn't occur to take a picture then.  I bet there will be more once the construction on 94 gets underway south of Milwaukee.

The rest of the ones I found and took pictures on are in my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wandering_drive/tags/error/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wandering_drive/tags/error/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on September 11, 2009, 03:24:37 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3129%2F2673790014_57868d6c5f_b.jpg&hash=88a832a81f54a361d616b1b1e855db977dbdff81)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on September 11, 2009, 04:50:12 PM
^^^

OK, I give up.  What's wrong with that sign?  :confused:

(As having never been to that part of Virginia, it's not obvious to me.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on September 11, 2009, 05:23:24 PM
What's listed as ALT US 1 is really mainline US 1...the sign on the left lists mainline 1/17 when they're both business routes (on the road to the left at the traffic light).  And VA 2 doesn't begin until downtown Fredericksburg.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on September 11, 2009, 06:30:04 PM
Quote from: wandering drive on September 11, 2009, 01:59:04 AM
RE: Master son (I can't get the quote button to work)
This was the "WIS" 14 error (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2543/3909050182_f033e58788_b.jpg) that was posted before.  I had to go out and find it myself. (almost easier than finding it in the forums  :ded:  )

That WIS 14 error (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/3909051090_f68a5db3ab_b.jpg) is part of old City US 14, now Business US 14, north of Janesville.  Three assemblies (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/3909074214_5b0e0b0ddf_b.jpg) along Bus 14 north of Janesville city limits have this error.  This one (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/3908269437_8e9c5f3e1d_b.jpg) doesn't even have the "Business" sign.

Bonus WIS 14 errors:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2600%2F3879793255_89ffd215b3_o.jpg&hash=fbee8fdc88ab54f9d68a9d8460a7e7ec91f6c992)

Found in Janesville, not on City US 14.  The design is relatively new and the traffic is usually heavy, but I suppose it costs too much to fix it right now.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2665%2F3879793465_0dec190013.jpg&hash=6cc4db5e82e50896f6b83538b903c6d4d7fff293)

This one was in Middleton while some entrance ramps along the beltline were closed.  Also should be US 14. 
Another construction sign (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2604/3880590192_b6901c8eed_o.jpg) shows state 12 instead of US.  This kind of error is fairly common with DOT construction signs; I recall seeing TO WIS-14 shields along 39/90 when the road east of Janesville was closed, and there were probably plenty around the Marquette interchange in Milwaukee.  I also saw WIS-43 on some side road in south Milwaukee, didn't occur to take a picture then.  I bet there will be more once the construction on 94 gets underway south of Milwaukee.

The rest of the ones I found and took pictures on are in my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wandering_drive/tags/error/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wandering_drive/tags/error/)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/3910911088/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/3910911088/) <-- A WIS 18 shield (County TT in Waukesha)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/3910174427/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/3910174427/) <-- a wide US 151 sign - you don't see these in any official Wis specs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 11, 2009, 07:03:31 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2598%2F3692669005_8e6f1832b7.jpg&hash=c17574c6b2310ca6f6cad1184cb949c7291a343d)

There's no longer a VA 305 here.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2447%2F3562154848_835af3de32.jpg&hash=019852d65e801ebde219d6ff62409cc832028acf)

Not an error, but rather VDOT testing your reading skills.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on September 11, 2009, 09:32:39 PM
QuoteThere's no longer a VA 305 here.

There hasn't been a VA 305 here in almost 50 years.  It was decommissioned back when this was still Princess Anne County, but VA Beach never did get the memo...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 11, 2009, 11:28:45 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 10, 2009, 05:13:54 PM
sweet, can we put that on the gallery?

This one?

https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york100/ny-104_wb_app_us-062a.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york100/ny-104_wb_app_us-062a.jpg)

I need to rescan it at some point...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 11, 2009, 11:55:55 PM
Quote from: Hellfighter on September 11, 2009, 12:30:21 AM
Here's one from Synthetic Dreamer...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3434/3891886482_576bcde05a.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3434/3891886482_576bcde05a.jpg)

I can't figure out what's wrong with that one...  :confused: I-64 is north of US-60 and VA 5 is south of US-60. Though that might be more evident if I knew where exactly the sign was.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 11, 2009, 11:57:33 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fwhitewyo.jpg&hash=36b93c20db6d7ae951c448f4959712891a6381be)

Here's a WHITE Wyoming highway shield on SB 287/789 between WYO 220 and Rawlins
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on September 12, 2009, 03:05:56 AM
agentsteel53: Correct, that shield should be Business 80 and not I-80 (though before 1982, it was correct).  It's on Stockton Boulevard at US 50.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 12, 2009, 08:21:55 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 11, 2009, 11:55:55 PM
Quote from: Hellfighter on September 11, 2009, 12:30:21 AM
Here's one from Synthetic Dreamer...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3434/3891886482_576bcde05a.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3434/3891886482_576bcde05a.jpg)

I can't figure out what's wrong with that one...  :confused: I-64 is north of US-60 and VA 5 is south of US-60. Though that might be more evident if I knew where exactly the sign was.

The VA 5 shield is too wide; it's a 3-digit shield for a 1-digit route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2009, 10:42:41 AM
very nice!  I will get a picture of it next week when I am in the area. 

now, the real question is, are there any 880 remnants anywhere?  I believe there is an 880 paddle on current 80, and some of the signs show evidence of a wider shield having been scraped off, but I have never seen an actual 880 shield in Sacramento.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 12, 2009, 12:42:39 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2009, 10:42:41 AM
very nice!  I will get a picture of it next week when I am in the area. 

now, the real question is, are there any 880 remnants anywhere?  I believe there is an 880 paddle on current 80, and some of the signs show evidence of a wider shield having been scraped off, but I have never seen an actual 880 shield in Sacramento.

There is at least one IR 880 paddle on Interstate 80 eastbound north of Sacramento. I half-saw it as it whizzed by, so no photo...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2009, 12:53:12 PM
that's the paddle I saw too.  Eastbound.  I'll have to get a photo.

I remember the scraped off 880 shield being westbound, at the eastern 80/880 split, but there may be one in the other direction too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 12, 2009, 02:49:32 PM
Quote^^^ I've also seen detours that have to go the opposite direction.  For example, when a bridge on NY 31 was being replaced, there was a long detour.  To follow it, people trying to go east on NY 31 east of the start of the detour had to go in the opposite (west) direction to get to the "beginning".  Signs in that area said "NY 31 WEST/DETOUR NY 31 EAST".

As a matter of fact I bumped into this in Nebraska a couple weeks ago on N-2

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2F7.jpg&hash=279034ad91195e2a102ddf0bd820a503e6d72e14)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on September 12, 2009, 06:20:11 PM
Admittedly, it might be a remnant of when NY 104 was US 104, but still:

(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york999/2nd_st_nb_at_us-062_sb.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2009, 06:36:08 PM
that one is indeed an old US-104 sign.  A couple float around.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on September 13, 2009, 12:39:18 AM
U.S. 121?? It should say VA 121...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3471%2F3737535944_093d172d6a_o.jpg&hash=b9385210f2099341dc203624584e39ba127f7077)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 13, 2009, 12:47:31 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2009, 06:36:08 PM
that one is indeed an old US-104 sign.  A couple float around.

Yes it was quite old, the shield facing was more worn than the photo suggests. I remember walking up to that assembly and shooting it, puzzling three people sitting on a front step nearby.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on September 14, 2009, 02:16:22 PM
agentsteel53: The signage at the Business 80/I-80 split in Foothill Farms has been replaced in the last couple of years with the reflective signs of this era, so I'm not sure any old button copy-era signs are left in the vicinity.

One example of a scraped sign - for I think I-80 - exists on 65th Street northbound right before the ramp to westbound US 50, where Tahoe Park and East Sacramento border.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on September 14, 2009, 02:53:31 PM
I confirm TheStranger's first comment seeing that first hand two Fridays ago.  I didn't notice (wasn't paying attention) on the second comment.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on September 16, 2009, 01:27:01 AM
Q: What do you do when you need to replace a green arrow panel on a shield assembly, but you're just fresh out of them in the sign shop?

A: you use one of those blue ones that you ordered too many of and have a million of lying around, figuring no one will ever notice.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg6.imageshack.us%2Fimg6%2F8374%2Fdscn5771f.jpg&hash=633427f1c7853751c78cc784f09fae7c2119d407)

Well, someone noticed. ;-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 16, 2009, 08:33:54 AM
I was on 70A/79 3-4 years ago and there were 2-3 glitches like that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on September 16, 2009, 01:36:10 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 16, 2009, 01:27:01 AM
Q: What do you do when you need to replace a green arrow panel on a shield assembly, but you're just fresh out of them in the sign shop?

A: you use one of those blue ones that you ordered too many of and have a million of lying around, figuring no one will ever notice.

Either that or the DOT employee that replaced it is blue-green colorblind.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: nerdly_dood on September 16, 2009, 07:11:03 PM
throughout Roanoke, VA, there are several US-11 signs that are white with the shield outline, not black with the white shield in it... Like this:
(and with the width=800)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi460.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fqq330%2Fnerdlydood%2Ffoe_toez%2FDSC01021.jpg&hash=953757da9540095b26a40219ac39ef63b868180d)
Is that entirely wrong? The signs are all reflective, and they aren't particularly old - some are only a year or two old.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 16, 2009, 07:50:24 PM
Quote from: nerdly_dood on September 16, 2009, 07:11:03 PM
throughout Roanoke, VA, there are several US-11 signs that are white with the shield outline, not black with the white shield in it... Like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi460.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fqq330%2Fnerdlydood%2Ffoe_toez%2FDSC01021.jpg&hash=953757da9540095b26a40219ac39ef63b868180d)
Is that entirely wrong? The signs are all reflective, and they aren't particularly old - some are only a year or two old.

They're probably city-installed, not VDOT installed. As mentioned elsewhere, there are lots of those types of signs around for US 220, US 221 and some of the state routes as well in Roanoke.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 16, 2009, 07:53:30 PM
The white-border signs aren't errors. That's how many (though not most) signs in Virginia looked a few decades ago when they weren't cutouts.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on September 17, 2009, 09:43:20 AM
At one point, this used to be a normal US 1.  Then the sign got knocked down and replaced with this abomination.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FMaryland%2520Signs%2F20090826US1error.jpg&hash=b5bb6e7c1d9fc1c652bee9de8c83315f84048cd8)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on September 17, 2009, 10:02:03 AM
It must have happened since the Google Street View car made a trip down 32.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.141416,-76.817159&spn=0,359.780273&z=13&layer=c&cbll=39.141416,-76.817159&panoid=pmLkIniShmplaj056u2N1w&cbp=12,134.16,,0,7.53 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.141416,-76.817159&spn=0,359.780273&z=13&layer=c&cbll=39.141416,-76.817159&panoid=pmLkIniShmplaj056u2N1w&cbp=12,134.16,,0,7.53)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wisp2007 on September 22, 2009, 02:25:11 PM
I'm surprised no one's put this sign up yet. Or maybe they have and I just missed it. :)  :confused:
( It's not US 99 - it's SR 99 )

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi36.tinypic.com%2F2utrkom.jpg&hash=9504879d8ab88fba3bb098d9f2762494819afeec)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on September 22, 2009, 02:34:50 PM
If that's the Alsakan Way Viaduct...it was once US 99 so it's more a case of the route decomissioning changing the accuracy of the sign.

Speaking of which, in midtown Sacramento this morning, I saw a "Route 80" postmile paddle on the N Street ramp off of Business 80, a route which is now hidden Route 51...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 22, 2009, 06:21:28 PM
That US-99 sign has been around since the viaduct was built. When the viaduct was built, the highway was still US-99, so it's not erroneous
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Tom on September 22, 2009, 08:31:49 PM
Actually, I like seeing a US-99 sign, because it's another way of keeping the memory of US-99 alive. :coffee:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 04, 2009, 07:05:19 PM
US 93 near Texarkana

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2597%2F3738879591_8dcc2dc325.jpg&hash=45e80214d72b7ab173e3fbc688305eff3b6f48b7)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on October 04, 2009, 11:02:45 PM
Quote from: US71 on October 04, 2009, 07:05:19 PM
US 93 near Texarkana

At first, I was thinking "there's nothing wrong with using a temporary construction exit tab" before I realized it was US 93 signed next to a Texas FM route. I assume that should be Texas SH 93?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on October 04, 2009, 11:13:13 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 22, 2009, 08:31:49 PM
Actually, I like seeing a US-99 sign, because it's another way of keeping the memory of US-99 alive. :coffee:

Well, here's Oregon's last vestige of US 99 in Corvallis.  If you look carefully, you can see in the upper part of the sign, there is a patch, but on the bottom part it's either fallen off or was never covered up.  Like the Seattle sign, this one isn't an error, as it dates back to when US 99W was still around.  There are some US 99 shields in southern Oregon, but they're all more recent mistakes and should be OR 99 shields.  Enjoy!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOR34-99WUS202.jpg%3Ft%3D1254712157&hash=30f4a38392a9e4832df48929614593c1ea0533ba)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 04, 2009, 11:18:42 PM
well I'll be damned, I always thought that was a recent error sign! 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 05, 2009, 09:23:15 AM
Quote from: roadfro on October 04, 2009, 11:02:45 PM

At first, I was thinking "there's nothing wrong with using a temporary construction exit tab" before I realized it was US 93 signed next to a Texas FM route. I assume that should be Texas SH 93?

Yes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on October 05, 2009, 08:15:14 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 30, 2009, 10:33:53 PM
Quote from: mefailenglish on July 30, 2009, 10:27:21 PM
Poor US 40, downgraded to State Route status.


Ditto US 62
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3209%2F2474259353_da7ee29c71.jpg&hash=43d0bd2eabc6217f754c3ae2110933bafa6b2626)


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2259%2F2283115720_f6dd49d17d.jpg&hash=ed7e4b23daac1f490e255fef35a4952e8dcf427a)

US-89 in Utah can't even be spared the same fate, at the north end of UT-165 where it meets US-89/91:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3036%2F2860686056_5ec9211b74.jpg&hash=cee1ddeb276c1b1da38100c9ee8a9ba55853f979)  :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 05, 2009, 09:05:04 PM
I got downgraded, too  :-(

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3070%2F2474259299_550392b8f3.jpg&hash=0c708d39baf8b4832d818cc706d5bcd54c5b09d6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 07, 2009, 05:38:33 PM
Quote from: HighwayMaster on October 07, 2009, 05:35:00 PM

Uh...an infamous one is my avatar. Check it out!

(It was taken down, the last time I checked.)

Yeah... it only lasted a few months. It was after the road was 4 Laned.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on October 07, 2009, 06:05:50 PM
U.S. 60 North? It should be U.S. 60 East...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2586%2F3970941018_c3b6e235f3_o.jpg&hash=213a3bd6ec1d5dd6673e5f5d92c3d7df029ba4a5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 07, 2009, 06:36:11 PM
the same error exists in the other direction too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 07, 2009, 06:53:04 PM
This one is wrong, too (though it does run more N-S than E-W)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3147%2F2974925292_0e3c9ec1d9.jpg&hash=da6e201b4efa5592692a298f7d8cb72fb3e156aa)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on October 09, 2009, 01:16:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3640%2F3996085434_3aa374e81d.jpg&hash=df3f301372433265d7e3bf9269f4418c4768ced4)

There's no BL-I-29 in Fargo, this should be I-29
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on October 10, 2009, 12:10:21 PM
Quote from: Master son on October 09, 2009, 01:16:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3640%2F3996085434_3aa374e81d.jpg&hash=df3f301372433265d7e3bf9269f4418c4768ced4)

There's no BL-I-29 in Fargo, this should be I-29

You'd think they could've spent a little more money to make the shields and text as legible as the big honkin' arrows! :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Sykotyk on October 10, 2009, 06:21:38 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=rawlins,+wy&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&gl=us&ei=jAfRSuT7K5WntgehtYiDBA&ved=0CBEQ8gEwAA&layer=c&cbll=41.59205,-109.187159&panoid=96_EtOrDdzOPSHzixK30dw&cbp=12,251.31,,0,-16.96&hq=&hnear=Rawlins,+Carbon,+Wyoming&ll=41.592049,-109.187279&spn=0.015342,0.037894&z=15 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=rawlins,+wy&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&gl=us&ei=jAfRSuT7K5WntgehtYiDBA&ved=0CBEQ8gEwAA&layer=c&cbll=41.59205,-109.187159&panoid=96_EtOrDdzOPSHzixK30dw&cbp=12,251.31,,0,-16.96&hq=&hnear=Rawlins,+Carbon,+Wyoming&ll=41.592049,-109.187279&spn=0.015342,0.037894&z=15)

There's nothing currently wrong with the Google Streetview of the sign now. But once construction was finished, they replaced the green Business I-80 shield with an erroneous regular blue I-80 shield for the BL. Unless Wyoming corrects it, the next time Google's through you should see it. I probably won't be out that way for a while to get a photo of it.

Sykotyk
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on October 11, 2009, 10:44:58 PM
Sad news from my eastern Oregon/southeastern Washington trip this weekend:  the long-standing US 82 shield in La Grande is gone, replaced with the correct OR 82 shield.  However, I saw a US 127 and another WA 12 from Washington to make up for it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 11, 2009, 10:59:23 PM
was that the OR-82 on the railroad overpass?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on October 12, 2009, 12:14:04 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 11, 2009, 10:59:23 PM
was that the OR-82 on the railroad overpass?

Yup.  Here's the before and after shots.  You can actually see the discolored spot from the old shield in the picture of the new, plus the "shadow" of an even earlier shield.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOR82LaGrandesigngoof1-1.jpg%3Ft%3D1255320581&hash=09722586c2f904657a965bc3772b229c8a4085d1)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOR82LaGrandeRROverpass1.jpg%3Ft%3D1255320617&hash=485b94c928e4747260bfde36ff2201958f709125)

Here's the US 127 extension to Washington state:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2F050.jpg%3Ft%3D1255320820&hash=a3c281bd108189484b87173119d6a8785be1aa69)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 12, 2009, 01:48:33 AM
alas, the oldest shadow is not that of a cutout ... just looks to be a larger square.

as for US-127, there is a US-123 as well in Washington.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WA/WA19861231i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on October 12, 2009, 02:07:26 AM
And a US 21 in Florida.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi696.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv321%2FFLroadgeek%2FPicture1043.jpg&hash=5e48179796902134412f393bc8fe26b61e151dad)

It's pretty sad when a correct one is hidden underneath trees, just feet away.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi696.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv321%2FFLroadgeek%2FPicture485.jpg&hash=bd7911520fccf1e26b20c4804261b2df7c627fd4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on October 12, 2009, 10:19:03 AM
That stoplight ahead sign in the background is also mounted upside down
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on October 12, 2009, 10:48:31 AM
Quote from: corco on October 12, 2009, 10:19:03 AM
That stoplight ahead sign in the background is also mounted upside down

It's not the only time I've seen it.  The entrance to the inbound Ike (I-290) from westbound St Charles Rd has one for the ramp meter that's also upside down.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=41.889839,-87.921599&spn=0,359.993042&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.889839,-87.92171&panoid=iQNfLrMLNTUgZzyW0KRHOw&cbp=12,327.78,,0,6.46 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=41.889839,-87.921599&spn=0,359.993042&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.889839,-87.92171&panoid=iQNfLrMLNTUgZzyW0KRHOw&cbp=12,327.78,,0,6.46)

How hard is it to put the red on top and the green on bottom?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on October 12, 2009, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: corco on October 12, 2009, 10:19:03 AM
That stoplight ahead sign in the background is also mounted upside down

Just the fact that the correct one is hidden by trees, then another one was mounted feet away, upside-down, is ridiculous. :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on October 12, 2009, 06:15:42 PM
'nother one, from Ogden, UT:

UT-79's east end at "US-203":

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3035%2F2383196719_074a35b53b.jpg&hash=f5fdbb2d95e85839e6cdc5d21eae27b8d4062ff2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 12, 2009, 06:28:21 PM
US 25 in Oklahoma ;)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3097%2F2640111161_f4ee7474cc.jpg&hash=2f83a7a00dc52446bc1d5cb4ae1df146d4debc8c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CL on October 12, 2009, 06:53:31 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on October 12, 2009, 06:15:42 PM
'nother one, from Ogden, UT:

UT-79's east end at "US-203":

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3035%2F2383196719_074a35b53b.jpg&hash=f5fdbb2d95e85839e6cdc5d21eae27b8d4062ff2)

This is only one of two US-shield-when-it's-really-an-SR errors I've seen in Utah - the other is approaching SR-210's northern terminus (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.617805,-111.789225&spn=0,359.986267&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.617653,-111.789174&panoid=eZhdKPPeZMm0UsRGmnr9oA&cbp=12,33.65,,0,4.65 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.617805,-111.789225&spn=0,359.986267&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.617653,-111.789174&panoid=eZhdKPPeZMm0UsRGmnr9oA&cbp=12,33.65,,0,4.65))
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on October 12, 2009, 08:45:53 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 12, 2009, 01:48:33 AM
alas, the oldest shadow is not that of a cutout ... just looks to be a larger square.

as for US-127, there is a US-123 as well in Washington.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WA/WA19861231i1.jpg)

Mt Rainier National Park should be served by a US Highway!  It once was, when US 410 was around, although I guess US 12 passes close enough to count.  That US 123 must be fairly new, since I didn't see it the last time I went through those parts.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on October 19, 2009, 01:18:30 AM
This one's been in place for a good 20 years at least:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg198.imageshack.us%2Fimg198%2F470%2Fdscn5972.jpg&hash=a9f93c5ced2f87d916778eb8083d7f8e747d73f0)

The "TO" should go with 295, not 695.

Also, it's a diagrammatic on a major freeway... in button copy.

Yup, it's a real die hard all right!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 19, 2009, 08:08:00 AM
I showed you that US 52 sign on Pasco CR 583 & Florida SR 52, and those incorrect cardinal direction banners on I-75 at Exit 309. Now I'm going to show you one of many signs placed southbound along I-75 and the Suncoast Parkway.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg207.imageshack.us%2Fimg207%2F3706%2Fsuncoastpkwyerroneousde.jpg&hash=2ad1195ccbede336f1232e7d2c02aa141d8b28e1)

There's no way in hell that you'll reach St. Petersburg before you reach Tampa.




Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Terry Shea on October 19, 2009, 09:32:26 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on October 19, 2009, 08:08:00 AM
I showed you that US 52 sign on Pasco CR 583 & Florida SR 52, and those incorrect cardinal direction banners on I-75 at Exit 309. Now I'm going to show you one of many signs placed southbound along I-75 and the Suncoast Parkway.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg207.imageshack.us%2Fimg207%2F3706%2Fsuncoastpkwyerroneousde.jpg&hash=2ad1195ccbede336f1232e7d2c02aa141d8b28e1)

There's no way in hell that you'll reach St. Petersburg before you reach Tampa.





Ah, but the sign is telling us that it's 52 miles to I-275 (which takes us to St Pete) not to St Pete itself.  Probably would have been better to leave any city designation off from that part of the sign though to avoid any confusion.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on October 19, 2009, 09:43:11 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 19, 2009, 01:18:30 AM
This one's been in place for a good 20 years at least:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg198.imageshack.us%2Fimg198%2F470%2Fdscn5972.jpg&hash=a9f93c5ced2f87d916778eb8083d7f8e747d73f0)

The "TO" should go with 295, not 695.

Also, it's a diagrammatic on a major freeway... in button copy.

Yup, it's a real die hard all right!
What's wrong with that? :hmmm:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rawmustard on October 19, 2009, 09:53:10 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 19, 2009, 09:32:26 AM
Ah, but the sign is telling us that it's 52 miles to I-275 (which takes us to St Pete) not to St Pete itself.  Probably would have been better to leave any city designation off from that part of the sign though to avoid any confusion.

But you don't reach the airport before reaching I-275 (as that route is what gets you to TPA). This is only an educated guess, but they may have calculated the distance to Tampa via I-4, which is silly since I-275 is more direct. The difference between the airport and St. Pete looks to be correct given the length of the Howard Frankland Bridge.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 19, 2009, 11:06:52 AM
nice reuse of the exit tab!  :-D

I am assuming the sign is on 95 SB, at the 95/695 split - if so, the intent of the sign is really not a bad one.  695 is a very brief spur that connects 95 to 295.  I don't believe there is even a direct connection between 95SB and 295 - the whole point of 695 is to cut off the triangle. 

to omit the "TO" on 295 isn't too significant of an error - the average driver does not care that he is on 695 and is going to be on 295 for a mile, since no average driver thinks of 695 as going anywhere... there are no exits to the street off 695 so it may as well be an unsigned freeway, signed "TO 295" in one direction and "TO 95" in the other.

(alternately, 278 should continue to remain 278 until hit hits 295, and 695 should just be 295, thereby transferring the 295 designation one branch over)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Terry Shea on October 19, 2009, 04:29:29 PM
Quote from: rawmustard on October 19, 2009, 09:53:10 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 19, 2009, 09:32:26 AM
Ah, but the sign is telling us that it's 52 miles to I-275 (which takes us to St Pete) not to St Pete itself.  Probably would have been better to leave any city designation off from that part of the sign though to avoid any confusion.

But you don't reach the airport before reaching I-275 (as that route is what gets you to TPA). This is only an educated guess, but they may have calculated the distance to Tampa via I-4, which is silly since I-275 is more direct. The difference between the airport and St. Pete looks to be correct given the length of the Howard Frankland Bridge.
Quote from: rawmustard on October 19, 2009, 09:53:10 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 19, 2009, 09:32:26 AM
Ah, but the sign is telling us that it's 52 miles to I-275 (which takes us to St Pete) not to St Pete itself.  Probably would have been better to leave any city designation off from that part of the sign though to avoid any confusion.

But you don't reach the airport before reaching I-275 (as that route is what gets you to TPA). This is only an educated guess, but they may have calculated the distance to Tampa via I-4, which is silly since I-275 is more direct. The difference between the airport and St. Pete looks to be correct given the length of the Howard Frankland Bridge.
Unless otherwise noted these signs usually indicate the mileage using the most direct route, but after consulting my trusty Rand McNally Atlas I don't see any route that is going to get you to the Tampa airport before you reach I-275, so something with the sign does indeed seem to be amiss.   :hmmm:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rarnold on October 19, 2009, 06:52:31 PM
There is also a sign error on I-435 northbound on the east side of Kansas City. They have placed a US 210 shield on the sign, where a MO 210 shield should have been. With the US 269 error at Vivion Rd, MoDOT must have had no Missouri state cutouts the day they produced those signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on October 19, 2009, 08:46:01 PM
Quote from: Master son on October 19, 2009, 09:43:11 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 19, 2009, 01:18:30 AM
it's a diagrammatic on a major freeway
What's wrong with that? :hmmm:

Nothing. Just makes it surprising that such a sign has lasted with an error for so long.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 19, 2009, 11:06:52 AM
nice reuse of the exit tab!  :-D

There's no exit tab being reused. The green area around the 695 shield is another sign on the side of the highway (seen here on street view (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.849909,-73.82746&spn=0,359.992543&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.849997,-73.827456&panoid=kwgg1JJjwr_QIjapnvwECg&cbp=12,234.26,,1,-2.9)) which, by coincidence due to the angle the photo was taken from, appears right behind it.
The shield is supplementarily mounted atop the sign, as this shot from behind demonstrates:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg18.imageshack.us%2Fimg18%2F9418%2Fdscn5968.jpg&hash=94f9a207225656f476453905e608787a19ac370a)

QuoteI am assuming the sign is on 95 SB, at the 95/695 split

Well, the 1 mile advance sign for it, but yes. At the split, newer signage gets it right (street view) (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.838392,-73.825722&spn=0,359.970174&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.838218,-73.825679&panoid=z5l_cbZVdXcDyZzbxH3QYg&cbp=12,184.86,,0,-23.62).

QuoteI don't believe there is even a direct connection between 95SB and 295 - the whole point of 695 is to cut off the triangle. 

Correct.

Quoteto omit the "TO" on 295 isn't too significant of an error

But to put it on 695 is...

Quoteno average driver thinks of 695 as going anywhere... there are no exits to the street off 695

Actually, there is one unnumbered interchange (Lafayette Avenue/Randall Avenue).

True enough, though, no driver thinks of 695 as going anywhere.... in fact, no driver even thinks of 695 as existing. Everybody in New York (City) refers to highways by their names, never by their numbers. So it's not I-695, it's "The Throgs Neck Expressway" (along with the short bit of 295 between the merge and the bridge).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xcellntbuy on October 19, 2009, 09:55:40 PM
It is amazing there is no graffiti on the back of that sign. :clap:

[Fixed/removed excess quoting. -S.]
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on October 21, 2009, 01:38:13 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 12, 2009, 01:48:33 AM
alas, the oldest shadow is not that of a cutout ... just looks to be a larger square.

as for US-127, there is a US-123 as well in Washington.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WA/WA19861231i1.jpg)

First start in Greenville, SC, loop around behind downtown, go to Clemson (GO TIGERS) end at US 23 in GA, then...REAPPEAR IN OREGON.

Yeah, makes perfect sense.

Sorry, as a '95 CU grad, I had to comment.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on November 12, 2009, 09:33:33 AM
During my stay in Ohio last week I strayed into Kentucky where I saw the US shields are a little different with the bottoms being pointy compared to the one in the picture above.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedcam.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk%2Fkentucky23.jpg&hash=a266a95cbcb25d86253463ee7a12a4f430ad984f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 12, 2009, 08:42:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.tinypic.com%2F5oxkk0.png&hash=0efe7fc3f2623acf260bf2bdeb6ce8129d7cbd5a)

Can somebody please tell me how the hell NYSDOT screwed this up?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dougtone on November 12, 2009, 09:11:00 PM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on November 12, 2009, 08:42:11 PM

Can somebody please tell me how the hell NYSDOT screwed this up?

I can understand screwing up the shields for NY 69 or NY 96, and those shields have been screwed up in the past, but you would think that even with New York State's fiscal woes, they would implement some quality control.  But then again, displaying  I passed by this area (Hamburg, NY) again last week, and I think the NY 391 shield error has been corrected.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on November 12, 2009, 09:22:52 PM
I just saw this one yesterday in Stayton, OR.  I'll have to go back under better lighting and less traffic to get a better shot one of these days.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOR22StaytonSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1258078906&hash=b8d40d5a66a29ce2eb5a190610b2ab5c90a70bb7)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on November 13, 2009, 07:56:45 AM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on November 12, 2009, 08:42:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.tinypic.com%2F5oxkk0.png&hash=0efe7fc3f2623acf260bf2bdeb6ce8129d7cbd5a)

Can somebody please tell me how the hell NYSDOT screwed this up?

Upside down signs can often be seen here in the UK. This one shows a yield sign which should have the flat edge of the triangle on the top.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10163%2Fnormal_0%257E1.jpg&hash=17497eafe31f770c3e9e1837939de28d8bc58a2d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 13, 2009, 08:08:27 AM
I found this one yesterday:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2542%2F4099367459_3eb6aa3e74.jpg&hash=22c8d3e031e1781f57ca1a0749629b13d7e0659d)

Here's what it should be:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2488%2F4099367461_6237d14333.jpg&hash=4d33677109c88b21ff06578dc693fdff7d2027e9)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on November 13, 2009, 03:11:13 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2705%2F4076233319_38cc4b2146_b.jpg&hash=82f9a34a923ba06e25e7c896252468d5ff95e3e7)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on November 13, 2009, 06:24:00 PM
This one I found 2 weeks ago:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F100_0291.jpg&hash=7a0b49f4e3dd14e097c5af0903933ced8b5c1540)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 13, 2009, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: Truvelo on November 12, 2009, 09:33:33 AM
During my stay in Ohio last week I strayed into Kentucky where I saw the US shields are a little different with the bottoms being pointy compared to the one in the picture above.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedcam.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk%2Fkentucky23.jpg&hash=a266a95cbcb25d86253463ee7a12a4f430ad984f)

Kentucky has been using those fugly-shaped shields for a few years now. Of course the biggest error in that photo is the error that the voters of this state made in electing the governor whose name adorns that Welcome to Kentucky sign.  :angry:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 14, 2009, 12:27:14 AM
that or the awkwardly long domain name.  What, was ky.gov.us too easy to remember?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 14, 2009, 09:02:32 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 14, 2009, 12:27:14 AM
that or the awkwardly long domain name.  What, was ky.gov.us too easy to remember?

Look closely and you'll see a "blueout" for the governor's name. The previous administration used the Kentucky Unbridled Spirit logo to "brand" the state for marketing purposes. I'm not sure if the KUS.com domain redirects to the main state site or not.

That being said, I prefer that fugly shield to the ones West Virginia uses that don't even seem to have a point at the bottom.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on November 14, 2009, 10:22:07 PM
So, H.B., why don't you have the email of the coworker of yours that's putting up fugly shields? :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 24, 2009, 08:20:21 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fec%2F394-430.jpg&hash=def2f6405c401f5fed6c75b01c59a9c96cab9618)

Wait, so which way do I go to get to I-86\NY 17?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 24, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on November 24, 2009, 08:20:21 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fec%2F394-430.jpg&hash=def2f6405c401f5fed6c75b01c59a9c96cab9618)

Wait, so which way do I go to get to I-86\NY 17?

do all three possibilities work?  in Baker, CA, I-15 is a bypass and there are three exits: one at each end, one in the middle.  At the junction between the business loop (old US-91/466) and the cutoff road in the middle, approaching from the fourth prong, this gantry would be correct.  Somewhat senseless but correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on November 24, 2009, 11:27:16 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3469%2F3738706237_109007b6ec_b.jpg&hash=a1d599c2ecc45bfaa32331f5b637e3d9e0c058ce)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 12:02:50 AM
what is the error in that sign pair?  Is that the DC beltway, aka I-495?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on November 25, 2009, 12:52:21 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 12:02:50 AM
what is the error in that sign pair?  Is that the DC beltway, aka I-495?

I assumed that there were supposed to be Control Cities instead of the Freeway Name
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 01:17:56 AM
Quote from: Hellfighter on November 25, 2009, 12:52:21 AM

I assumed that there were supposed to be Control Cities instead of the Freeway Name

having the freeway name instead of the cities is an old California tradition that DC seems to have picked up on.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on November 25, 2009, 09:01:53 AM
Probably because everyone refers to it as the Beltway and, especially on the I-95 portion, it's pretty clear where north and south go.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on November 25, 2009, 10:00:30 AM
I noticed the to loops around Louisville have their freeway name (Gene Snyder (265) or Watterson (264) used on BGS's referring to those particular highways instead of any sort of control city.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on November 25, 2009, 10:06:08 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 24, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
do all three possibilities work?

Sure do, though taking a right onto 430 West (as shown by the TO NY17 sign) is a longer and slightly less direct way to go.  430 East goes down the east side of Chautauqua Lake towards Bemus Point and 394 East goes down the west side of the lake.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 25, 2009, 02:21:44 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 05:48:21 PM

here is a goof from Litchfield, Illinois.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Ff%2Fca%2Fx4520.jpg&hash=68f5b2979f42ec4a9627b557e52b99c50e8416fa)

A second one, eh? I got one about 3-4 years ago in Litchfield
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 02:48:24 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 25, 2009, 02:21:44 PM
A second one, eh? I got one about 3-4 years ago in Litchfield

there were indeed two in 2006, about two blocks apart.

Litchfield also signed this well after the road was decommissioned:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/IL/IL19700662i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 25, 2009, 07:03:03 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 02:48:24 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 25, 2009, 02:21:44 PM
A second one, eh? I got one about 3-4 years ago in Litchfield

there were indeed two in 2006, about two blocks apart.

Litchfield also signed this well after the road was decommissioned:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/IL/IL19700662i1.jpg)

Let us hope that sign never gets removed. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on November 25, 2009, 09:09:42 PM
^^

Is the North on the US 66 wrong as well or was it signed as NORTH-SOUTH in that part of the country?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bryant5493 on November 25, 2009, 09:48:33 PM
I've seen U.S. 41 signed as Georgia State Route 41 along Old Dixie Rd. and just north of the Barnesville city limits. I had a photo of the error near Barnesville, but deleted it by mistake. :-(

In the near future, I'm planning a day trip down U.S. 19 from I-75 and the S.R. 3 Connector to Albany. So, when I do that, I'll try to get the U.S. 41/Ga. 41 error, if it's still there. The one on Old Dixie Rd. (U.S. 19/41/S.R. 3) has been corrected.

U.S. 41 was signed as Ga. 41 on the I-75 access road from I-285 East a few years back, but I contacted GDOT and they fixed it. This was before I started roadgeeking -- before I knew what the term was. ;-)


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 11:30:17 PM
I believe the NORTH is an error.

I have seen it signed in Illinois as CHICAGO and ST. LOUIS. 

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/IL/IL19600661i1.jpg)

but generally it was EAST and WEST.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 26, 2009, 08:15:45 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 11:30:17 PM
I believe the NORTH is an error.

I have seen it signed in Illinois as CHICAGO and ST. LOUIS. 

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/IL/IL19600661i1.jpg)


In Illinois, I believe it was often posted as North-South, but I can ask on the Route 66 list to be sure ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on November 26, 2009, 10:28:43 AM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on November 12, 2009, 08:42:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.tinypic.com%2F5oxkk0.png&hash=0efe7fc3f2623acf260bf2bdeb6ce8129d7cbd5a)

Can somebody please tell me how the hell NYSDOT screwed this up?

Ummm, Australian at work? 

Or maybe a guy who played the center position on a football team? (Those guys see EVERYTHING upside down and backwards!)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on November 26, 2009, 12:11:50 PM
Quotewhat is the error in that sign pair?  Is that the DC beltway, aka I-495?

Not an error per se...but techically missing some information, since VDOT considers that stretch of the Beltway to include I-495 (for some reason, FHWA's Interstate route log does not), and they sign the other Beltway interchanges as both I-95 and I-495.

QuoteBut since SR's do not exist in Virginia Beach or any other independent city not named Suffolk

...any other independent city, period.  Suffolk's SR's officially went bye-bye when they took over maintenance from VDOT a couple years ago.

Quotehaving the freeway name instead of the cities is an old California tradition that DC seems to have picked up on.

DC proper has had it for decades, but aside from the Beltway, it isn't really used elsewhere in the region.  And even with that, there are some locations where you'll see I-95's control cities or Tyson's Corner as control cities for the Beltway and not "Capitol Beltway".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 26, 2009, 03:35:37 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 02:48:24 PM

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/IL/IL19700662i1.jpg)

Also, the sign in the back says "end CONSTRUCTION"....when was the last time you saw that!?!?  Most signs say ROAD WORK!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on November 26, 2009, 04:13:47 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on November 26, 2009, 03:35:37 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 02:48:24 PM

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/IL/IL19700662i1.jpg)

Also, the sign in the back says "end CONSTRUCTION"....when was the last time you saw that!?!?  Most signs say ROAD WORK!
In California, "END CONSTRUCTION" signs are still commonly used to mark the end of a construction/road work zone.  "ROAD CONSTRUCTION AHEAD" signs are also still common in California.  Given all that, I am starting to see more and more signs that say "ROAD WORK" instead of "ROAD CONSTRUCTION".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 26, 2009, 05:19:44 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 26, 2009, 04:13:47 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on November 26, 2009, 03:35:37 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 02:48:24 PM

--

Also, the sign in the back says "end CONSTRUCTION"....when was the last time you saw that!?!?  Most signs say ROAD WORK!
In California, "END CONSTRUCTION" signs are still commonly used to mark the end of a construction/road work zone.  "ROAD CONSTRUCTION AHEAD" signs are also still common in California.  Given all that, I am starting to see more and more signs that say "ROAD WORK" instead of "ROAD CONSTRUCTION".

PennDOT also loves to use the "End Construction" signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on November 26, 2009, 05:27:50 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on November 26, 2009, 10:28:43 AM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on November 12, 2009, 08:42:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.tinypic.com%2F5oxkk0.png&hash=0efe7fc3f2623acf260bf2bdeb6ce8129d7cbd5a)

Can somebody please tell me how the hell NYSDOT screwed this up?

Ummm, Australian at work? 

Or maybe a guy who played the center position on a football team? (Those guys see EVERYTHING upside down and backwards!)
Hey Im the center for my football team...
BigMatt
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 28, 2009, 12:47:16 PM
I moved the entire discussion on VA routes in independent cities to its own thread under Mid-Atlantic.  That includes the photo that prompted the whole discussion, as I had no idea how to duplicate it.  Here is the photo in question.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F_vGM7FtU3Pdk%2FSwzAwuQxwGI%2FAAAAAAAAC2Y%2FKCnpQyRFrgk%2Fs512%2FIMGP6249.jpg&hash=dcc7205892749af37e48928b84aa13570ffb294e)

posted by SyntheticDreamer.

here is the new discussion thread relating to that sign:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2038.0

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: City on November 28, 2009, 12:56:26 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on November 26, 2009, 10:28:43 AM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on November 12, 2009, 08:42:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.tinypic.com%2F5oxkk0.png&hash=0efe7fc3f2623acf260bf2bdeb6ce8129d7cbd5a)

Can somebody please tell me how the hell NYSDOT screwed this up?

Ummm, Australian at work? 

Or maybe a guy who played the center position on a football team? (Those guys see EVERYTHING upside down and backwards!)

Actually, I think that is a printing error. As you can see, the numbers are right side up, but the shield design is upside down. The installer probably didn't care about the design and just wanted the sign numbers to look right-side-up (or the route is actually called l6E :sombrero:).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Riverside Frwy on November 28, 2009, 07:39:34 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 02:48:24 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 25, 2009, 02:21:44 PM
A second one, eh? I got one about 3-4 years ago in Litchfield

there were indeed two in 2006, about two blocks apart.

Litchfield also signed this well after the road was decommissioned:

<Snip>




So this how US 66 would have looked like using a modern sign if it wasn't decommissioned.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 28, 2009, 08:20:16 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fus_15%2Fnroch.jpg&hash=b780bf924ac2bc2f7be8239bea6aa1eed18f0ffe)

Since when was I-390 an east\west route?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on November 29, 2009, 04:20:53 AM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on November 28, 2009, 08:20:16 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fus_15%2Fnroch.jpg&hash=b780bf924ac2bc2f7be8239bea6aa1eed18f0ffe)

Since when was I-390 an east\west route?

A sign-design error is evident as well. The MUTCD does either discourages or flat out disallows the use of independent-use directional banners on a guide sign like this (i.e. the west banners underneath the I-86 & NY 17 shields should be a printed in white directly on the green area of the sign above/next to the shields).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 29, 2009, 02:01:29 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 02:48:24 PM
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/IL/IL19700662i1.jpg)

I've asked around and appears to be a contractor error. No one remembers North-South on 66, even in Illinois
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: City on November 29, 2009, 02:07:14 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 29, 2009, 04:20:53 AM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on November 28, 2009, 08:20:16 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fus_15%2Fnroch.jpg&hash=b780bf924ac2bc2f7be8239bea6aa1eed18f0ffe)

Since when was I-390 an east\west route?

A sign-design error is evident as well. The MUTCD does either discourages or flat out disallows the use of independent-use directional banners on a guide sign like this (i.e. the west banners underneath the I-86 & NY 17 shields should be a printed in white directly on the green area of the sign above/next to the shields).
The way the sign is worded seems funky to me. I think that the sign could be rephrased. How does "TO Rochester, USE Interstate 86/NY 17 WEST TO Interstate 390 NORTH" sound?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on November 29, 2009, 07:45:03 PM
Here's a good one:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F100_0628.jpg&hash=a887baaaa8f9d37caa582ef606b2bc6463808356)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 29, 2009, 07:49:03 PM
I've always wondered if that "extra large initial capital letter" style was ever a federal spec, because it pops up more often than expected.  It was a California state spec ... before 1958!

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19550151i1.jpg)

the style pops up in California every so often, but to see it in another state is odd.  I've seen it somewhere else, but cannot remember where - neither California nor Alabama though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on November 29, 2009, 08:15:43 PM
Quote from: City on November 29, 2009, 02:07:14 PM

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fus_15%2Fnroch.jpg&hash=b780bf924ac2bc2f7be8239bea6aa1eed18f0ffe)

A sign-design error is evident as well. The MUTCD does either discourages or flat out disallows the use of independent-use directional banners on a guide sign like this (i.e. the west banners underneath the I-86 & NY 17 shields should be a printed in white directly on the green area of the sign above/next to the shields).

I am willing to bet that that BGS is a sign that was around during the pre-I-86 days, and there was probably a larger NY-17 shield which was where the current 86 & 17 shields are now. 

And as far as the wording, I would think that saying "Rochester via I-390" would be sufficient for the first half of the BGS, no?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on November 29, 2009, 09:14:14 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 29, 2009, 07:49:03 PM
I've always wondered if that "extra large initial capital letter" style was ever a federal spec, because it pops up more often than expected.  It was a California state spec ... before 1958!

J.N. Winkler and I have had a discussion on this, and he theorized that it results from newbie sign designers misinterpreting some particular section of the MUTCD (something about the lowercase loop height being misconstrued as requiring adjustment of the uppercase loop height).

My idea was that it results from a DOT that uses some form of demountable copy (either retroreflective like KS did up till a few years ago, or button copy) running out of some particular letter needed to complete the message at the desired size, so they bump the lowercase letters down to the next smaller size to hurry up and get the sign out. J.N. noted that a good many of that type of sign in Kansas appear to be emergency quick & dirty replacements.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: City on November 29, 2009, 09:25:27 PM
Quote from: jdb1234 on November 29, 2009, 07:45:03 PM
Here's a good one:

(Interstate 65/CR 17)

Epic spacing fail.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on November 30, 2009, 12:21:21 AM
Here's Another one:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F100_0342.jpg&hash=740e5a1f1c42a207a606ba5d0751b36e1ddbdb64)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on November 30, 2009, 06:36:01 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 29, 2009, 08:15:43 PM
Quote from: City on November 29, 2009, 02:07:14 PM

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fus_15%2Fnroch.jpg&hash=b780bf924ac2bc2f7be8239bea6aa1eed18f0ffe)

A sign-design error is evident as well. The MUTCD does either discourages or flat out disallows the use of independent-use directional banners on a guide sign like this (i.e. the west banners underneath the I-86 & NY 17 shields should be a printed in white directly on the green area of the sign above/next to the shields).

I am willing to bet that that BGS is a sign that was around during the pre-I-86 days, and there was probably a larger NY-17 shield which was where the current 86 & 17 shields are now. 

And as far as the wording, I would think that saying "Rochester via I-390" would be sufficient for the first half of the BGS, no?

Ah, on closer inspection I see evidence of where a larger shield may have been placed where the I-86 shield is now.  They probably could have done without the I-390 shield or used some greenout to make the "via I-390" legend a bit clearer.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on November 30, 2009, 12:23:56 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 29, 2009, 07:49:03 PM
I've always wondered if that "extra large initial capital letter" style was ever a federal spec, because it pops up more often than expected.  It was a California state spec ... before 1958!

(Image removed - see quoted post)

the style pops up in California every so often, but to see it in another state is odd.  I've seen it somewhere else, but cannot remember where - neither California nor Alabama though.

The Illinois Tollway (ISTHA) uses it quite often on minor signage.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on November 30, 2009, 04:15:03 PM
On WB I-76 east of Denver, there are several mile markers that use a US 76 shield instead of an I-76 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 30, 2009, 04:29:21 PM
This is also on Alps' site but here is the infamous US-route triplex in Colonial Heights, VA between US 1, US 301, and US 144, wait actually it's VA 144.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FVA144NORTHATUS1ANDUS301SOUTH2.jpg&hash=c492af8cd5baa47a3ed06094ebbb7ee393cb7592)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on November 30, 2009, 06:27:20 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 30, 2009, 06:36:01 AM

Ah, on closer inspection I see evidence of where a larger shield may have been placed where the I-86 shield is now.  They probably could have done without the I-390 shield or used some greenout to make the "via I-390" legend a bit clearer.
It looks like the I-390 shield was tacked on after the fact as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wytout on December 14, 2009, 02:47:54 PM
Someone at the sign shop didn't realize that Big-cap/Little-caps wording is reserved for cardinal directions on signage I guess.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fpersonal%2Fannuccello.jpg&hash=b62991bbfb1c77f5a1c8c91eb77aae0df06f2595)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 14, 2009, 03:54:13 PM
Quote from: Terry Shea on October 19, 2009, 09:32:26 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on October 19, 2009, 08:08:00 AM
I showed you that US 52 sign on Pasco CR 583 & Florida SR 52, and those incorrect cardinal direction banners on I-75 at Exit 309. Now I'm going to show you one of many signs placed southbound along I-75 and the Suncoast Parkway.



(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg207.imageshack.us%2Fimg207%2F3706%2Fsuncoastpkwyerroneousde.jpg&hash=2ad1195ccbede336f1232e7d2c02aa141d8b28e1)

There's no way in hell that you'll reach St. Petersburg before you reach Tampa.





Ah, but the sign is telling us that it's 52 miles to I-275 (which takes us to St Pete) not to St Pete itself.  Probably would have been better to leave any city designation off from that part of the sign though to avoid any confusion.
Ah, yes. Some of them have the word "TO" placed in them.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on December 14, 2009, 05:35:38 PM
^^^

That mix of Clearview and FHWA on the EXIT 49 sign doesn't help much either.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on December 14, 2009, 05:40:34 PM
Quote from: mightyace on December 14, 2009, 05:35:38 PM
^^^

That mix of Clearview and FHWA on the EXIT 49 sign doesn't help much either.

At least it's a tab versus the main part of the sign.  The Illinois Tollway has a few signs along eastbound I-88 that transition from Highway Gothic to Clearview fromt he top to the bottom of the sign.  There's at least 3 separate signs, all for the 22nd Street exit, that do this.  They are as follows:

[Highway Gothic]
22nd Street
TO {83}
[Clearview]
1/2 MILE (or 1 MILE or 1/4 MILE)

I seriously need to get pictures of those mutants one day.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wytout on December 14, 2009, 06:30:27 PM
I think the sign is all Highway Gothic, but just a mix of type heaviness, etc... I do remember when the sign was Ann St, High St. only a few years ago.  The sign changed in 2007 I think?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on December 14, 2009, 06:53:19 PM
Quote from: wytout on December 14, 2009, 06:30:27 PM
I think the sign is all Highway Gothic, but just a mix of type heaviness, etc... I do remember when the sign was Ann St, High St. only a few years ago.  The sign changed in 2007 I think?

I'm sorry, I just assumed since the Exit 49 sign was ugly that it was Clearview!  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 15, 2009, 12:53:07 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2662%2F4186296591_c817b160c2.jpg&hash=77187cfd1ac99463b91438a7467404fd03b1eabe) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4186296591/)

The error here is that this isn't where US 60 ends. US 60 ends on Atlantic Avenue at Rudee Inlet (Virginia Beach), just to the east. It's never been where this sign is (near the northern end of General Booth Boulevard).

This is where the actual endpoint is (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=36.83055,-75.970244&spn=0,359.994319&z=18&layer=c&cbll=36.830452,-75.970277&panoid=BFQ6lWoZqwdLw8NkaDmFjg&cbp=12,164.65,,0,8.31).

(If anyone wants to use this for some reason I do have a watermark-free version that's the same size.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 15, 2009, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on December 15, 2009, 12:53:07 AM
(If anyone wants to use this for some reason I do have a watermark-free version that's the same size.)

So, then, how far along is your "Operation Watermark?"  :-D :-D :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on December 15, 2009, 01:34:06 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 15, 2009, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on December 15, 2009, 12:53:07 AM
(If anyone wants to use this for some reason I do have a watermark-free version that's the same size.)

So, then, how far along is your "Operation Watermark?"  :-D :-D :-D

It's easy to remove such a watermark. Just look at this picture where I've completely removed all the light poles :wow:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10163%2Fnormal_m6qu.jpg&hash=008e4034f880e3eb628bb916ef31de2c63c588bb) (http://sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10163/m6qu.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10163%2Fnormal_wai2304.jpg&hash=050d444a89e7f9ab166f2011e71a3e4888183066) (http://sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10163/wai2304.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on December 15, 2009, 03:02:59 PM
How on Earth did you do that?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on December 15, 2009, 03:13:38 PM
Quote from: deanej on December 15, 2009, 03:02:59 PM
How on Earth did you do that?

In Windows Paint using the copy and paste tools. Just grab a section of vegetation and copy it somewhere else.

Look at the full size pictures and notice the phone number on the back of the white truck and the licence plate numbers on the cars :colorful:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2009, 03:24:43 PM
wow you did the cloning in Paint???  that's hardcore  :sombrero:

I've been known to remove cars (especially SUVs) from my road photos.  

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/blog/photos/073345.jpg)

find three cars: win a prize

usually I also take out power lines, as those are distracting as Hell... in this case I left them in as they added to the composition by giving one more item heading toward the vanishing point.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on December 15, 2009, 03:28:49 PM
Unfortunately that picture is too small to see the tell tale artifacts of a doctored image.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2009, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: Truvelo on December 15, 2009, 03:28:49 PM
Unfortunately that picture is too small to see the tell tale artifacts of a doctored image.

mine?  here, have a bigger version:

www.aaroads.com/shields/blog/photos/DSC_073345A.jpg

I do not know if you can find the vehicles, but you will definitely able to see where I set the boundary between "ground" and "sky" and exposed the two halves of the image differently. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on January 09, 2010, 09:05:23 PM
I was driving around the Columbus area today, and I found some erroneous signage right in our local neck o' the woods.  Thought I'd post:

I-270 Exit 27 - Cleveland Avenue (OH-710)

1) Approaching the intersection from the west, we see that the exit is marked as Ohio State Route 710 at the one-mile advance sign.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FS0kxQ-H84LI%2FAAAAAAAABHI%2FmGSCA1uTSPs%2Fs1152%2FIMG_9256.JPG&hash=041ac328fd57fcb450c5f5b91ab861ca8add74a1)

2) At 1/2 mile prior to the gore point, the exit sign is still marked the same, but denotes the right-hand lane as "Exit Only"

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FS0kxRTDP_kI%2FAAAAAAAABHM%2FpqeYDpaAfHM%2Fs576%2FIMG_9257.JPG&hash=8f38cf73d1d5b9446ffc4c72e0278d5c5f0268e9)

3) At the gore point from I-270, the sign shows exit only in two lanes, and notates Ohio State Route 710 as 'North-South'.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FS0kxSEyM67I%2FAAAAAAAABHQ%2FPuaFs818T0Y%2Fs800%2FIMG_9258.JPG&hash=ea1b6581c6dc557e5cf30ba4b983ef861e1ed808)

4) However, further on the exit ramp at the C/D split for the cloverleaf, it seems that only North Cleveland Avenue is marked as Ohio State Route 710, not South?  The Advance Signs don't match this sign.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FS0kxSkCfSKI%2FAAAAAAAABHU%2FVKnKm0Bim6s%2Fs1024%2FIMG_9259.JPG&hash=e630b17c8ec4595c0385aec427c54bf7ca2a1170)

5) To further complicate the matter, it looks like Google Maps shows the section of Cleveland Avenue SOUTH of I-270 as OH-710, not the North Section?  Which is correct?

Google Maps Link --> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=westerville,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.37814,108.544922&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Westerville,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=40.105649,-82.947915&spn=0.011981,0.0265&z=16 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=westerville,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.37814,108.544922&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Westerville,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=40.105649,-82.947915&spn=0.011981,0.0265&z=16)

Eastbound OH-16/37 Expressway near Granville, OH

1) This exit must have been reconfigured recently because they seem to have left an extra exit sign hanging around  :sombrero:.  I wouldn't follow the arrow here...it would not be a happy place.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FS0kvvscEWsI%2FAAAAAAAABGw%2F66GiwqqMbOE%2Fs912%2FIMG_9304.JPG&hash=05f3c41517f31c0a6e1f57539ac7166e963be6ef)

2) The actual exit is about 1/2 mile further down the road....mounted on a sign bridge :)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FS0k1dgaYyFI%2FAAAAAAAABIA%2FcvvwtDKaRPk%2Fs720%2FIMG_9305.JPG&hash=e4b5a0fd7df8e44204845cd25aa2e084d035ad3e)

Google Maps Link --> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=granville,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.37814,108.544922&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Granville,+Licking,+Ohio&ll=40.059795,-82.523203&spn=0.011989,0.0265&z=16 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=granville,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.37814,108.544922&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Granville,+Licking,+Ohio&ll=40.059795,-82.523203&spn=0.011989,0.0265&z=16)




Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 10, 2010, 12:21:58 AM
shoptb1, the first two images in your post above are the same. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: joseph1723 on January 10, 2010, 12:24:15 AM
I found this one online:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg31.imageshack.us%2Fimg31%2F165%2F70708576.jpg&hash=e4d1ed627b21f2240442b988919742fe43b86b4a)
To Highyway 10 :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on January 10, 2010, 12:24:59 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 10, 2010, 12:21:58 AM
shoptb1, the first two images in your post above are the same. :P

Doh!  Corrected it, thanks!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on January 10, 2010, 09:24:55 PM
Another interesting sighting driving around today....not sure which shield is correct...look a little further down the street.   :-D

North Nelson Rd (US-62 East or North) at Broad Street (US-40 / OH-16)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FS0qLFaNhf3I%2FAAAAAAAABOg%2FVN48Gwk9qEo%2Fs800%2FIMG_9400.JPG&hash=92476f336dc0193ce72ec150513baa5c4b6ffbf9)

Google Maps Link --> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.418008,101.953125&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=39.967939,-82.950536&spn=0.001573,0.003111&t=h&z=19 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.418008,101.953125&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=39.967939,-82.950536&spn=0.001573,0.003111&t=h&z=19)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on January 14, 2010, 12:10:39 AM
Lets see if anyone can figure this one out:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F100_0365.jpg&hash=de07d53208c880ab5a8fc28fd6a14527b6cdf981)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mapman on January 14, 2010, 01:35:05 AM
Hmm.... this answer must be subtle.  I've been able to pinpoint this picture as northbound I-65 just south of Birmingham, AL, and the street names and exit numbers appear correct.  Any further hints?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on January 14, 2010, 01:36:44 AM
Is it the lack of an exit only plaque?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 14, 2010, 05:47:31 AM
Is it the truck parked on the shoulder with the sign saying lane closed (with arrows instead of text)?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on January 14, 2010, 07:59:56 AM
It's not an error, per se, but one could arguably put a "TO AL 149" on either exit panel.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: codyg1985 on January 14, 2010, 11:52:28 AM
Exit number should be 254?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on January 14, 2010, 01:19:22 PM
Exit 254 is Alford Ave.  It's not that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on January 14, 2010, 02:40:46 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 14, 2010, 01:36:44 AM
Is it the lack of an exit only plaque?

I would say that you're right, but apparently Exit Only signs are optional if the lane exiting isn't considered part of the mainline.  At least that's what I've been told from ODOT in the past.  I'm not convinced, but what can ya do.  :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on January 14, 2010, 05:16:44 PM
Actually, the error is that Exit 255 is not for Lakeshore Drive.  The exit is actually for Lakeshore Parkway.  Lakeshore Drive begins about a half-mile east of here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bryant5493 on January 14, 2010, 10:33:51 PM
Quote from: jdb1234 on January 14, 2010, 12:10:39 AM
Lets see if anyone can figure this one out:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F100_0365.jpg&hash=de07d53208c880ab5a8fc28fd6a14527b6cdf981)

I think that ALDOT could've spelled out "Drive," since it was on a line by itself. Personal preference, I guess.

But, very subtle. ;-)


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on January 15, 2010, 07:03:06 AM
Quote from: shoptb1 on January 10, 2010, 09:24:55 PM
Another interesting sighting driving around today....not sure which shield is correct...look a little further down the street.   :-D

North Nelson Rd (US-62 East or North) at Broad Street (US-40 / OH-16)


Google Maps Link --> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.418008,101.953125&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=39.967939,-82.950536&spn=0.001573,0.003111&t=h&z=19 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.418008,101.953125&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=39.967939,-82.950536&spn=0.001573,0.003111&t=h&z=19)



Honestly, neither is ODOT.  The old north-east/south-west/etc. routes are very inconsistently signed as one or the other, so this doesn't surprise me.  US 33 is another example, which I think switched from N-S to E-W.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on January 15, 2010, 11:30:25 PM
Quote from: jdb1234 on January 14, 2010, 05:16:44 PM
Actually, the error is that Exit 255 is not for Lakeshore Drive.  The exit is actually for Lakeshore Parkway.  Lakeshore Drive begins about a half-mile east of here.

OK, can we stop these hunt-and-peck guess-the-error games for stuff that we cannot possibly know from the picture unless we're from the area? Unless it's blazingly obvious, just state the error, please!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on January 17, 2010, 02:02:15 AM
Quote from: shoptb1 on January 09, 2010, 09:05:23 PM
I was driving around the Columbus area today, and I found some erroneous signage right in our local neck o' the woods.  Thought I'd post:


3) At the gore point from I-270, the sign shows exit only in two lanes, and notates Ohio State Route 710 as 'North-South'.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FS0kxSEyM67I%2FAAAAAAAABHQ%2FPuaFs818T0Y%2Fs800%2FIMG_9258.JPG&hash=ea1b6581c6dc557e5cf30ba4b983ef861e1ed808)

4) However, further on the exit ramp at the C/D split for the cloverleaf, it seems that only North Cleveland Avenue is marked as Ohio State Route 710, not South?  The Advance Signs don't match this sign.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FS0kxSkCfSKI%2FAAAAAAAABHU%2FVKnKm0Bim6s%2Fs1024%2FIMG_9259.JPG&hash=e630b17c8ec4595c0385aec427c54bf7ca2a1170)


Ohio 710 north actually ends at the I-270 intersection, but is unsigned as such...the last North 710 is an indicated south turn on Cleveland Ave toward I-270....but it is not marked that the route actually ends, so you could drive a long while wondering about that....

the other end of 710 is clearly marked as an endpoint...why, i do not know...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on January 17, 2010, 02:09:18 AM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on January 15, 2010, 07:03:06 AM
Quote from: shoptb1 on January 10, 2010, 09:24:55 PM
Another interesting sighting driving around today....not sure which shield is correct...look a little further down the street.   :-D

North Nelson Rd (US-62 East or North) at Broad Street (US-40 / OH-16)


Google Maps Link --> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.418008,101.953125&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=39.967939,-82.950536&spn=0.001573,0.003111&t=h&z=19 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.418008,101.953125&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=39.967939,-82.950536&spn=0.001573,0.003111&t=h&z=19)



Honestly, neither is ODOT.  The old north-east/south-west/etc. routes are very inconsistently signed as one or the other, so this doesn't surprise me.  US 33 is another example, which I think switched from N-S to E-W.

In the old days prior to the late 80s-early 90s, US 62 was marked as N-East/S-West (US 33 was marked as N-West and S-East).   

The explanation I got from an ODOT worker was that most of the time, the routes are signed in the general direction they are headed at that moment by the locals who control the signs (In Columbus, the city is responsible for signing and maintenance of Interstate, state and US routes). Officially, Ohio considers US 33 and US 35 to be more E-W as both routes travel in more of those directions than N-S.  US 62 is officially N-S, as it's meandering pathway through Ohio is more north-south than east-west (even though nationally, US 62 is deemed E-W)....
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on January 17, 2010, 03:08:57 AM
Caught one in downtown Eugene today, courtesy of ODOT (what a shock...). Surprisingly, it wasn't a reassurance shield botch-up like usual. It was worse:

Approaching the I-105/OR126 ramps in downtown heading north on OR99/west on Bus OR126, a BGS reads, "To Freeways I-5 I-105 [with shields, natch]".

Uhhhh...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on January 17, 2010, 11:24:27 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on January 17, 2010, 02:09:18 AM
The explanation I got from an ODOT worker was that most of the time, the routes are signed in the general direction they are headed at that moment by the locals who control the signs (In Columbus, the city is responsible for signing and maintenance of Interstate, state and US routes). Officially, Ohio considers US 33 and US 35 to be more E-W as both routes travel in more of those directions than N-S.  US 62 is officially N-S, as it's meandering pathway through Ohio is more north-south than east-west (even though nationally, US 62 is deemed E-W)....

I actually wish they would still be able to sign the routes as NE, NW, SE, and SW considering that 33, 35, and 62 all move primarily in these directions in the state of Ohio vs. N, S, E, or W.  It would be nice, however, if they would pick a ordinal and go with it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on January 18, 2010, 10:49:51 AM
Quote from: shoptb1 on January 17, 2010, 11:24:27 PM

I actually wish they would still be able to sign the routes as NE, NW, SE, and SW considering that 33, 35, and 62 all move primarily in these directions in the state of Ohio vs. N, S, E, or W.  It would be nice, however, if they would pick a ordinal and go with it.

Add to the list of former "dual-direction" routes that were signed as such:  US-42 and SR-3.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on January 18, 2010, 10:55:16 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on January 17, 2010, 02:09:18 AMUS 62 is officially N-S, as it's meandering pathway through Ohio is more north-south than east-west (even though nationally, US 62 is deemed E-W)....

Actually, everywhere I can recall seeing US 62 signed in Ohio, it's E-W. I know it certainly is after it crosses from Kentucky into Ohio. In Kentucky, both US 62 and US 68 are E-W routes. Upon crossing into the Worthless Nut State, 62 remains E-W but 68 becomes N-S.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 18, 2010, 11:12:42 PM
This isn't VA 147 duplexing with itself; Richmond forgot a "to".

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4001%2F4284300360_2697fc6a50.jpg&hash=865072552d57a1427c9e5699f3de1fe16a28e577)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on January 18, 2010, 11:42:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 18, 2010, 10:55:16 PM
Actually, everywhere I can recall seeing US 62 signed in Ohio, it's E-W. I know it certainly is after it crosses from Kentucky into Ohio. In Kentucky, both US 62 and US 68 are E-W routes. Upon crossing into the Worthless Nut State, 62 remains E-W but 68 becomes N-S.

There are quite a few North-South US-62 signs scattered throughout the Columbus metro.  Again, it seems to be done this way on a localized direction basis, and probably up to the individual engineer's discretion.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on February 07, 2010, 01:00:35 PM
I found this gem while trolling around Casper yesterday

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdavidjcorcoran.com%2Fwhat58.jpg&hash=e4b402222b08d28a0256e684a0cd097018eda9e7)

Now, this route only lasts for another block (to 20/26/87), so it seems a tad ridiculous to mark it so well, but that's not the error.

The problem is that this is Wyoming Highway 258. WYO 158 is a lonely spur from WYO 92 to some dirt roads along the Nebraska state line. I checked just to make sure, but following this sign did not teleport me there, so I can only assume it's an error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on February 07, 2010, 01:29:08 PM
Quote from: corco on February 07, 2010, 01:00:35 PM
I found this gem while trolling around Casper yesterday

Now, this route only lasts for another block (to 20/26/87), so it seems a tad ridiculous to mark it so well, but that's not the error.

In a similar vein, ODOT recently put up this sign bridge on northbound I-5 in Eugene (OR 569 was only signed on Belt Line Rd in Nov. 2007, so these are the first BGS's on I-5 noting the route).  There's another sign bridge in the distance with basically the same info.  No problem with 569 west, but if you exit onto eastbound you will quickly (half a block) pass under a sign bridge with an "END 569" sign, so why bother to inform you it's 569 east?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOregon%2520State%2520Routes%2FOR569Springfield1.jpg%3Ft%3D1268695827&hash=433aa6e97def02632c7a425177162c8b89ac099f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on February 07, 2010, 06:45:51 PM
Quote from: corco on February 07, 2010, 01:00:35 PM
I found this gem while trolling around Casper yesterday

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdavidjcorcoran.com%2Fwhat58.jpg&hash=e4b402222b08d28a0256e684a0cd097018eda9e7)

What is the brand of the fuel station in the background of this photo? I ask because Kroger uses the same logo in this area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on February 07, 2010, 07:31:32 PM
Loaf 'n Jug- it's also a Kroger product. Out here that logo can be found on Loaf 'n Jug, King Soopers, City Market, Fred Meyer, and Smith's gas stations. Then there's a few others (Kwik Stop, I think, or something along those lines, and then Turkey Hill out in Pennsylvania, and then a couple others).

A few years ago Kroger bought a bunch of regional gas station chains and commonized them all with that logo and you can buy Kroger branded products in the store
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on February 08, 2010, 12:40:50 PM
Quote from: corco on February 07, 2010, 07:31:32 PM
Loaf 'n Jug- it's also a Kroger product. Out here that logo can be found on Loaf 'n Jug, King Soopers, City Market, Fred Meyer, and Smith's gas stations. Then there's a few others (Kwik Stop, I think, or something along those lines, and then Turkey Hill out in Pennsylvania, and then a couple others).

A few years ago Kroger bought a bunch of regional gas station chains and commonized them all with that logo and you can buy Kroger branded products in the store

The Tom Thumb chain in the southeast also uses the same logo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on February 08, 2010, 01:05:49 PM
Quote from: AARoads on February 08, 2010, 12:40:50 PM
The Tom Thumb chain in the southeast also uses the same logo.

Interesting, considering that they are owned by Safeway (just as Dominick's is).  The Food 4 Lesses here in Chicagoland use it due to their Kroger ownership.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on February 08, 2010, 02:26:08 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 08, 2010, 01:05:49 PM
Quote from: AARoads on February 08, 2010, 12:40:50 PM
The Tom Thumb chain in the southeast also uses the same logo.

Interesting, considering that they are owned by Safeway (just as Dominick's is).  The Food 4 Lesses here in Chicagoland use it due to their Kroger ownership.

There are two different Tom Thumb chains.  This is what is causing confusion here. 

1) Tom Thumb convenience stores, which has about 116 locations in Southern Alabama and in Northwest Florida.  Dillon Companies acquired the Tom Thumb Food Stores in 1984. Dillon Companies is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Kroger Company. 

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomt.com%2Fimages%2Flogo_tom-thumb.gif&hash=5a872581a70f732cd688ff6937c11d80392c38ee)

2) Tom Thumb Food & Pharmacy is a chain of supermarkets in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex.  Tom Thumb and Randall's Food Markets make up the 112-store Texas division of Safeway Inc. 

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_njeD0zyqdIY%2FShasQLwKZcI%2FAAAAAAAAAF0%2FzwjrGd3Mjps%2Fs400%2FtomthumbLogo.gif&hash=c97069727d22625d7408039206229d600f5ba121)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on February 08, 2010, 11:22:48 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 08, 2010, 01:05:49 PM
Quote from: AARoads on February 08, 2010, 12:40:50 PM
The Tom Thumb chain in the southeast also uses the same logo.

Interesting, considering that they are owned by Safeway (just as Dominick's is).  The Food 4 Lesses here in Chicagoland use it due to their Kroger ownership.

Doesn't Kroger own Safeway?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on February 08, 2010, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 08, 2010, 11:22:48 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 08, 2010, 01:05:49 PM
Quote from: AARoads on February 08, 2010, 12:40:50 PM
The Tom Thumb chain in the southeast also uses the same logo.

Interesting, considering that they are owned by Safeway (just as Dominick's is).  The Food 4 Lesses here in Chicagoland use it due to their Kroger ownership.

Doesn't Kroger own Safeway?

No, they are competitors.  From Wikipedia...so ya know it's true  :sombrero:

1) Safeway Inc. (NYSE: SWY), a Fortune 500 company, is North America's third largest supermarket chain, with, as of December 29, 2007, 1743 stores located throughout the western and central United States and western Canada. It also operates some stores in the Mid-Atlantic region of the Eastern Seaboard. The company is headquartered in Pleasanton, California. Supermarket News ranked Safeway No. 4 in the 2007 "Top 75 North American Food Retailers" based on 2006 fiscal year estimated sales of $40.5 billion. Based on 2005 revenue, Safeway is the tenth-largest retailer in the United States.

2) The Kroger Co. (NYSE: KR) is an American retail supermarket chain and parent company, founded by Bernard Kroger in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio. It reported US$76 billion in sales during fiscal year 2008. It is the country's largest grocery store chain and its second-largest grocery retailer by volume and second-place general retailer in the country, with Wal-Mart being the largest. As of the first quarter of 2009, Kroger operated, either directly or through its subsidiaries, 2,475 supermarkets, and had 798 fuel centers.  Kroger's headquarters are centralized in Downtown Cincinnati, but it spans many states with store formats that include supermarkets, hypermarkets, department stores, convenience stores and mall jewelry stores. Kroger-branded grocery stores are located throughout the Midwestern and Southern United States.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on February 09, 2010, 12:54:53 AM
I wasn't able to get a good picture because I didn't notice it, but I just caught a glimpse of it out of the margins of one of the pictures I took- here we have a circular highway shield on a stoplight street name panel designating WYO 220. Check out the upper right:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2Fwy%2F220%2F487to258%2F4.jpg&hash=1da48a375f83d3c8bf8a3e747ed038c54e386d53)

The google street view image is slightly better:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=casper+wy&sll=35.576917,-95.421753&sspn=1.796013,5.410767&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Casper,+Natrona,+Wyoming&ll=42.808426,-106.413713&spn=0.012657,0.042272&z=15&layer=c&cbll=42.808406,-106.413846&panoid=fa7X2VFzP4H6a3rl5l0DkA&cbp=12,153.28,,0,-9.98
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on February 09, 2010, 10:38:15 AM
Shoptb1, I initially thought you were talking about the grocery chain.  Thanks, I did not know there were two different Tom Thumb chains.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on February 09, 2010, 02:35:35 PM
I just found a US 222 that should be NY 222 in Groton on Google Street View (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&sll=42.591795,-76.366739&sspn=0.022906,0.055747&ie=UTF8&ll=42.591783,-76.366718&spn=0.001331,0.006968&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.591782,-76.366719&panoid=X72db__6xksuceu1cUVzEw&cbp=11,264.56,,0,2.3).

On a side note, the bridge behind the sign is for a private residence.  I think it'd be cool to live in a house with a bridge in the driveway, until it needed to be repaired or replaced.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on February 10, 2010, 10:06:39 AM
Yeah... when it gets to the point it needs repaired or replaced, then it probably isn't so cool.  (Occasionally there are articles in the paper or where ever about people who can't afford it and are worried they'll be "stuck")

That said, if I had to have a bridge as part of my driveway, I'd try to make it some sort of drawbridge.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on March 15, 2010, 02:17:16 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi44.tinypic.com%2F2mzi8m8.jpg&hash=6cf9500915b7078411d9b3617417b9e05e89fcf9)

404- NY shields not found.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on March 15, 2010, 03:39:43 PM
^^^
I put that in the "plausible error" category as, theoretically, a US 404 could exist in NY.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on March 15, 2010, 04:44:44 PM
^^^ It does meet NY 104, which was once US 104.

P.S.: I was all ready to say "Shopped!" until I did a minimal amount of research (translation: Wikipedia and Google). ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on March 16, 2010, 12:02:31 PM
Here is an error I saw this past weekend:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4026%2F4433375067_ca4f2e74d0_b.jpg&hash=0b4897cb4ef7eb07e7ce6ddfb7e87862208e1263)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on March 16, 2010, 12:55:20 PM
Quote from: okroads on March 16, 2010, 12:02:31 PM
Here is an error I saw this past weekend:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4026%2F4433375067_ca4f2e74d0_b.jpg&hash=0b4897cb4ef7eb07e7ce6ddfb7e87862208e1263)

How nice of them to give you 1/2 mile advance notice of the upside-down sign :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on March 16, 2010, 03:17:53 PM
Here's the same sign, used properly before Tipperary Hill's upside-down traffic light in Syracuse:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fnypics%2Ftipperary%2Ftip3.jpg&hash=97acbc4373ed9806dc711646433908eeab8c23da)
Credit: Gribblenation
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on March 16, 2010, 04:40:48 PM
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/augsta_sign_waycross.jpg)

As if it was not odd enough that Augusta is a control city for U.S. 1 way down in Waycross, this sign directs drivers to "AUGSTA"!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on March 17, 2010, 12:37:22 PM
Is there just nothing between Waycross and Augusta on US 1?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 17, 2010, 12:49:22 PM
no major cities, no.  just a bunch of mid-size towns of similar size to Waycross.  And the small town of Santa Claus, it looks like! 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on March 17, 2010, 02:55:18 PM
^^^ Complete with Candy Cane Street and Rudolph Way!

Google Maps link (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=32.170563,-82.328196&spn=0.013604,0.027874&z=16)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: joseph1723 on March 18, 2010, 12:49:08 AM
Here's another one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg20.imageshack.us%2Fimg20%2F8686%2Fon401407.jpg&hash=e43b7c2e12f138838833beecdeaf0bbed7a85b0c)

Who ever decided that 407 ETR was a King's Highway and should use a crown shield like ON 401 and using helvetica for shield is a big no no.

:banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CL on March 18, 2010, 07:17:25 PM
Quote from: joseph1723 on March 18, 2010, 12:49:08 AM
Here's another one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg20.imageshack.us%2Fimg20%2F8686%2Fon401407.jpg&hash=e43b7c2e12f138838833beecdeaf0bbed7a85b0c)

Who ever decided that 407 ETR was a King's Highway and should use a crown shield like ON 401 and using helvetica for shield is a big no no.

:banghead:

And unfortunately, the font on those shields is worse than Helvetica: it's Arial! Check out that horrible one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: joseph1723 on March 18, 2010, 11:48:22 PM
Quote from: CL on March 18, 2010, 07:17:25 PM
And unfortunately, the font on those shields is worse than Helvetica: it's Arial! Check out that horrible one.

Yeah I didn't notice that the font was Arial. I believe that shield a actually a product of the city of Mississauga and not the MTO which explains the weirdness of it. Imho I'll take a clearview shield over this one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 19, 2010, 11:25:31 AM
Nearly several years ago, I suggested new CR shields on Interstate 75 at Exit 309 in southern Sumter County, Florida to FDOT District #5. Unfortunatley, they screwed them up.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg704.imageshack.us%2Fimg704%2F6470%2Fexit309errors.jpg&hash=cbc7612e4dd74bf74acb0e1575f6a74fd179de9b) (http://img704.imageshack.us/i/exit309errors.jpg/)


Sumter County Road 673 goes east and west, and Sumter County Road 476B goes north and south.

Yes, that's my hairy arm in the side-view mirror.  :-P


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on March 19, 2010, 01:42:36 PM
Way wrong and way too good!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fepicwinftw.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2F129133520522393318.jpg&hash=90c439a7ccece8be05cdc5aa7c929fcadbe35a98)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 19, 2010, 02:02:03 PM
Quote from: Hellfighter on March 19, 2010, 01:42:36 PM
Way wrong and way too good!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fepicwinftw.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2F129133520522393318.jpg&hash=90c439a7ccece8be05cdc5aa7c929fcadbe35a98)


.. I don't get it?

and I'm fairly well-versed with roads.  The average audience of the failblog and related sites will have an even harder time figuring out whatever needs to be figured out here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on March 19, 2010, 02:31:25 PM
Might have something to do with the guy who looks like he's gonna nunchuck Hoboken...

(not to mention where Hoboken and Secaucus are in relation to I-76....in other words, not even close...)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rawmustard on March 19, 2010, 02:50:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2010, 02:31:25 PM
Might have something to do with the guy who looks like he's gonna nunchuck Hoboken...

(not to mention where Hoboken and Secaucus are in relation to I-76....in other words, not even close...)

Nunchuck? Looks more like he's about to release a hadouken. :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on March 19, 2010, 03:37:55 PM
EpicWinFTW (http://epicwinftw.com) and FailBlog (http://failblog.org) are both Cheezburger (http://cheezburger.com) sites.  I go to many of their sites on a regular basis.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on March 20, 2010, 12:41:55 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 19, 2010, 02:02:03 PM
.. I don't get it?

It's a video game joke. Street Fighter and other similar games, specifically (or Megaman X).

"Hoboken" is only a few letters away from "Hadouken" (often misspelled "Hadoken", which is even closer). They're also pronounced somewhat similarly.
As for the arrows and the icon, those are the buttons you press to perform the move. Down, down-forward, Forward+Punch.


Although, I have no idea why that gantry in particular was photoshopped. The actual sign (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=39.902938,-75.116422&spn=0,359.98071&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.902957,-75.116543&panoid=LU4Hqa1LOnhwvAdz9pbzeA&cbp=12,110.61,,0,-11.57) says "Atlantic City", not "Secaucus    Hoboken".


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 20, 2010, 12:51:44 AM
and here I had been starting to think (yes, I thought about this way too much) that down, diagonal, over, and fist was standard New Jersey merging behavior, to be executed in the three miles before the off-ramp!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on March 20, 2010, 01:46:09 AM
Here's a directional error on 30 East as you exit off I-86 to head into West Pocatello. This should be US-30 EAST towards Pokie

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fnot30west.jpg&hash=991aef54ebbff6db8b4a6a081007b521219421c4)

30 second later edit: Whoa- just realized it probably means "30" to "West Pocatello." Still- that's spaced weird.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on March 20, 2010, 02:48:42 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 20, 2010, 12:41:55 AM
Although, I have no idea why that gantry in particular was photoshopped. The actual sign (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=39.902938,-75.116422&spn=0,359.98071&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.902957,-75.116543&panoid=LU4Hqa1LOnhwvAdz9pbzeA&cbp=12,110.61,,0,-11.57) says "Atlantic City", not "Secaucus    Hoboken".

OBTopic: Why does a New Jersey exit have a Pennsylvania number?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on March 20, 2010, 11:02:43 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 20, 2010, 02:48:42 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 20, 2010, 12:41:55 AM
Although, I have no idea why that gantry in particular was photoshopped. The actual sign (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=39.902938,-75.116422&spn=0,359.98071&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.902957,-75.116543&panoid=LU4Hqa1LOnhwvAdz9pbzeA&cbp=12,110.61,,0,-11.57) says "Atlantic City", not "Secaucus    Hoboken".

OBTopic: Why does a New Jersey exit have a Pennsylvania number?
The actual exit doesn't.  The sign was erected by the bridge commission.  Blame them for inventing it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on March 20, 2010, 11:28:57 AM
Quote from: Hellfighter on March 19, 2010, 01:42:36 PM
Way wrong and way too good!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fepicwinftw.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2F129133520522393318.jpg&hash=90c439a7ccece8be05cdc5aa7c929fcadbe35a98)


And the original (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania075/i-076_eb_exit_354_11.jpg) was taken by AARoads.


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on March 20, 2010, 11:33:56 AM
Quote from: AARoads on March 20, 2010, 11:28:57 AM
Quote from: Hellfighter on March 19, 2010, 01:42:36 PM
Way wrong and way too good!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fepicwinftw.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2F129133520522393318.jpg&hash=90c439a7ccece8be05cdc5aa7c929fcadbe35a98)


And the original (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania075/i-076_eb_exit_354_11.jpg) was taken by AARoads.




...and it looks like it was photoshopped! Damn, way too good to be true...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on March 21, 2010, 09:56:39 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 20, 2010, 12:51:44 AM
and here I had been starting to think (yes, I thought about this way too much) that down, diagonal, over, and fist was standard New Jersey merging behavior, to be executed in the three miles before the off-ramp!
Yeah, I have to admit that sign had me fooled.  When I read your post, I started to think that sequence of arrows and symbols meant to...

1) duck down (down)
2) blindly change lanes (diagonal)
3) pull all the way over to the shoulder (right)
4) get into a fist fight with the guy you cut off when you made your move (fist)

and do it all over the next 3 miles. :biggrin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on March 21, 2010, 11:29:32 PM
Either that, or the guy on the left is from the NJ DOT and is cursing the bad Exit # (which isn't even the highest on a PA interstate, thanks to I-276)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on March 31, 2010, 10:45:31 AM
U.S. 22 in Arkansas?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4024%2F4470885055_7ceed60311_b.jpg&hash=dcdc0fdbda7c1997386e11399c0ec7af17085acd)

U.S. 59 shield instead of AR 59
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4034%2F4471338686_d0b16e7af1_b.jpg&hash=4e73de85514d6a8cc917f8d382647eda1044e4a2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on March 31, 2010, 12:42:26 PM
Quote from: okroads on March 31, 2010, 10:45:31 AM
U.S. 22 in Arkansas?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4024%2F4470885055_7ceed60311_b.jpg&hash=dcdc0fdbda7c1997386e11399c0ec7af17085acd)

Wow, while we weren't looking AHTD extended US-22 from Cincinnati, OH down to Greenwood, AR!   :-D

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on March 31, 2010, 07:33:48 PM
Then it got extended further west to Stayton, OR:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR22StaytonSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1270078369&hash=c64daff0c8093742a487bec04a513aa74e4e5655)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on March 31, 2010, 10:32:25 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on March 31, 2010, 07:33:48 PM
Then it got extended further west to Stayton, OR:


Newark, NJ to Cincinnati, OH to Greenwood, AR to Stayton, OR....that would be a rather interesting route.  LOL
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on April 01, 2010, 11:29:39 AM
Visited Gettysburg National Battlefield Park this past weekend.  Most of the signs in the parking area were correct but more than one featured these shields:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FDSCF0046.jpg&hash=ec071374a9d9404375c6116273f2921a5ca6fab2)

Of course, they should be PA 97 and PA 134.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on April 04, 2010, 11:42:09 PM
Quote from: corco on February 09, 2010, 12:54:53 AM
I wasn't able to get a good picture because I didn't notice it, but I just caught a glimpse of it out of the margins of one of the pictures I took- here we have a circular highway shield on a stoplight street name panel designating WYO 220. Check out the upper right:

The google street view image is slightly better:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=casper+wy&sll=35.576917,-95.421753&sspn=1.796013,5.410767&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Casper,+Natrona,+Wyoming&ll=42.808426,-106.413713&spn=0.012657,0.042272&z=15&layer=c&cbll=42.808406,-106.413846&panoid=fa7X2VFzP4H6a3rl5l0DkA&cbp=12,153.28,,0,-9.98

I got back up and got a picture of it- the only circle/oval sign I know of in Wyoming

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fimages%2Faaroadsforum%2Fweirdwy.jpg&hash=b53c651a67ac8f4c767320fe074d7421afafc61c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 09, 2010, 02:59:22 AM
This one's fairly new...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_vGM7FtU3Pdk%2FS-ZcmAE6LvI%2FAAAAAAAADUg%2FiPRPn_bzzcw%2Fs576%2FIMGP1337.jpg&hash=e210deb1a654b18b324041c6ad5396cc206af8f1)

...and so is this, thanks to the major wind we've been having in Richmond over the past couple weeks.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_vGM7FtU3Pdk%2FS-Zc2M8wstI%2FAAAAAAAADXI%2FG4clUvJ3CV4%2Fs512%2FIMGP1408.jpg&hash=6cb6199ef16837dec1560ed57ec7b2fdfb98c72c)

11 was the original exit number for the I-64 EB exit on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on May 09, 2010, 03:53:34 PM
These fine boxes of rocks have popped up along 5 miles or so of I-76 heading into Denver
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fus76.jpg&hash=d55b32b7738ef1da24fc4be3933fc71ce308f4eb)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fus762.jpg&hash=ee490f15a22cca40235814f56ea1fcd15e282d8d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on May 09, 2010, 08:57:29 PM
^^

And for all this time I thought US 76 ended in Chattanooga, TN. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on May 10, 2010, 03:45:54 PM
You were wrong.

Don't worry -- I already knew that US/BC 97 was already an impressive route, but I didn't know it was showing I-99 how it was done by jumping to PA as well!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on May 16, 2010, 12:32:45 PM
Here's a goof that has been driven by dozens of times but may have gone unnoticed (I didn't notice until I looked at the high res photo just now and I've driven by it several times)- AARoads doesn't mention it in their photo caption of the gantry- this is I-76 WB at I-270. I guess it's just a leftover and not so much an error.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdavidjcorcoran.com%2Ffuture270.jpg&hash=ae2df00bd091047e167c6f8fd0a2e1d803c730e0)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on May 17, 2010, 09:56:17 AM
Quote from: corco on May 16, 2010, 12:32:45 PM
Here's a goof that has been driven by dozens of times but may have gone unnoticed (I didn't notice until I looked at the high res photo just now and I've driven by it several times)- AARoads doesn't mention it in their photo caption of the gantry- this is I-76 WB at I-270. I guess it's just a leftover and not so much an error.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdavidjcorcoran.com%2Ffuture270.jpg&hash=ae2df00bd091047e167c6f8fd0a2e1d803c730e0)

Theoretically, IF C-DOT & the NIMBY's ever do a Northwest extension linking I-70/C-470 to the Northwest Parkway, then upgrade the entire C-470/E-470/NWP loop to interstate standards, then renaming the whole loop as I-470, then upgrade the Boulder Turnpike (US 36) to interstate standards, then consider renaming the Boulder Turnpike a western extension of I-270, THEN the sign is technically correct.

Otherwise, just drop the FUTURE 270 bubble shield and just go with "TO" US-36 West.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 31, 2010, 12:06:08 AM
Another entry in the "US routes signed as VA state routes" category... Richmond perpetuates the US 33/VA 33 enigma with this sign at VA 161:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4003%2F4654821808_0743e971d2_b.jpg&hash=01ac7e2c8d4324f88116a6ff5b23879959f366be) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4654821808/)

VA 33 doesn't begin until about a mile east of this intersection, where US 33 ends along its useless multiplex on US 250. VA 33 goes up Harrison Street, then turns on Leigh Street and heads east (passing a ton more US 33 shields). US 33 needs to be truncated to US 250 already, since Richmond doesn't seem interested in fixing this despite sending me numerous forwarded emails of discussions with VDOT about improving the signage of this oddity - an email in March 2008 had Richmond Public Works telling VDOT it would install begin/end signage for US and VA 33 within 90 days. Two years later...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on May 31, 2010, 09:03:44 PM
I spotted this (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=41.51976,-73.422918&spn=0,0.077162&z=14&layer=c&cbll=41.519639,-73.42291&panoid=E8tbI0zhml0XKKKybJK96A&cbp=12,213.24,,1,-3.11) when I was out galavanting around on Saturday. US 202 randomly gets demoted to a state route. :spin:
Other reassurance markers up and down the road from it which were presumably installed in the same project are all correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on June 02, 2010, 10:37:13 PM
Not sure whether this falls under "Damaged Signs" or Erroneous road signs" so I'll put it here, cause it could be fixed but it hasn't been.
BGS in San Antonio is missing the I-10 shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_WYYeXvkUoUE%2FS-iX0mRys-I%2FAAAAAAAAFGs%2FmDnYd0FjMWA%2Fs800%2FSANY0785.JPG&hash=73b9d7fd09ca5b86128c71d3698afe137593ddb4)
BigMatt
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 03, 2010, 01:27:54 AM
It'd be awesome if you saw it fall in the middle of the night and could recover it. :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on June 03, 2010, 01:45:43 AM
Heck yeah, I'd be "protecting" it from getting run over by cars. I think of interstate shields as little metal humans, I care about humans, so why not care about the shield? Haha. :-D
BigMatt
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on June 03, 2010, 01:59:37 AM
Question: How do the shields fall off?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 03, 2010, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: ausinterkid on June 03, 2010, 01:59:37 AM
Question: How do the shields fall off?

I guess the rivets come loose. That's one of the problems with "demountable" shields that you don't get with ones that are directly applied to the reflective sheeting, but it's easier to replace them without needing a "greenout."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on June 03, 2010, 01:45:48 PM
Spotted this Mississippi 278 error (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=tupelo,+ms&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.983628,106.787109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Tupelo,+Lee,+Mississippi&ll=34.115375,-88.699815&spn=0.011352,0.034246&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.115294,-88.699862&panoid=c3GA-QmHKFhV80VenEQ7Bg&cbp=12,40.58,,0,-0.75) yesterday along the U.S. 45 Alt off-ramp to U.S. 45 & 278.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 03, 2010, 02:06:05 PM
Quote from: AARoads on June 03, 2010, 01:45:48 PM
Spotted this Mississippi 278 error (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=tupelo,+ms&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.983628,106.787109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Tupelo,+Lee,+Mississippi&ll=34.115375,-88.699815&spn=0.011352,0.034246&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.115294,-88.699862&panoid=c3GA-QmHKFhV80VenEQ7Bg&cbp=12,40.58,,0,-0.75) yesterday along the U.S. 45 Alt off-ramp to U.S. 45 & 278.

hah, at the same intersection, Brent and I found a US-145.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on June 04, 2010, 02:32:34 AM
Quote from: BigMatt on June 02, 2010, 10:37:13 PM
Not sure whether this falls under "Damaged Signs" or Erroneous road signs" so I'll put it here, cause it could be fixed but it hasn't been.
BGS in San Antonio is missing the I-10 shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_WYYeXvkUoUE%2FS-iX0mRys-I%2FAAAAAAAAFGs%2FmDnYd0FjMWA%2Fs800%2FSANY0785.JPG&hash=73b9d7fd09ca5b86128c71d3698afe137593ddb4)
BigMatt
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2010, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: ausinterkid on June 03, 2010, 01:59:37 AM
Question: How do the shields fall off?

I guess the rivets come loose. That's one of the problems with "demountable" shields that you don't get with ones that are directly applied to the reflective sheeting, but it's easier to replace them without needing a "greenout."
In this case:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fhi%2Fhi_99%2Fw78.jpg&hash=4bedbfa5d5d412d2da0ac61c914e7f1ade886a9f)
From Hawaii http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/hi/hi_99/ (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/hi/hi_99/)
The HI 99 shield fell off.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on June 04, 2010, 11:49:47 AM
U.S. 265 in Utah?! (taken 5/27/10)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4013%2F4646866834_f825a8a077_b.jpg&hash=161beb0b3c16328e43330faa357093b446f5b7c0)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CL on June 05, 2010, 02:30:09 AM
Quote from: okroads on June 04, 2010, 11:49:47 AM
U.S. 265 in Utah?! (taken 5/27/10)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4013%2F4646866834_f825a8a077_b.jpg&hash=161beb0b3c16328e43330faa357093b446f5b7c0)

I wish contractors would get their act together.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 05, 2010, 10:03:00 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3285%2F2905665281_dfdb9420a4.jpg&hash=c31f9cbed235be1b73934eee391b8706035dd2c9)
Ok 59 and Ok 271
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 10, 2010, 01:51:57 AM
There actually is an OK-59... it's much farther west, however.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on June 10, 2010, 02:05:12 PM
Quote from: CL on June 05, 2010, 02:30:09 AM
Quote from: okroads on June 04, 2010, 11:49:47 AM
U.S. 265 in Utah?! (taken 5/27/10)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4013%2F4646866834_f825a8a077_b.jpg&hash=161beb0b3c16328e43330faa357093b446f5b7c0)


I wish contractors would get their act together.

Well, we do have US-163. Why not?  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on June 10, 2010, 09:23:21 PM
I've no idea if it's still there, but I've seen UT 92 signed as US 92.

changed some quoting issues by getting rid of the entire quoted text. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on June 10, 2010, 09:26:25 PM
That makes three states with US-92!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2Fne%2F26%2Fl62ato92%2F4.JPG&hash=897710e41282476ec5b6a3ae1ddf290faf73ed24)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2010, 09:31:10 PM
Quote from: corco on June 10, 2010, 09:26:25 PM
That makes three states with US-92!


dang discontinuous routes  :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Crewdawg on June 20, 2010, 12:46:18 AM
Didn't get a photo but saw a US 89 off of US 93 southbound the other day.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on June 20, 2010, 11:46:08 PM
US 32?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FTB7gOFT58hI%2FAAAAAAAAB2c%2FqY7L3jNq_E0%2Fs912%2FIMG_0878.JPG&hash=64d465e15a10a35ebeaf6733544d65acfe41062e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on June 20, 2010, 11:47:24 PM
Also, does anyone know what the original Ohio shield was that was covered up (and not very well) by the US-33 shield in this picture?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FTB7gPS_uSeI%2FAAAAAAAAB2g%2Fdl8qKaulIN0%2Fs912%2FIMG_0875.JPG&hash=c14579601ed7eea58afa0d41f5b3f9c8fbdf07cd)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on June 21, 2010, 12:03:10 AM
I would assume it was an OH-33 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 21, 2010, 12:47:32 AM
Quote from: Crewdawg on June 20, 2010, 12:46:18 AM
Didn't get a photo but saw a US 89 off of US 93 southbound the other day.

is that in Arizona?  If so, is that an error, or - could it be? - a remnant of old US-89?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Crewdawg on June 21, 2010, 07:35:00 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 21, 2010, 12:47:32 AM
Quote from: Crewdawg on June 20, 2010, 12:46:18 AM
Didn't get a photo but saw a US 89 off of US 93 southbound the other day.

is that in Arizona?  If so, is that an error, or - could it be? - a remnant of old US-89?

yes that is in Arizona. No it isn't a remnant it is a new sign have driven on that stretch of US93 a lot and haven't seen it before.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on June 22, 2010, 04:47:40 PM
Here's a recent one (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=712&sid=1985886).  It'll be fixed by tomorrow, so no photo opportunity.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 22, 2010, 04:54:02 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 22, 2010, 04:47:40 PM
Here's a recent one (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=712&sid=1985886).  It'll be fixed by tomorrow, so no photo opportunity.


damn Maryland neutering its shields; I'd have rather liked to add a Maryland I-85 sign to the shield gallery.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on June 22, 2010, 05:10:45 PM
The I-85 shield doesn't appear to be the only error on that sign...I spot at least two more...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 22, 2010, 05:22:08 PM
Quote from: cu2010 on June 22, 2010, 05:10:45 PM
The I-85 shield doesn't appear to be the only error on that sign...I spot at least two more...

I note the problematic "K" at the end of Patrick, but cannot tell if that is really uppercase, or just an artifact of the small image.

what is the third?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on June 22, 2010, 06:23:51 PM
The lowercase "k" at the end of Frederick.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 22, 2010, 08:21:21 PM
Looks like the "PatricK" K and the "FREDERICk" K's need to be swapped.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 23, 2010, 10:17:57 AM
One of the TollRoadsNews people found the sign for I-85 on I-70 in Frederick, MD http://tollroadsnews.com/node/4806 (http://tollroadsnews.com/node/4806)

EDIT: Sorry Froggie, I didn't realize when I posted this that you already had until today.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 23, 2010, 10:28:50 AM
yep, this photo is much better quality.  I wonder if they'll let us use it on the shield gallery.

indeed, the two K's need to be swapped!  Wonder how that happens on a retroreflective sign - a button copy sign I could understand, if one person selects the set of letters that need to be applied to a given sign, and another actually rivets them in place.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rawmustard on June 23, 2010, 10:37:07 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 23, 2010, 10:28:50 AM
yep, this photo is much better quality.  I wonder if they'll let us use it on the shield gallery.

The photo belongs to the Frederick News-Post, which was also used (albeit in reduced form) in the WTOP article (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1985886) Froggie tweeted yesterday.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on June 23, 2010, 11:08:07 AM
I didn't (and won't) have a chance to get up there, but I believe Michael Pruett (of mdroads.com) got a photo of it...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 23, 2010, 02:33:05 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 23, 2010, 10:28:50 AM
yep, this photo is much better quality.  I wonder if they'll let us use it on the shield gallery.

indeed, the two K's need to be swapped!  Wonder how that happens on a retroreflective sign - a button copy sign I could understand, if one person selects the set of letters that need to be applied to a given sign, and another actually rivets them in place.

I believe Maryland uses demountable copy. Certainly seemed that way whenever I was there in 2007.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 23, 2010, 02:34:28 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 23, 2010, 02:33:05 PM

I believe Maryland uses demountable copy. Certainly seemed that way whenever I was there in 2007.

here I thought many states had switched over to monolithic signs because they are less expensive to make using computers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on June 23, 2010, 06:46:43 PM
All this time FL 417 is a free highway? We've been robbed!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi696.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv321%2FFLroadgeek%2Fjetblue250.jpg&hash=e83b1b603ad2370d7f51774bf881a227a76810b6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 23, 2010, 09:19:24 PM
Quote from: shoptb1 on June 20, 2010, 11:47:24 PM
Also, does anyone know what the original Ohio shield was that was covered up (and not very well) by the US-33 shield in this picture?
This (as of January 2004)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2Fathen33.JPG&hash=c3571782a585002f2740c11abaa45d7c4c55d47b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on June 24, 2010, 09:45:22 AM
Quote from: osu-lsu on June 23, 2010, 09:19:24 PM
This (as of January 2004)

Thanks!  I'm surprised that they did such a crappy job of correcting it, and that they haven't done the opposite correction down on the following sign with "US-32". 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 25, 2010, 12:39:30 PM
Anybody remember that erroneous US 27 sign placed on Sunrise Highway several years ago? Well somebody who made this bumper sticker stuck to that error despite the correction by NYSDOT #10.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg716.imageshack.us%2Fimg716%2F7539%2Fus27montaukbumpersticke.jpg&hash=1506b378bb9569194983f3f6cacef438c2c40306) (http://img716.imageshack.us/i/us27montaukbumpersticke.jpg/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on June 25, 2010, 12:55:00 PM
That's cool! I would buy one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 29, 2010, 10:46:23 AM
Quote from: florida on June 25, 2010, 12:55:00 PM
That's cool! I would buy one.

Design it and sell it on Cafe Press ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: InterstateNG on July 10, 2010, 09:31:48 PM
No photo, but both the 1-mile and 1/2-mile BGS's eastbound on the new US-24 expressway have OH-127 shields instead of US-127.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 10, 2010, 11:55:16 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Fort_to_Port%2FImages%2F180.jpg&hash=cb12aeb31ef055147ebf8725f47120938e7f6dad)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Fort_to_Port%2FImages%2F181.jpg&hash=203823581eb24c0bb0fe7f7f3ac05d96bc22467c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on July 11, 2010, 11:38:14 PM
This BGS on I-95 northbound in Providence, RI is supposed to have a US 1A shield, not a US 1 shield...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTDp4cL-JlzI%2FAAAAAAAAfVc%2FT14Jtos61pc%2Fs640%2FIMG_7788.JPG&hash=1f0e4fe75a2dc356456c3967a2e63586edf579c0)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on July 12, 2010, 12:59:22 AM
This one in downtown Sacramento on westbound US 50/Business 80 - installed in October or so of last year - annoys me to no end:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4753645599/in/set-72157624279252253/

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4136%2F4753645599_26fecb986a_z.jpg&hash=883bd4ef5c1be9984fa8add743cffb2fe25fce9c)

Interstate 80 west doesn't begin for another four miles!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 12, 2010, 01:01:40 AM
hm, I actually find it more palatable than that damn green-shielded freeway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on July 12, 2010, 01:14:16 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 12, 2010, 01:01:40 AM
hm, I actually find it more palatable than that damn green-shielded freeway.

Would be better if it were signed as US 50 though!  I don't think US 50 has ever been properly signed westbound from I-80 to Oak Park, except for one TO US 50 sign along former Route 275 in West Sacramento.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 12, 2010, 01:36:08 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 12, 2010, 01:14:16 AM
Would be better if it were signed as US 50 though!

I thought 50 ended at 51 (the other segment of business 80) and the eastbound signs were wrong.  Does 50 go all the way through to the western junction of 80 and business 80?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on July 12, 2010, 02:59:52 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 12, 2010, 01:36:08 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 12, 2010, 01:14:16 AM
Would be better if it were signed as US 50 though!

I thought 50 ended at 51 (the other segment of business 80) and the eastbound signs were wrong.  Does 50 go all the way through to the western junction of 80 and business 80?

Yes:

http://www.cahighways.org/049-056.html#050

QuoteAs defined in 1963, Route 50 was the route from Route 80 in Sacramento to the Nevada state line near Lake Tahoe via Placerville. The "Route 80" referred to in this routing is what is now Route 51, i.e., Business Route 80.

In 1981, Chapter 292 changed Route 50 to run from "Route 80 in West of Sacramento". The Route 80 referred to in this definition was the new definition of Route 80 that was the bypass around Sacramento, so this effectively added the former portion of Route 80 between Route 51 and the new junction with Route 80 to Route 50. The segment added is FAI 305, meaning it is acually interstate milage, but isn't signed as interstate milage. Note that the added segment is signed as Business Route 80 ("Capitol City Freeway").

Business 80 does not exist as a legislative definition, but is the first six miles of post-1982 US 50 including pre-1964 US 40/99W west of Route 275, and the entirety of post-1982 Route 51/pre-1964 US 99E to Foothill Farms.  (The mileposts on US 50 east of Route 99 have not been updated though, but the exit numbers reflect the West Sacramento terminus).

Basically, pre-1964, the western terminus for 50 was in San Francisco at US 101, then from 1964-1972, when the western terminus was at the Oak Park junction officially (where 99/80 split, and where 51 begins today), 50 and 99 were still sporadically co-signed to Stockton.  In terms of signage, the Oak Park terminus only lasted for about 10 years.

One of the several examples of correct US 50/Business 80 signage eastbound, on a gantry atop the Pioneer Bridge:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4756049497/in/set-72157624279252253/
This signbridge likely dates to the 1982 renumbering.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kurumi on July 12, 2010, 11:27:47 AM
hm, I actually find it more palatable than that damn green-shielded freeway.

Seconded. "Green 80" needs to go. Just split it up between 50 and 51.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on July 12, 2010, 11:37:43 AM
Quote from: kurumi on July 12, 2010, 11:27:47 AM
hm, I actually find it more palatable than that damn green-shielded freeway.

Seconded. "Green 80" needs to go. Just split it up between 50 and 51.

The amazing thing is, the pre-1964 numbering for today's 51/Business 80 was more logical (as 99E)!

I've always wondered what the insistence on maintaining a "Route 80" in downtown Sacramento was for, rather than simply signing 50 on both directions between I-80 and Oak Park, and giving the substandard portion a new number.  (Or for that matter, why switch the designations out at all since even considering the stillborn nature of the realignment project, the Route 51 segment is far from the worst freeway to have been signed an Interstate?)

This is one reason I wish there were many more 1970s photos of the freeway system here, to provide a narrative link between the US highway era and the post-1982 designations.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on July 12, 2010, 01:37:05 PM
Finally got around to this.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2020%2F4511057505_318d6c6041.jpg&hash=9aa30f55386ba8a748ba14dafbd3d635b86e5abd)
A county route sign on a freeway BGS in Illinois??? they never do it - oh wait, it's ISTHA  :eyebrow: :hmmm:  (NOTE: clearview not judged :P)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4058%2F4511760752_1c09870762.jpg&hash=69f1763e2507abf6ae387d7a7f6efdab05745329)
Are we in Connecticut or Illinois?  - again ISTHA. :pan:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2779%2F4511668888_7cffc068d5.jpg&hash=07194c1281687e7f7822bb74464b8d21d6d6933d)
I don't think the arrows are MUTCD standard, but its funny nonetheless - IDOT in Chicago.  I've seen instances of this on US 12 and 45 as well.

here are the links to make Flickr happy:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/4511057505/sizes/m/in/set-72157622486538821/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/4511057505/sizes/m/in/set-72157622486538821/)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/4511760752/sizes/m/in/set-72157622486538821/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/4511760752/sizes/m/in/set-72157622486538821/)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/4511668888/sizes/m/in/set-72157622486538821/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/4511668888/sizes/m/in/set-72157622486538821/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 12, 2010, 02:10:33 PM
^^ As to why some ISTHA signs can appear so weird, they have their own sign shop over in Naperville that makes all their signage.  I think they like to experiment from time to time.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on July 12, 2010, 04:23:28 PM
Quote from: Master son on July 12, 2010, 01:37:05 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2779%2F4511668888_7cffc068d5.jpg&hash=07194c1281687e7f7822bb74464b8d21d6d6933d)
I don't think the arrows are MUTCD standard, but its funny nonetheless - IDOT in Chicago.  I've seen instances of this on US 12 and 45 as well.

The diagonal arrows *is* a MUTCD standard sign (M6-6 is the sign designation in the 2009 MUTCD), although it's granted that this particular arrangement probably doesn't get much use.

There is also a standard sign that uses a straight ahead and and angled arrow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: DorkOfNerky on July 12, 2010, 07:24:59 PM
I'm not sure if they're still there, but it seems so according to Google Maps. Back when I lived southeast of Downtown Houston, I noticed the I-45 frontage road has some signs that are a little bit off.

Over at Broad/Myrtle, someone though Texas 75 still runs with I-45.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F__MytsOoJD0I%2FTDui4pXRKfI%2FAAAAAAAALh8%2FiiB_1DXOGug%2Fs800%2FTexas75-Broad.jpg&hash=e3d00ba96bc5fd5cd1bb3cf754bddd7f6dc03e69)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F__MytsOoJD0I%2FTDui4k_yruI%2FAAAAAAAALiA%2FbQFEcMR4Xxs%2Fs800%2FTexas75-Broad-2.jpg&hash=7b920e0f946c22cef3db9105701c64c9ae424704)

Then over at Wayside/90A, someone can't make up their mind what highway you're crossing. Is it still US75? Is it Texas 75? Who knows! (Okay... it's probably neither now.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F__MytsOoJD0I%2FTDui47SSnqI%2FAAAAAAAALiE%2FY14gdULLab0%2Fs800%2FTexas75-Wayside.jpg&hash=caf23e32682d3d40ff9946f3f3d2f8f9f1066d06)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F__MytsOoJD0I%2FTDui5Cax_7I%2FAAAAAAAALiI%2F7LkpcV5zSXg%2Fs800%2FTexas75-Wayside-2.jpg&hash=16fc3de94cd0751bf82d0b3c5e25cb3d29c8638c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F__MytsOoJD0I%2FTDui5TjHQlI%2FAAAAAAAALiM%2F8YfC77VcWIE%2Fs800%2FTexas75-Wayside-3.jpg&hash=1849de6a8d80dcd4c73fa44e3ca6f36773887974)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on July 13, 2010, 07:06:11 AM
Those GMSV views are almost impossible to see...any better photos?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on July 13, 2010, 09:30:57 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 12, 2010, 04:23:28 PM
Quote from: Master son on July 12, 2010, 01:37:05 PM
<image removed for bandwitdh's sake
I don't think the arrows are MUTCD standard, but its funny nonetheless - IDOT in Chicago.  I've seen instances of this on US 12 and 45 as well.

The diagonal arrows *is* a MUTCD standard sign (M6-6 is the sign designation in the 2009 MUTCD), although it's granted that this particular arrangement probably doesn't get much use.

There is also a standard sign that uses a straight ahead and and angled arrow.
O. i c :-D

I guess I'm just too used to Wisconsin's cookie cutter system (they did have in Sun Prairie arrows that would go up and diagonally down for WIS 19, but those were removed when 151 was rerouted in favor of the standard all "arrows use a square" method.

EDIT: BTW - I've seen Arial font on a US 51 sign in Rockford on State Street at the I-90 toll road (ewww)

I gotta snap that when I do my next IL clinching trip.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on July 13, 2010, 10:28:09 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 13, 2010, 07:06:11 AM
Those GMSV views are almost impossible to see...any better photos?

Jeff Royston found a set in 2009 as well: www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=TX19830452
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on July 14, 2010, 09:09:57 PM
A few erroneous ones in Springfield, IL now that IL 97 has been cut back to end at BL 55, as would be seen in GSV if the photos were more recent.  None of the BGS's on I-55 and I-72 have had the IL 97 shields greened out or had "TO" installed around the shield as has been done with some shields on the now decommissioned section of IL 97.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on July 17, 2010, 05:08:26 PM
Interstate I-25?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4008%2F4654238313_d0b2806942_b.jpg&hash=8cdfb3435063d37b128c2c41e42e4c78f3414689)

And a couple of interstate shields posted where Business Loops should be:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4001%2F4647054564_9acc282fee_b.jpg&hash=235a0efa4b0f2a440e788b2d79153cd2b52f1fae)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3390%2F4643868688_bb34a1f657_b.jpg&hash=f75a1cd212c79b4fa1b71d1d4976a9a0f1178303)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4009%2F4654083989_9ace098923_b.jpg&hash=c1abd2e0a244e1399f29df0a7b8a3f449b2570ff)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 23, 2010, 03:07:16 PM
Just got back from a road trip from Oregon to North Texas and back.  For the first 10 days, I saw only these glaring road sign errors: first from Boise City, OK, an attempt by OkDOT to add another misplaced offspring for US 25 (besides US 425)?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOK325BoiseCitySignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1279911114&hash=1d6cb31190767769e733254d88c24ee716152bd8)

and a few days later, from US 191 west of Moab, UT:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FUS191MoabSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1279911283&hash=38ab5a0ba5363600c9e88b77e9b6c99c5a48e5ea)

Then to my shame, on the last day when I was driving across my home state, I tripled that number of erroneous shields:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR201Adriansigngoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1279911371&hash=3a51a1411adfbb703bb6269fa43d5c00fca1b419)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR245HerefordSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1279911415&hash=1ef3945d2ab3d2a66988bd43d3034bf0ea4be16c)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR245HerefordSignGoof2.jpg%3Ft%3D1279911441&hash=5635c5df86bdc64ff7033aada9ffbf4888261678)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FUS26-395MtVernonSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1279911654&hash=edb144714317991269bc437feb86be476103c267)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR19DayvilleSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1279911549&hash=63fb2a36246789f1a19fb7905596f3cfcbe1a0f2)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR19DayvilleSignGoof2.jpg%3Ft%3D1279911602&hash=24231a760302baf74869ffec79d80f98ed406884)

I don't know why this problem has become so prevalent in Oregon, but it's getting silly.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 23, 2010, 09:04:03 PM
Didn't realize it at the time, possibly because at highway speeds the shields look similar in shape, but I photographed a "Wisconsin 61" sign on my recent trip. It'll be posted when I get the other 5,410 photos from my recent trips uploaded. (Take that, Calrog!)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on July 24, 2010, 09:43:56 AM
This one? (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/wi/i090/i090w-wi61signgoof.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on July 24, 2010, 07:06:33 PM
You know ODOT's subtly trying to stick it to AASHTO, xonhulu ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 24, 2010, 10:19:48 PM
So, VDOT finally fixed the "Exit 11" error on an exit tab on I-95 in Richmond!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_vGM7FtU3Pdk%2FTEaJ4WIxTgI%2FAAAAAAAAEtg%2FDtLtO-e7XY4%2FIMG_0300.jpg&hash=4b12fabbd54f3831144c9aba466a0148164a9903)

...sort of. Right exit number, just nearly impossible to read.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 25, 2010, 01:26:18 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2010, 09:43:56 AM
This one? (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/wi/i090/i090w-wi61signgoof.jpg)


Link says "forbidden."

Anyway, here's the one I captured:

http://www.millenniumhwy.net/loose_pics/PICT0768.JPG
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on July 25, 2010, 07:15:20 AM
QuoteLink says "forbidden."

Hit refresh.  I've disabled direct hot-linking to my site, but hitting refresh usually works.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 25, 2010, 09:29:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 25, 2010, 07:15:20 AM
QuoteLink says "forbidden."

Hit refresh.  I've disabled direct hot-linking to my site, but hitting refresh usually works.

STILL 403
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on July 25, 2010, 10:03:34 AM
Quote from: US71 on July 25, 2010, 09:29:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 25, 2010, 07:15:20 AM
QuoteLink says "forbidden."

Hit refresh.  I've disabled direct hot-linking to my site, but hitting refresh usually works.

STILL 403

Copy the URL into a new browser window and it will work.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 25, 2010, 10:10:25 AM
Quote from: AARoads on July 25, 2010, 10:03:34 AM

Copy the URL into a new browser window and it will work.

OK, worked that time. :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: The Premier on July 25, 2010, 11:17:55 AM
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on July 24, 2010, 10:19:48 PM
So, VDOT finally fixed the "Exit 11" error on an exit tab on I-95 in Richmond!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_vGM7FtU3Pdk%2FTEaJ4WIxTgI%2FAAAAAAAAEtg%2FDtLtO-e7XY4%2FIMG_0300.jpg&hash=4b12fabbd54f3831144c9aba466a0148164a9903)

...sort of. Right exit number, just nearly impossible to read.

That number "75" would be very hard to read if I traveled on that freeway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 25, 2010, 11:25:57 AM
Quote from: US71 on July 25, 2010, 10:10:25 AM

OK, worked that time. :banghead:

yeah, it's pretty stupid how browsers cannot differentiate between a page automatically wanting a hotlinked image and the user manually clicking to go to the site.  

it's not exactly a tough situation to design a workaround for - seeing as one can do it by hand without difficulty.

a smart browser would, in the case of a 403 return on a click to a link, retry the HTTP GET with the referer set to blank.  If it's still 403 then something else has gone wrong, but if it works the second time, it's just the anti-hotlinking feature being invoked in the wrong situation.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 25, 2010, 10:50:18 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 25, 2010, 07:15:20 AM
QuoteLink says "forbidden."

Hit refresh.  I've disabled direct hot-linking to my site, but hitting refresh usually works.

It's not the one I shot. Where was your pic taken? Westbound on I-90 in Wisconsin approaching the first exit in Minnesota?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 26, 2010, 12:24:21 AM
It must take a lot of Harley owners to adopt a highway (in this case US 17 BUSINESS) for an indefinite distance! (Surfside Beach, SC. There's lots of other signs in the area with indefinite distances listed.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4096%2F4829040899_53bd88fa21.jpg&hash=ba0de78c0d4f5716c5debc6d92d903d1b50b9fdb)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on July 26, 2010, 07:20:00 AM
QuoteIt's not the one I shot. Where was your pic taken? Westbound on I-90 in Wisconsin approaching the first exit in Minnesota?

Indeed.  First one that came to mind when you commented on a "Wisconsin 61".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 26, 2010, 08:00:46 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%2F1425%2F4731848134_d6ef36a458_d.jpg&hash=7844ec2ef2441f0c2d0ef9e6b69d034506b1b8bb)

Must be a contractor sign (near Republic, MO). The border is too narrow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on July 26, 2010, 03:57:36 PM
^^^

I had to look at it twice.  The first time it put me to sleep!  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on July 29, 2010, 01:48:05 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F101_0268.jpg&hash=8d44bb3cec78f957cf2c500f8ece06d1217318fb)

Contrary to what the sign says, US 78 does not run through this area of Jasper anymore.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Troubleshooter on July 29, 2010, 03:50:14 AM
I don't have photos, but I have seen many errors in road signs over the years:

Missing and moved letters committed by the sign shop:

NO TROUGH TRAFFIC

10 TON BRIDE AHEAD

SOTP

DRISCOll AVENUE (should be Driscoll)

NO BALL PLAYING AND PICNICKING DOGS


And the ones where vandals modified the signs:

F_AGGER AHEAD

DO NOT USE HORN EXCEPT IN CASE OF _ANGER

SPENDING MAX $1000

NO PORKING

NO PARKING
29 AM - 35 PM

NO WAY ->

MEN WORKING?


Then there are the ones that can be read in multiple ways:

SLOW CONSTRUCTION AHEAD

RADAR CONTROLLED SLOW PEDESTRIAN ZONE

BUMP HANDICAPPED PEDESTRIANS 5 MPH

WHEN THIS SIGN IS UNDERWATER THE ROAD IS IMPASSABLE

NO LEFT TURN - TO TURN LEFT MAKE THREE RIGHT TURNS


And the ones that were put there to get your attention NOW:

20 MPH CURVE WE ARE NOT FOOLING

CITY HALL PARKING ONLY
ALL OTHER CARS WILL BE DONATED
TO THE SCRAP METAL ARTS PROJECT

SPEED LIMIT 19.5

DUCK XING

ONE WAY ->    <- ONE WAY   (across the street from each other)

UNEVEN LANES NEXT MILE

LARGE DUMPSTER IN THE ROAD AHEAD

OBEY PADDLERS AHEAD

GOLF XING

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on July 29, 2010, 05:12:59 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on July 29, 2010, 03:50:14 AM
ONE WAY ->    <- ONE WAY   (across the street from each other)

I know of one intersection like that in my home town of Bloomsburg, PA at the intersection of Main and West Streets.  South of Main, West St. is one way northbound.  North of Main, it is one way southbound.  This leads to a situation where if you're on west street, you must turn onto Main.  And, you can't turn onto West St. from Main.

Here's Google Streetview:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bloomsburg,+PA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.15347,52.998047&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Bloomsburg,+Columbia,+Pennsylvania&ll=41.00118,-76.461035&spn=0.005644,0.006469&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.001222,-76.460926&panoid=0EleUJ-gdJFFpBQUK_J2tA&cbp=12,68.89,,0,11.12

You can see the "NO TURNS" sign on Main St. at the light and if you look to the left and right, you can see the one way signs pointing at each other.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 29, 2010, 06:36:33 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on July 29, 2010, 03:50:14 AM
ONE WAY ->    <- ONE WAY   (across the street from each other)

it could be worse.  I have seen the fabled "ONE WAY" pointing down a dead-end street.  In Cleveland and in Kansas City. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on July 29, 2010, 06:59:34 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 29, 2010, 06:36:33 PM
I have seen the fabled "ONE WAY" pointing down a dead-end street.  In Cleveland and in Kansas City. 

It figures that Cleveland would be one of them.  There's so much about the town that's dead end.  :sombrero:
(And as I live near Cleveland for 10 years and worked in it for 5, I think I'm allowed to make Cleveland jokes.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on July 29, 2010, 07:05:25 PM
Here's a huge one that's all over the States' this sign is supposed to be in Highway Gothic along with all the Clearview signs in Angelo ;)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F_WYYeXvkUoUE%2FS-iYl5e4HnI%2FAAAAAAAAFMQ%2FoNMXeFP0T1E%2Fs800%2FSANY0548.JPG&hash=c55e1ef7e98c942eec276584404a972e454539a7)
BigMatt
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on July 29, 2010, 10:03:55 PM
Quote from: mightyace on July 29, 2010, 05:12:59 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on July 29, 2010, 03:50:14 AM
ONE WAY ->    <- ONE WAY   (across the street from each other)

I know of one intersection like that in my home town of Bloomsburg, PA at the intersection of Main and West Streets.  South of Main, West St. is one way northbound.  North of Main, it is one way southbound.  This leads to a situation where if you're on west street, you must turn onto Main.  And, you can't turn onto West St. from Main.

You can see the "NO TURNS" sign on Main St. at the light and if you look to the left and right, you can see the one way signs pointing at each other.

Same thing happens on Market Street (U.S. 13 Business) southbound at 40th Street in Wilmington, DE:

(https://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware010/us-013b_sb_at_40th_st.jpg)

and two blocks further south at 38th, the same thing again (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=wilmington,+de&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.624204,78.662109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wilmington,+New+Castle,+Delaware&ll=39.759596,-75.524611&spn=0,0.01369&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.759554,-75.524698&panoid=GCTsWJDdpbJEJ6urhobbSA&cbp=12,51.59,,0,11.14)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 29, 2010, 10:35:47 PM
Quote from: mightyace on July 29, 2010, 06:59:34 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 29, 2010, 06:36:33 PM
I have seen the fabled "ONE WAY" pointing down a dead-end street.  In Cleveland and in Kansas City. 

It figures that Cleveland would be one of them.  There's so much about the town that's dead end.  :sombrero:
(And as I live near Cleveland for 10 years and worked in it for 5, I think I'm allowed to make Cleveland jokes.)

Ok LeBron.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shadyjay on July 29, 2010, 10:48:09 PM
The big one in Vermont, which I called VTrans out on and it has since been corrected, was I-91 NB Exit 5.  The signs previously said "US 5 TO VT 121 / Bellows Falls".  While the exit doesn't dump you directly onto US 5, it does dump you on a road called "Interstate Access Road" which is a connector to US 5.  When the signs were replaced in the mid 1990s, they read "VT 121 TO US 5 & VT 123 / Westminster / Bellows Falls".  This gave motorists the impression that the road at the end of the ramp is VT 121, while in reality, VT 121 is several miles up US 5.  Signage off the exit and on US 5 barely advertised VT 121.  See the sign here:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F_LdJssxlEuTQ%2FTFI7s-JSaiI%2FAAAAAAAALMk%2F8eRVUz3PqGM%2Fs640%2FExit%252005-NB-old%2520signs.jpg&hash=f72e588621381e2d2c8aa416b7ae5fae97afdd01)

A couple of years ago, after I sent an e-mail to VTrans about it, the sign has since been corrected and now reads:
"TO US 5, VT 123, VT 121 / Westminster / Bellows Falls".  And even better, the SB sign, which only had "US 5" for the routes was changed to "TO US 5/VT 123".  


Then there is the strange case of Exit 28 on I-91 NB in Connecticut.  During the 1980s, the signs for this exit, and Exit 29, only advertised "CT 15" - leaving out US 5 completely.  When the signs were replaced in the early 90s, US 5 was added.  And again, when Exit 28's signs were replaced, US 5 was omitted, but remains on the last button copy sign.   See these pics (not mine):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_LdJssxlEuTQ%2FTFI7szWZJQI%2FAAAAAAAALMo%2FrFgGMb4mchM%2Fs640%2FExit%252027-2-NB.jpg&hash=c4c4827f9b99308b9c6a7d03705f5ab1fd17cea8)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_LdJssxlEuTQ%2FTFI7tINos8I%2FAAAAAAAALMs%2F5KtipHmcMIw%2FExit%252028-NB.jpg&hash=b26e8d691c253fba2c6c5d1174b1f66b47a04d3b)

Then again, Connecticut does have a problem with putting US shields on signs when they are multiplexed with other routes.  Just look at I-84 from Farmington to Manchester.  US 6 is paired with I-84 the entire length, but you'll have to look for the occasional reassurance markers to list US 6, but not one BGS in that distance makes note of US 6.  
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on July 29, 2010, 10:50:10 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 29, 2010, 10:48:09 PM
Then again, Connecticut does have a problem with putting US shields on signs when they are multiplexed with other routes.  Just look at I-84 from Farmington to Manchester.  US 6 is paired with I-84 the entire length, but you'll have to look for the occasional reassurance markers to list US 6, but not one BGS in that distance makes note of US 6. 
Generally somewhat better signed from intersecting roads than on the mainline, so I've found at least.  US 6 does NOT need to be multiplexed with 84 nearly as long as it is in CT, especially the first time in the Exits low-teens when the old road is continuous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Troubleshooter on July 29, 2010, 11:06:59 PM
More:

CLARENCE 13' 8"

DO NOT ENTER BOX UNLESS YOUR EXIT IS CLEAR

CALENDAR PARKING IS IN EFFECT
ALTERNATE DAILY

CAREFULLY SLIDE OFF THE ROAD

DON'T LET SKIES FALL DOWN (on ski lift)

CROSS SCHOOL WALK

DO NOT DISTRUB GRASS

DON'T BURN THE FIRE CHIEF

ENTRANCE ONLY DO NOT ENTER

FORM 1 PLANET (2 letters added by vandals)

BE CAREFUL WITH THE TRAIN (standard Mexico railroad crossing sign translated)

NO PARKING ABOVE THIS SIGN

PARKING $2
GET PUNCHED AT WINDOW

SLOW SCHOOL CROSSING AHEAD

WATCH FOR VEHICLE MIRRORS

ROAD CONSTRICTION AHEAD (vandal changed a letter)

CAUTION WATER ON ROAD DURING RAIN

CAUTION PEDESTRIANS SLIPPERY WHEN WET

THIS IS NOT US 40

NO TRESPASSING
SURVIVORS WILL BE PROSECUTED

ALL MUD MUST TURN LEFT

FREE SNOW - YOU HAUL

SAFETY FIRST
DOLLY GOOD
HERNIA BAD

TOUCHING WIRES CAUSES INSTANT DEATH $200 FINE

UNATTENDED CHILDREN WILL BE GIVEN AN ESPRESSO AND A PUPPY

DONT'T DRINK AND DRIVE

MY BOSS TOLD ME TO CHANGE THE STUPID SIGN SO I DID (movable letter sign on business)

PLEASE SET CELL PHONES AND SMALL CHILDREN ON 'VIBRATE'

TURN OFF STEREOS BEFORE ENTERING TUNNEL

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Troubleshooter on July 29, 2010, 11:18:59 PM
One more - my favorite. Can anyone guess what it means?

It is on a chain-link fence.

GO OUTSIDE FENCE TO GET SHOT

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on July 30, 2010, 08:26:02 AM
QuoteUS 6 does NOT need to be multiplexed with 84 nearly as long as it is in CT, especially the first time in the Exits low-teens when the old road is continuous.

If one goes with a strict interpretation of AASHTO's US route policies, where the US route system's purpose is "to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best roads" (emphasis mine), then one should figure we need more Interstate/US route multiplexing, not less, since it'd be a hard sell to argue that the old road is "the best road" when there's a nearby parallel Interstate.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on July 30, 2010, 01:15:04 PM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on July 29, 2010, 10:50:10 PM
Generally somewhat better signed from intersecting roads than on the mainline, so I've found at least.  US 6 does NOT need to be multiplexed with 84 nearly as long as it is in CT, especially the first time in the Exits low-teens when the old road is continuous.

For that matter, it doesn't need to be multiplexed with CT 8, either.

Some acknowledgment of it westbound would be helpful. I didn't see any signs saying you had to get on 8 south to continue on 6 west... 6 instead seems to just meet 8 and then disappear. :-/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on July 30, 2010, 10:21:43 PM
One of my favorites was back in the late '80s on the Ambassador Bridge, Canada-Bound:

The sign originally said: 
MEN WORKING ABOVE (referring to cable inspectors or bridge painters),

but someone (Probably one of the workers)  added the words:
SO FLASH 'EM.

:wow:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 30, 2010, 11:50:12 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on July 30, 2010, 10:21:43 PM
One of my favorites was back in the late '80s on the Ambassador Bridge, Canada-Bound:

The sign originally said: 
MEN WORKING ABOVE (referring to cable inspectors or bridge painters),

but someone (Probably one of the workers)  added the words:
SO FLASH 'EM.

:wow:

There was a message board outside a beauty salon a few years back where the letters were rearranged to read "special sperm" (should have been special perms)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 02, 2010, 10:30:42 AM
Quote from: okroads on June 04, 2010, 11:49:47 AM
U.S. 265 in Utah?! (taken 5/27/10)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4013%2F4646866834_f825a8a077_b.jpg&hash=161beb0b3c16328e43330faa357093b446f5b7c0)

I was back in Provo this past weekend, and this sign goof has been corrected. :(
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on August 08, 2010, 03:11:16 PM
With all of the summer work on southbound OH-315 in Columbus, I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later...315 has become a US highway!   :)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FTF8A29qkIGI%2FAAAAAAAAB5w%2FvSfm65XRcRE%2Fs720%2FIMG_2109.JPG&hash=e60dafa935e8f04dc0e1ba1ac312a5a4fc48182e)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 08, 2010, 03:55:35 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4046%2F4389880548_5be8b881fb_d.jpg&hash=763d55ee2626ae30b9bdd67680cbf49dc9c45c8d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 08, 2010, 11:03:45 PM
Quote from: shoptb1 on August 08, 2010, 03:11:16 PM
With all of the summer work on southbound OH-315 in Columbus, I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later...315 has become a US highway!   :)

I like the size of the text on the orange tape jobs through the construction zone there.

CLOSED
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: The Premier on August 09, 2010, 07:37:39 PM
Quote from: shoptb1 on August 08, 2010, 03:11:16 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FTF8A29qkIGI%2FAAAAAAAAB5w%2FvSfm65XRcRE%2Fs720%2FIMG_2109.JPG&hash=e60dafa935e8f04dc0e1ba1ac312a5a4fc48182e)

I'm disappointed that SR 315 didn't get exit numbers compared to what they did with SR 8 in Akron. :-o
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on August 10, 2010, 12:54:31 AM
IMO, every state should follow California's lead and number ALL exits. For all practical purposes, Oregon's done this as I've noted exit numbers on OR 34. OR 126 in Springfield's a special case.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 10, 2010, 01:08:53 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 10, 2010, 12:54:31 AM
IMO, every state should follow California's lead and number ALL exits.

California's about the last state to feature exit numbers!  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 10, 2010, 02:04:42 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 10, 2010, 01:08:53 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 10, 2010, 12:54:31 AM
IMO, every state should follow California's lead and number ALL exits.

California's about the last state to feature exit numbers!  :-D

They may be, but then they're numbering every state-maintained freeway in response, which many other jurisdictions still won't do!

(Now if they'd just add exit numbers to Route 1 north of I-280...which isn't officially a "freeway" despite two interchanges!)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on August 10, 2010, 02:32:49 PM
Quote from: okroads on August 02, 2010, 10:30:42 AM
Quote from: okroads on June 04, 2010, 11:49:47 AM
U.S. 265 in Utah?! (taken 5/27/10)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4013%2F4646866834_f825a8a077_b.jpg&hash=161beb0b3c16328e43330faa357093b446f5b7c0)

I was back in Provo this past weekend, and this sign goof has been corrected. :(

Well, I did let the signing engineer know about this, so I guess I'm to blame on this one, right? :/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 10, 2010, 04:07:34 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 10, 2010, 02:32:49 PM
Quote from: okroads on August 02, 2010, 10:30:42 AM
Quote from: okroads on June 04, 2010, 11:49:47 AM
U.S. 265 in Utah?! (taken 5/27/10)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4013%2F4646866834_f825a8a077_b.jpg&hash=161beb0b3c16328e43330faa357093b446f5b7c0)

I was back in Provo this past weekend, and this sign goof has been corrected. :(

Well, I did let the signing engineer know about this, so I guess I'm to blame on this one, right? :/

I guess so... :)

I'm glad I got a picture of it while it was up, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on August 11, 2010, 01:04:39 PM
This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10936604) isn't an erroneous sign but an erroneous pavement marking.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 11, 2010, 02:26:57 PM
I encountered these signs on the Oregon coast yesterday.  Due to a bridge replacement project on OR 53 just south of US 26, through traffic is detoured on US 101 and US 26.  The detour is extensively signed along these routes, but they are a goofy shape that I have seen on a few contractor-posted detours; here's an example:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR53NehalemGoofyShield1.jpg%3Ft%3D1281550532&hash=14e41e5c558006b44dc6dc70d5fb435fbbed558a)

The real fun came at the US 101/26 junction, where these two warning signs are confused as to what route types 26 and 101 are:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR53CannonBeachJctSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1281550645&hash=b1e2c0a281a90f9c9e5a02e10907945b3d18f7c4)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR53CannonBeachJctSignGoof2.jpg%3Ft%3D1281550680&hash=b26cf2042755962247afd5760540126984d88881)

So naturally, at the same intersection:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR53CannonBeachJctSignGoof3.jpg%3Ft%3D1281550719&hash=8da2a3094958f56f00ee854b6fe6f351aceeee2c)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR53CannonBeachJctSignGoof4.jpg%3Ft%3D1281550789&hash=5bf42cdeed2cbf55ba4702e703c1f7e813f298e9)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CL on August 11, 2010, 07:45:20 PM
Oh, my eyes. If there's anything worse than Helvetica on a shield, it's that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 11, 2010, 07:54:48 PM
That's really, really ugly. What font IS that?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: joseph1723 on August 11, 2010, 07:57:45 PM
Whoa, that's even worse than the Arial shields I posted a while ago, what font did they use?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 11, 2010, 08:51:29 PM
that's way better than Helvetica.  It vaguely resembles old Maryland.  Significantly uglier of course, but not nearly as bad as Helvetica.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CL on August 11, 2010, 10:29:22 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 11, 2010, 08:51:29 PM
that's way better than Helvetica.  It vaguely resembles old Maryland.  Significantly uglier of course, but not nearly as bad as Helvetica.

Helvetica has class (though it doesn't belong on any road, I agree). That awful font doesn't. Not one penny.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 11, 2010, 11:38:28 PM
Helvetica has been overused.  That font, if they could keep their stroke width constant, would look decent.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 11, 2010, 11:45:01 PM
That is Franklin Gothic. I have only seen it on one road sign before, naturally furnished by our friends at OTA:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Froadgeek%2Froad-photos%2Fmain.php%3Fcmd%3Dimage%26amp%3Bvar1%3Dok%252Fwagoner%252Ffgothic.jpg%26amp%3Bvar2%3D500_85&hash=e5fcce9b35e5fd358e1d0fb7eb1f2f974fa82c8b)

As far as "fonts that aren't the correct ones" go, I'd say it's pretty classy. Classier than Arial and Times New Roman, at least. It used to be used in the logo for "The Late Late Show", and when I was growing up as a kid they used to use it on much of the signage at the grocery store we shopped at.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: RustyK on August 13, 2010, 12:59:11 PM
I don't have pictures, but I saw 2 while I was in NJ last week:
1. The long-standing black-and-white, Interstate-shaped, route 9 symbol at Exit 29 on the Parkway north.
2. Work on US 1 near New Brunswick routes one of the thru lanes onto an exit, using the parallel frontage road -- the detour signs show NJ 1, in both the north and south directions.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 01:04:34 PM
Quote from: RustyK on August 13, 2010, 12:59:11 PM
1. The long-standing black-and-white, Interstate-shaped, route 9 symbol at Exit 29 on the Parkway north.


can anyone get a really good detailed closeup of this for the shield gallery?  I once attempted to get a photo but I was driving southbound and the rearward facing shot failed in every way imaginable.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on August 13, 2010, 01:12:02 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 01:04:34 PM

can anyone get a really good detailed closeup of this for the shield gallery?  I once attempted to get a photo but I was driving southbound and the rearward facing shot failed in every way imaginable.

I have a halfway decent shot of it, taken back in June. I haven't uploaded my hundreds of pictures from my travels this summer, but once I get them up you are welcome to make use of it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 01:15:24 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 13, 2010, 01:12:02 PM

I have a halfway decent shot of it, taken back in June. I haven't uploaded my hundreds of pictures from my travels this summer, but once I get them up you are welcome to make use of it.

that would be great; thanks!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 13, 2010, 02:02:58 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on July 29, 2010, 11:18:59 PM
One more - my favorite. Can anyone guess what it means?

It is on a chain-link fence.

GO OUTSIDE FENCE TO GET SHOT


Did you see my image of the sign at the mini-golf course on Portion Road boasting of "F***king For All Ages?"

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on August 13, 2010, 02:53:09 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 01:04:34 PM
Quote from: RustyK on August 13, 2010, 12:59:11 PM
1. The long-standing black-and-white, Interstate-shaped, route 9 symbol at Exit 29 on the Parkway north.


can anyone get a really good detailed closeup of this for the shield gallery?  I once attempted to get a photo but I was driving southbound and the rearward facing shot failed in every way imaginable.

Not really erroneous, but definitely not standard, and probably long gone was this wooden sign I video taped in 1997:

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/oldus9sign.jpg)

Note the two span wire supported light bulbs above the sign too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 13, 2010, 03:39:27 PM
Quote from: RustyK on August 13, 2010, 12:59:11 PM
I don't have pictures, but I saw 2 while I was in NJ last week:
1. The long-standing black-and-white, Interstate-shaped, route 9 symbol at Exit 29 on the Parkway north.

This one? (taken by me on 8/4/03)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.okroads.com%2F080403%2Fgspexit29.JPG&hash=427911b6da6781948d188319d709b272818f1a9e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 13, 2010, 04:09:08 PM
^^ My eyes!  How they burn!  :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 13, 2010, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: okroads on August 13, 2010, 03:39:27 PM
This one? (taken by me on 8/4/03)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.okroads.com%2F080403%2Fgspexit29.JPG&hash=427911b6da6781948d188319d709b272818f1a9e)

Apparently Bud Shuster wasn't finished after I-99...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on August 13, 2010, 06:23:17 PM
^^^

:hmmm: I'm not so sure.  I-99 may break the grid, but its signs are within spec.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: mightyace on August 13, 2010, 06:23:17 PM

:hmmm: I'm not so sure.  I-99 may break the grid, but its signs are within spec.

would be nice if they had the state name, though... which is, indeed, back in the specs as of 2003.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: joseph1723 on August 14, 2010, 01:12:37 AM
Here's one I found on Onthighways.com (http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_10-19_images/16_shield_401assembly.jpg) of a now removed US 37 sign that's supposed to be NY 37 on the ON 401 offramp:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.imageshack.us%2Fimg820%2F3706%2F16shield401assembly.jpg&hash=4a04b7762e7241d794055973641e7cfc960fd9c0)

The one on the other ramp is still there in streetview though:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=44.755739,-75.479808&spn=0.010819,0.019119&z=16&layer=c&cbll=44.755835,-75.479676&panoid=ml56BE_QNkjSs0TRJ56qgw&cbp=12,230.79,,2,5.05
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on August 14, 2010, 01:58:14 PM
Quote from: joseph1723 on August 14, 2010, 01:12:37 AM
Here's one I found on Onthighways.com (http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_10-19_images/16_shield_401assembly.jpg) of a now removed US 37 sign that's supposed to be NY 37 on the ON 401 offramp:
*ON 16/416/US 37 assembly*

The directional sign on the 37 sign is wrong, too...37 runs east/west, not north/south.

QuoteThe one on the other ramp is still there in streetview though:
*GSV link*

That's actually surprising, considering that all of the BGS's for Exit 721B on 401 (along with LGS's along 16 for the bridge, and the LGS off of the WB ramp) used to have incorrect US 37 shields as well...they've since been overlaid with NY 37 shields, complete with black background. The BGS assembly for 401 westbound doesn't show 37 at all!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on August 15, 2010, 08:46:57 AM
Quote from: Adam Smith on August 08, 2010, 11:03:45 PM
I like the size of the text on the orange tape jobs through the construction zone there.

CLOSED

you mean, like this?  Sorry kids, Ohio State is closed now.  LOL

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FTGfgynqhCpI%2FAAAAAAAAB6o%2F1Ws_stXdtzs%2Fs640%2FIMG_2103.JPG&hash=d7a84a3480c743dd4160a8427a4695f34865e7cc)


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 15, 2010, 09:35:05 AM
Not a major error, but an error nonetheless ;)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2152%2F2504296060_5cd0224500_z_d.jpg&hash=8316364aa559685dd3b06874768b3b7b6f3b0efa)




This one you'd have to see the location to understand why it's an error:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4059%2F4235836068_4895856488_z_d.jpg&hash=10e5be6ceed3a58f091c7ea8ce62076092a1dfbb)

Here's the
streetview  (http://maps.google.com/maps?client=opera&q=lavaca,+AR&oe=utf-8&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Lavaca,+Sebastian,+Arkansas&gl=us&ei=m-tnTPi3OsP98Abgpd2zBA&ved=0CBQQ8gEwAA&ll=35.335188,-94.180641&spn=0.005251,0.012317&z=17&layer=c&cbll=35.336026,-94.179763&panoid=pK-8_Yv_v1yYJ4gOS050AQ&cbp=12,54.27,,0,10.85%20/)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on August 15, 2010, 05:25:46 PM
Here's a succession of signs (hint, it's the same direction of I-40)

View 1 (http://a.imageshack.us/img8/2531/img3165p.jpg)

View 2 (http://a.imageshack.us/img822/2899/img3166pk.jpg)

This has been fixed since, but back in April, 2010 it was like this.

[ - Please resize your images manually down to 800 width.  You're making some Internet browsers stutter badly.  Thanks. -rmf67]
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2010, 05:33:58 PM
I thought we had an auto-resize script as a stopgap, or did we knock it out since it was masking the problem, and not solving it?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 15, 2010, 05:35:04 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2010, 05:33:58 PM
I thought we had an auto-resize script as a stopgap, or did we knock it out since it was masking the problem, and not solving it?

Well, one of his images somehow bypassed it and was full size in the forums.  The other one had javascript resizing and was freaking out my browser.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2010, 05:36:00 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 15, 2010, 05:35:04 PM


Well, one of his images somehow bypassed it and was full size in the forums.  The other one had javascript resizing and was freaking out my browser.

I noticed the one, that is why I was wondering if our countermeasure had been taken away.  The other one was not freaking out the browser for me.  I'm running firefox 3.5.3.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 15, 2010, 05:41:23 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2010, 05:36:00 PM
I noticed the one, that is why I was wondering if our countermeasure had been taken away.  The other one was not freaking out the browser for me.  I'm running firefox 3.5.3.

I don't know if the countermeasure has been.  As for the browser freakout, it does it in IE.  Yes, I use IE because it has a x64 version that I don't have to worry about flash in it. :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on August 15, 2010, 05:47:36 PM
Serves me right for directly linking imageshack to this forum.

Let me see if I can resize it in IS and post it again.

[EDIT] Apparently not.  Okay, here's the gist of the two images.  One is a BGS with a left-handed tab, which is correct.  The second is a gore sign with a right-handed arrow, which is wrong.

RMF67, does the image linking code allow resizing in the image tag?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2010, 05:54:38 PM
I have a firefox add-on called FlashBlock that disables all flash apps unless explicitly requested. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 15, 2010, 06:18:57 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on August 15, 2010, 05:47:36 PM
RMF67, does the image linking code allow resizing in the image tag?

Here, yes.  However with very large images that are resized by them, some browser sutter very badly when moving over them.  I could resize the images for you and then you re-upload them to your imagesack account and repost. ;)  Let me know if you want me to and what e-mail address to send them to.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on August 22, 2010, 09:26:26 PM
Poor weather sorta got in the way here, but:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg178.imageshack.us%2Fimg178%2F8423%2Fnj202.jpg&hash=599cfde17b061186df90468b1ba4ddac331ac683)

I actually didn't notice this error until I was looking through the pictures I'd taken and loading them onto my computer. I thought I was just snapping a picture of an old button copy sign!


(in case you can't figure it out, NJ 202 should be US 202)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on August 28, 2010, 11:47:03 PM
Here's a new one. No buckinghorse, no "ming," just WYO 59.

On 59 on the godforsaken stretch of road halfway between Gillette and the Montana line
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fwyo59.jpg&hash=69849eafc0e67aee46dfb5448abe6c8d150402e3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on August 29, 2010, 12:42:23 PM
Not too much of an error, but DelDOT messed up the colors for the E-ZPass logo! The text is supposed to be white and the background is supposed to be purple. I-95 southbound approaching the Newark toll plaza.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTHqKDF2KShI%2FAAAAAAAAhq8%2F9LCXX6h5iPc%2Fs640%2FIMG_1332.JPG&hash=7eec1b2c6c79a019a67652d2c4db9a6deb1a5bbd)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTHqKEnUZ06I%2FAAAAAAAAhrU%2Fh7C3SUK2Wic%2Fs640%2FIMG_1335.JPG&hash=ef8aca6e20699f03e8d8cbf0bd22eb155b27ab6d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 29, 2010, 02:59:14 PM
I found an I-95 trailblazer on westbound RI 138 a few miles east of the interstate that had "I-95" in a 3-digit shield, but was unable to get a picture or find it on streetview afterward.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2010, 03:31:23 PM
Rhode Island does that sometimes.  This one is on the mainline.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/RI/RI19881951i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on August 29, 2010, 03:32:45 PM
Savannah, GA has a few I-I-16 shields...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FS8uEQE0cg9I%2FAAAAAAAAadY%2FsMHX7h907yk%2Fs640%2FIMG_3118.JPG&hash=902d5fa4e7480d22e3b9e5a3020421a34fc6ec2c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on August 29, 2010, 04:01:57 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on August 29, 2010, 12:42:23 PM
Not too much of an error, but DelDOT messed up the colors for the E-ZPass logo! The text is supposed to be white and the background is supposed to be purple. I-95 southbound approaching the Newark toll plaza.

Meh, that logo doesn't look too bad. Those signs are hideous, but not because of the reverse-colored E-ZPass logo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2010, 04:07:07 PM
Denver likes to do this:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CO/CO19880702i1.jpg)

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CO/CO19950251i1.jpg)

I think there might be a state-named one on the mainline.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 29, 2010, 04:09:40 PM
This one is subtle:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4096%2F4867117017_1b0c55506f_z_d.jpg&hash=c73868067622a391a5df739e45bf9c392b990984)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 29, 2010, 05:00:46 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on August 29, 2010, 12:42:23 PM
Not too much of an error, but DelDOT messed up the colors for the E-ZPass logo! The text is supposed to be white and the background is supposed to be purple. I-95 southbound approaching the Newark toll plaza.

Actually, purple-on-white is an alternate logo scheme for the E-ZPass logo; some of the state E-ZPass websites use that version, and that's how it appears on most transponders. It's just not common on actual signage. The Peace Bridge (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=peace+bridge&sll=42.904907,-78.891535&sspn=0.00932,0.022724&ie=UTF8&split=1&rq=1&ev=zi&radius=0.69&hq=peace+bridge&hnear=&ll=42.903429,-78.892522&spn=0.009321,0.022724&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.902695,-78.898088&panoid=JM0Or4m5kargQstvS1IRcA&cbp=12,94.84,,0,-1.8) uses that, though, among others.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: nyratk1 on August 29, 2010, 09:28:41 PM
Quote from: US71 on August 29, 2010, 04:09:40 PM
This one is subtle:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4096%2F4867117017_1b0c55506f_z_d.jpg&hash=c73868067622a391a5df739e45bf9c392b990984)

should be 1-5?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2010, 10:03:45 PM
Quote from: nyratk1 on August 29, 2010, 09:28:41 PM


should be 1-5?

not that I know... the error I found is subtle and can be detected in the mirror.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on August 29, 2010, 10:03:57 PM
Quoteshould be 1-5?

.melborp eht si taht tbuod I
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tchafe1978 on August 31, 2010, 01:38:46 PM
WISDOT can't even get it right on their own website. This page is about WIS 33. There is no US 33 in Wisconsin, mind you.

http://www.dot.wi.gov/projects/swregion/wis33corridorpas/index.htm
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:42:44 PM
I thought I posted this already, but I can't find it...

Anyway, several signs on I-405 in CA refer to a junction with State Route 42. This was true... A long, long time ago. State Route 42 was deleted entirely at least 20 years ago, yet signage continues to this very day.

And until very recently, there was signage on CA-14 for a junction with CA-126, which was truncated west at I-5 also many years back.

But the presser is that the opposite is also true. For example, you won't find signage in Weed for when I-5 and CA-265 intersect, because the latter isn't signed, despite the fact it is fully funded and exists.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 01:45:41 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:42:44 PM
Anyway, several signs on I-405 in CA refer to a junction with State Route 42. This was true... A long, long time ago. State Route 42 was deleted entirely at least 20 years ago, yet signage continues to this very day.

there is one sign on 5 left that has the 42 shield.  And there is one stand-alone trailblazer, if you know where to look...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:48:02 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:42:44 PM
I thought I posted this already, but I can't find it...

Anyway, several signs on I-405 in CA refer to a junction with State Route 42. This was true... A long, long time ago. State Route 42 was deleted entirely at least 20 years ago, yet signage continues to this very day.

Aren't there 42 references on other freeways as well?  42 actually was deleted way before that - in 1968!!!  (the west portion becoming I-105, east portion becoming part of Route 90) - but remained signed while its replacement (I-105) was under construction, and for some years afterward.

Likewise, I-405 still refers to Route 91 on Artesia Boulevard, which I'm not sure is still part of the state highway.

Quote from: Quillz

But the presser is that the opposite is also true. For example, you won't find signage in Weed for when I-5 and CA-265 intersect, because the latter isn't signed, despite the fact it is fully funded and exists.

Supposedly a Route 265 sign has been added in recent years though I haven't seen it.  
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 31, 2010, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on August 31, 2010, 01:38:46 PM
WISDOT can't even get it right on their own website. This page is about WIS 33. There is no US 33 in Wisconsin, mind you.

http://www.dot.wi.gov/projects/swregion/wis33corridorpas/index.htm

That's what happens when you refer to everything as simply "Highway" as they do behind the Cheddar Curtain.  :rofl:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:52:00 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:48:02 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:42:44 PM
I thought I posted this already, but I can't find it...

Anyway, several signs on I-405 in CA refer to a junction with State Route 42. This was true... A long, long time ago. State Route 42 was deleted entirely at least 20 years ago, yet signage continues to this very day.

Aren't there 42 references on other freeways as well?  42 actually was deleted way before that - in 1968!!!  (the west portion becoming I-105, east portion becoming part of Route 90) - but remained signed while its replacement (I-105) was under construction, and for some years afterward.

Likewise, I-405 still refers to Route 91 on Artesia Boulevard, which I'm not sure is still part of the state highway.

Quote from: Quillz

But the presser is that the opposite is also true. For example, you won't find signage in Weed for when I-5 and CA-265 intersect, because the latter isn't signed, despite the fact it is fully funded and exists.

Supposedly a Route 265 sign has been added in recent years though I haven't seen it. 
I drove through Weed in August 2009, and I didn't see any signs on I-5. I even went down Weed Boulevard and didn't see one, although it may have been added in the past year.

And yes, CalTRANS redefined Route 91 a few years back so that it no longer officially connects to I-405. It just ends at the Gardena city limits, I think, or is the Artesia city limits? There a few other routes like that, CA-2 comes to mind, that have been officially defined to end at city limits, rather than at other state highways. (CA-91 and CA-2 used to end at state highways, they don't anymore.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 31, 2010, 01:48:43 PM

That's what happens when you refer to everything as simply "Highway" as they do behind the Cheddar Curtain.  :rofl:

that and your US and state markers look identical from a distance.

and then there is ... this.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WI/WI19700083i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 01:55:23 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:48:02 PM

Supposedly a Route 265 sign has been added in recent years though I haven't seen it.  

northbound, a mile or two north of downtown on old 99.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:56:40 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:52:00 PM
And yes, CalTRANS redefined Route 91 a few years back so that it no longer officially connects to I-405. It just ends at the Gardena city limits, I think, or is the Artesia city limits? There a few other routes like that, CA-2 comes to mind, that have been officially defined to end at city limits, rather than at other state highways. (CA-91 and CA-2 used to end at state highways, they don't anymore.)

Yeah, this is a major drawback of the legislative route-assignment system: in almost all cases, route signing is not based on what is navigationally logical, but whether a city or county or the state maintains a stretch of road.  Some legislative definitions now specify that truncated segments must still be signed, but this is not true for all of them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:59:20 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:56:40 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:52:00 PM
And yes, CalTRANS redefined Route 91 a few years back so that it no longer officially connects to I-405. It just ends at the Gardena city limits, I think, or is the Artesia city limits? There a few other routes like that, CA-2 comes to mind, that have been officially defined to end at city limits, rather than at other state highways. (CA-91 and CA-2 used to end at state highways, they don't anymore.)

Yeah, this is a major drawback of the legislative route-assignment system: in almost all cases, route signing is not based on what is navigationally logical, but whether a city or county or the state maintains a stretch of road.  Some legislative definitions now specify that truncated segments must still be signed, but this is not true for all of them.
I know that for many years, signage continued for CA-126 between I-5 and CA-14, although this has finally been removed in recent years.

However, almost all signage continues to exist for CA-2, Santa Monica Boulevard, west of the Los Angeles city limits where the route is supposed to officially terminate. This is most likely done because CA-2 used to end at CA-1 and the signage, though wrong, just makes things easier for motorists. But in the case of CA-91, the same was not done... You won't too many CA-91 shields west of Gardena or Artesia nowadays.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:01:53 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:59:20 PM

However, almost all signage continues to exist for CA-2, Santa Monica Boulevard, west of the Los Angeles city limits where the route is supposed to officially terminate. This is most likely done because CA-2 used to end at CA-1 and the signage, though wrong, just makes things easier for motorists. But in the case of CA-91, the same was not done... You won't too many CA-91 shields west of Gardena or Artesia nowadays.

I actually don't recall finding any Route 2 shields left in Santa Monica in February - definitely tried to look around for them the two times I went down that street.  Both trips were at night though so I could have missed seeing them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 02:03:25 PM
I believe there are some 1/2 green signs at the western terminus.  No stand-alones, though.  That would be a highly tempting gantry to steal!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:04:56 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 02:03:25 PM
I believe there are some 1/2 green signs at the western terminus.  No stand-alones, though.  That would be a highly tempting gantry to steal!

Is there any mention of 2 off of Interstate 10?

I think 2 is still signed from 405, but that's in the Los Angeles city limits - even there, the shield count is rather scant.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 02:11:19 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:01:53 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:59:20 PM

However, almost all signage continues to exist for CA-2, Santa Monica Boulevard, west of the Los Angeles city limits where the route is supposed to officially terminate. This is most likely done because CA-2 used to end at CA-1 and the signage, though wrong, just makes things easier for motorists. But in the case of CA-91, the same was not done... You won't too many CA-91 shields west of Gardena or Artesia nowadays.

I actually don't recall finding any Route 2 shields left in Santa Monica in February - definitely tried to look around for them the two times I went down that street.  Both trips were at night though so I could have missed seeing them.
Well, "fully signed" was probably too strong a word. I have definitely seen some CA-2 shields on Santa Monica Blvd. quite recently, though. It's possible they'll be removed eventually, but I think the idea is to imply that CA-2/SMB leads to CA-1, even if the former is not legally true anymore.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 02:15:35 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:04:56 PM

Is there any mention of 2 off of Interstate 10?

don't remember - have not driven 10 in that area in a while.

the fact that we're having this debate on where the route is signed and where it isn't ... that just makes it eminently clear how hosed California's system is.  of course it should be signed!  2 should go down that boulevard, regardless of who maintains it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 02:17:44 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 02:15:35 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:04:56 PM

Is there any mention of 2 off of Interstate 10?

don't remember - have not driven 10 in that area in a while.

the fact that we're having this debate on where the route is signed and where it isn't ... that just makes it eminently clear how hosed California's system is.  of course it should be signed!  2 should go down that boulevard, regardless of who maintains it.
Couldn't agree more. The way I see it, a state route, especially a valuable single- or two-digit one, should always clearly terminate at another numbered highway, not at some artificial city limit. I still wish CA-126 continued east along Magic Mountain Parkway to CA-14, and I also wish some of the planned state route extensions, such as the eastern CA-118 extension, would be built or signed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:28:20 PM
Quote from: QuillzCouldn't agree more. The way I see it, a state route, especially a valuable single- or two-digit one, should always clearly terminate at another numbered highway, not at some artificial city limit. I still wish CA-126 continued east along Magic Mountain Parkway to CA-14, and I also wish some of the planned state route extensions, such as the eastern CA-118 extension, would be built or signed.

118 east of 210 would need to be built first! :-D  (which is basically dependent on if 249 is ever constructed between Sunland and Palmdale)


I know that the surface road between I-5 and Route 14 along the 126 corridor was recently built to arterial standards - logically, this should be 126!

I wonder how many DOTs actually do sign routes based on navigation only, as opposed to maintenance (I want to say Massachussetts is one of them).  Prior to the 1964 renumbering (actually, prior to the 1950s), the auto clubs were the ones who did this in California - were they the ones who came up with the route numbers?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 04:50:40 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:28:20 PM
Quote from: QuillzCouldn't agree more. The way I see it, a state route, especially a valuable single- or two-digit one, should always clearly terminate at another numbered highway, not at some artificial city limit. I still wish CA-126 continued east along Magic Mountain Parkway to CA-14, and I also wish some of the planned state route extensions, such as the eastern CA-118 extension, would be built or signed.

118 east of 210 would need to be built first! :-D  (which is basically dependent on if 249 is ever constructed between Sunland and Palmdale)


I know that the surface road between I-5 and Route 14 along the 126 corridor was recently built to arterial standards - logically, this should be 126!

I wonder how many DOTs actually do sign routes based on navigation only, as opposed to maintenance (I want to say Massachussetts is one of them).  Prior to the 1964 renumbering (actually, prior to the 1950s), the auto clubs were the ones who did this in California - were they the ones who came up with the route numbers?
I think they were, yeah. There was one in NorCal and one in SoCal. Numbers were assigned in pairs in NorCal and SoCal. Someone had a really good post not too long ago explaining the numbering scheme.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 04:58:26 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 04:50:40 PM
I think they were, yeah. There was one in NorCal and one in SoCal. Numbers were assigned in pairs in NorCal and SoCal. Someone had a really good post not too long ago explaining the numbering scheme.

I'm pretty familiar with all that (the number assignments, the number scheme, and the existence of the CSAA in NorCal and the ACSC in SoCal as the two organizations responsible for putting up route markers) - not so much who, if anyone, at those auto clubs - or if it was elsewhere - created the numbers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:15:19 PM
Massachusetts indeed signs routes based on navigation, as does Vermont.  I think VT even has a few town-maintained stretches of interstate freeway!

as for who came up with California's route numbers - one of the old articles (August '34 or Sept '34) might have that info.

the thing is, California already has a near-useless set of internal route designations (the LRNs... shudder) so implicitly they recognize that the signed routes are for navigation - so then sign the damn things!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 05:24:04 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:15:19 PM

as for who came up with California's route numbers - one of the old articles (August '34 or Sept '34) might have that info.

I'll check and see.  It's kinda interesting that whoever was in an office deciding those numbers back then decided the identity of some of the roads we still have today (namely, major state routes like 1, 49, and plenty of the San Diego-area numbers)!


Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:15:19 PM
the thing is, California already has a near-useless set of internal route designations (the LRNs... shudder) so implicitly they recognize that the signed routes are for navigation - so then sign the damn things!

a short form history of the convoluted nature of California route numbering:

1910s - LRNs created, useful in navigation to absolutely nobody
1926 - US routes created, auto clubs start signing them in the next few years
1934 - state routes numbered, auto clubs sign them
1956 - interstates created, I think these were always signed by DOH/CalTrans
1964 - renumbering removes any duplicate US/Interstate situations, theoretically makes state sign routes their legislative #, but introduces such great situations as:

242 (built as 24, signed as 24 until the late 1980s)
260, 112 (signed as 61 thereafter)
164 (built as 19, signed as 19 to present day)

and others over time where a perfectly serviceable road exists on the corridor, but since it is not state-maintained or state-constructed, remains unsigned:

93 (Richmond Parkway/San Pablo Dam Road)
148 (Cosumnes River Boulevard)
258 (Western Avenue)
77 (a myriad of streets from Walnut Creek to Oakland)
87 between 101 and 237
251 (Sir Francis Drake Boulevard)
128 between I-505 and Davis
the north-south segment of 84 between Livermore and Rio Vista

And let's not forget the Route 39 gap between Fullerton and I-10 - in existence in the 1940s, seemingly corrected by 1964, but then reintroduced by the late 1980s AFTER a new improved road was built!?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 05:27:04 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 05:24:04 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:15:19 PM

as for who came up with California's route numbers - one of the old articles (August '34 or Sept '34) might have that info.

I'll check and see.  It's kinda interesting that whoever was in an office deciding those numbers back then decided the identity of some of the roads we still have today (namely, major state routes like 1, 49, and plenty of the San Diego-area numbers)!


Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:15:19 PM
the thing is, California already has a near-useless set of internal route designations (the LRNs... shudder) so implicitly they recognize that the signed routes are for navigation - so then sign the damn things!

a short form history of the convoluted nature of California route numbering:

1910s - LRNs created, useful in navigation to absolutely nobody
1926 - US routes created, auto clubs start signing them in the next few years
1934 - state routes numbered, auto clubs sign them
1956 - interstates created, I think these were always signed by DOH/CalTrans
1964 - renumbering removes any duplicate US/Interstate situations, theoretically makes state sign routes their legislative #, but introduces such great situations as:

242 (built as 24, signed as 24 until the late 1980s)
260, 112 (signed as 61 thereafter)
164 (built as 19, signed as 19 to present day)

and others over time where a perfectly serviceable road exists on the corridor, but since it is not state-maintained or state-constructed, remains unsigned:

93 (Richmond Parkway/San Pablo Dam Road)
148 (Cosumnes River Boulevard)
258 (Western Avenue)
77 (a myriad of streets from Walnut Creek to Oakland)
87 between 101 and 237
251 (Sir Francis Drake Boulevard)
128 between I-505 and Davis
the north-south segment of 84 between Livermore and Rio Vista

And let's not forget the Route 39 gap between Fullerton and I-10 - in existence in the 1940s, seemingly corrected by 1964, but then reintroduced by the late 1980s AFTER a new improved road was built!?
That's the single most annoying thing about California's route system... All the gaps that will likely never be filled in. I hate that Routes 39, 65, 178, 190, etc. are all incomplete.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 05:24:04 PM
1934 - state routes numbered, auto clubs sign them
1956 - interstates created, I think these were always signed by DOH/CalTrans

the Auto Clubs stopped signing state highways in 1947.  so yes, the interstates were always done by CDOH.

there are no interstate shields with a logo, as the logo was taken away in March '57 and the interstate shield approved in July ... unless someone came up with a prototype using the preliminary-approved 1956 spec.  I'll put together a mockup tonight of what that would look like.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:07:59 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 05:27:04 PM
That's the single most annoying thing about California's route system... All the gaps that will likely never be filled in. I hate that Routes 39, 65, 178, 190, etc. are all incomplete.

65 is still slated to be finished...some time 30 or so years from now.  (Seriously!)

There also has been talk about reopening 39's north end eventually, but not sure why that middle section from Fullerton to Azusa remains unsigned when there is a navigable road there!

For routes like 178, 190...honestly the two segments of such should be entirely different routes.  (For that matter, now that the two segments of Route 16 are seperated by a 30 mile gap, why should this be one numbered route if the implied concurrencies with I-5 and US 50 will not be signed?)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:07:59 PM

For routes like 178, 190...honestly the two segments of such should be entirely different routes.  (For that matter, now that the two segments of Route 16 are seperated by a 30 mile gap, why should this be one numbered route if the implied concurrencies with I-5 and US 50 will not be signed?)

178 and 190 can be connected.  178 through Death Valley and 190 across Sherman Pass.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:32:13 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:07:59 PM

For routes like 178, 190...honestly the two segments of such should be entirely different routes.  (For that matter, now that the two segments of Route 16 are seperated by a 30 mile gap, why should this be one numbered route if the implied concurrencies with I-5 and US 50 will not be signed?)

178 and 190 can be connected.  178 through Death Valley and 190 across Sherman Pass.

Ah, you're right, forgot about Sherman Pass!  (It's what, the only non-state highway Sierra pass?)

178...the direct routing through Death Valley isn't buildable because of the national park boundaries, though one can reconnect both segments using part of 190 (albeit a very indirect connection).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:45:12 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:32:13 PM
Ah, you're right, forgot about Sherman Pass!  (It's what, the only non-state highway Sierra pass?)

that's built, yes.  168 is a tough one to reconnect because that road was literally never built.

Quote178...the direct routing through Death Valley isn't buildable because of the national park boundaries, though one can reconnect both segments using part of 190 (albeit a very indirect connection).

yep, up Trona-Wildrose Rd and down Badwater Rd.  I've driven that road in pitch black wondering just why the Hell they can't bother to throw me a bone and a 178 reassurance.  There, I would argue that the lack of guide signage is dangerous - to have 178 clearly labeled on either side of the gap on the map, and then to lead the driver through about 100 miles of completely uncertain navigational features... the road is labeled as a gray line, but after about 40 miles of absolutely no reassurance, one does start to wonder if they've made a bad turn.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:49:35 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:45:12 PM

Quote178...the direct routing through Death Valley isn't buildable because of the national park boundaries, though one can reconnect both segments using part of 190 (albeit a very indirect connection).

yep, up Trona-Wildrose Rd and down Badwater Rd.  I've driven that road in pitch black wondering just why the Hell they can't bother to throw me a bone and a 178 reassurance.  There, I would argue that the lack of guide signage is dangerous - to have 178 clearly labeled on either side of the gap on the map, and then to lead the driver through about 100 miles of completely uncertain navigational features... the road is labeled as a gray line, but after about 40 miles of absolutely no reassurance, one does start to wonder if they've made a bad turn.

I just think that, why not number the part going back to 190 on the west end as 178 (instead of an unnumbered road with no clue where to go), and use one of the currently unusued three digit numbers on the east half, like 212 or 214?

Knowing CalTrans, if they were to use another number, it'll be 21. :p
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:50:48 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:49:35 PM

I just think that, why not number the part going back to 190 on the west end as 178 (instead of an unnumbered road with no clue where to go), and use one of the currently unusued three digit numbers on the east half, like 212 or 214?

Knowing CalTrans, if they were to use another number, it'll be 21. :p

the way it is right now, with a big old-fashioned gap in the middle is utterly senseless.  I know people are supposed to exercise caution in Death Valley but really would a few competent sets of 178/190 guide signs in the Badwater area, and a reassurance marker oh about every 10 miles, be that bad an idea??
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:55:56 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:50:48 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:49:35 PM

I just think that, why not number the part going back to 190 on the west end as 178 (instead of an unnumbered road with no clue where to go), and use one of the currently unusued three digit numbers on the east half, like 212 or 214?

Knowing CalTrans, if they were to use another number, it'll be 21. :p

the way it is right now, with a big old-fashioned gap in the middle is utterly senseless.  I know people are supposed to exercise caution in Death Valley but really would a few competent sets of 178/190 guide signs in the Badwater area, and a reassurance marker oh about every 10 miles, be that bad an idea??

Reassurance markers!? 

For one extreme example...between Winters and Route 121, Route 128 has almost NO reassurance markers whatsoever - the only way one remembers they're on a state highway is to check out the postmiles!  And this is supposed to be a fully-acknowledged, fully-signed state route in this segment!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:57:18 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:55:56 PM

Reassurance markers!? 

For one extreme example...between Winters and Route 121, Route 128 has almost NO reassurance markers whatsoever - the only way one remembers they're on a state highway is to check out the postmiles!  And this is supposed to be a fully-acknowledged, fully-signed state route in this segment!

I'm pretty sure that one does not go more than 40 miles between reassurance markers anywhere in California.

and, besides, between Winters and Route 121, you're not nervously eyeing your gas gauge even in the worst of darkness...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 31, 2010, 09:08:27 PM
I found another one in Google Images of the interchange with US 6 & NY 293 in Harriman State Park

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg411.imageshack.us%2Fimg411%2F3333%2Fus6ny293signerror.jpg&hash=24bde1c3ce50aa1108ab4e00d2c3341574b81fa0) (http://img411.imageshack.us/i/us6ny293signerror.jpg/)

I really have to drive on the Long Mountain Parkway, and all the other roads of Bear Mountain/Harriman State Parks.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 10:23:24 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:57:18 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:55:56 PM

Reassurance markers!? 

For one extreme example...between Winters and Route 121, Route 128 has almost NO reassurance markers whatsoever - the only way one remembers they're on a state highway is to check out the postmiles!  And this is supposed to be a fully-acknowledged, fully-signed state route in this segment!

I'm pretty sure that one does not go more than 40 miles between reassurance markers anywhere in California.


128 is probably not that bad but I would say there are good 15-20 mile stretches between reassurance markers from what I remember.  It's been many months since I've been down that road though...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 10:46:59 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:57:18 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:55:56 PM

Reassurance markers!? 

For one extreme example...between Winters and Route 121, Route 128 has almost NO reassurance markers whatsoever - the only way one remembers they're on a state highway is to check out the postmiles!  And this is supposed to be a fully-acknowledged, fully-signed state route in this segment!

I'm pretty sure that one does not go more than 40 miles between reassurance markers anywhere in California.

and, besides, between Winters and Route 121, you're not nervously eyeing your gas gauge even in the worst of darkness...
Even on Route 62? That just might be the loneliest road in California.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 10:49:22 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 10:46:59 PM
and, besides, between Winters and Route 121, you're not nervously eyeing your gas gauge even in the worst of darkness...
Even on Route 62? That just might be the loneliest road in California.
[/quote]

that one at least is well-signed: next services, 100 miles. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on August 31, 2010, 11:36:39 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:04:56 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 02:03:25 PM
I believe there are some 1/2 green signs at the western terminus.  No stand-alones, though.  That would be a highly tempting gantry to steal!

Is there any mention of 2 off of Interstate 10?

I think 2 is still signed from 405, but that's in the Los Angeles city limits - even there, the shield count is rather scant.

I was just in Santa Monica about a month ago, and I believe I do remember seeing a CA 2 trailblazer at the end of the first exit ramp from I-10 eastbound.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: architect77 on September 01, 2010, 12:34:54 AM
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/31/1658010/misspelled-sign-on-i-277-will.html
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on September 01, 2010, 05:36:36 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 31, 2010, 09:08:27 PM
I found another one in Google Images of the interchange with US 6 & NY 293 in Harriman State Park

The US/NY shield error is (unfortunately) common in New York...

The 293 shield looks off, too...it's too short. The 6 looks better (despite being wrong), but appears to be of the crappy new standard (which is better than some of the other newer shields I've seen, but still bad compared to the old standard).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 01, 2010, 05:42:10 PM
Speaking of US/NY shield errors, I spotted this shield error on Ernst Road in Gansevoort for US 9:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=saratoga+springs&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.764224,78.662109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Saratoga+Springs,+Saratoga,+New+York&ll=43.1683,-73.752379&spn=0,0.019205&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.168217,-73.752367&panoid=USfHK636z5R-VjzxRC96xg&cbp=12,5.41,,0,2.89
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 02, 2010, 03:30:13 PM
PA 322 shield errors on PA 261 at its northern terminus at US 322 in Bethel Township, PA...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTH_4136Q8PI%2FAAAAAAAAiJM%2FefdWIhym_VA%2Fs640%2FIMG_1878.JPG&hash=ff4eee3c141f75e96bfd344fc8a99bae6a37b3bb)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTH_42cR9zKI%2FAAAAAAAAiJU%2FI8_1bW_XK7I%2Fs640%2FIMG_1879.JPG&hash=475929247a2fd29d8ecdefb6bef384d5309ea4eb)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTH_43AhtgJI%2FAAAAAAAAiJc%2FXN1QX0NalHY%2Fs640%2FIMG_1880.JPG&hash=54bd695ecbf0db27ed8bee7cf128deb87aad5a4a)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTH_434tsnJI%2FAAAAAAAAiJk%2FJ1pcyU6pEaM%2Fs640%2FIMG_1881.JPG&hash=2e0a0edd914fbfa49b86442cc23cceb3bce88f2f)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTH_44rtUxVI%2FAAAAAAAAiJs%2Fi0Eku3BnZd0%2Fs640%2FIMG_1882.JPG&hash=c3a26d7fbe9d49fe228a15ce9a12a6cb952d2260)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 04, 2010, 02:11:36 AM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 02, 2010, 03:30:13 PM
PA 322 shield errors on PA 261 at its northern terminus at US 322 in Bethel Township, PA...


I saw those several years ago, lame that they are still wrong. What is even sadder, they were correct in 2001:
https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania200/pa-261_nb_end.jpg
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 04, 2010, 07:26:34 AM
Quote from: AARoads on September 04, 2010, 02:11:36 AM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 02, 2010, 03:30:13 PM
PA 322 shield errors on PA 261 at its northern terminus at US 322 in Bethel Township, PA...


I saw those several years ago, lame that they are still wrong. What is even sadder, they were correct in 2001:
https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania200/pa-261_nb_end.jpg

And PennDOT (or whatever contractor) did not see a different shield design when replacing them??
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on September 04, 2010, 08:35:04 AM
There are several PA 119 shields in and around Point Marion along US 119.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FMaryland%2520Signs%2FApril%25202010%2F20100422OOPSPA1192.jpg&hash=0b39a973777d0c773e2004e8d603e5fd13f2011a)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 06, 2010, 02:02:44 AM
More US/state route error madness. Bad things come in threes, apparently:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4087%2F4963027362_e81463c84f_z.jpg&hash=0bd9fb27f67f797a4159db174cb051e4ccdb0c03) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4963027362/)
Not VA 407: Bad Things Come in Threes (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4963027362/) by Will Weaver (http://www.flickr.com/people/coredesatchikai/), on Flickr

1. Non-cutout shields for I-264 and I-464
2. This should be a VA 407 shield, not a US 407 shield (it's also the wrong width but I'll ignore that)
3. Number 2 doesn't apply because this isn't part of VA 407! (VA 407 runs from VA 168 to the Norfolk/VA Beach line...it ended about half a mile before here)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 06, 2010, 09:50:14 AM
I saw one yesterday (didn't get photos, but maybe Bugo has some)

US70B in North Little Rock is posted as "mainline" US 70
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 06, 2010, 11:35:35 AM
Not a really big error, but the reference marker next to the old I-787 shield is supposed to have an "I" at the end of "787" on the top line. Just plain "787" means that the road is state route 787, rather than I-787.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FS1ooX6DcXqI%2FAAAAAAAATEQ%2Fpyq482jrte0%2Fs640%2FIMG_0959.JPG&hash=9ef7480319d508f11f03476087fb331c88c61aac)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael in Philly on September 06, 2010, 11:48:29 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:15:19 PM
Massachusetts indeed signs routes based on navigation, as does Vermont.  I think VT even has a few town-maintained stretches of interstate freeway!

Talking of, I think I saw somewhere that town-maintained state highways in Vermont continue to use Boring Circles instead of Bitchen Green.  Is that true, to your (or anyone's) knowledge?  I haven't been up there myself in a few years and it's not happening this side of October.  If then.  I don't remember noticing significant numbers of circles, although if I did I might just have dismissed them as old signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on September 06, 2010, 02:45:47 PM
This should be a U.S. 59 shield...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4111%2F4962261625_4c089a1005.jpg&hash=16911ad15580da0914f2c05bfb71ad1498bc0421)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on September 06, 2010, 04:17:17 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on September 06, 2010, 11:48:29 AM
Talking of, I think I saw somewhere that town-maintained state highways in Vermont continue to use Boring Circles instead of Bitchen Green.  Is that true, to your (or anyone's) knowledge?  I haven't been up there myself in a few years and it's not happening this side of October.  If then.  I don't remember noticing significant numbers of circles, although if I did I might just have dismissed them as old signs.

The circle is used for numbered routes that are entirely town-maintained. If it's mixed, the green shield is used throughout for continuity's sake.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 06, 2010, 04:43:34 PM
Was up in Gloucester today and noticed that most of the shields around US 17 Business STILL don't have banners. The shields from VA 3/14 still refer to the business route as mainline 17, the shields from southbound 17 refer to it as just "17", no directional banner either, and there is one reassurance shield west of the courthouse circle that lacks a "Business" banner.

Come on VDOT, the bypass has only been there for how many decades now?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on September 07, 2010, 08:17:32 AM
QuoteMassachusetts indeed signs routes based on navigation, as does Vermont.  I think VT even has a few town-maintained stretches of interstate freeway!

They don't.  Plenty of US route segments that are town-maintained (among them are US 2 and US 7 in Burlington, and US 4 in Woodstock).  But the Interstates are all VTrans.

QuoteThe circle is used for numbered routes that are entirely town-maintained. If it's mixed, the green shield is used throughout for continuity's sake.

Not completely.  Some towns have taken to using the circle shield for ALL the town-maintained routes within their jurisdiction, even if the route is state-maintained elsewhere within that town.  A good example would be Manchester.  Only recently (about 2 years ago) has the town posted a green shield (on west/northbound VT 30).  All the other VT 7A/11/30 shields within town are circles.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 07, 2010, 08:33:12 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4112%2F4969417496_076fdd6de9_z_d.jpg&hash=e673e78d347728cd41c5e6546fbefe3a5c2790be)

AHTD rides again!  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on September 07, 2010, 11:06:23 PM
^^^ Geez, how hard is it to add the FUTURE banner to the sign on the far left??? :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on September 09, 2010, 01:49:35 PM
An ugly photo for an ugly sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4126%2F4974003761_cf83899907.jpg&hash=d0421951e91faf17863676cfb93833154184ec67)
Ohio 158 NB between Lancaster and Baltimore. There were about three or four of these I spotted along the way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael in Philly on September 09, 2010, 03:35:37 PM
Quote from: Adam Smith on September 09, 2010, 01:49:35 PM
An ugly photo for an ugly sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4126%2F4974003761_cf83899907.jpg&hash=d0421951e91faf17863676cfb93833154184ec67)
Ohio 158 NB between Lancaster and Baltimore. There were about three or four of these I spotted along the way.

Mmm.  One has to wonder what ODOT has against Ashtabula and Conneaut.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on September 09, 2010, 05:35:16 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on September 09, 2010, 03:35:37 PM
Mmm.  One has to wonder what ODOT has against Ashtabula and Conneaut.

They're tired of clearing out all that lake effect snow they get.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 09, 2010, 07:57:26 PM
No photos, but I spotted several US 291 (should be PA 291) shields along PA 291 in Chester today.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: RustyK on September 09, 2010, 10:18:55 PM
No photo, but every workday I pass the exit from WA 522 EB for WA 202 either East or South.  The bgs at the exit reads east, the bgs near the intersection at the end of the ramp reads south.  The road does go SouthEast... but that's kind of loony.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on September 09, 2010, 10:24:13 PM
Quote from: RustyK on September 09, 2010, 10:18:55 PM
No photo, but every workday I pass the exit from WA 522 EB for WA 202 either East or South.  The bgs at the exit reads east, the bgs near the intersection at the end of the ramp reads south.  The road does go SouthEast... but that's kind of loony.

Interestingly, I can think of one distinct California example of this: Route 91 in Riverside, where some signs point to it going "SOUTH" and others "WEST."  (91 has not had a true north-south segment since the portion north of Riverside was dropped in favor of I-15 and US 395, later I-215.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on September 09, 2010, 11:15:52 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 09, 2010, 10:24:13 PM
Quote from: RustyK on September 09, 2010, 10:18:55 PM
No photo, but every workday I pass the exit from WA 522 EB for WA 202 either East or South.  The bgs at the exit reads east, the bgs near the intersection at the end of the ramp reads south.  The road does go SouthEast... but that's kind of loony.

Interestingly, I can think of one distinct California example of this: Route 91 in Riverside, where some signs point to it going "SOUTH" and others "WEST."  (91 has not had a true north-south segment since the portion north of Riverside was dropped in favor of I-15 and US 395, later I-215.)

Maryland splits the difference -- the Pennsylvania Avenue exit on I-95/495 is signed for MD 4 "SOUTH/EAST" and "NORTH/WEST".  I'm not sure how it's signed along MD 4 itself, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 10, 2010, 12:37:36 PM
The route number should be Hawaii 65, yet they swapped out a Highway Gothic sign for a Clearview sign and did not bother to correct it!

https://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii003/i-h003_eb_exit_014_03.jpg - new
https://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii003/h3e-advkailua.jpg - old

Did not dawn on them that the next guide sign shows a different number: https://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii003/i-h003_eb_exit_014_04.jpg

Another carbon copy error:
https://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii050/hi-061_sb_at_pacific_hts_lookout.jpg - should include "Junction" or "Ahead" or "1/2 Mile" or something that alludes to the fact that one is not on I-H1, but actually on HI-61 south ahead of I-H1. They had it wrong before, but at least kept the state-name in the funky looking shield: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=honolulu,+hi&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.528905,107.138672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Honolulu,+Hawaii&ll=21.323359,-157.84637&spn=0.012553,0.034332&z=16&layer=c&cbll=21.32347,-157.846156&panoid=t67GjDUJPNSUua28OJ5H4g&cbp=12,212.41,,0,9.61
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 10, 2010, 01:13:55 PM
damn, too bad that state-named shield on the green sign on 61 is gone!  somewhere I have a photo of it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on September 10, 2010, 03:33:19 PM
QuoteMaryland splits the difference -- the Pennsylvania Avenue exit on I-95/495 is signed for MD 4 "SOUTH/EAST" and "NORTH/WEST".  I'm not sure how it's signed along MD 4 itself, though.

North-south.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on September 11, 2010, 06:29:02 PM
Quote from: AARoads on September 10, 2010, 12:37:36 PM
Another carbon copy error:
https://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii050/hi-061_sb_at_pacific_hts_lookout.jpg - should include "Junction" or "Ahead" or "1/2 Mile" or something that alludes to the fact that one is not on I-H1, but actually on HI-61 south ahead of I-H1. They had it wrong before, but at least kept the state-name in the funky looking shield: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=honolulu,+hi&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.528905,107.138672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Honolulu,+Hawaii&ll=21.323359,-157.84637&spn=0.012553,0.034332&z=16&layer=c&cbll=21.32347,-157.846156&panoid=t67GjDUJPNSUua28OJ5H4g&cbp=12,212.41,,0,9.61

The signage on O'ahu is about the most haphazard and non-standard as it comes, but come on, how can anyone complain....you're in Hawaii!  I remember this sign on the Pali Hwy and it would eerk me from time to time, but it was the Pali Hwy, so I was happy anyway.  :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 12, 2010, 12:58:09 AM
Quote from: shoptb1 on September 11, 2010, 06:29:02 PM
Quote from: AARoads on September 10, 2010, 12:37:36 PM
Another carbon copy error:
https://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii050/hi-061_sb_at_pacific_hts_lookout.jpg - should include "Junction" or "Ahead" or "1/2 Mile" or something that alludes to the fact that one is not on I-H1, but actually on HI-61 south ahead of I-H1. They had it wrong before, but at least kept the state-name in the funky looking shield: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=honolulu,+hi&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.528905,107.138672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Honolulu,+Hawaii&ll=21.323359,-157.84637&spn=0.012553,0.034332&z=16&layer=c&cbll=21.32347,-157.846156&panoid=t67GjDUJPNSUua28OJ5H4g&cbp=12,212.41,,0,9.61

The signage on O'ahu is about the most haphazard and non-standard as it comes, but come on, how can anyone complain....you're in Hawaii!  I remember this sign on the Pali Hwy and it would eerk me from time to time, but it was the Pali Hwy, so I was happy anyway.  :)


I have yet to go there (it is planned), but had a slew of photos taken to me by a contributor that I am adding, and noticed the errors when comparing them to Kevin's photos from 2004. I likely won't care when I am there either.  :) But for now, the errors have made me wonder.   :hmmm:

Found even more weirdness when seeing that HI-750 is signed as HI-76 at the north end along HI-99. Was HI-750 originally HI-76 and they just never got around to changing the signs?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on September 12, 2010, 05:56:33 PM
Quote from: AARoads on September 12, 2010, 12:58:09 AM
Quote from: shoptb1 on September 11, 2010, 06:29:02 PM
Quote from: AARoads on September 10, 2010, 12:37:36 PM
Another carbon copy error:
https://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii050/hi-061_sb_at_pacific_hts_lookout.jpg - should include "Junction" or "Ahead" or "1/2 Mile" or something that alludes to the fact that one is not on I-H1, but actually on HI-61 south ahead of I-H1. They had it wrong before, but at least kept the state-name in the funky looking shield: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=honolulu,+hi&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.528905,107.138672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Honolulu,+Hawaii&ll=21.323359,-157.84637&spn=0.012553,0.034332&z=16&layer=c&cbll=21.32347,-157.846156&panoid=t67GjDUJPNSUua28OJ5H4g&cbp=12,212.41,,0,9.61

The signage on O'ahu is about the most haphazard and non-standard as it comes, but come on, how can anyone complain....you're in Hawaii!  I remember this sign on the Pali Hwy and it would eerk me from time to time, but it was the Pali Hwy, so I was happy anyway.  :)


I have yet to go there (it is planned), but had a slew of photos taken to me by a contributor that I am adding, and noticed the errors when comparing them to Kevin's photos from 2004. I likely won't care when I am there either.  :) But for now, the errors have made me wonder.   :hmmm:

Found even more weirdness when seeing that HI-750 is signed as HI-76 at the north end along HI-99. Was HI-750 originally HI-76 and they just never got around to changing the signs?

That's always been my understanding.  This is a place where HI-78, H-201, H201, and The Moanalua Freeway are all signed in different variations in a 4 mile stretch.  Honolulu can be one of the most confusing places to drive...it's taken me almost 10 years of visiting to get used to driving there. But again, it's a nice problem to have :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 22, 2010, 09:23:40 PM
Good to see that US-91 has been re-extended, this time into Nebraska

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fus91nebraskaJ.jpg&hash=fc69ac7f7caeb70bfe8535f19d1c372240589194)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Sykotyk on September 22, 2010, 11:15:56 PM
I don't have a picture of this, but I've seen it several times. This abortion of a sign is just west of the US322-PA18 intersection in Hartstown, PA

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hartstown+pa&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartstown,+Crawford,+Pennsylvania&gl=us&ei=OMOaTIzxGML_lge998jMCg&ved=0CBgQ8gEwAA&ll=41.552514,-80.379962&spn=0.001186,0.004292&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.552472,-80.380205&panoid=LUe106Q97hNOmPWJsTHFcQ&cbp=12,314.96,,0,-2.2

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hartstown+pa&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartstown,+Crawford,+Pennsylvania&gl=us&ei=OMOaTIzxGML_lge998jMCg&ved=0CBgQ8gEwAA&ll=41.552474,-80.380193&spn=0.001186,0.004292&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.552494,-80.380077&panoid=FP-0hjBnapOuCk4z3iVNxg&cbp=12,271.2,,0,6.13

It's hard to see, but it looks a lot like the "NFL" shield that curves the top points out to the sides.

Next time I'm there I'll definitely take a picture.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on September 23, 2010, 12:50:35 PM
Quote from: Sykotyk on September 22, 2010, 11:15:56 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hartstown+pa&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartstown,+Crawford,+Pennsylvania&gl=us&ei=OMOaTIzxGML_lge998jMCg&ved=0CBgQ8gEwAA&ll=41.552474,-80.380193&spn=0.001186,0.004292&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.552494,-80.380077&panoid=FP-0hjBnapOuCk4z3iVNxg&cbp=12,271.2,,0,6.13


Also of note... you go "down the street", there is a LGS (or M(edium)GS) sign with mileage for  Jamestown & Cleveland that also looks pretty atrocious.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LeftyJR on September 23, 2010, 03:46:35 PM
Quote from: Sykotyk on September 22, 2010, 11:15:56 PM
I don't have a picture of this, but I've seen it several times. This abortion of a sign is just west of the US322-PA18 intersection in Hartstown, PA

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hartstown+pa&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartstown,+Crawford,+Pennsylvania&gl=us&ei=OMOaTIzxGML_lge998jMCg&ved=0CBgQ8gEwAA&ll=41.552514,-80.379962&spn=0.001186,0.004292&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.552472,-80.380205&panoid=LUe106Q97hNOmPWJsTHFcQ&cbp=12,314.96,,0,-2.2

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hartstown+pa&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartstown,+Crawford,+Pennsylvania&gl=us&ei=OMOaTIzxGML_lge998jMCg&ved=0CBgQ8gEwAA&ll=41.552474,-80.380193&spn=0.001186,0.004292&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.552494,-80.380077&panoid=FP-0hjBnapOuCk4z3iVNxg&cbp=12,271.2,,0,6.13

It's hard to see, but it looks a lot like the "NFL" shield that curves the top points out to the sides.

Next time I'm there I'll definitely take a picture.

There is a similar sign near Beaver Staduim in State College for US 322.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 23, 2010, 08:26:42 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg718.imageshack.us%2Fimg718%2F3897%2F168circleshield.jpg&hash=21ca27663ecfb0b6e1a25e3d6b4cd591d4d7e29b) (http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3897/168circleshield.jpg)

It was only a matter of time, Norfolk, VA. Of Norfolk's portion of VA 168, which I drove this afternoon, I counted *TWO* correctly done shields. Almost all were the ugly interstate-esque ones, and then there was this shield, and 6 other circle ones southbound approaching VA 247.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on September 23, 2010, 08:36:54 PM
Used to be normal shields at the 168/247 junction.  Norfolk must've felt they needed to replace them.  Surprised they didn't make them US shields.  But then again, they only have jurisdiction over "US 165"...

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 23, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
Where was a US 165 shield? All the ones I've found from VA 337 or VA 168 have been correct, even if misshapen.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 23, 2010, 10:46:13 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 23, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
Where was a US 165 shield? All the ones I've found from VA 337 or VA 168 have been correct, even if misshapen.

There are at least two (both of which are on the VA Hwys Project error page), one of which is this one (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=norfolk,+va&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.184175,93.076172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Norfolk,+Virginia&ll=36.875372,-76.210259&spn=0.004841,0.011362&z=17&layer=c&cbll=36.876267,-76.21076&panoid=L9SSpgNXIYqPs5TzPMcXdg&cbp=12,221.59,,0,2.88) at the intersection with VA 166 and US 13. There's also a US 166 shield at this intersection.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on September 24, 2010, 10:24:08 AM
There are three I'm aware of.  Besides the two on the VHP error page, there is a third on SB Military Hwy at Norview Ave.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 25, 2010, 02:18:23 PM
Hmm... I'll have to go check those out next time I'm down that way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 03, 2010, 04:25:52 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS11NORTHNEARUS220ALTSOUTHANDUS220NORTH.jpg&hash=ce0612be18ef09f2c9721ccc3e015f487ab9ee90)  I posted this here because I'm not sure if this is technically an error or not as the view is from US 11 NB but there the "TO" for the I-81 is missing and there should at least be a "TO US 220 NORTH" signed posted along with that especially with the fact that it is posted as "US 220 NORTH to I-81" from US 220 ALT NB heading into the intersection.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS220ALTNORTHATUS11ANDUS220.jpg&hash=ce33c4707f760ac6c7224b3b96085307000bd764)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on November 03, 2010, 05:36:24 PM
Nothing wrong with the first photo...it's correct, except for missing the "TO" above I-81 as you mentioned.  By the book, the second photo is in error for missing the ALT with 220, though I can understand VDOT's intent there since I-81 is just beyond (the overpass in the background) and mainline US 220 picks up the roadway right there.

Coincidentally, I was through that same intersection last Saturday, though heading southbound.


(EDIT: clarified first sentence)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 03, 2010, 06:49:40 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 03, 2010, 05:36:24 PM
Nothing wrong with the first photo is correct, except for missing the "TO" above I-81 as you mentioned.  By the book, the second photo is in error for missing the ALT with 220, though I can understand VDOT's intent there since I-81 is just beyond (the overpass in the background) and mainline US 220 picks up the roadway right there.

Coincidentally, I was through that same intersection last Saturday, though heading southbound.

Thanks for the verification. I get to go through that intersection all the time now whenever I am going to/leaving Blacksburg as I take US 460 most of the way since I'm from the Petersburg area.  I was actually through there last Sunday but I was on the way back from Lynchburg that time.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 04, 2010, 10:32:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 03, 2010, 05:36:24 PM
Nothing wrong with the first photo...it's correct, except for missing the "TO" above I-81 as you mentioned.  By the book, the second photo is in error for missing the ALT with 220, though I can understand VDOT's intent there since I-81 is just beyond (the overpass in the background) and mainline US 220 picks up the roadway right there.

I thought the route in question is actually VA Alternate 220 but is signed as a US route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 04, 2010, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 04, 2010, 10:32:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 03, 2010, 05:36:24 PM
Nothing wrong with the first photo...it's correct, except for missing the "TO" above I-81 as you mentioned.  By the book, the second photo is in error for missing the ALT with 220, though I can understand VDOT's intent there since I-81 is just beyond (the overpass in the background) and mainline US 220 picks up the roadway right there.

I thought the route in question is actually VA Alternate 220 but is signed as a US route.
Technically yes but that is obviously not even the point of why I posted that  :nod: ;-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 09, 2010, 08:49:24 PM
SW of Mt. Vernon at the intersection of Columbus Rd (Old 3-C) and Harcourt Rd (present day Oh 3/US 36)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%2F1206%2F5162405031_d959029367_b.jpg&hash=e2450c2fc596018a2e896ee5b8fa944789d43c33)
I don't understand Eastern Ohio's ODOT districts fascination with 3 digit wide shields for 2 (or 1) digit routes either.
Example #2, just up the road...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%2F1219%2F5163011956_e28f273faf_b.jpg&hash=6f97e6a66395507aec105c03c388f171dc10824f)
(at least they got designation for US 36 correct here) Harcourt Rd (US 36/Oh 3) and Old Delaware Rd (Oh 229)

Meanwhile for your run-of-the-mill sign error
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4006%2F5162404899_ee2da57cb8_b.jpg&hash=869ffa275993830897eb466ebdd24ef1a669674b)
What I like about this sign mistake, ODOT district 6 office is 200 yds behind this sign.
It must be a Delaware city, not ODOT, problem because theres another US 37 shield a mile back also.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on November 09, 2010, 09:07:11 PM
My guess is they used a wide shield for 1- and 2di routes simply for the sake of consistency and having both signs the same size.

But what I would have done was reduced the kerning between the numbers and even made them smaller so you could fit both 2- and 3di onto a shield meant for one or two numerals.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on November 10, 2010, 11:25:12 AM
^^^

Interesting theory Quillz, but it doesn't jive with normal ODOT practice.  Normally wide shields are ONLY used for 3 digit routes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 10, 2010, 11:38:28 AM
Quote from: Quillz on November 09, 2010, 09:07:11 PM
But what I would have done was reduced the kerning between the numbers and even made them smaller so you could fit both 2- and 3di onto a shield meant for one or two numerals.

that's ODOT practice from before 1970, when the feds mandated wide shields.  Oklahoma immediately stepped up and implemented the new specifications.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OH/OH19673221i1.jpg)

this style was used 1967-1970 or so.  before that, the shields had an additional inner black border.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OH/OH19640231i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on November 10, 2010, 12:34:00 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 10, 2010, 11:38:28 AM
Quote from: Quillz on November 09, 2010, 09:07:11 PM
But what I would have done was reduced the kerning between the numbers and even made them smaller so you could fit both 2- and 3di onto a shield meant for one or two numerals.

that's ODOT practice from before 1970, when the feds mandated wide shields.  Oklahoma immediately stepped up and implemented the new specifications.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OH/OH19673221i1.jpg)

this style was used 1967-1970 or so.  before that, the shields had an additional inner black border.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OH/OH19640231i1.jpg)
Inner black borders are superior.

Was my favorite US Route shield until I saw the old Ohio ones.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on November 11, 2010, 12:35:51 PM
When did US 322 and US 23 pass through Oklahoma? I think you have the wrong ODOT!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on November 12, 2010, 10:28:44 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 11, 2010, 12:35:51 PM
When did US 322 and US 23 pass through Oklahoma? I think you have the wrong ODOT!

To some of us, ODOT is Ohio, not Oklahoma.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on November 12, 2010, 11:08:31 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 10, 2010, 11:38:28 AM
that's ODOT practice from before 1970, when the feds mandated wide shields.  Oklahoma immediately stepped up and implemented the new specifications.
Quote from: Brandon on November 12, 2010, 10:28:44 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 11, 2010, 12:35:51 PM
When did US 322 and US 23 pass through Oklahoma? I think you have the wrong ODOT!

To some of us, ODOT is Ohio, not Oklahoma.

Apparently, Jake is not one of those people!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 12, 2010, 11:30:27 AM
oops.  Indeed, Oklahoma was a few years behind and kept using '61 spec shields a while longer.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on November 16, 2010, 03:04:38 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quillz.net%2Fpics%2FP-town.jpg&hash=2fc7ec44a0181a17f7b21ac76cdb1ad1ca91b568)

The mileage is wrong and a 3dus shield shouldn't be used for a 1dus.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on November 16, 2010, 10:07:19 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 16, 2010, 03:04:38 AM
The mileage is wrong and a 3dus shield shouldn't be used for a 1dus.
The mileage is correct.  Where's your source of being incorrect?  (I was just at the other end, where 6 is signed "from Long Beach," and I don't have a problem with that)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on November 21, 2010, 04:57:08 PM
The infamous US 202 shield error along I-95 southbound at exit 8A in Wilmington, DE is still there:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTOc6rygMwlI%2FAAAAAAAAjn0%2FY8EpyDBJ_Qg%2Fs640%2FIMG_2713.JPG&hash=6b4589779e94972f4d628f2cf36967368c4f8e31)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 21, 2010, 05:03:09 PM
I wouldn't really consider that error "infamous", seeing as US-202 switches to DE-202 not too far north of there.  It's a fairly silly switch in route importance; why not call the whole thing US-202 all the way to the end?  especially since at least three or four signs are in error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: dfilpus on November 21, 2010, 05:54:04 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 21, 2010, 05:03:09 PM
I wouldn't really consider that error "infamous", seeing as US-202 switches to DE-202 not too far north of there.  It's a fairly silly switch in route importance; why not call the whole thing US-202 all the way to the end?  especially since at least three or four signs are in error.
AFAIK, at exit 8, US 202 goes north on the Concord Pike and west multiplexed with I 95. DE 202 goes south on Concord Road. The sign error is that US 202 continues on I 95 and does not exit. Where US 202 transitions to DE 202 depends on the direction of travel.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on November 21, 2010, 08:05:36 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 21, 2010, 05:03:09 PM
I wouldn't really consider that error "infamous", seeing as US-202 switches to DE-202 not too far north of there.  It's a fairly silly switch in route importance; why not call the whole thing US-202 all the way to the end?  especially since at least three or four signs are in error.

Infamous that it has persisted for a good five years now...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Icodec on November 28, 2010, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: Adam Smith on November 09, 2010, 08:49:24 PM

Meanwhile for your run-of-the-mill sign error
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/5162404899_ee2da57cb8_b.jpg
What I like about this sign mistake, ODOT district 6 office is 200 yds behind this sign.
It must be a Delaware city, not ODOT, problem because theres another US 37 shield a mile back also.

There's another incorrect sign on 37, near the interchange with 23 showing 37 multiplexed with 42 and 36. Since when has that been in place?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 29, 2010, 11:00:36 PM
Quote from: Icodec on November 28, 2010, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: Adam Smith on November 09, 2010, 08:49:24 PM

Meanwhile for your run-of-the-mill sign error
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/5162404899_ee2da57cb8_b.jpg
What I like about this sign mistake, ODOT district 6 office is 200 yds behind this sign.
It must be a Delaware city, not ODOT, problem because theres another US 37 shield a mile back also.

There's another incorrect sign on 37, near the interchange with 23 showing 37 multiplexed with 42 and 36. Since when has that been in place?

1988
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Icodec on November 30, 2010, 09:54:51 PM
Quote from: Adam Smith on November 29, 2010, 11:00:36 PM
Quote from: Icodec on November 28, 2010, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: Adam Smith on November 09, 2010, 08:49:24 PM

Meanwhile for your run-of-the-mill sign error.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/5162404899_ee2da57cb8_b.jpg
What I like about this sign mistake, ODOT district 6 office is 200 yds behind this sign.
It must be a Delaware city, not ODOT, problem because theres another US 37 shield a mile back also.

There's another incorrect sign on 37, near the interchange with 23 showing 37 multiplexed with 42 and 36. Since when has that been in place?

1988

Last time I checked, 36 wasn't concurrent until further east, and 42 is never concurrent with 37 at all. I didn't mean the sign, I meant the nonexistent concurrency.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 30, 2010, 10:26:11 PM
Quote from: Icodec on November 30, 2010, 09:54:51 PM
Quote from: Adam Smith on November 29, 2010, 11:00:36 PM
Quote from: Icodec on November 28, 2010, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: Adam Smith on November 09, 2010, 08:49:24 PM

Meanwhile for your run-of-the-mill sign error.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/5162404899_ee2da57cb8_b.jpg
What I like about this sign mistake, ODOT district 6 office is 200 yds behind this sign.
It must be a Delaware city, not ODOT, problem because theres another US 37 shield a mile back also.

There's another incorrect sign on 37, near the interchange with 23 showing 37 multiplexed with 42 and 36. Since when has that been in place?

1988

Last time I checked, 36 wasn't concurrent until further east, and 42 is never concurrent with 37 at all. I didn't mean the sign, I meant the nonexistent concurrency.

Sorry, thought you were asking about the sign(s) you were questioning. Otherwise those signs are there to assist drivers coming off US 23 to find US 42 north and US 36 east. Just like there are signs for Oh 37 east along US 36 between US 23 and "the point."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Icodec on December 03, 2010, 06:05:51 PM
Maybe the sign should include a "to" in the signs, so it says, "37 EAST TO 36 AND 42."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 03, 2010, 11:18:42 PM
Quote from: Icodec on December 03, 2010, 06:05:51 PM
Maybe the sign should include a "to" in the signs, so it says, "37 EAST TO 36 AND 42."

Delaware/ODOT has problems with *To* signs as well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2F23-36-42.jpg&hash=04aa605964a8f46a2f01aaec78f787394055e9ed)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 16, 2010, 12:22:58 AM
A LOT of these erroneous VA 636 shields have appeared along US 360 in Mechanicsville...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_vGM7FtU3Pdk%2FTQmhyVjKl0I%2FAAAAAAAAFBw%2F3Ivv8W_6qwI%2Fs640%2FIMG_0008.jpg&hash=bc091ea0ddd6854d321d71a3df876594f5a08ce2)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_vGM7FtU3Pdk%2FTQmhzc3fWmI%2FAAAAAAAAFB8%2F9Ugv2ZdvFtw%2Fs512%2FIMG_0011.jpg&hash=9dd0511006ffa28cf3d68b9a598f7da2986fb9e7)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_vGM7FtU3Pdk%2FTQmh0-YA64I%2FAAAAAAAAFCQ%2FtoJvSX7YG54%2Fs640%2FIMG_0017.jpg&hash=c99236b6b9b20263b7dd70bf2791dc2887d536a1)

There are also VA 643 shields posted in various places, but I don't have pictures of them. Also, they erroneously post VA 156 as an east-west route when it is in fact a north-south route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 17, 2010, 08:46:26 AM
Since these are detour signs, any possibility these are contractor errors instead of VDOT errors?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on December 17, 2010, 09:21:25 AM
Quite possible.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on December 17, 2010, 09:43:31 AM
Quote from: froggie on December 17, 2010, 09:21:25 AM
Quite possible.

Must be. Highway departments never make mistakes ;)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3213%2F2943867931_63e80bc6c0_z_d.jpg%3Fzz%3D1&hash=de7147ea464d637f2fc8f948133cfa8e5db7353a)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 17, 2010, 05:01:06 PM
It's more than likely contractor error, but the name of the thread IS "erroneous road signs"... :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on December 17, 2010, 05:11:32 PM
If the highway department doesn't reject the sign for being wrong, they share the blame.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: exit322 on December 17, 2010, 06:42:48 PM
Quote from: Icodec on November 30, 2010, 09:54:51 PM
Last time I checked, 36 wasn't concurrent until further east, and 42 is never concurrent with 37 at all. I didn't mean the sign, I meant the nonexistent concurrency.

Very often they put the 37 co-signed with 36 there.  It probably should be labeled "TRUCK 37" because there's a very low clearance railroad overpass on 37 in the west side of Delaware.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on December 17, 2010, 09:56:22 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv645%2Frickmastfan67%2FInterstates%2FPA%2FUS-19%2FIm002982_tweaked.jpg&hash=cd7bb9ca7394d26495952e2bf10a0c4022d9f408)

And this is right near PennDOT's office in Washington!!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on December 18, 2010, 06:41:16 PM
This one I'll have to explain:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4104%2F5221269601_0018fef9a6_z_d.jpg&hash=5fad85eae00fa4226723f13a5e19c7592f9f08ea)

It's actually supposed to be Greathouse Springs Rd

It just appeared last month on I-540 (the old Johnson Exit). So far, I seem to be the only one who has noticed it. :spin:

UPDATE: AHTD says they will be correcting the error. "The city of Johnson has it that way on their street signs and we didn't know it was wrong". 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on December 19, 2010, 12:04:09 AM
I think I see a shadow behind the tail of the G. Are they using demountable copy?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 19, 2010, 12:19:00 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 19, 2010, 12:04:09 AM
I think I see a shadow behind the tail of the G. Are they using demountable copy?

If they are, it'd be an easy fix.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SteveG1988 on December 19, 2010, 04:04:20 PM
On the garden state parkway south of the great egg harbor bridge exists several signs for "when flashing tune to 1640AM for urgent message" Problem is, there are no flashing lights on any of these signs
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on December 19, 2010, 06:32:07 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 19, 2010, 04:04:20 PM
On the garden state parkway south of the great egg harbor bridge exists several signs for "when flashing tune to 1640AM for urgent message" Problem is, there are no flashing lights on any of these signs

There's one on I-90 at Rapid City that says "Do Not Enter When Flashing" , but has no lights. Maybe the sign itself flashes? ;)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2532%2F3979840475_b4c5b8aeb6_z_d.jpg&hash=00a2265601d82bafcdacd81ffcee981e861a2c10)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 19, 2010, 11:23:49 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 19, 2010, 06:32:07 PM

There's one on I-90 at Rapid City that says "Do Not Enter When Flashing" , but has no lights. Maybe the sign itself flashes? ;)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2532%2F3979840475_b4c5b8aeb6_z_d.jpg&hash=00a2265601d82bafcdacd81ffcee981e861a2c10)

What's that down near the bottom of the leftmost post on that sign? Is it some sort of box connected to an underground power source? If so, the sign might have LED flashers embedded in the border or somewhere else.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on December 20, 2010, 09:17:31 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2010, 11:23:49 PM
What's that down near the bottom of the leftmost post on that sign? Is it some sort of box connected to an underground power source? If so, the sign might have LED flashers embedded in the border or somewhere else.

I didn't see any LED's embedded on the sign. Maybe it's a new sign that hadn't been lit yet?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 21, 2010, 11:23:30 PM
Another US 37 sign error in Delaware (ho hum)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5010%2F5282197694_626fb26a82.jpg&hash=4641d03fa0fa7db1639021d777f2e8be1dc616a4)
But I found this on the back of the "incorrect" shield
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5121%2F5282197818_689725095a.jpg&hash=a5f5be92cbfd820c9e75f5b023cfcf4b3137fb20)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kniwt on December 27, 2010, 07:05:49 PM
Recently installed on I-15 south near Barstow:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5130%2F5298518986_868b0146b9.jpg&hash=61bf4bcec00f7d29b58d2c430fb6672ff7138adf)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 27, 2010, 09:24:28 PM
that is extremely recent - as in, it wasn't there less than a month ago.

also, why the patch already on the exit number?

too bad they didn't sign US-466...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on December 28, 2010, 03:46:53 AM
They could have made the 58 shield white...as a contractor error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2010, 11:39:49 AM
there was never a white spade 58.  It got changed from US-466 when the green spades came into existence.  April, 1964
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on December 28, 2010, 01:10:48 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 17, 2010, 09:43:31 AM
Quote from: froggie on December 17, 2010, 09:21:25 AM
Quite possible.

Must be. Highway departments never make mistakes ;)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3213%2F2943867931_63e80bc6c0_z_d.jpg%3Fzz%3D1&hash=de7147ea464d637f2fc8f948133cfa8e5db7353a)

How can anyone get this wrong it is the same road. And you would think that someone working for a DOT or contractor would have a bit of roadgeek in them and know the difference.  Did they just run out of templates for the US sign?  I remember back in 1990 the state of Florida resurfaced US 90 (Beach Blvd) east of Jacksonville.  For a few months theere were SR 90 shields but then they put up the blue US 90 a few months later.(Oh how I miss the colored shields)   I assumed they were out of US shield templates. 

On the same stretch of road the contractor put up the secret SR 212 on reassuance markers in both directons at SR 9A(future East Beltway I-295)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2010, 01:40:06 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 28, 2010, 01:10:48 PMAnd you would think that someone working for a DOT or contractor would have a bit of roadgeek in them and know the difference. 

nope.  drones in sign shops are just like drones everywhere else.  go in, get some work done, go to lunch, work some more, go home, collect a paycheck.  no pride in their work; it's just a way to keep the bills paid. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xcellntbuy on December 28, 2010, 04:42:58 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2010, 01:40:06 PM
nope.  drones in sign shops are just like drones everywhere else.  go in, get some work done, go to lunch, work some more, go home, collect a paycheck.  no pride in their work; it's just a way to keep the bills paid.  
Unfortunately, you are quite right.  Specs are many times, not proof-read, never checked against established standards or the lame excuse of "these are same [specs] we always had and they were fine before.  Who changed them?"  I have been battling this poor mindset in the public sector for years.

quote
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on December 29, 2010, 12:23:36 PM
Quote from: xcellntbuy on December 28, 2010, 04:42:58 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2010, 01:40:06 PM
nope.  drones in sign shops are just like drones everywhere else.  go in, get some work done, go to lunch, work some more, go home, collect a paycheck.  no pride in their work; it's just a way to keep the bills paid. 
Unfortunately, you are quite right.  Specs are many times, not proof-read, never checked against established standards or the lame excuse of "these are same [specs] we always had and they were fine before.  Who changed them?"  I have been battling this poor mindset in the public sector for years.

quote

Truly sad that no one would catch these type of errors.  In some states such as NJ where there is no overlap of state and US routes no big deal.  People see a sign for Route 9 there is only one route 9 in the state and it wouldn't matter if in a circle or shield.  But near me in GA there is a multiplex of US 23 and GA 23... It could cause some problems if the mistake were made.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on January 03, 2011, 03:38:18 AM
Not so much an error as just plain ugly:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.picdrop.net%2Fuploads%2FRI19882952i1.jpg&hash=3699e5aae75ef2540a2b6e007a32c7c723677db3) (http://"http://www.picdrop.net/pictures/RI19882952i1.jpg")

Use a wide shield and/or Series C, please don't compress Series D. Also seems to have the "lazy 9" thing going on, too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 03, 2011, 12:59:44 PM
and what font is that on the END banner!?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on January 03, 2011, 01:35:14 PM
No idea, maybe Arial. Certainly something non-standard.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on January 03, 2011, 04:06:38 PM
Looks like a bold/black Helvetica or variant thereof.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on January 03, 2011, 04:08:54 PM
Please, that is the best looking I-295 shield you are going to get from RIDOT.  :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on January 22, 2011, 04:00:39 PM
Quote from: Quillz on January 03, 2011, 03:38:18 AM
Not so much an error as just plain ugly:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.picdrop.net%2Fuploads%2FRI19882952i1.jpg&hash=3699e5aae75ef2540a2b6e007a32c7c723677db3) (http://"http://www.picdrop.net/pictures/RI19882952i1.jpg")

Use a wide shield and/or Series C, please don't compress Series D. Also seems to have the "lazy 9" thing going on, too.

Ugly indeed.  To quote the MUTCD:

Quote
All sign lettering shall be in upper-case letters as provided in the "Standard Highway Signs and Markings"  book (see Section 1A.11), unless otherwise provided in this Manual for a particular sign or type of message.
(Chapter 2A, Section 13, Paragraph 10, Page 35)

Quote
The unique letter forms for each of the Standard Alphabet series shall not be stretched, compressed, warped, or otherwise manipulated.
(Chapter 2A, Section 13, Paragraph 14, Page 36)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kharvey10 on January 23, 2011, 08:22:08 AM
I got mostly older pictures to show, almost all these signs been removed or corrected

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5086%2F5380265873_55305d7caf_s.jpg&hash=8f45c6bcc630af8aa4f0df2b412953fba2c860ca) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380265873/)
upsidedown (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380265873/) by Kimmy1978 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29886127@N02/), on Flickr

This was on IL 161 in Marion County back in 1998 - at a time Marion County was NOT in IDiOT District 8 and Clinton County was.  (Marion County was in the Effingham district, and nearby Jefferson County was in Carbondale district - and there were at times none of the IDiOT districts were on the same page on stuff, which explains why a portion of NB 51 south of Centralia is actually in Jefferson County at the same time the SB lanes are in Washington County.)  IDiOT has since realigned their districts and put Marion County in the District 8.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5087%2F5380866206_5bb0d55170.jpg&hash=f6c2588161bea1a780b588908db159a128d81bf0) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380866206/)
exit26b (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380866206/) by Kimmy1978 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29886127@N02/), on Flickr

I took this rather poor picture on SB 255 just north of 55/70 in Spring 1998, and you can barely see that the exit number is 26B.  This was at a spot where IDiOT district 8 headquarters is less than a mile from where I took this picture.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5124%2F5380265885_4c35dfc7e6_s.jpg&hash=5b6167efc1ea05afe19224818f3154dfd1823eb4) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380265885/)
spellingerror (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380265885/) by Kimmy1978 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29886127@N02/), on Flickr

Taken in May 2000 on northbound IL 3 just north of 270.  Wood River is 2 words, not 1.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 23, 2011, 02:26:53 PM
This is a technicality:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5163%2F5236228940_48b1280262_z_d.jpg&hash=1bb504a7242def2465816028cef416e92c270a07)
It should be BUSINESS 167
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on January 23, 2011, 02:37:31 PM
I'm not really a fan of the newer white/black versions of the Louisiana route shield.  :no: I like the older green design better.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on January 23, 2011, 02:47:56 PM
Subtle, yet erroneous:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/virtual_freeway_tours/2202448851/in/set-72157601881964599/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 23, 2011, 03:04:04 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on January 23, 2011, 02:37:31 PM
I'm not really a fan of the newer white/black versions of the Louisiana route shield.  :no: I like the older green design better.

They still exist, but are getting harder to find. There are lots of the "pre-erosion" signs still out there, too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 23, 2011, 03:07:46 PM
what is "pre-erosion"?  do you refer to the level of detail, or lack thereof, in the state outline?

this 18 incher (1950s standard) was still around in 2006.  it survived the hurricane!

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/LA/LA19566111i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 23, 2011, 03:08:36 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on January 23, 2011, 02:47:56 PM
Subtle, yet erroneous:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/virtual_freeway_tours/2202448851/in/set-72157601881964599/

that took me a while to notice.  "1-I5".  classy!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 23, 2011, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 23, 2011, 03:07:46 PM
what is "pre-erosion"?  do you refer to the level of detail, or lack thereof, in the state outline?


Yes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on January 23, 2011, 04:11:41 PM
More from the "US shield where a state shield should be" department (Maryland, in this case)...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2F2011%2Fsigns%2Fus355.jpg&hash=8f3f63fc7962129296dd3a96feb5dd28cc5927d7)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on January 23, 2011, 10:59:05 PM
Eth; where is this?  I used to live in Montgomery County
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on January 23, 2011, 11:10:30 PM
It's near the mall in Gaithersburg.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on January 23, 2011, 11:20:52 PM
Quote from: kharvey10 on January 23, 2011, 08:22:08 AM
I got mostly older pictures to show, almost all these signs been removed or corrected

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5086%2F5380265873_55305d7caf_s.jpg&hash=8f45c6bcc630af8aa4f0df2b412953fba2c860ca) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380265873/)
upsidedown (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380265873/) by Kimmy1978 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29886127@N02/), on Flickr

On a railroad, this sign is correct...trackside signals for CTC  (centralized trafic control) systems have the green light on top (highball!) and red on bottom.  But, they don't use signs like this on the railroad.  It was just a funny thought!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on January 24, 2011, 02:03:17 AM
Technically an error shield as it's not really shaped properly, but I think it actually looks quite nice:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AL/AL19600901i1.jpg)

The upper left corner is a little thinner than the rest of the outline, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on January 24, 2011, 02:37:22 AM
QuoteThe upper left corner is a little thinner than the rest of the outline, though.

I'm 92% sure that's an optical illusion
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on January 24, 2011, 02:38:59 AM
On second glance, you could be right.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on January 24, 2011, 09:35:33 AM
Quote from: Quillz on January 24, 2011, 02:03:17 AM
Technically an error shield as it's not really shaped properly, but I think it actually looks quite nice:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AL/AL19600901i1.jpg)

The upper left corner is a little thinner than the rest of the outline, though.

Given the very wide variety of shield shapes that are out there, and the way they vary not only from state to state but even within a state, is there really such a thing as "not really shaped properly?"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 24, 2011, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: corco on January 24, 2011, 02:37:22 AM
QuoteThe upper left corner is a little thinner than the rest of the outline, though.

I'm 92% sure that's an optical illusion

no, there is indeed a variance in thickness.  the thinnest part of the outline is the arc just below the left point.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on January 24, 2011, 12:32:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2011, 09:35:33 AM
Quote from: Quillz on January 24, 2011, 02:03:17 AM
Technically an error shield as it's not really shaped properly, but I think it actually looks quite nice:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AL/AL19600901i1.jpg)

The upper left corner is a little thinner than the rest of the outline, though.

Given the very wide variety of shield shapes that are out there, and the way they vary not only from state to state but even within a state, is there really such a thing as "not really shaped properly?"
I would say yes, because that shield dates to 1965, and didn't follow the 1961 specifications, or even the 1948 specifications, the last one to put the shield against a white background.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on January 24, 2011, 12:50:38 PM
Quote from: Eth on January 23, 2011, 11:10:30 PM
It's near the mall in Gaithersburg.

Ah, okay.  I remember Lakeforest Mall quite fondly.  Didn't remember the errant US 355 sign for Frederick ROad.  Granted it's been 12 years since I lived in Gaithersburg.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 24, 2011, 01:12:06 PM
Quote from: Quillz on January 24, 2011, 12:32:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2011, 09:35:33 AM

Given the very wide variety of shield shapes that are out there, and the way they vary not only from state to state but even within a state, is there really such a thing as "not really shaped properly?"
I would say yes, because that shield dates to 1965, and didn't follow the 1961 specifications, or even the 1948 specifications, the last one to put the shield against a white background.

Shield Generator shows this as a 1955 Alabama variant.

Arkansas used white backgrounds until the mid-60's.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 24, 2011, 01:45:08 PM
Quote from: US71 on January 24, 2011, 01:12:06 PM

Shield Generator shows this as a 1955 Alabama variant.

Arkansas used white backgrounds until the mid-60's.

It might be a bit newer or older.  I just know I've seen a fully embossed block-font ALABAMA US 98, and that route came into the state in 1955, so someone, somewhere was making the older spec as late as 1955.  But that new style may have been in use as early as 1945, which is when the Feds first released that font, or likely 1948 when it was first made part of a formal MUTCD specification.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on January 24, 2011, 08:14:27 PM
This one's in Downtown Columbus. That should be OH 3, not US 3!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4152%2F5200802264_a3a49a999c_z.jpg&hash=522db436eec9e3eed7e52294cb661330a31efa50) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/longestaugust/5200802264/)
US 3 in Ohio? (http://www.flickr.com/photos/longestaugust/5200802264/) by LongestAugust (http://www.flickr.com/people/longestaugust/), on Flickr

You can't see it in this picture, but on the opposite corner there is a correct NORTH OH 3 assembly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 25, 2011, 08:38:46 PM
Just like in 2004...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2Fus3err.JPG&hash=267b910e6196cb2ae3085df0e69aea82c1e042f2)
(with the alluded Oh 3 shield shown)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on January 25, 2011, 09:16:07 PM
That's a "uni-sign" which I do not recall having previously seen in Ohio. Virginia, yes; Maryland, yes; even in Kentucky, yes, but heretofore never in Ohio.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 25, 2011, 09:31:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2011, 09:16:07 PM
That's a "uni-sign" which I do not recall having previously seen in Ohio. Virginia, yes; Maryland, yes; even in Kentucky, yes, but heretofore never in Ohio.
They were around Columbus, though not in great numbers, before I left for Louisiana.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2F1pieceg.JPG&hash=413d83dffb2e0d67da767f9986806093c3f910cb)
(This one was at Main & Front St. and according to my notes, photographed in 2003)
Now we have them around the OSU campus, along 315 near 270 and along 750 through Polaris (From what I've seen. Could be more)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on January 27, 2011, 08:40:02 PM
I was not in position to take a picture of it, but I saw a glaring sign error in South Georgia today.  I was heading south on I-75 just north of the town of Sparks, which is about 30 miles north of Valdosta.

There is a brand new exit sign in the southbound direction onto a small road that actually shows I-75 exiting off the freeway on the BGS.  It might had been intended to be a "Business Loop 75 shield, (there are still a few down there), I am not sure.  But the sign was brand new, being this stretch of interstate is being widened and reconstructed.

If anybody in the area is interested, you may want to get a photo before they fix the error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on January 27, 2011, 10:00:45 PM
Quote from: Adam Smith on January 25, 2011, 09:31:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2011, 09:16:07 PM
That's a "uni-sign" which I do not recall having previously seen in Ohio. Virginia, yes; Maryland, yes; even in Kentucky, yes, but heretofore never in Ohio.
They were around Columbus, though not in great numbers, before I left for Louisiana.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2F1pieceg.JPG&hash=413d83dffb2e0d67da767f9986806093c3f910cb)
(This one was at Main & Front St. and according to my notes, photographed in 2003)
Now we have them around the OSU campus, along 315 near 270 and along 750 through Polaris (From what I've seen. Could be more)


There are a few of those around downtown Columbus as well. Most of them are used as trailblazers (like the WEST I-70 in Adam's photo), but usually without a "TO", which makes it a bit confusing when they're used to indicate an actual turn in the route (like the erroneous US 3 sign above).

I haven't seen this particular style of sign outside Columbus, so I suspect they're the work of the city rather than ODOT.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 27, 2011, 10:21:42 PM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on January 27, 2011, 08:40:02 PM
I was not in position to take a picture of it, but I saw a glaring sign error in South Georgia today.  I was heading south on I-75 just north of the town of Sparks, which is about 30 miles north of Valdosta.

There is a brand new exit sign in the southbound direction onto a small road that actually shows I-75 exiting off the freeway on the BGS.  It might had been intended to be a "Business Loop 75 shield, (there are still a few down there), I am not sure.  But the sign was brand new, being this stretch of interstate is being widened and reconstructed.

If anybody in the area is interested, you may want to get a photo before they fix the error.

I heard they did the same think over on I-95 with it's sole Business route.  Somebody posted a picture of it, but I can't remember where.  If I can find that post, I'll edit this and post the link to it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on January 28, 2011, 10:37:09 AM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on January 27, 2011, 08:40:02 PM
I was not in position to take a picture of it, but I saw a glaring sign error in South Georgia today.  I was heading south on I-75 just north of the town of Sparks, which is about 30 miles north of Valdosta.

There is a brand new exit sign in the southbound direction onto a small road that actually shows I-75 exiting off the freeway on the BGS.  It might had been intended to be a "Business Loop 75 shield, (there are still a few down there), I am not sure.  But the sign was brand new, being this stretch of interstate is being widened and reconstructed.

If anybody in the area is interested, you may want to get a photo before they fix the error.

The I-75 error has been there since at least December 2008:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3247%2F3145508132_c774fd38f8_o.jpg&hash=4599b9aa9e3e9336b6c42e118b1f6aacd2eec271)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on January 28, 2011, 12:14:22 PM
After two years, it is still there?  I looked at the interchange in Street View and it shows the old sign, which was a green business loop shield.  I will refrain any comments about GDOT since I do work from them. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on January 28, 2011, 01:38:56 PM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on January 28, 2011, 12:14:22 PM
I will refrain any comments about GDOT since I do work from them. 

Doesn't this make you the MOST qualified to comment about it?   :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on January 28, 2011, 06:36:59 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 27, 2011, 10:21:42 PM
I heard they did the same think over on I-95 with it's sole Business route.  Somebody posted a picture of it, but I can't remember where.  If I can find that post, I'll edit this and post the link to it.

Here? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2724.msg62336#msg62336)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on January 29, 2011, 02:48:27 AM
Another sign that isn't really an error at all but just looks wrong:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg510.imageshack.us%2Fimg510%2F976%2Fca098ebappcrs00201.jpg&hash=236addecdcdb223d98b141001c3dcc9201150da5) (http://img510.imageshack.us/i/ca098ebappcrs00201.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

This particular one is on I-8, at the CA-98 junction. It just looks weird having the arrow to the left of the exit number. Seems like it should be reversed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 29, 2011, 06:07:48 PM
Quote from: mefailenglish on January 28, 2011, 06:36:59 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 27, 2011, 10:21:42 PM
I heard they did the same think over on I-95 with it's sole Business route.  Somebody posted a picture of it, but I can't remember where.  If I can find that post, I'll edit this and post the link to it.

Here? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2724.msg62336#msg62336)

Yes, that's the one.  Thanks for posting that link.  Hopefully when I go to FL next, I can see if it's been replaced.  Otherwise, I'm going to bitch to GDOT. :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on January 29, 2011, 08:46:10 PM
Here is my photo of that sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FS8uE2ud00lI%2FAAAAAAAAadY%2FiS1Mjc6Viis%2Fs640%2FIMG_3195.JPG&hash=cf4d9cdd482fcf1972f2e849f0be88eb246494b4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on January 29, 2011, 09:29:39 PM
And the 95 is so large, too.

Do Georgia signs normally omit the tittle on the I, or is that something particular to this sign?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on January 29, 2011, 09:31:01 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 29, 2011, 09:29:39 PM
Do Georgia signs normally omit the tittle on the I, or is that something particular to this sign?

It's an old GDOT standard to omit the dots on the i's and j's.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on February 06, 2011, 05:48:14 PM
Here are a few from yesterday...

Error NJ 1&9 shields in Jersey City:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5017%2F5423154388_9f0dbfb783_z.jpg&hash=3455f8f74c8dd17dd9bf10d16926f9243b05f804)

Upside down signal ahead sign along US 1-9 at the Tonnele Circle project:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5295%2F5423155876_6a3ec1171b_z.jpg&hash=471d33b9619d5ef62a817e4bf64d61100b52883f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 08, 2011, 05:57:47 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images395/us-395b_nb_ridgecrest_02.jpg)

Can you spot all the wrong things with this shield?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 08, 2011, 06:10:44 PM
it's not even on an old US-395 alignment!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 08, 2011, 06:15:17 PM
I've found at least six errors...

1) It shouldn't be using a California state route shield.
2) Even if it was using the right style shield, it should be the wide shield.
3) California state route shields use Series D numerals.
4) Generally, signs with a white border extend all the way out to the edge. The outer green border is unnecessary.
5) Unequal kerning between the numerals.
6) Uneven height between the numerals, notice how the 9 is lower than the 3 and 5.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 09, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Quote from: Quillz on February 08, 2011, 06:15:17 PM
4) Generally, signs with a white border extend all the way out to the edge. The outer green border is unnecessary.

Personally, I've never found this to be a hard and fast rule with "banners" and arrows. Neither the "TO" nor the arrow in the pic I posted here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3528.msg81859#msg81859) have the white to the edge, nor does the "VIA" two posts below (but the "TO" in that same assembly does, oddly enough.

IMHO, while I prefer the "border to the edge" on BGS's, for consistency's sake, I like my banners this way.

Also...

7) The shield is "printed" off-kilter.  The green looks a couple of degrees to the left.
8) The greenout on the shield looks like it matches the Business banner, but not the shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 09, 2011, 09:41:28 PM
At least in California, it's generally a standard that I've observed. Signs with a black or other dark color border are usually inset by at least half an inch, while those with a white border extend all the way out. I think the MUTCD even recommends something to that effect. That's why signs (at least regarding CA route shields) are generally in error if they have an unnecessary outer border.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on February 09, 2011, 09:47:07 PM
8 ) The "inner" border has the same corner radii as the corner trimming, making the "outer" border uneven at corners. Radius should increase at the same rate as it extends from the centre of the said radius.

Also, http://www.failqc.com/2011/02/signalisation-routiere-fail/ .
O RLY?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 10, 2011, 12:05:25 AM
Quote from: Quillz on February 09, 2011, 09:41:28 PM
At least in California, it's generally a standard that I've observed. Signs with a black or other dark color border are usually inset by at least half an inch, while those with a white border extend all the way out. I think the MUTCD even recommends something to that effect. That's why signs (at least regarding CA route shields) are generally in error if they have an unnecessary outer border.

this is a federal standard.  It seems to go back almost to the very beginnings of things; at least as dark-background signs got popular in the 30s, California was consistently making them have a white outermost border. 

the reason for this is because a black outer border would have almost no differentiating effect against any background except snow.  Most backgrounds are darker than signs, especially when signs are made retroreflective.  The sign border, if made a dark color, would blend in and be wasted metal.

(some 1920s shields intended for snowy places did indeed have the black border outermost.  But this is quite rare, early, and experimental.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 10, 2011, 12:08:49 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 09, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Personally, I've never found this to be a hard and fast rule with "banners" and arrows.

the reason for this is because the sign shop on occasion has only one screen for, say, a "TO" banner, which does have the outer border, and they use it in both positive- and negative-contrast applications.

or they do have both styles, but the worker assigned to the task isn't paying attention.

other styles of signs tend not to come in both positive- and negative-contrast forms, so you're more likely to see the consistent application of the light-colored outer border there.

the banner phenomenon is exacerbated by the changing interstate standards between 1957 and 1961: the first interstate standard of '57 specified white-background arrows and banners, while the 1961 standard switched to the blue-background style we know today.  Some sign shops simply kept the old screens and changed ink colors.  I wouldn't be surprised if that I-5 gantry in your link is old enough that they were still using the 1957 screens.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 10, 2011, 12:13:03 AM
one exception that suddenly comes to mind: California's old black-background regulatory signs.  (SPEED LIMIT, DO NOT ENTER, etc., 1929-1971)  consistently had the black outer margin and a white inner border!  don't ask me why, seeing as guide signs and whatnot had white going out to the edge.  So did red signs (STOP, for the most part, and some less-often-seen ones like Inspection Station). 

It may have had to do with the original porcelain manufacturing process.  really, I have no idea.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 10, 2011, 12:13:43 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 10, 2011, 12:05:25 AM
Quote from: Quillz on February 09, 2011, 09:41:28 PM
At least in California, it's generally a standard that I've observed. Signs with a black or other dark color border are usually inset by at least half an inch, while those with a white border extend all the way out. I think the MUTCD even recommends something to that effect. That's why signs (at least regarding CA route shields) are generally in error if they have an unnecessary outer border.

this is a federal standard.  It seems to go back almost to the very beginnings of things; at least as dark-background signs got popular in the 30s, California was consistently making them have a white outermost border.  

the reason for this is because a black outer border would have almost no differentiating effect against any background except snow.  Most backgrounds are darker than signs, especially when signs are made retroreflective.  The sign border, if made a dark color, would blend in and be wasted metal.

(some 1920s shields intended for snowy places did indeed have the black border outermost.  But this is quite rare, early, and experimental.)
Why don't U.S. Route and most state route shields have a white border to offset the outer black area, then?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 10, 2011, 12:15:59 AM
Quote from: Quillz on February 10, 2011, 12:13:43 AMWhy don't U.S. Route and most state route shields have a white border to offset the outer black area, then?

the shield shape tends to be a sufficient differentiator.  in the case of 1961-spec markers, the sign was supposed to appear (kinda vaguely if you squint) like the older cutout style - the black was intended to fade into the background and provide contrast for the shield shape. 

nowadays a lot of states are adding a thin white outer margin.  I think Texas may have been the first to issue '61-spec US shields with a white outer margin, possibly as early as 1969.  

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX19690661i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 10, 2011, 12:17:29 AM
That's a nice sign... Classic shape and white outer border. Too bad it's not a cutout, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on February 10, 2011, 01:19:18 AM
We had a discussion about this amongst the Wikipedia editors once, brought about by some Kansas shields having a gold border and some not. Our theory was that a border of uninked area around the edges was to prevent process inks from dripping off the edge of the sign while they were applied. On green process-ink signs, green ink is applied to white sheeting, so obviously having the white border abut the edge of the sign is desirable there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 11, 2011, 09:10:34 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 10, 2011, 12:08:49 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 09, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
Personally, I've never found this to be a hard and fast rule with "banners" and arrows.

the reason for this is because the sign shop on occasion has only one screen for, say, a "TO" banner, which does have the outer border, and they use it in both positive- and negative-contrast applications.

or they do have both styles, but the worker assigned to the task isn't paying attention.

other styles of signs tend not to come in both positive- and negative-contrast forms, so you're more likely to see the consistent application of the light-colored outer border there.

the banner phenomenon is exacerbated by the changing interstate standards between 1957 and 1961: the first interstate standard of '57 specified white-background arrows and banners, while the 1961 standard switched to the blue-background style we know today.  Some sign shops simply kept the old screens and changed ink colors.  I wouldn't be surprised if that I-5 gantry in your link is old enough that they were still using the 1957 screens.

After driving around in the day or two since I posted that, I kept my eyes peeled and realized that every sign here in town does follow the positive/negative contrast rule.  So I figured that the "inner" border must have just been an older standard, but the "used the wrong screen" excuse makes sense too.

One thing that still gets me though is that county-route signs (yellow on blue) should count as positive contrast, but the signs http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_524/ (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_524/) almost all have a blue outer border.  But I guess yellow just doesn't count quite the same as white. :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 11, 2011, 09:27:02 PM
you are right about the county markers.  I wonder when that pentagon spec first came out.  I have seen a California 1958 specification, which is almost close enough to when CA was making porcelain signs with "incorrect" borders that it may very well be explanation.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: burgess87 on February 13, 2011, 06:07:39 PM
My turn!  This is looking southbound on US 62 (Niagara Falls BLVD), just south of IH 290.  NYSDOT has been reconfiguring the Falls BLVD / IH 290 interchange.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg607.imageshack.us%2Fimg607%2F3450%2Fimg00019201102131302.jpg&hash=85d1768a7445fed0ff83f1b64f3902453284db9c)

Sorry for the perverse angle, folks - but that there's a NY 62 shield where a US 62 shield should be.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on February 13, 2011, 11:50:37 PM
Similar thing here in Niagara Falls, NY
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2F60-69%2F062%2Fbegin062n_sb2.jpg&hash=99c14224d38d543a23975e2148c2acd4d404e5da)
(from US Ends)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 14, 2011, 05:32:54 AM
I don't mind that error so much because at least NYS has some nice looking state route shields.

Also, does the shield that ausinterkid posted have a thin white border outside the black, or is it just my eyes?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on February 14, 2011, 09:23:24 AM
Quote from: Quillz on February 14, 2011, 05:32:54 AM
Also, does the shield that ausinterkid posted have a thin white border outside the black, or is it just my eyes?
I almost see what you're talking about, but I can't tell if it's an actual white border or just an artifact from the compression of the picture.

Also, what's with the tiny "SOUTH" banner?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael in Philly on February 14, 2011, 09:27:34 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on February 14, 2011, 09:23:24 AM
Quote from: Quillz on February 14, 2011, 05:32:54 AM
Also, does the shield that ausinterkid posted have a thin white border outside the black, or is it just my eyes?
I almost see what you're talking about, but I can't tell if it's an actual white border or just an artifact from the compression of the picture.

Also, what's with the tiny "SOUTH" banner?

Maybe they spent days struggling with the fact that what is officially 62 westbound starts out running due east for several miles, so they settled on "south" but tried to keep it as inconspicuous as possible.  :-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 14, 2011, 10:38:45 AM
Quote from: Quillz on February 14, 2011, 05:32:54 AMAlso, does the shield that ausinterkid posted have a thin white border outside the black, or is it just my eyes?

I believe it is just the "sharpen" filter used on the photo.  I don't recall ever seeing a shield in New York with the white outer margin.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on February 14, 2011, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: Quillz on February 14, 2011, 05:32:54 AM
I don't mind that error so much because at least NYS has some nice looking state route shields.

When they actually post nice ones, that is...there's about 25 versions of the NY route shield. Most of the newer ones are terrible.

The NY/US shield error is very common in NY, sadly...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on February 14, 2011, 02:15:22 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be any detailed specs of the NY shield. Even the NY MUTCD addendum contains nothing but a crappy bit-mapped version of the shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on February 14, 2011, 08:12:29 PM
I was the one who took the picture on usends for Dale, so if it helps the discussion, here's the full-sized original, along with another NY 62 shield in the same area:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FUS%2520Routes%2FUS62NiagaraFalls5.jpg%3Ft%3D1297732196&hash=d55160f1e2b7591ebbf59b27b2dec0dcc1b3bf3e)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FUS%2520Routes%2FUS62NiagaraFalls4.jpg%3Ft%3D1297732296&hash=c47003edf78bb92abd6bd7cd3f23287165f4023b)

It looks like a very slight white border, mostly visible at the corners.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 14, 2011, 08:14:18 PM
While I like the standard NYS route shield, the same cannot be said for the wide version, which I assume is being erroneously used in the second pic.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on February 14, 2011, 08:31:42 PM
This is what today's standard New York shield should look like:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5042%2F5341569040_ffcae44b94_z.jpg&hash=b0bdc9609ed87a3714e9948bc8e526d45879194b)

An embossed cutout would be cooler, but fat chance that's going to happen.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on February 14, 2011, 08:43:03 PM
Quote from: Quillz on February 14, 2011, 08:14:18 PM
While I like the standard NYS route shield, the same cannot be said for the wide version, which I assume is being erroneously used in the second pic.

Since using any NY route shield for 62 is erroneous in the first place, can using any version be any more wrong than another?

What I liked about that area was they also has a couple US 104 shields a few of blocks away.  Balancing thing out, I guess.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 14, 2011, 08:51:43 PM
This might just be me, but other than the old-style nonstandard font, I don't see a significant difference between the 157 shield and the 62 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on February 14, 2011, 08:56:09 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 14, 2011, 08:51:43 PM
This might just be me, but other than the old-style nonstandard font, I don't see a significant difference between the 157 shield and the 62 shield.

I can't explain it very well, but the shaping of the seal is a tad different. I guess to me, the 62 shield has a little more black space.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on February 14, 2011, 09:00:05 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4094%2F5434697365_f0e2f2126a_z.jpg&hash=48eeb95f07c8af8ccc48f7c02c210e3de0c30e07) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/longestaugust/5434697365/)
A couple here: First, the exit 35A sign should also mention US 62 WEST, which is concurrent with I-670 at this point.

Secondly, exit 33 is for Easton Way, not Morse Rd--that's exit 32. I kinda understand why they've done this, as drivers coming onto the C/D lanes can't use exit 32, and there are signs on Easton Way guiding traffic to Morse Rd, but there are better ways to indicate this on the guide sign. Also, the letters are too small--you can't tell in the picture, but it appears this was patched over something else, presumably just "Easton".

Also, while it's not quite an error, the other southbound guide signs for exit 33 are inconsistent--the newer signs (installed 4 or 5 years ago when the I-270/OH-161 interchange was completed) say "Easton Way" while the original button copy signs just say "Easton".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 14, 2011, 10:08:42 PM
the 157 has wider black margins, and a more gradual ascent from the upper left and upper right corners to the top hump.

given that the original two-digit shield is the New York state seal, it makes sense for the three-digit wider version to approximate it as best as they can given that they have a wider blank to work with.  The 157 achieves that much more than the 62.

(then again, nowadays even the two-digit NY shields aren't the right shape anymore!)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 14, 2011, 10:13:43 PM
I still think the standard 2-digit one looks the best. Maybe it's because wide shields are usually the result of stretched proportions, but there are few, if any, wide shields that I think look better than the standard ones.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on March 06, 2011, 12:22:03 PM
Excuse me for bumping an old post, but I found this I-422 sign at the Philadelphia Premium Outlet Mall in Limerick, PA yesterday:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5256%2F5500695501_ea7d1d6141_z.jpg&hash=367de8a9a2a0c592946d2582734bd6243a20468f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MDOTFanFB on March 07, 2011, 08:39:09 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on March 06, 2011, 12:22:03 PM
Excuse me for bumping an old post, but I found this I-422 sign at the Philadelphia Premium Outlet Mall in Limerick, PA yesterday:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5256%2F5500695501_ea7d1d6141_z.jpg&hash=367de8a9a2a0c592946d2582734bd6243a20468f)

Okay, who extended I-22 into PA, since the sign mentions I-422?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: The Premier on March 07, 2011, 08:50:55 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on March 06, 2011, 12:22:03 PM
Excuse me for bumping an old post, but I found this I-422 sign at the Philadelphia Premium Outlet Mall in Limerick, PA yesterday:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5256%2F5500695501_ea7d1d6141_z.jpg&hash=367de8a9a2a0c592946d2582734bd6243a20468f)

They probably meant U.S. Highway 422. :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on March 08, 2011, 12:10:35 PM
Can't really argue that it's even an "I-422" shield, since the colors are all off.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on March 08, 2011, 11:58:08 PM
And I-422 is not even a highway yet!
(It is being planned around Birmingham, AL)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: codyg1985 on March 10, 2011, 08:08:43 AM
It appears that US 20 has been extended way south to Alabama.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3Y7wG.jpg&hash=5f0b877d906970a39248d80254511a39eb60a6e6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on March 10, 2011, 09:57:03 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on February 14, 2011, 09:00:05 PM

Secondly, exit 33 is for Easton Way, not Morse Rd--that's exit 32. I kinda understand why they've done this, as drivers coming onto the C/D lanes can't use exit 32, and there are signs on Easton Way guiding traffic to Morse Rd, but there are better ways to indicate this on the guide sign. Also, the letters are too small--you can't tell in the picture, but it appears this was patched over something else, presumably just "Easton".

You're right as to why they did that.  Before Easton was built, there were only exits for 161 and Morse.  The problem really presents itself when you're northbound, as you see an 'Exit 30 & 33' sign, while Morse is exit 32 (you stay on the mainline for it.)  Everyone was getting confused when the new configuration was opened.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on March 22, 2011, 05:59:43 PM
Couldn't get photos of these because of snow, but two signs I saw on my way back south yesterday fit under "erroneous road signs".

- One is on westbound MA 9 approaching I-91.  In a state long-known for bland square route shields, this one was a circle shield.

- The other was near the north end of the US 7 freeway in Norwalk, CT.  Making the turn from northbount Main Ave to Grist Mill Rd, there's a "TO US 15" trailblazer.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on March 22, 2011, 08:34:11 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on March 10, 2011, 08:08:43 AM
It appears that US 20 has been extended way south to Alabama.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3Y7wG.jpg&hash=5f0b877d906970a39248d80254511a39eb60a6e6)

There is actually another erroneous U.S. 20 shield at that intersection (heading northbound on U.S. 43)

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=87.950;num_replies=964 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=87.950;num_replies=964)

I probably posted this picture on the thread a long time ago but I'm not taking the time to look  :-P

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: DTComposer on March 23, 2011, 01:15:37 AM
So if you're driving on I-5 north in Orange County and you approach CA-55 you get:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.12oclockmusic.com%2FI-5North.jpg&hash=babf6d5c2bc985b4a3d91ad77ed56e36c0bbbe9f)

You want to go to Anaheim, so you take CA-55 North. A little while later, you get:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.12oclockmusic.com%2FCA-55North.jpg&hash=a65efcbc88e2254b83fdc4ce9fbe2e4f2f3a5ee0)

You still want to go to Anaheim, so you take CA-91 East.

Only problem is, here's the route you're taking:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.12oclockmusic.com%2FMap.jpg&hash=61df61b50ac63302dc4c6e5d4c08b509ff5a18e3)

(markers represent Downtown Anaheim, Disneyland, Anaheim Stadium, Honda Center, Anaheim Convention Center....basically any reason any out-of-towner would go to Anaheim)

Why would a control city deliberately lead you away from the center of said city, or away from any destination of note? Ahh, Caltrans.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MDOTFanFB on March 24, 2011, 03:23:32 PM
Isn't a playground sign supposed to be a diamond shape?
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_AXtC_YsMww4/TW1j0CcP3MI/AAAAAAAAA74/_nG8bkpiLOk/s912/SAM_0482.JPG)

This one is actually placed before the road becomes divided:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_AXtC_YsMww4/TW1j18d-aNI/AAAAAAAAA78/Jxitp3sUtzU/s800/SAM_0483.JPG)

No "M" at the top:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_AXtC_YsMww4/TXJ1jdwrvbI/AAAAAAAAA-8/JN-GK1b4Vws/s800/SAM_0507.JPG)

U.S. 10 dosen't go anywhere near Detroit any more:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_AXtC_YsMww4/TXJ23ubDTLI/AAAAAAAABBc/seqqV6gZXDY/s800/SAM_0555.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 24, 2011, 03:58:13 PM
I also note the rather small octagon on the "stop ahead" sign in the background of the playground sign with rather small see-saw.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on March 24, 2011, 04:49:08 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 24, 2011, 03:58:13 PM
I also note the rather small octagon on the "stop ahead" sign in the background of the playground sign with rather small see-saw.

There are some township installed stop ahead signs with small octagons near me as well:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=lima,+pa&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.047881,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Lima,+Delaware,+Pennsylvania&ll=39.902432,-75.412002&spn=0.002329,0.004823&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.902514,-75.411941&panoid=5JLPOn3fxWCJc_aZx4AvSw&cbp=12,212.5,,0,-5.31
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on March 28, 2011, 01:10:30 PM
This is the first time, personally, I've seen this kind of mistake in Tennessee.  It is in the construction area for widening I-65 from exit 65 south.

Magically, we now have US 96 in Tennessee.  This is most likely a contractor error.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5176%2F5568016361_368e2ae31c.jpg&hash=a8a425f596d8c42fa9414a296a90a4927390b0fc) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/5568016361/)
20110310I-65N @ Exit 65 bad 96 sign-C (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/5568016361/) by mightyace (http://www.flickr.com/people/mightyace/), on Flickr

Sorry about the low quality folks, it was not a good day for photos.  I'll try and get a better one of the sign is still there.

Edit:
My memory was apparently faulty, see agentsteel53's post below.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 28, 2011, 01:22:18 PM
US-255 has shown up as well.  Should be state secondary 255.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TN/TN19702551i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on March 28, 2011, 02:53:25 PM
^^^
Dang, I had forgotten about that one!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rupertus on April 03, 2011, 08:09:34 PM
I found a nice one today, at the stoplight at the end of the ramp from north I-275 to Michigan Avenue. There is a new Clearview guide sign at that location that for some reason has an M-12 shield on it instead of the correct US 12 shield. Not sure where that came from as there is no such road as M-12. Unfortunately the photo I took didn't come out very well...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on April 05, 2011, 07:23:44 PM
I guess California was jealous of Pennsylvania...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg839.imageshack.us%2Fimg839%2F9009%2Fca099errorjctsign.jpg&hash=ab8fda8066d0fb270cb763f0f0a7dde6bf61ace8) (http://img839.imageshack.us/i/ca099errorjctsign.jpg/)

I'm pretty sure this was fixed several years back. And while it's an error shield, at least it's a nice looking one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on April 05, 2011, 08:56:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2657%2F4223611965_c60592a692_z_d.jpg%3Fzz%3D1&hash=b51166f75fb6e841a48e448e213aa2e1ab29a7e4)
Near Joplin, MO


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4112%2F4969417496_076fdd6de9_z_d.jpg&hash=e673e78d347728cd41c5e6546fbefe3a5c2790be)
Near Perry, AR

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on April 07, 2011, 08:19:01 PM
It's not the signs that's errorneous in this picture but the lane markings. The newly rebuilt I-39/I-90 interchange near Rockford was a building site when I last drove through it in 2009. Today I noticed the lane markings are wrong. There are four lanes on the approach with two lanes going each way. However the markings suggest the left three lanes are for I-90 and the right hand lane is for I-39. The short dotted lines should be between the middle two lanes. The two right lanes continue beyond the next exit so there should be the normal lane markings before the solid line.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedcam.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk%2Frockford.jpg&hash=5389ff7a5dd58fa5d6f1b8f09b0f8e08ca61cb06)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on April 07, 2011, 09:36:15 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg508.imageshack.us%2Fimg508%2F2050%2Fnjny23.jpg&hash=a85eb14483d5c1d46f19b3912c5eb4b5a5ea68a0)

This is actually hilarious. NY 23 is nowhere near here, the sign is for NJ 23 (in New York). They did, however, get the black border part right! :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on April 07, 2011, 10:38:06 PM
Isn't it actually wrong, though? I thought NYS route shields were supposed to lack the black background and use Series F numerals.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on April 08, 2011, 01:39:14 AM
Quote from: Quillz on April 07, 2011, 10:38:06 PM
Isn't it actually wrong, though? I thought NYS route shields were supposed to lack the black background and use Series F numerals.
Right, but the black background and Series D numerals are correct for a New Jersey shield (which is what that one should be).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on April 08, 2011, 01:45:48 AM
Oh, I see what you're saying.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 08, 2011, 09:58:53 AM
Quote from: Truvelo on April 07, 2011, 08:19:01 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedcam.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk%2Frockford.jpg&hash=5389ff7a5dd58fa5d6f1b8f09b0f8e08ca61cb06)

In fact, shouldn't the arrows beon the "Exit Only" yellow part?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on April 08, 2011, 11:13:54 AM
Quote from: Quillz on April 05, 2011, 07:23:44 PM
I guess California was jealous of Pennsylvania...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg839.imageshack.us%2Fimg839%2F9009%2Fca099errorjctsign.jpg&hash=ab8fda8066d0fb270cb763f0f0a7dde6bf61ace8) (http://img839.imageshack.us/i/ca099errorjctsign.jpg/)

I'm pretty sure this was fixed several years back. And while it's an error shield, at least it's a nice looking one.

If Bud had his way, that might be an accurate sign someday.  See Kurumi's Trippy Drive '71 (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/signmaker/drive.html) for the ultimate I-99 nightmare.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: InterstateNG on April 09, 2011, 04:11:52 PM
Quote from: Rupertus on April 03, 2011, 08:09:34 PM
I found a nice one today, at the stoplight at the end of the ramp from north I-275 to Michigan Avenue. There is a new Clearview guide sign at that location that for some reason has an M-12 shield on it instead of the correct US 12 shield. Not sure where that came from as there is no such road as M-12. Unfortunately the photo I took didn't come out very well...

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/205110_138043372935046_100001881518423_239451_6861108_n.jpg
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mobilene on April 19, 2011, 09:42:09 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjimgrey.net%2Ffileserver%2F37error.jpg&hash=9d222f7b0815b59bba7548d5168857b039ec4abd)

Found by a buddy of mine on the south side of Indianapolis.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tdindy88 on April 19, 2011, 11:17:43 PM
Quote from: mobilene on April 19, 2011, 09:42:09 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjimgrey.net%2Ffileserver%2F37error.jpg&hash=9d222f7b0815b59bba7548d5168857b039ec4abd)

Found by a buddy of mine on the south side of Indianapolis.

Is that recent with the construction in that area? Speaking of which, just north of the exit there are SR 37 signs hovering over Harding Street that are Kentucky-style and not Indiana-style.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 19, 2011, 11:34:44 PM
you mean circle shields?  can you please get a photo of them for the shield gallery?

37 must really attract oddities - in some town there is a pair of black squares with the state outline!  the old embossed Indiana shields had the state outline, but by the time the state moved into the black-square era (for US markers), they were strictly using the modern style square with a state name.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tdindy88 on April 20, 2011, 05:17:48 PM
Well, I've never had much luck putting pictures up on here, but here is a link to the Streetview of the site. If you would like, I could email the picture that I do have of these same signs, plus the ones of the SR 37 with the state outline which are from Bloomington of the gallery.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Indianapolis,+IN&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=27.643082,86.220703&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Indianapolis,+Marion,+Indiana&ll=39.698247,-86.184762&spn=0,0.014613&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.698038,-86.186604&panoid=Ze3EDWXEDmi-GcGhElbg6Q&cbp=12,191.51,,0,0 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Indianapolis,+IN&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=27.643082,86.220703&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Indianapolis,+Marion,+Indiana&ll=39.698247,-86.184762&spn=0,0.014613&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.698038,-86.186604&panoid=Ze3EDWXEDmi-GcGhElbg6Q&cbp=12,191.51,,0,0)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 20, 2011, 05:40:58 PM
if you could please email them to me, that would be perfect

jake@aaroads.com

thanks!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mobilene on April 22, 2011, 11:44:31 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on April 19, 2011, 11:17:43 PM
Is that recent with the construction in that area? Speaking of which, just north of the exit there are SR 37 signs hovering over Harding Street that are Kentucky-style and not Indiana-style.

Yes, I believe it is. I haven't been down there to see. Doesn't it look like those shields are hanging over northbound lanes, as if the southbound are closed?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shadyjay on April 26, 2011, 10:32:59 PM
While not in the "wild", I found this on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_States#Guide

Check out the second sign - something seems strange with that route number   ;-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on April 27, 2011, 05:49:40 AM
I believe the Major Deegan Expressway is I-87, not I-78 (I-78 hardly enters NY)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 28, 2011, 08:38:47 PM
What about Pocono being used as a control city on I-380 near Pocono Summit, PA for the PA 934 exit?  There is no such place as Pocono, but there is a Mount Pocono, Pocono Pines, and Pocono Summit!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on April 29, 2011, 12:16:01 AM
Quote from: ausinterkid on April 27, 2011, 05:49:40 AM
I believe the Major Deegan Expressway is I-87, not I-78 (I-78 hardly enters NY)

Yes, that is correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 29, 2011, 12:22:11 AM
someone took a photo in the early 2000s of an I-78 shield more than halfway across Queens!!!  looked like a late 50s vintage route marker.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on April 29, 2011, 01:18:24 AM
If it's the one I remember, it was actually up in the Bronx (!) near I-295 or I-695.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dougtone on April 29, 2011, 06:46:35 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 29, 2011, 12:22:11 AM
someone took a photo in the early 2000s of an I-78 shield more than halfway across Queens!!!  looked like a late 50s vintage route marker.

The I-78 shield was in the Bronx, near I-295 (Randall Ave. exit).  The shield has since been removed, if I recall correctly.  I've looked for it a few times, to no avail.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 29, 2011, 11:30:58 AM
Quote from: Dougtone on April 29, 2011, 06:46:35 AM


The I-78 shield was in the Bronx, near I-295 (Randall Ave. exit).  The shield has since been removed, if I recall correctly.  I've looked for it a few times, to no avail.

yeah, it's gone.  what was the purpose of it?  how far down were they going to extend I-78 at one time?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on April 29, 2011, 10:07:55 PM
As far as I-95 via Throgs Neck (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/throgs-neck/).

The short stretch of the Cross Bronx (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/cross-bronx/) between the Bruckner Interchange and the Throgs Neck Bridge was designated I-78 between 1958 and 1971, when it became I-295.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on April 30, 2011, 12:03:15 AM
Quote from: Master son on July 01, 2009, 12:48:58 PM
I wouldn't call sign that erroneous - I'd call that funny as hell! :-D

Then you'll like this one
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2354%2F2267717817_bd6f0871dd_z_d.jpg&hash=408c73b92121b5fcde0be348f52d3d436294fa60)

Or maybe we need a separate thread for humorous signs? ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on April 30, 2011, 12:30:42 AM
There is of course exit 69 Big Beaver Road in Michigan. And KY 420 uses High Street in Frankfort (not sure if there's any way to get a photo with both a route shield and a street sign).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 01, 2011, 12:32:42 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 30, 2011, 12:30:42 AM
There is of course exit 69 Big Beaver Road in Michigan. And KY 420 uses High Street in Frankfort (not sure if there's any way to get a photo with both a route shield and a street sign).

I will have to check next time I am in Frankfort, which will be week after next.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on May 01, 2011, 11:15:16 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 30, 2011, 12:03:15 AM
Quote from: Master son on July 01, 2009, 12:48:58 PM
I wouldn't call sign that erroneous - I'd call that funny as hell! :-D

Then you'll like this one
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2354%2F2267717817_bd6f0871dd_z_d.jpg&hash=408c73b92121b5fcde0be348f52d3d436294fa60)

Or maybe we need a separate thread for humorous signs? ;)

(insert Beavis & Butthead laughter here)   :hyper:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 01, 2011, 12:33:14 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on May 01, 2011, 11:15:16 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 30, 2011, 12:03:15 AM
Quote from: Master son on July 01, 2009, 12:48:58 PM
I wouldn't call sign that erroneous - I'd call that funny as hell! :-D

Then you'll like this one

Or maybe we need a separate thread for humorous signs? ;)

(insert Beavis & Butthead laughter here)   :hyper:
It's especially funny since I'm currently in my friends' dorm and the arrow from the sign is pointing right at Johnson Hall  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: nyratk1 on May 02, 2011, 08:15:38 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on May 01, 2011, 11:15:16 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 30, 2011, 12:03:15 AM
Quote from: Master son on July 01, 2009, 12:48:58 PM
I wouldn't call sign that erroneous - I'd call that funny as hell! :-D

Then you'll like this one
Or maybe we need a separate thread for humorous signs? ;)

(insert Beavis & Butthead laughter here)   :hyper:

Huh huh huh, you said "insert."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 02, 2011, 10:59:50 PM
Quote from: Adam Smith on January 25, 2011, 08:38:46 PM
Just like in 2004...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2Fus3err.JPG&hash=267b910e6196cb2ae3085df0e69aea82c1e042f2)
(with the alluded Oh 3 shield shown)
Took 7 years, but the US 3 shield at Spring-Cleveland (in Columbus) is no more. :-(
One less stop for the C-bus tour in two weeks.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on May 03, 2011, 03:01:44 PM
Is your name Tim? If so, don't park in the hourly "C" garage at Reagan Airport in Virginia:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2Fc63c71fa.jpg&hash=ff1402548b920cb95cf6149109afcbf075d8e4f8)


(When I was a kid, the school I attended from the fourth through sixth grades had a sign out front that said "NO PARIKNG." I never got a picture of it and it was eventually replaced long after I no longer went to school there.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 03, 2011, 10:13:52 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 03, 2011, 03:01:44 PM
Is your name Tim? If so, don't park in the hourly "C" garage at Reagan Airport in Virginia:

A certain enchanter would not be too pleased by this. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on May 03, 2011, 10:24:21 PM
Here is one sign on US 1 southbound I photographed in Westerly, RI a few weeks ago:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5303%2F5650698736_476c3a8096_z.jpg&hash=a4a37f245535d32fef62d238000933069dd24cbf)

The font is obviously off, but the US 1A shield is supposed to be an RI 1A shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on May 03, 2011, 10:28:43 PM
Isn't it also an error to use the black square background on a BGS?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 03, 2011, 10:54:39 PM
that is horrific!  why do so many people default to the Arial variants?  that font is terrible.

I don't think I've used Arial (or Helvetica, or Arial Black, or the like) since I was about 6.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on May 03, 2011, 10:57:30 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 03, 2011, 10:54:39 PM
that is horrific!  why do so many people default to the Arial variants?  that font is terrible.

That's the Rhode Island way!  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on May 03, 2011, 11:09:22 PM
Yeah, for being in charge of such a small state, RIDOT is one of the worst for consistency. http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ri/ has a whole bunch of photos.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on May 04, 2011, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 03, 2011, 10:54:39 PM
that is horrific!  why do so many people default to the Arial variants?  that font is terrible.

I don't think I've used Arial (or Helvetica, or Arial Black, or the like) since I was about 6.

That looks like the type of BGS a movie studio would make for a road scene.  Hideous indeed!!!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on May 22, 2011, 03:07:18 PM
I don't think I've seen this one posted (Edit: because I didn't look at the first post in the thread), from I-81 South in Virginia.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20101226%2Fexit317-1mile.jpg&hash=43aa655f099db9854e64a3f28d90589fd641606c)

The correct Virginia 37 is shown on the older sign closer to the exit point.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20101226%2Fexit317.jpg&hash=ffb7c5ddb92283e1097559649cdbd8fb43440d7c)

Both taken December 26, 2010.  (Edit: so the point of my post is "still there!")

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on May 22, 2011, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: Jim on May 22, 2011, 03:07:18 PM
I don't think I've seen this one posted, from I-81 South in Virginia.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20101226%2Fexit317-1mile.jpg&hash=43aa655f099db9854e64a3f28d90589fd641606c)

Ah, and after 41 pages we have finally come full circle!! lol This was the first sign I posted starting this thread long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away... :spin:
If you look at page one it will be there!  No worries in reposting it again though!  :-D

Not surprised that the error has not been fixed either...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 22, 2011, 11:59:23 PM
The "US 37" sign was still in place in March. I saw (and photographed) it on my way back home from New Jersey.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on May 23, 2011, 01:56:10 AM
The US Shields on the Clearview sign look particularly fugly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 23, 2011, 02:03:53 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 23, 2011, 01:56:10 AM
The US Shields on the Clearview sign look particularly fugly.

indeed.  the 522 looks to be standard 1970 spec 3dus... the two-digit ones look like someone started with the 3dus blank as seen on the 522, and shrunk it horizontally to 2dus width.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on May 23, 2011, 02:09:43 AM
I've actually come to not hate the '70 spec US shields as much as I used to. I used to absolutely loathe them, but they're really not that bad. At least when they're done well.

Even with just a simple white background (no black border or anything), I still see pics from time to time with uncentered numerals, horribly stretched out font, etc.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on May 26, 2011, 03:36:26 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on May 03, 2011, 10:24:21 PM
Here is one sign on US 1 southbound I photographed in Westerly, RI a few weeks ago:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5303%2F5650698736_476c3a8096_z.jpg&hash=a4a37f245535d32fef62d238000933069dd24cbf)

The font is obviously off, but the US 1A shield is supposed to be an RI 1A shield.

That road is posted throughout the state (since it's RI, not saying much) as *US* 1A, most notably at the interchange on the recently rebuilt stretch of I-95 south of downtown Providence.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on May 26, 2011, 03:47:32 PM
I don't have photos of any of them (will try to get some the next time I go to a game), but the DC DOT made a hash of the street signs outside Nationals Park. The street that runs along the first base side is Potomac Avenue (SE on the ballpark side, SW once you cross South Capitol Street away from the ballpark). But the DC people seem not to have any clue about the name. Some of the street signs say "Potomac Ave" with either SW or SE. Some of them say "Potomac St" with either SW or SE. But the worst is the one at the corner of First Street SE. That sign says "Potomac Ave St SE."  :banghead:

There used to be a sign just up the street from there on South Capitol Street that said "Pedestrain Prohibited," but it's gone. Last year I saw a sign in the construction zone on DC-295 that said "Shollder Closed," but I wasn't able to get a picture due to the volume of traffic. I believe that sign is gone now as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 26, 2011, 09:20:41 PM
It seems the "pedestrain" bug is spreading, then.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5227%2F5598816493_46bca72cb9_z.jpg&hash=073e6ec4e25f801350dd2fa7da7c73ba418901ca) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/5598816493/)

Admittedly, this isn't a road sign, but still... :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on May 26, 2011, 09:21:43 PM
There's a 'stop for pedestrains' right next to the Amtrak station in Providence, RI.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 30, 2011, 06:47:23 PM
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/fl/us_441/

There are two erroneous signs in this gallery on alpsroads.net  One is a FL 441 shield in Orlando near the old Amway Arena, and the other is the sign for FL 414 Westbound.  The latter is correct, but if you stay straight for another two or so miles on US 441 you will be in ugh Apopka.  Besides if you go WB on FL 414 you will encounter two exits for Apopka: Keene Road and NB FL 429.  The second exit on 414 for Apopka is 429 which leads back to 441 on the other side of Apopka and thus you enter the same place from opposite ends.

Then the Florida's Turnpike sign at Osceola Parkway in Kissimmee is wrong, but FDOT fixed that since the picture was taken also in his gallery. 

The TOLL for Osceola Parkway WB could be interpreted as that considering the actual toll road does not start until Dyer Boulevard two miles west of here.  I am not complaining on this one though, as it still has merit with many tourists in this area, is better to pre-warn than warn.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 30, 2011, 08:07:58 PM
In New Jersey on Highway 35 in Sayreville, the exit for Pine Avenue is signed for Bordentown Avenue when Bordentown is 2 miles ahead at another exit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: InterstateNG on June 05, 2011, 11:23:06 AM
One of the exits for SR 103 off of Interstate 75 in Bluffton, OH is marked as US 103.  Didn't have my camera ready yesterday, however.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on June 05, 2011, 12:14:35 PM
I was just in the Albany/Schenectady area yesterday and noticed that the DOT has taken to signing NY 890 as I-890.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on June 05, 2011, 07:25:23 PM
Quote from: okroads on March 31, 2010, 10:45:31 AM
U.S. 59 shield instead of AR 59
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4034%2F4471338686_d0b16e7af1_b.jpg&hash=4e73de85514d6a8cc917f8d382647eda1044e4a2)

I was in this area today, and this sign goof has been corrected with an AR 59 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 05, 2011, 07:33:36 PM
Quote from: okroads on June 05, 2011, 07:25:23 PM

I was in this area today, and this sign goof has been corrected with an AR 59 shield.

And you didn't call.  tsk   :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 05, 2011, 11:12:01 PM
This one here is erroneous on TOLL FL 528 in Belle Isle, FL.  McCoy Road leading to Sand Lake Road is also FL 482 as well!  The FL 482 shield probably should be on top over both roads.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/5802390777/in/photostream
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 07, 2011, 05:59:56 PM
Just because some people pronounce it this way doesn't mean you should SPELL it that way, too!!! :banghead:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.cleveland.com%2Froadrant_impact%2Fphoto%2Fmisspelled-sign-8afc927d36cdae93.jpg&hash=5958ff025fde5cc9ebf5a6965717262a8cb118db)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 08, 2011, 07:50:35 PM
...And here is said sign again after the ODOT switchboard lit up:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wkyc.com%2Fimages%2F640%2F360%2F2%2Fassetpool%2Fimages%2F110608113137_Still0608_00000.jpg&hash=9961ad9e87d251631d6270ddc6a42d4227240671)


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wkyc.com%2Fimages%2F640%2F360%2F2%2Fassetpool%2Fimages%2F110608113359_Still0608_00001.jpg&hash=bd52c2612e5a454bd699a5205ef412e27a9da355)

You mean to say they couldn't find any black-on-white or white-on-blue NORTH blade to use to temporarily cover up the oopsie!?!??? :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JREwing78 on June 08, 2011, 08:30:23 PM
They were better off leaving the misspelling alone!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on June 08, 2011, 08:32:36 PM
They could have also left the N uncovered.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on June 08, 2011, 08:59:41 PM
Desperate times call for desperate measures!   :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Anonymity Lane on June 08, 2011, 09:07:27 PM
Well that's tacky.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 08, 2011, 10:34:22 PM
So the sign wasn't "fixed" like the ODOT district spokeswoman claimed it was this morning?
QuoteOhio Department of Transportation spokeswoman Jackie Schafer says the contractor fixed the error in the Cleveland suburb of Strongsville yesterday by placing an overlay over the word, with the correct spelling. She tells the Associated Press the contractor will pay to have a new sign made.

The Plain Dealer of Cleveland was first to report about the problem with the sign, on eastbound Rt. 82 at I-71.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 08, 2011, 11:55:08 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 08, 2011, 10:34:22 PM
So the sign wasn't "fixed" like the ODOT district spokeswoman claimed it was this morning?
QuoteOhio Department of Transportation spokeswoman Jackie Schafer says the contractor fixed the error in the Cleveland suburb of Strongsville yesterday by placing an overlay over the word, with the correct spelling. She tells the Associated Press the contractor will pay to have a new sign made.

The Plain Dealer of Cleveland was first to report about the problem with the sign, on eastbound Rt. 82 at I-71.


Nope -- It's still in Clearview. :rofl:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on June 10, 2011, 05:05:03 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 08, 2011, 08:32:36 PM
They could have also left the N uncovered.

That would not be possible, because the MUTCD contains the following "standard" statement:
Quote from: MUTCD
The words NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, and WEST shall not be abbreviated when used with route signs to indicate cardinal directions on guide signs.
Chapter 2E.17, Paragraph 4, Page 192
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2011, 05:57:39 PM
Quote from: Michael on June 10, 2011, 05:05:03 PM
That would not be possible, because the MUTCD contains the following "standard" statement:
Quote from: MUTCD
The words NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, and WEST shall not be abbreviated when used with route signs to indicate cardinal directions on guide signs.
Chapter 2E.17, Paragraph 4, Page 192

actually, it would be allowed, since the MUTCD doesn't say anything about abbreviating the word "NORHT"  :sombrero:

(more practically: in this case, leaving the N instead of entirely covering up the misspelled word would be a more useful temporary fix.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 11, 2011, 01:18:36 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2011, 05:57:39 PM
Quote from: Michael on June 10, 2011, 05:05:03 PM
That would not be possible, because the MUTCD contains the following "standard" statement:
Quote from: MUTCD
The words NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, and WEST shall not be abbreviated when used with route signs to indicate cardinal directions on guide signs.
Chapter 2E.17, Paragraph 4, Page 192

actually, it would be allowed, since the MUTCD doesn't say anything about abbreviating the word "NORHT"  :sombrero:

(more practically: in this case, leaving the N instead of entirely covering up the misspelled word would be a more useful temporary fix.)

Yet another example of how the MUTCD is unnecessarily specific, detailed or anal-retentive (take your pick).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 12, 2011, 06:54:53 PM
I don't see how that's too specific or anal-retentive. If you have a random "N" floating around a sign, especially a complex one with multiple shields (which is probably the most likely scenario for abbreviation) it could be difficult at first glance to connect just that single letter to a specific shield and realize it's supposed to be a cardinal direction. In most cases it would be obvious, yes, but I could see ODOT horribly botching it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 12, 2011, 06:58:35 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 12, 2011, 06:54:53 PM
I don't see how that's too specific or anal-retentive. If you have a random "N" floating around a sign, especially a complex one with multiple shields (which is probably the most likely scenario for abbreviation) it could be difficult at first glance to connect just that single letter to a specific shield and realize it's supposed to be a cardinal direction. In most cases it would be obvious, yes, but I could see ODOT horribly botching it.

I think in this case it would've made the most sense.

then again, I'll bet the patch was not applied the way it was because the crew consciously decided that to leave the "N" exposed would violate a particular paragraph and subsection of the MUTCD.  It's most likely that they simply never thought to do so.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on June 14, 2011, 12:36:24 PM
This one speaks for itself:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-mn4YJ-uqdmU/TfaubUxu3SI/AAAAAAAAIQU/RKmPJ3nMd-M/s640/100_5461.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 14, 2011, 09:45:54 PM
Quote from: deanej on June 14, 2011, 12:36:24 PM
This one speaks for itself:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-mn4YJ-uqdmU/TfaubUxu3SI/AAAAAAAAIQU/RKmPJ3nMd-M/s640/100_5461.JPG)

Awesome.  I remember doing a double-take at that when I was out there last summer. :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on June 14, 2011, 11:27:06 PM
^^^  Pardon my ignorance, but is it the wrong directional banner or a wrong shield?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on June 14, 2011, 11:32:21 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on June 14, 2011, 11:27:06 PM
^^^  Pardon my ignorance, but is it the wrong directional banner or a wrong shield?

Error: U.S. 10 is nowhere near New York state.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 16, 2011, 06:25:36 PM
Quote from: Alex on June 14, 2011, 11:32:21 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on June 14, 2011, 11:27:06 PM
^^^  Pardon my ignorance, but is it the wrong directional banner or a wrong shield?

Error: U.S. 10 is nowhere near New York state.

And even if it were, U.S. shields should always be above the state shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on June 16, 2011, 09:03:06 PM
Thanks for the clarification.  Greatly appreciated.   :cheers:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on June 16, 2011, 09:34:41 PM
Quote from: deanej on June 05, 2011, 12:14:35 PM
I was just in the Albany/Schenectady area yesterday and noticed that the DOT has taken to signing NY 890 as I-890.

Not entirely.  The signs on NY 5 now all reference I-890 after being NY 890 when the bridge first opened connecting 890 to NY 5.  This change was made a few years ago at least.  But there is still an "East NY 890" just east of 5, and a "West NY 890" just beyond the exit for the Thruway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on June 20, 2011, 11:51:43 AM
US 62 apparently got a downgrade in Gahanna:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg683.imageshack.us%2Fimg683%2F3807%2Foh62error.jpg&hash=d2ef30fa2d21b132abd81ca1dfa2f52420414ae5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: newyorker478 on June 20, 2011, 02:00:56 PM
http://www.wsfa.com/global/story.asp?S=3642053

Alabama Route shields in Northampton mass
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: newyorker478 on June 20, 2011, 02:01:19 PM
http://WSFA.images.worldnow.com/images/161078_LG.jpg
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on June 20, 2011, 02:22:28 PM
Quote from: newyorker478 on June 20, 2011, 02:00:56 PM
http://www.wsfa.com/global/story.asp?S=3642053

Alabama Route shields in Northampton mass
This is from 2005.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 20, 2011, 03:38:14 PM
Yep, it was talked about on MTR rather extensively when it happened, IIRC.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: geronimoabn on June 20, 2011, 05:23:57 PM
This one can be found in Elwood, Illinois.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv354%2Fgeronimoabn%2F55-53sign.jpg&hash=8c8f9cdbad45388d8aca6902e3734d90f915aed4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 20, 2011, 07:18:14 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on June 20, 2011, 11:51:43 AM
US 62 apparently got a downgrade in Gahanna:
You take that photo before or after the downpour we had at rush hour Friday (just before the Creekside festival started)? ;-)
That Oh 62 sign been around 7 or 8 years now. I have a photo of it herehttp://www.roadfan.com/gahanna.html (http://www.roadfan.com/gahanna.html) from when I attended the 2004 Creekside Blues & Jazz festival.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on June 27, 2011, 01:01:25 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on June 20, 2011, 11:51:43 AM
US 62 apparently got a downgrade in Gahanna:

This breed of mistake is extremely common on Ohio.  It's not just on signs, either: text descriptions of roads frequently say "state route" even when it's a US highway being referenced.  Even municipal highway department and ODOT employees get it wrong sometimes.  Anyway, given that US highways, just like Ohio state routes, are maintained by ODOT outside of municipalities, and there are no duplicated numbers between the two systems, it's a very minor error of almost no consequence.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on June 27, 2011, 02:55:45 PM
Quote from: vtk on June 27, 2011, 01:01:25 PM
This breed of mistake is extremely common on Ohio.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FUS20-395Burnssigngoofa-1.jpg&hash=0f17150b6a40405bccdd8a8e44251097c6d12211) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FUS26-395MtVernonSignGoof1-1.jpg%3Ft%3D1309200891&hash=81d3e5a1e863e3de1f78ab4e89e1b1acd1e8203f) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR140US97KlamathFallssigngoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1267505245&hash=1185f2f4592fad7a68d8f33783aec45ae26bbae2) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR34US101WaldportSignGoof2-1.jpg%3Ft%3D1309200825&hash=d85ed325a202f477b67d78853551473d7013f855) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FUS199GrantsPasssigngoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1268962568&hash=0825c32dce6ed7e42ba886838eef0fca298cc774)

It's pretty common in Oregon, too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on June 27, 2011, 03:17:21 PM
Quote from: vtk on June 27, 2011, 01:01:25 PM
This breed of mistake is extremely common on Ohio.
Quote from: xonhulu on June 27, 2011, 02:55:45 PM
It's pretty common in Oregon, too.
Instead of downgrading routes, California has a tendency to upgrade routes...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images050/us-050_error_interstate_04.jpg)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kurumi.com%2Froads%2F3di%2Fpics%2Fphoto-i152-th.jpg&hash=15f2938662ae5f18fb61a9913f04d232ffe6ad9e)(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19800991i1.jpg)
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19800992i1.jpg)
Images from Kurumi's 3DI site, the AARoads Gallery and the AARoads Sheild Gallery
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael in Philly on June 27, 2011, 03:22:23 PM
That's how it starts:  One minute they're making a sign mistake, the next we have Interstate 238.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 27, 2011, 04:09:44 PM
one more that was around at the first mile of US-101 for a few years

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19611011i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 27, 2011, 05:10:54 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5022%2F5878115503_816ba764ce_z_d.jpg&hash=564c2d7b2959d0eda561cbad71d7496a9575b93e)

Excelsior Springs, MO (should be US 69)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on June 28, 2011, 12:52:55 AM
Somebody with a perverted sense of humor, I would say.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on June 28, 2011, 12:16:42 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 27, 2011, 03:17:21 PM
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19800991i1.jpg)
And to think we though that I-99 in PA was bad...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on June 28, 2011, 03:24:49 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 27, 2011, 03:17:21 PM
Instead of downgrading routes, California has a tendency to upgrade routes...

So does Oregon:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR19DayvilleSignGoof2.jpg%3Ft%3D1279910793&hash=5e2d947251241ba75957009b1280a9f563def0ff) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_IMG_0369.jpg%3Ft%3D1301204899&hash=fb62797c1d59fd3500188457fe934e8031424089) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR53CannonBeachJctSignGoof3.jpg%3Ft%3D1281550500&hash=d0d7cb81b13416a653e5f9a0819509ff8a600e99) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR201Adriansigngoof2.jpg%3Ft%3D1267580435&hash=b8aa80588f538f9b581c9dc0c6adb5d1cd59c122) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR245HerefordSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1279910793&hash=e84a01cb2d20f08bf442d1b79705dee91044a251) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR103SignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1267503603&hash=a60495615bd7c7beb79c8418620046619ac40411) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR140US395Lakeviewsigngoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1267505244&hash=c5da946c0ba3843a6439de8e49426857f48a604c) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR202SignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1267580826&hash=d4f9d8f94447417cac953c83fc05f8ea5f58fd72) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR205Narrowssigngoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1267505241&hash=092a78d4afaf0eb8bbd1b080fd68ff502742bcca) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR216GrassValley1.jpg%3Ft%3D1267580011&hash=a15ceae8be3301dba8d8616706dfe842f9bd92a4) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR22StaytonSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1267580617&hash=32a251692d496afe95b72a1a5a423640a18311c0) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR224BartonSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1268203109&hash=05e337bca7248033d2f816c216e6f2d80a2863d3) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR39-140KlamathFallsSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1268203109&hash=8df596e9f1ec12152c07e4f5ab67bf3253c4e34d) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR58Cloverdale2-1.jpg%3Ft%3D1267579597&hash=77f09dd8beebea31dc3f40038d2127710399ee07) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR82LaGrandesigngoof1-1.jpg%3Ft%3D1267580640&hash=805f7ae39e4313b6cfd1ed24cb5c469a44d8bf8d) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OR99GoldHillSignGoof2-1.jpg%3Ft%3D1267580566&hash=69287948c040efd0b8a20b8ff1183f98ddcb6b62) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR86HalfwaySignGoof1-3-1.jpg%3Ft%3D1309289043&hash=4ff8456382c0402e7dddee27e94e5533d73ef160)

However, while Oregon has plenty of state-route-to-US "upgrades", I've never seen a non-interstate in Oregon marked as interstate.  Has anybody?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 28, 2011, 04:39:37 PM
that US-99 feels like it should be a different category of error: a retrograde, rather than an upgrade, as US-99 was the correct designation for the route. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 28, 2011, 04:45:55 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on June 28, 2011, 03:24:49 PMI've never seen a non-interstate in Oregon marked as interstate.  Has anybody?

kinda sorta close in a way maybe ish

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OR/OR20000991i1.jpg)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 28, 2011, 04:53:35 PM
Quote from: deanej on June 28, 2011, 12:16:42 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 27, 2011, 03:17:21 PM
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19800991i1.jpg)
And to think we though that I-99 in PA was bad...


Perhaps Bud Shuster's I-99 plan was to be a "ring interstate" around the country.    ;-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on June 28, 2011, 05:31:03 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 28, 2011, 04:45:55 PM
kinda sorta close in a way maybe ish

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OR/OR20000991i1.jpg)


I was hoping for blue shield and all, but I guess that kinda sorta close in a way maybe ish counts.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 28, 2011, 06:05:16 PM
red white and blue shield errors are relatively rare.  CA has a much higher proportion than other states.

I've never seen one in Oregon.  or a lot of other places.  I need to make an addition to the shield gallery software to search for error shields: a manual search of a few states turned up nothing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 28, 2011, 07:34:05 PM
I know the shield gallery has an I-530 from Washington, but IIRC, it's not really an error shield.  It was done as a joke at the DOT shop, and is posted at the exit of said shop.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 28, 2011, 07:39:19 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 28, 2011, 07:34:05 PM
I know the shield gallery has an I-530 from Washington, but IIRC, it's not really an error shield.  It was done as a joke at the DOT shop, and is posted at the exit of said shop.

I have never been able to find that.  You'd imagine 530 isn't all that long of a route, too...

is it visible from mainline 530?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ftballfan on June 29, 2011, 10:12:04 PM
I have yet to find an error shield in Michigan.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 29, 2011, 10:42:08 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 28, 2011, 07:39:19 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 28, 2011, 07:34:05 PM
I know the shield gallery has an I-530 from Washington, but IIRC, it's not really an error shield.  It was done as a joke at the DOT shop, and is posted at the exit of said shop.

I have never been able to find that.  You'd imagine 530 isn't all that long of a route, too...

is it visible from mainline 530?

I've never seen it myself, I was just going from memory of what I read on the site the photo was originally posted on.  My guess is that if it still exists, it's within the shop, and was never visible to the public.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 29, 2011, 11:05:26 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 29, 2011, 10:12:04 PM
I have yet to find an error shield in Michigan.

at one point, there was a Pennsylvania state route 31 (!) posted on US-31 in Michigan.  I do not have a picture. 

I do have a picture of this circle being used for M-10.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MI/MI19880752i1.jpg)

there are also certain US-10 shields which were put up well after the truncation in 1986.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MI/MI19800102i1.jpg)

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MI/MI19800101i1.jpg)

both are from Detroit.  there are also MICHIGAN/US/10 shields left, but I do believe even the city installs are from before 1986. 

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 30, 2011, 12:26:07 AM
Remember when I told you people about this picture in rural Pasco County, Florida?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg203.imageshack.us%2Fimg203%2F8043%2Ffl52errorpascocr583.jpg&hash=dcc28e2168e576da55d312843c4fc4a8447b9ef5)
Still there, incorrect as usual.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 30, 2011, 12:36:47 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 29, 2011, 11:05:26 PM
at one point, there was a Pennsylvania state route 31 (!) posted on US-31 in Michigan.  I do not have a picture. 

I saw it in my rear-view mirror while driving south on I-196 after the Grand Rapids meet a few years ago. I know there are some photos of it floating around out there because I have seen them. It was in the northbound lanes of I-196.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on June 30, 2011, 01:07:32 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 30, 2011, 12:36:47 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 29, 2011, 11:05:26 PM
at one point, there was a Pennsylvania state route 31 (!) posted on US-31 in Michigan.  I do not have a picture. 

I saw it in my rear-view mirror while driving south on I-196 after the Grand Rapids meet a few years ago. I know there are some photos of it floating around out there because I have seen them. It was in the northbound lanes of I-196.

Both assemblies are pictured in the PA Shield in MI thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1775.0).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: InterstateNG on June 30, 2011, 12:21:28 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 29, 2011, 10:12:04 PM
I have yet to find an error shield in Michigan.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg96631#msg96631
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2011, 01:57:51 PM
Speaking of erroneous shields...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Froadgeek%2Froad-photos%2Fmain.php%3Fcmd%3Dimage%26amp%3Bvar1%3Dok%252Fmcclain%252Fimg_4532.jpg%26amp%3Bvar2%3D700_85&hash=5534072581dd5b03c8ea5f14e24055c53f56ed83)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on June 30, 2011, 04:03:45 PM
Here's another from OK:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OK325BoiseCitySignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1279910871&hash=5f2905c51ea4121a7164a49b030f3631e1869df4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 30, 2011, 04:37:13 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on June 30, 2011, 04:03:45 PM
Here's another from OK:

[US-325]

goes well with US-412  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ftballfan on June 30, 2011, 08:09:12 PM
In my defense, I have never been to the city of Detroit and I have not been down I-196 south of Holland in years.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 01, 2011, 12:58:14 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on June 30, 2011, 04:03:45 PM
Here's another from OK:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2Fth_OK325BoiseCitySignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1279910871&hash=5f2905c51ea4121a7164a49b030f3631e1869df4)

How old is that? There was a circle there when I went in 2007.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 01, 2011, 01:32:09 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 01, 2011, 12:58:14 AM
How old is that? There was a circle there when I went in 2007.

I took it July last year.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: nyratk1 on July 01, 2011, 05:28:25 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2011, 01:57:51 PM
Speaking of erroneous shields...
***US 9 shield in Oklahoma***
Now I know parts of upstate NY are backwoods and rural but since when did it literally become Oklahoma? Welp, enjoy all those tornadoes, guys.  :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 01, 2011, 09:24:36 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5022%2F5878115503_816ba764ce_z_d.jpg&hash=564c2d7b2959d0eda561cbad71d7496a9575b93e)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WahooBill on July 01, 2011, 03:20:04 PM
I found this one in my files from 2002.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmysite.verizon.net%2Fbmanningva%2FI163ErrorSign.jpg&hash=046a2e7d66152728ad20190c46e4927b4aa51eb5)

Bill
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 01, 2011, 10:43:18 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 01, 2011, 09:24:36 AM
<snip>

You posted that already on the previous page.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg105866#msg105866
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on July 04, 2011, 11:49:03 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F3e%2FU.S._Route_10_in_Michigan_map.svg%2F776px-U.S._Route_10_in_Michigan_map.svg.png&hash=e5119b3ff572f123babb92e68cca12a9d974787b)
Here I-69 is shown as 'I-96'.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on July 04, 2011, 11:57:27 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 04, 2011, 11:49:03 PM
[snip map image]
Here I-69 is hown as 'I-96'.
Here shown is shown as 'hown'.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on July 05, 2011, 06:08:46 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 04, 2011, 11:49:03 PM
(snip Wikipedia map image)
Here I-69 is hown as 'I-96'.

This thread is supposed to be about signs, not maps... In any event, I have requested this map image be corrected--the Wikipedia USRD Maps Task Force doesn't always see activity, so it could be a while before it is changed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 05, 2011, 09:34:44 AM
It's an SVG. Why not fix it yourself?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 05, 2011, 09:06:13 PM
What went here?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_1335.jpg&hash=e608c6c0c859df670b44e2342e3eb75d9f36d577)

I don't think it just blew off into the Iowa cornfields either.  The other signs for this exit were like that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 05, 2011, 09:16:22 PM
Been trying to catch this one unsuccessfully for years (either no camera, traffic, or I just dropped the ball).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_1320.jpg&hash=defd6be5d26647f59d88cd9942880ef3e8ed76ea)

Note how IDOT District 3 is following IDOT District 1's approach to signage by making both signs the same height.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 05, 2011, 11:53:55 PM
And that's a perfect example of why making all the signs on one gantry the same height is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on July 06, 2011, 12:08:49 AM
I usually think that practice is very aesthetically pleasing if done correctly.
It would look much better if the spacing on the right sign was adjusted, i.e. move the shield up a bit and bring the arrow down under the text.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on July 06, 2011, 02:27:16 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 05, 2011, 11:53:55 PM
And that's a perfect example of why making all the signs on one gantry the same height is ridiculous.
Not really.  Why not put the control cities on the advance guide sign (exit 75) next the route shield instead of under it.  That will prevent the exit direction sign (exit 77) from having too much wasted space.  Kind of like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fil_exit77-75.png&hash=68d81cbf98db07c2d5c80e21f6e201c8bfb21fe4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 06, 2011, 02:44:01 AM
Because that means the region of the sign that the control cities are found in is not consistent from sign to sign. In nearly all the states I have driven extensively in, the signs place the shields on top and the control cities immediately beneath (with any distance information immediately below that).

It is also a less than optimal solution when one panel carries multiple route shields (two is iffy, three is definitely unbalanced-looking). Also, the placement of the distance ends up being awkward then, since it's not centered with the rest of the text on the sign.

In essence, having all sign panels the same size either ends up being wasteful (like in the above IL example) or breaches consistency. The end result is for a scant increase in the aesthetics. Signs with varying panel sizes on one gantry don't look terrible, especially if their lower edges match up with the lower edge of the gantry instead of being centered on the gantry as in your illustration.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on July 06, 2011, 03:07:34 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 06, 2011, 02:44:01 AM
Because that means the region of the sign that the control cities are found in is not consistent from sign to sign. In nearly all the states I have driven extensively in, the signs place the shields on top and the control cities immediately beneath (with any distance information immediately below that).
Then I guess you haven't done much driving in California then because there are a fair number of overhead guide signs that place the control cities (especially if there are two of them) next to the route shield.  There are cases where the route shield is placed above the control city but in almost all of these cases, there is only a single control city on the sign.  The reasons for the two different layouts is because California follows the all-signs-must-be-the-same-height rule and the maximum height of a guide sign is 120 inches.  In California, overhead guide sign heights are dependent on the type and size of truss the sign is being installed on.

I do agree that in cases where there are multiple route shields, laying out the sign using the method I showed would be troublesome.  Believe me, I've tried to "California-tize" some signs in other states where there are multiple shields and it is a royal pain in the butt especially when the max height of a sign is only 120 inches.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 06, 2011, 07:16:11 AM
Michigan also places the controls to the side of the shield maybe about 50% of the time.  However, unlike California, they're not wedded to making the signs all the same height.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 06, 2011, 10:25:23 AM
Though I've never been there, I am aware of California's practice of moving around the control cities to enforce the height restriction. However, the point I was making is, since most states tend to put the shields on top and the locations below, this is the expected way of doing things, and doing it different could cause a couple seconds of unnecessary delay in mentally processing the sign.

Things get even more hairy when you get cardinal directions involved, because either you have to violate the MUTCD's margin guidelines to cram the direction in the margin between the shield and the top of the sign, hang it out to the left of the shields (which looks unbalanced), or put it to the right of the shields, where it gets mixed in with the other text elements.

It's a recipe for ugly signage, in any event.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 06, 2011, 06:28:31 PM
Back on the topic of erroneous road signs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Froadgeek%2Froad-photos%2Fmain.php%3Fcmd%3Dimage%26amp%3Bvar1%3Dok%252Fcomanche%252Fimg_4538.jpg%26amp%3Bvar2%3D1000_85&hash=b92555e3f52bb7c7bb5d286c08b1c929b001f128)

US-288?  :banghead: This isn't even supposed to be OK-288, which is as fictional as US-288. They mean US-281.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 06, 2011, 09:51:10 PM
I was going to say, this would have semi-validated the erroneous US 288 shield that briefly existed in Chesterfield County, Virginia. (never mind that there's no US 88 :P)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Icodec on July 07, 2011, 02:18:00 PM
Quote from: flaroads on January 20, 2009, 04:01:44 PM
Okay, we've all seen them and did a double-take when we did.  Yup, I'm talking about sign goofs.  We know they're out there, now let's see how many sign errors the DOT's and sign companies have put up across the country.  Here's one to get it started (which I have already posted on another thread)

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/VA_37.jpg)

A US 37 in Virginia??  No, don't get your hopes up, it's actually suppose to be VA 37.  This is located along southbound I-81 in Virginia.  The other signs at this interchange show the correct VA 37 but whoever crafted this particular sign didn't read the full instructions and decided to make all the numbers with US highway shields...


Why do they always have trouble with the state route 37s? In Delaware, OH, there are two (previously three) erroneous road shields for OH-37. They fixed one. Another case is in ALSO in Delaware, where a sign says "E US-36, N US-42, E OH-37 (right shield this time). The problem with this is US-36 doesn't concur with 37 until about a mile east. The US-42 signage is correct. But why is this so? Delaware has an ODOT office right where 36 and 37 split!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on July 07, 2011, 02:20:48 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fus195sanluis.jpg&hash=7865a7be90b90947a8df72b7555215e9eac8787e)

US-195 comes to Yuma!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 07, 2011, 02:26:43 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 06, 2011, 09:51:10 PM
I was going to say, this would have semi-validated the erroneous US 288 shield that briefly existed in Chesterfield County, Virginia. (never mind that there's no US 88 :P)

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX19702881i1.jpg)

Texas also likes US-288.  the real mystery about that gantry is ... how did they manage to get one out of two of the signs wrong!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 07, 2011, 04:42:49 PM
I'm not sure if this qualifies as erroneous more than FLDOT just saying "FL 880 barely exists period, let's just sign its 18.5 mile CR extension instead." This is on FL 15 / 80 at the intersection with Dr. ML King Blvd (FL 880) in Belle Glade.


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6050%2F5910017297_16684bef49_z.jpg&hash=30bf0a5d4f27bd3ca5211367621b6ceded93dbd4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mark D on July 07, 2011, 06:02:34 PM
I don't have any pictures, but I know of an incorrect mileage sign on I-95 SB in Florida. It is following exit 298 (US-1 to Bunnell) crossing the Pellicer Creek at the St. Johns/Flagler County border, where the sign reads 289 to Miami and should say 298. This is a careless switch that I find amusing hasn't been fixed after years. Because unlike shields and fonts, even non-roadgeeks read mileage signs critically for reference.

9 miles later in Palm Coast, the sign again reports 289 miles to Miami.... :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 07, 2011, 07:10:59 PM
Quote from: Mark D on July 07, 2011, 06:02:34 PMthe sign reads 289 to Miami and should say 298.

that's bad, but not fatally awful.  It's unlikely you'd miss an exit based on that sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: iowahighways on July 07, 2011, 08:01:07 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 05, 2011, 09:06:13 PM
What went here?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_1335.jpg&hash=e608c6c0c859df670b44e2342e3eb75d9f36d577)

I don't think it just blew off into the Iowa cornfields either.  The other signs for this exit were like that.

That used to be IA 363, which connected I-380 and IA 150 in Urbana, but it was decommissioned in 2003.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mark D on July 07, 2011, 08:18:11 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 07, 2011, 07:10:59 PM
that's bad, but not fatally awful.  It's unlikely you'd miss an exit based on that sign.

Right, I just always thought it was bizarre because the mileage follows the exits exactly, as I-95 comes to an end in the heart of downtown Miami.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on July 08, 2011, 02:20:05 PM
Quote from: Icodec on July 07, 2011, 02:18:00 PM
Why do they always have trouble with the state route 37s? In Delaware, OH, there are two (previously three) erroneous road shields for OH-37. They fixed one. Another case is in ALSO in Delaware, where a sign says "E US-36, N US-42, E OH-37 (right shield this time). The problem with this is US-36 doesn't concur with 37 until about a mile east. The US-42 signage is correct. But why is this so? Delaware has an ODOT office right where 36 and 37 split!

You're probably referring to the exit signage from the short freeway section of US-23.  That signage is for a split diamond interchange which attempts to serve two or three cross-streets.  US 36 and US 42 are on one of those streets, and SR 37 is on another.  There's also a SR 521 or something on one of those streets, but signage for that one is rather incomplete.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 08, 2011, 02:53:37 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 07, 2011, 04:42:49 PM
I'm not sure if this qualifies as erroneous more than FLDOT just saying "FL 880 barely exists period, let's just sign its 18.5 mile CR extension instead." This is on FL 15 / 80 at the intersection with Dr. ML King Blvd (FL 880) in Belle Glade.


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6050%2F5910017297_16684bef49_z.jpg&hash=30bf0a5d4f27bd3ca5211367621b6ceded93dbd4)

Noticed that on the road recently, it used to say SR880 along the entire route, then just the little section from SR15, but it may have actually fallen out of state-maintenance for that tiny little stretch, like the tiny part of SR717,  versus the longer stretch of CR717 (Muck City Road).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on July 08, 2011, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 08, 2011, 02:53:37 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 07, 2011, 04:42:49 PM
I'm not sure if this qualifies as erroneous more than FLDOT just saying "FL 880 barely exists period, let's just sign its 18.5 mile CR extension instead." This is on FL 15 / 80 at the intersection with Dr. ML King Blvd (FL 880) in Belle Glade.

Noticed that on the road recently, it used to say SR880 along the entire route, then just the little section from SR15, but it may have actually fallen out of state-maintenance for that tiny little stretch, like the tiny part of SR717,  versus the longer stretch of CR717 (Muck City Road).

I don't know the status of SR 880 offhand, but I do know that if you drive along CR-880, you'll find a Palm Beach County US-shield cutout error along westbound and this goofy SR-98 shield for CR-700 (former US 98) at the east end:

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/cr-880_eb_app_cr-700.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/cr-880_eb_app_cr-700.jpg)

Photographed three days ago.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 08, 2011, 05:17:35 PM
Quote from: vtk on July 08, 2011, 02:20:05 PM
Quote from: Icodec on July 07, 2011, 02:18:00 PM
Why do they always have trouble with the state route 37s? In Delaware, OH, there are two (previously three) erroneous road shields for OH-37. They fixed one. Another case is in ALSO in Delaware, where a sign says "E US-36, N US-42, E OH-37 (right shield this time). The problem with this is US-36 doesn't concur with 37 until about a mile east. The US-42 signage is correct. But why is this so? Delaware has an ODOT office right where 36 and 37 split!

You're probably referring to the exit signage from the short freeway section of US-23.  That signage is for a split diamond interchange which attempts to serve two or three cross-streets.  US 36 and US 42 are on one of those streets, and SR 37 is on another.  There's also a SR 521 or something on one of those streets, but signage for that one is rather incomplete.

Ohio Straight line diagram shows Oh 521 following US 36 (Williams St) into DT Delaware. However, 521 has not been signed, west from it's junction with US 36/Oh 37 since the US 23 "bypass" has been opened (mid 60s).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 08, 2011, 05:58:54 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5235%2F5915880884_d54b74732a_z_d.jpg&hash=edfa7d05e922ebc87d26912d6110f04da80e944c)

This is wrong on a technicality: it's Alternate US 69

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6027%2F5916875639_52f268e75e_z_d.jpg&hash=c41f105715780b36b92104640afc57d219eb010b)

This should be US 75
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kniwt on July 12, 2011, 04:19:45 PM
Spotted today on US 89 northbound headed into Page, Ariz.:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzoza.com%2F%7Ekniwt%2Fus60.jpg&hash=6a83f0e8e6e324d32f6d66e9a0608a91f0f4af11)

I suppose you could eventually get to US 60 that way, but the destination should be US 160.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 12, 2011, 05:57:06 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on July 12, 2011, 04:19:45 PM
I suppose you could eventually get to US 60 that way, but the destination should be US 160.

Does that indirectly make Springfield, MO one of the control cities for AZ 98?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on July 18, 2011, 06:23:45 PM
ODOT (or is it the city of Cincinnati?) flatters OH 3:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg850.imageshack.us%2Fimg850%2F2533%2Fimg2795web.jpg&hash=d8db5b220572198c7d9cd26c7c9793056bc4be96)

and ConnDOT insults US 5:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg836.imageshack.us%2Fimg836%2F8212%2Fimg3234web.jpg&hash=0385fecc7ffb7bd5d90d63e599877fbe5bf9ae07)

(of coincidence, both of these assembles contain a 22, and both of those are correct!)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: sandwalk on July 19, 2011, 12:28:18 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sanduskyregister.com%2Ffiles%2Fwww2.sanduskyregister.com%2Fimagecache%2Ffullsize_art%2FFEA_Cleveland_Closed_07182011.jpg&hash=18d75f4fbade9e3df3da41e948492a0c9ca563ba)

The sign should say "Cleveland Road" (US 6)  :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on July 19, 2011, 01:21:37 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 08, 2011, 05:58:54 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5235%2F5915880884_d54b74732a_z_d.jpg&hash=edfa7d05e922ebc87d26912d6110f04da80e944c)

This is wrong on a technicality: it's Alternate US 69


Oklahoma hasn't been able to figure out how to handle Alt. 69 for decades. When I first moved to southeast Kansas, I was thrown off by the change from U.S. 69 to OK-69A shields at the state line. Then one day, the shields were changed to U.S. 69 cutouts with "ALTERNATE" in small letters along the top and 69A was made a different route that bypassed Miami on the east side.

So while signing Alt. U.S. 69 as OK-69A isn't right, it isn't surprising, either.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hobsini2 on July 20, 2011, 12:14:51 PM
Quote from: sandwalk on July 19, 2011, 12:28:18 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sanduskyregister.com%2Ffiles%2Fwww2.sanduskyregister.com%2Fimagecache%2Ffullsize_art%2FFEA_Cleveland_Closed_07182011.jpg&hash=18d75f4fbade9e3df3da41e948492a0c9ca563ba)

The sign should say "Cleveland Road" (US 6)  :)
I like the idea of the city of Cleveland being closed for 65 days.  Apparently they are having their own "lockout".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 20, 2011, 08:02:25 PM
Maybe Sandwalk could "age" the photo and pretend it goes along with Cleveland's default back in 1978. :biggrin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on July 21, 2011, 11:34:30 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3360%2F5722193174_261721af09_b.jpg&hash=f576ca8eac78b885ca674f26545055a7c5884ac9)

MO 45 actually continues straight ahead; MO 92 is to the left
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: InterstateNG on July 22, 2011, 08:44:19 PM
Apparently the NB Lakeshore Drive exit for Irving Park is for US 19. Who knew?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 22, 2011, 10:57:16 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on July 22, 2011, 08:44:19 PM
Apparently the NB Lake Shore Drive [sic] exit for Irving Park is for US 19. Who knew?

Photo or link to photo of the Irving Park Rd exit on LSD marked for US-19?  :confused:
Last time I was there, it was marked for IL-19.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: InterstateNG on July 23, 2011, 11:15:25 AM
Didn't have my camera at the ready.  It's just before the BGS for Irving Park which does have a IL-19 sign
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Stratuscaster on July 23, 2011, 06:23:04 PM
Possibly this sign - which is missing the route marker altogether?
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=North+Lake+Shore+Drive,+Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.950498,-87.644109&spn=0.004261,0.007178&sll=39.436193,-91.845703&sspn=18.099096,29.399414&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.950279,-87.643973&panoid=PVT-8Bl1UssSLr243INa0w&cbp=12,352.66,,1,6.13
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on July 23, 2011, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 08, 2011, 05:17:35 PM

Ohio Straight line diagram shows Oh 521 following US 36 (Williams St) into DT Delaware. However, 521 has not been signed, west from it's junction with US 36/Oh 37 since the US 23 "bypass" has been opened (mid 60s).
Speaking of the 23 bypass, at the southern end, where US 42 splits off, you'll see pavement markings directing you to SR 42. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: InterstateNG on July 25, 2011, 09:32:50 AM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on July 23, 2011, 06:23:04 PM
Possibly this sign - which is missing the route marker altogether?
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=North+Lake+Shore+Drive,+Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.950498,-87.644109&spn=0.004261,0.007178&sll=39.436193,-91.845703&sspn=18.099096,29.399414&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.950279,-87.643973&panoid=PVT-8Bl1UssSLr243INa0w&cbp=12,352.66,,1,6.13

That's the one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on July 27, 2011, 11:40:27 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5040%2F5894887875_72d2928d32_b.jpg&hash=769ae581c0d53feefb8df422d122d9fe859e46ec)

All 3 direction tabs on this assembly are wrong: they should all say South
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 27, 2011, 11:54:22 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6028%2F5939671585_30c70939cc.jpg&hash=07b3c32e374d3ebf3139f71a58577e5dab6a215e)

KY 52 eastbound in Madison County, Ky. (Moberly/Speedwell area). Taken back during the winter. Has since been fixed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on July 27, 2011, 12:13:21 PM
Why no, we are not in Immokalee, we are the farthest you can get in the same state from it!

(https://www.aaroads.com/queue/cache/forum-images/dsc_0180_w1000_h669.jpg)

This error has stood since at least May of 2004 now...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 27, 2011, 12:37:45 PM
Quote from: Alex on July 27, 2011, 12:13:21 PM
Why no, we are not in Immokalee, we are the farthest you can get in the same state from it!

Hey, it might be Jerome or Copeland...:pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on July 31, 2011, 02:47:49 AM
Quote from: 6a on July 23, 2011, 07:04:09 PM
Speaking of the 23 bypass, at the southern end, where US 42 splits off, you'll see pavement markings directing you to SR 42. 

Apparently not.  US 23 has been resurfaced recently from the 23/42 split all the way to the south end of the "Experimental Test Pavement" section.  There are hardly any pavement markings at all: just a broken white line separating the two lanes in each direction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on July 31, 2011, 03:33:42 AM
Quote from: vtk on July 31, 2011, 02:47:49 AM
Quote from: 6a on July 23, 2011, 07:04:09 PM
Speaking of the 23 bypass, at the southern end, where US 42 splits off, you'll see pavement markings directing you to SR 42. 

Apparently not.  US 23 has been resurfaced recently from the 23/42 split all the way to the south end of the "Experimental Test Pavement" section.  There are hardly any pavement markings at all: just a broken white line separating the two lanes in each direction.

How recent was this? When I was up there earlier this month the lanes on the very southern portion of Sandusky Street (just off US 23) were still marked "SR 42"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on July 31, 2011, 03:38:53 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on July 31, 2011, 03:33:42 AM
Quote from: vtk on July 31, 2011, 02:47:49 AM
Quote from: 6a on July 23, 2011, 07:04:09 PM
Speaking of the 23 bypass, at the southern end, where US 42 splits off, you'll see pavement markings directing you to SR 42. 

Apparently not.  US 23 has been resurfaced recently from the 23/42 split all the way to the south end of the "Experimental Test Pavement" section.  There are hardly any pavement markings at all: just a broken white line separating the two lanes in each direction.

How recent was this? When I was up there earlier this month the lanes on the very southern portion of Sandusky Street (just off US 23) were still marked "SR 42"

I've been through there a few times in the last couple of weeks, but only on US 23 & US 42.  I haven't been on Sandusky Street so I can't verify or dispute the existence of "SR 42" pavement markings there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on July 31, 2011, 11:22:37 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg195.imageshack.us%2Fimg195%2F2889%2Fimg2244crop.jpg&hash=7595e38d524dc8c0d8a8e6ecfb50a5a0a39becf8)

Seems odd to over-sign a speed hump for people going the wrong way.

Location: Johnson Park, Piscataway, NJ
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 01, 2011, 02:18:50 AM
Maybe the road used to be 2-way and they just changed it recently.  They also probably just didn't feel like taking down the old signs in case they wanted to undo the one way conversion.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 01, 2011, 03:03:42 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 01, 2011, 02:18:50 AM
Maybe the road used to be 2-way and they just changed it recently.  They also probably just didn't feel like taking down the old signs in case they wanted to undo the one way conversion.

As a local resident I can vouch its been one way for years. Bikes have to and commonly use this portion which is who I am sure those are targeting.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on August 01, 2011, 07:03:20 PM
^ If that's the case, bikes violate the "Do Not Enter" signs...there should be an "Except bikes" or similar plaque, and the warning signs should be smaller, if the road is to cater to bikes in the wrong direction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 03, 2011, 12:58:20 AM
Quote from: vtk on July 31, 2011, 03:38:53 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on July 31, 2011, 03:33:42 AM
Quote from: vtk on July 31, 2011, 02:47:49 AM
Quote from: 6a on July 23, 2011, 07:04:09 PM
Speaking of the 23 bypass, at the southern end, where US 42 splits off, you'll see pavement markings directing you to SR 42. 

Apparently not.  US 23 has been resurfaced recently from the 23/42 split all the way to the south end of the "Experimental Test Pavement" section.  There are hardly any pavement markings at all: just a broken white line separating the two lanes in each direction.

How recent was this? When I was up there earlier this month the lanes on the very southern portion of Sandusky Street (just off US 23) were still marked "SR 42"

I've been through there a few times in the last couple of weeks, but only on US 23 & US 42.  I haven't been on Sandusky Street so I can't verify or dispute the existence of "SR 42" pavement markings there.

Having driven through the intersection last night...
There might be lane markings for (just) "42" on the turn lane from US 23 NB to NB S. Sandusky St.  Nothing on US 23 SB (but thats where the repaving starts/end.)
However, on (NB) S. Sandusky St, the (right) turn lane onto US 42 SB does have SR 42 painted on it. No outline around the 42.
Don't know if it's ODOT or City of Delaware's fault on this one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 03, 2011, 10:46:09 PM
Posted by the City of Aurora.  The nostalgia is nice, but this hasn't been US-30, much less Business US-30 in decades.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_1402.jpg&hash=10476915438d03d5cde2648593923a3cc3d3598c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on August 04, 2011, 10:50:00 AM
US 12 gets a downgrade to M-12 in Canton, MI at the exit from I-275.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2919/14230274941_f6b4b5193a_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nFtSXX)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on August 05, 2011, 12:37:10 AM
Would this be considered a misprint? Most of the steep hill graphic signs I see have the truck going toward the left and not the right as seen here:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6132%2F6002385311_26b3422a55_z.jpg&hash=4b13c5e8338000565f05b02b139f7675808ec865)

This is on NY 9N southbound in Bolton, NY.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on August 05, 2011, 12:45:25 AM
The MUTCD does allow for standard symbols to be flipped or oriented in different directions where applicable and warranted. The hill sign is usually oriented downhill to the left. However, since it appears the road in the picture makes a sharp turn to the right ahead, having the hill sign downhill to the right makes some sense, if it was done deliberately.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on August 05, 2011, 04:25:13 PM
Quote from: roadfro on August 05, 2011, 12:45:25 AM
The MUTCD does allow for standard symbols to be flipped or oriented in different directions where applicable and warranted. The hill sign is usually oriented downhill to the left. However, since it appears the road in the picture makes a sharp turn to the right ahead, having the hill sign downhill to the right makes some sense, if it was done deliberately.

Ah, okay. That makes sense. Thanks for the answer!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on August 07, 2011, 11:22:55 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F100_0391.jpg&hash=d6e12cf893217ca00355be603a5e4f01697e5635)

US 119 should be AL 119.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Super Mateo on August 08, 2011, 03:25:14 AM
Quote from: InterstateNG on July 22, 2011, 08:44:19 PM
Apparently the NB Lakeshore Drive exit for Irving Park is for US 19. Who knew?

LOL I just drove by that tonight!  It's especially odd because all of the other signs are correct (IL 19), including the one right behind it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: RustyK on August 08, 2011, 03:37:11 AM
I can confirm that the black and white Interstate 9 shield at exit 29 of the Garden State Parkway north still stands; at least 4 years now, likely longer.  Passed it two days ago.  Will check again around this time in 2012.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on August 08, 2011, 07:43:56 AM
Quote from: jdb1234 on August 07, 2011, 11:22:55 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F100_0391.jpg&hash=d6e12cf893217ca00355be603a5e4f01697e5635)
What is with those US Route Shields?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on August 08, 2011, 02:49:18 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 08, 2011, 07:43:56 AM
Quote from: jdb1234 on August 07, 2011, 11:22:55 PM
(snip pic)
What is with those US Route Shields?

Same ones I see a lot in Kansas. Why?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on August 09, 2011, 12:51:14 AM
Covered wagon shield for Spur 55M in Lancaster County :O

took the photo last October- just now got around to putting it online

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2Fne%2F34%2F79tos55m%2F4.jpg&hash=e2700829442f9c001c4b33adf898f2b8a707be31)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 09, 2011, 01:53:21 AM
Would I-5 shields with E(M) numerals for the legend be considered erroneous? I saw a bunch in Washington today, although I think it looks better than Series D.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on August 09, 2011, 02:52:15 AM
You mean like these?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F5%2F205to502%2F1.JPG&hash=ceaba1d842736eff7de8452eaa6a3720e7ac7168)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F5%2F503to432%2F3.JPG&hash=2bc7d271eeb420cb1b74a5fdbcac74e3e971d86e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F5%2F503to432%2F4.JPG&hash=c052aec11710fed3408e096a613c1bc90aff4162)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F5%2F4to504%2F1.JPG&hash=2605686a98c16ea44ff59d7c67f7bbfec831b8aa)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F5%2F4to504%2F5.JPG&hash=66d98991190dd76740a6cafefc78c5576b3f9562)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F5%2F506to505%2F1.JPG&hash=fb76b741efe1b91c9f9c13e8bb5bd8aeeb64d46d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F5%2F505to12%2F1.JPG&hash=9a00713d3521cdfbc11414af2bc9ad12e0591a93)
I was going to post all of them, but I'm about 25% of the way through my I-5 reassurance shield photos (which should be just over 50% of the reassurance shields  in the state) and haven't even looked at junctions, so posting all of them would be overload

Suffice to say there are at least 50 of them in the state (or were as of 07 and 08 when I was photographing signs in Washington), so I'm not sure if they could be considered erroneous. E(M) works fine for a single digit route

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 09, 2011, 04:07:45 AM
I would agree. I think for a single digit, D is actually too narrow. Quebec Autoroute shields use E(M) legend for single digits, and it works very well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: luokou on August 09, 2011, 11:40:17 AM
Seems like regular Series E. Never liked E, E(M) or F in route shields since it looks too angry to me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 13, 2011, 12:58:52 AM
Found a third "PA Turnpike 76" style shield the other day in the Pittsburgh area.  This time, it's on Warrendale Bayne Rd going WB just past Northgate Dr.  It's been there for awhile since StreetView (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.653146,-80.080022&spn=0.00152,0.003484&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.653153,-80.079866&panoid=sCMY8ZzRRn56HZ_Y4rKYSg&cbp=12,289.57,,0,5.61) has a picture of it.

The other two are at the following locations:
I-79 Exit #78 Southbound offramp (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&layer=c&cbll=40.686704,-80.096537&panoid=qh3lxVf2yEaGZIFIsBfN1g&cbp=12,210.94,,0,7.83&ll=40.686268,-80.096608&spn=0.006118,0.013937&z=17)
PA-130 @ I-376 (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=PA19793762).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Super Mateo on August 14, 2011, 02:40:53 PM
https://picasaweb.google.com/108051035264643954872/PublicPhotos?authkey=Gv1sRgCNqrhpvs0sCCUg#5640442194698539266  "US" 19 in Chicago, as mentioned previously.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on August 14, 2011, 07:40:58 PM
From yesterday:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6206%2F6043721902_c60ec245d1_z.jpg&hash=bd9c4aa7a7f179b5b74d4796aff6985b5e8cf97d)

Error NJ 1 shield for US 1.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 14, 2011, 07:51:11 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on August 14, 2011, 02:40:53 PM
https://picasaweb.google.com/108051035264643954872/PublicPhotos?authkey=Gv1sRgCNqrhpvs0sCCUg#5640442194698539266  "US" 19 in Chicago, as mentioned previously.

CDOT, IDOT, or contractor?  I'm guessing contractor.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 14, 2011, 10:20:33 PM
"US 933" street sign in South Bend/Notre Dame, IN

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6010%2F5924360143_ffdfbb528f_b.jpg&hash=8e2ba3929c89cb074bc8345236ed9bbef11ea48b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 14, 2011, 10:24:07 PM
Quote from: okroads on August 14, 2011, 10:20:33 PM
"US 933" street sign in South Bend/Notre Dame, IN

Was US-33.  Could be they simply added a "9", or copied the old sign with the new number.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on August 17, 2011, 02:07:57 AM
Spotted today in Delaware, OH: a East US 37 assembly on OH 37 juse east of US 42. Partially obscured by a parking restriction sign. No pic because I was on duty.

Has anyone mentioned the US 315 sign on southbound OH 315 just before the Goodale St exit?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mjb2002 on August 23, 2011, 08:00:10 PM
Here is one I found along SAND BAR FERRY RD in Beech Island, S.C.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-6wYei2XXW9w/TlQ-uahIDiI/AAAAAAAAAiI/w2xNHkgPNcQ/s800/erroneous%252520sign%252520in%252520Aiken%252520County.jpg)

SAND BAR FERRY RD is actually SC 28, NOT SC 302. SILVER BLUFF RD is SC 302.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on August 23, 2011, 09:55:20 PM
And Google Maps says it's County 28.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mjb2002 on August 23, 2011, 10:50:51 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 23, 2011, 09:55:20 PM
And Google Maps says it's County 28.

And that is an erroneous mistake on their part. I'm gonna log in and change it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 23, 2011, 11:00:35 PM
Quote from: mjb2002 on August 23, 2011, 10:50:51 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 23, 2011, 09:55:20 PM
And Google Maps says it's County 28.

And that is an erroneous mistake on their part. I'm gonna log in and change it.

Good luck.  I've already read stories of people trying to make Google maps more accurate and the morons who oppose them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 26, 2011, 02:23:42 AM
Quote from: Brandon on August 23, 2011, 11:00:35 PM
Quote from: mjb2002 on August 23, 2011, 10:50:51 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 23, 2011, 09:55:20 PM
And Google Maps says it's County 28.

And that is an erroneous mistake on their part. I'm gonna log in and change it.

Good luck.  I've already read stories of people trying to make Google maps more accurate and the morons who oppose them.

Yep, that is true.  Editing in Google Map Maker can be a bitch sometimes (Fight over I-381 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4464.msg105937#msg105937)).

Also see the following threads:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4464.0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2001.0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 28, 2011, 10:19:21 PM
The sign on the right should say "Sand Springs'...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6088%2F6091521160_0eb8106d06_b.jpg&hash=44a668c6d9f1849a2dc3dfedfb21af9d901f1525)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on August 28, 2011, 11:58:19 PM
Quote from: okroads on August 28, 2011, 10:19:21 PM
The sign on the right should say "Sand Springs'...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6088%2F6091521160_0eb8106d06_b.jpg&hash=44a668c6d9f1849a2dc3dfedfb21af9d901f1525)

And take a look at the beauty the sign above replaced...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_OKC_Day_4%2FImages%2F229.jpg&hash=c25d44cc7bcf6ef8ffa1fcf4225e9e7a2de9f72f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 29, 2011, 12:22:28 AM
Here are some new errors from Klamath Falls:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR140KlamathFallsSignGoofa.jpg%3Ft%3D1314591313&hash=5d47de9647b3bbb629dc7f94e49410208f117106)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR39-140KlamathFallsSignGoofa.jpg%3Ft%3D1314591380&hash=8daede399e48d68d50f575fa191a71e72cec25ba)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR39-140KlamathFallsSignGoofb.jpg%3Ft%3D1314591459&hash=73188064ba398d7353079aa15e8e5d48df567d9f)

On the same trip, I finally got to see this infamous pair of goofs in Medford:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FI5MedfordSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1314591662&hash=e9f8c8264fc3950d0ab13f5538f3fdf0e0b01575)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FI5MedfordSignGoof2.jpg%3Ft%3D1314591556&hash=a74ad82443e1e7332816ae4594dc4921c48c7bec)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 29, 2011, 12:49:04 AM
Wow, talk about massive fail. US-5 in on the wrong side of the country, the never-existed US-39 apparently exists only in Klamath Falls, the 97 shield using Series B, etc. Wow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2011, 02:57:45 AM
wow, not often that you see a US/interstate mixup error.

I saw the 140 and 39 in Klamath Falls over Memorial Day weekend, but not the previous time I was there in 2008, so that gives a bit of an idea (not much of one!) for when they were installed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 29, 2011, 03:02:04 AM
This is a really dumb question, but how do such obvious errors go unnoticed? I mean, the people who are contracted to make these signs, don't they at least look at a map and realize Interstate 5 and US Route 5 are different roads and in different corners of the country?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on August 29, 2011, 04:47:33 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 29, 2011, 12:22:28 AM

(snip)

On the same trip, I finally got to see this infamous pair of goofs in Medford:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FI5MedfordSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1314591662&hash=e9f8c8264fc3950d0ab13f5538f3fdf0e0b01575)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FI5MedfordSignGoof2.jpg%3Ft%3D1314591556&hash=a74ad82443e1e7332816ae4594dc4921c48c7bec)

For some reason I find it amusing that they managed to get the "TO" and arrow plates correct, but not the shields themselves.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: BigOkie on August 29, 2011, 10:39:45 AM
Quote from: okroads on August 28, 2011, 10:19:21 PM
The sign on the right should say "Sand Springs'...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6088%2F6091521160_0eb8106d06_b.jpg&hash=44a668c6d9f1849a2dc3dfedfb21af9d901f1525)

Is that the southbound Tisdale Interchange at I-244/US412?  Good job, ODOT!  LOL.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 29, 2011, 12:11:07 PM
Quote from: BigOkie on August 29, 2011, 10:39:45 AM
Quote from: okroads on August 28, 2011, 10:19:21 PM
The sign on the right should say "Sand Springs'...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6088%2F6091521160_0eb8106d06_b.jpg&hash=44a668c6d9f1849a2dc3dfedfb21af9d901f1525)

Is that the southbound Tisdale Interchange at I-244/US412?  Good job, ODOT!  LOL.

Yep; that's it!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 29, 2011, 03:58:48 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 29, 2011, 03:02:04 AM
This is a really dumb question, but how do such obvious errors go unnoticed? I mean, the people who are contracted to make these signs, don't they at least look at a map and realize Interstate 5 and US Route 5 are different roads and in different corners of the country?

A cosmic convergence of incompetence and apathy, methinks.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 29, 2011, 04:02:18 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 29, 2011, 12:49:04 AM
Wow, talk about massive fail. US-5 in on the wrong side of the country, the never-existed US-39 apparently exists only in Klamath Falls, the 97 shield using Series B, etc. Wow.

This guy's still around in downtown K-Falls, too:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR140US97KlamathFallssigngoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1267505245&hash=1185f2f4592fad7a68d8f33783aec45ae26bbae2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 29, 2011, 04:13:08 PM
Series B works fine on standard Oregon shields, I think.

And at least they picked the nice '61 spec for "US 140."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2011, 04:14:19 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 29, 2011, 04:13:08 PM
And at least they picked the nice '61 spec for "US 140."

yes, those are getting tough to find in general in Oregon.  there's a couple actual old '61 spec shields on green signs at the 97/Business 97 split just north of town.

I am pretty sure Oregon did not ever use '61 spec black square shields: they went straight from the state-named cutouts to '70 spec in 1974.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 29, 2011, 04:16:56 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2011, 04:14:19 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 29, 2011, 04:13:08 PM
And at least they picked the nice '61 spec for "US 140."

yes, those are getting tough to find in general in Oregon.  there's a couple actual old '61 spec shields on green signs at the 97/Business 97 split just north of town.

I am pretty sure Oregon did not ever use '61 spec black square shields: they went straight from the state-named cutouts to '70 spec in 1974.
I posted some pics a while back of some '61-era shields on some guide signs in Astoria. That's the only other area I've seen them. I don't recall seeing any in Portland.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 29, 2011, 04:57:58 PM
I think the US 26 shields mounted above the BGS overheads as you approach the Vista Ridge tunnels from the west are '61 spec, but I'm not 100% sure.  If so, those are standalone shields, and they are on square signs.  Maybe some of our Portland-area colleagues can speak on this.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2011, 05:09:23 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 29, 2011, 04:57:58 PM
I think the US 26 shields mounted above the BGS overheads as you approach the Vista Ridge tunnels from the west are '61 spec, but I'm not 100% sure.  If so, those are standalone shields, and they are on square signs.  Maybe some of our Portland-area colleagues can speak on this.

I checked Google Street View and you may very well be right.  tough to tell because of the Series D digits and the distortion of the camera angle, but it's likely to be a '61 spec shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 29, 2011, 06:44:13 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2011, 05:09:23 PM
I checked Google Street View and you may very well be right.  tough to tell because of the Series D digits and the distortion of the camera angle, but it's likely to be a '61 spec shield.

I just did the same, but couldn't really tell.  Those 26 shields had been moved since they used to direct you onto Market Street to access 26's downtown alignment, and you can see the metal posts where they had previously been mounted (the right 405's moved, too).  So it would've been weird if they re-used the old shields.  But whenever I've zipped by on the freeway, they sure look like they're the older spec shields.  But they might look odd because of the digits, now that you mention that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: luokou on August 29, 2011, 08:31:14 PM
The US-26 shields prior to their replacement in the late 90's/early 2000's were both the '48 state-named cutout on the first gantry after the Zoo exit, and '61 cutouts for the rest of the gantries up to I-405 (incidentally, all of these shields were wooden). The US-26 shields now seem to be '61 black squares with comically huge Series D digits (which replaced error OR-26 shields). There were two US-30 shields in the same style, one at the ramp right after the Central Eastside Industrial area exit before merging onto mainline I-84, and the other right next to Providence Medical Center at mile 3. Those were most likely installed by the same contractor, but both of those are nonexistent today.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 29, 2011, 08:52:17 PM
They should have just used the '70 spec shields if they wanted Series D so badly. The '61 shields were designed for Series C and smaller.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: luokou on August 29, 2011, 09:41:27 PM
Tell that to the contractor who produced these goofs and to quit using those damn bubble interstate shields! XD those US shields wouldn't look so bad if the digits were a little smaller.

Of course, if all these signs were from an Oregon DOT shop, everything would be up to spec and look 73x better.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Fleetwood Mac Attack on September 01, 2011, 11:16:25 AM
Not going to look through 48 pages of erroneous road signs but here's one for VDOT in Chesapeake - off-ramp from I-64 Exit 297 to US 13/US 460 (Military Highway) incorrectly marks US 460 as a Virginia state route.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=36.771895,-76.368771&spn=0.000001,0.000858&t=h&z=21&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=36.771812,-76.368771&panoid=ogdH1Prlm38hNR98kumXDw&cbp=12,178.29,,0,-2.76
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 02, 2011, 04:25:40 PM
I've seen this leftover NY 495 shield at the Roslyn Clock Tower, and tried to take a picture of it years ago. It turned out like crap. But this one didn't:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55016974

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mjb2002 on September 03, 2011, 01:19:57 PM
This sign could possibly be misspelled:

http://g.co/maps/qw3v (http://g.co/maps/qw3v)

I don't think that I have seen SCDOT spell this town's name correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on September 03, 2011, 02:42:24 PM
There is an old stop sign about a block from my house that has the design of the old black-on-yellow signs (complete with button copy "STOP" legend), but it's the familiar white-on-red. I don't have a pic of it yet (will get one very soon), but I'm wondering if that's technically an error? Because it seems 1954 was when the old design gave way to the current one, with no stopgap in between. (Which this one appears to be.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2011, 03:11:27 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 03, 2011, 02:42:24 PM
There is an old stop sign about a block from my house that has the design of the old black-on-yellow signs (complete with button copy "STOP" legend), but it's the familiar white-on-red. I don't have a pic of it yet (will get one very soon), but I'm wondering if that's technically an error? Because it seems 1954 was when the old design gave way to the current one, with no stopgap in between. (Which this one appears to be.)

likely refurbished.  I have seen many block-font red/white stop signs, most of which started life as yellow/black.

a LOT of signs were refurbished back in the day.  Even these days they are, but it usually just involves peeling off the sheeting and putting a new design on.  Back in the day, an embossed sign was repainted over and over again - in some states, until it was so corroded that it fell off the post.

I have a photo somewhere of an Iowa maintenance worker repainting an IOWA US 75 cast iron shield (1926-1934) with a roller.  What's amazing about the photo is that the sign isn't taken off the post.  He's got his truck parked nearby and he's reaching into the sky with his roller with a six-foot handle.

what's even more amazing is that the photo was taken in 1975.

another explanation for your STOP sign, however, is that California was using red and white stop signs as early as 1915.  They did not ever use yellow on black.  They invented the familiar cutout octagon in 1924.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on September 03, 2011, 03:21:30 PM
Hmm... Well, given the location of the school and the age of the neighborhood (there really wasn't anything here prior to the 1960s), my guess is it's probably a refurbished sign. Next time I go by it, I'll be sure to get a pic.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2011, 03:27:17 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 03, 2011, 03:21:30 PM
Hmm... Well, given the location of the school and the age of the neighborhood (there really wasn't anything here prior to the 1960s), my guess is it's probably a refurbished sign. Next time I go by it, I'll be sure to get a pic.

get me a picture and I'll see if I can tell you its history
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: nyratk1 on September 04, 2011, 06:18:47 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 02, 2011, 04:25:40 PM
I've seen this leftover NY 495 shield at the Roslyn Clock Tower, and tried to take a picture of it years ago. It turned out like crap. But this one didn't:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55016974


Two other NY 495 signs still up - one on Nicolls Rd. southbound near Hawkins Rd. in Centereach (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Nicolls+Road+and+hawkins+rd,+centereach,+ny&hl=en&ll=40.882225,-73.080089&spn=0.00855,0.017531&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.642161,71.806641&vpsrc=0&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.882279,-73.080212&panoid=VWQuPR94fbeuqtgt2qctXw&cbp=12,173.23,,0,12.01) and one on Mill Rd. in Yaphank (http://g.co/maps/tvf3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 04, 2011, 07:03:31 PM
Mill Road, I knew about, and I though I posted it online somewhere. I forgot about the one on Nicoll's Road. That one shouldn't even be replaced with an I-495 shield. It should be torn out and the whole intersection should be converted into an interchange.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 04, 2011, 07:40:56 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/5043752012/in/photostream/

This is along US 431 SB on the east side of Dothan, AL.  The "TO" does not belong above US 431 here as it is the real deal.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on September 04, 2011, 08:59:37 PM
Not hard to see what the mistake is here.  Seen in Valley Cottage, NY.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-0LmJAbIOG2U/TmQbQ2OAu3I/AAAAAAAAACQ/cal17tXvXsg/s400/IMG_20110901_131424.jpgg)

(As an aside in the "For Another Thread" department, half (but only half) of Virginia Street (the other sign in the photo) is mislabelled as E Ridge Road in Google Maps.  The road was constructed in the 90s, and has never been called E Ridge Road, nor has any other road in the neighborhood.)

Also, didn't get a pic, but there is a NY 9 (as opposed to US 9) shield northbound on Broadway at 179th Street near the George Washington Bridge.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on September 05, 2011, 11:21:11 AM
From my trip this weekend:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg692.imageshack.us%2Fimg692%2F9012%2Fsaveslives.jpg&hash=5dac93cd8b342cce0df873a09b7094530cdcc559)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg694.imageshack.us%2Fimg694%2F1927%2Fsidewaysflagman.jpg&hash=fa62339550ad6d9aae49812b43208e836b21c937)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg225.imageshack.us%2Fimg225%2F318%2Fnyus22.jpg&hash=2b2d7d4ee4ae0449e48a67000d4f57dcbb27d10a)

That US 22 shield is on NY 22, southbound somewhere north of Plattsburgh. There are two of them in a row.

(didn't get a picture of: MA 5 shield)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 05, 2011, 02:33:41 PM
How about in Final Destination 2? The wreck happened on a Route 23, a four-lane divided road with possible access control, supposedly somewhere in the state of New York.  The route marker shown was clearly a US 23 shield. Of course, US 23 doesn't enter New York – or Canada, where the film was shot.  Maybe the film portrays an example of an error by NYSDOT.

That still doesn't explain why later films refer to it as a crash on Route 180.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on September 05, 2011, 03:10:05 PM
Beyond the fact all the movies in the series were rather dumb, I believe the "180" was a reference to the flight number in the original film.

It seems movies in general are notorious for getting highways wrong. I believe "Forrest Gump" had a US-17 shield being shown located in western Alabama.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 05, 2011, 04:22:15 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 05, 2011, 03:10:05 PM
Beyond the fact all the movies in the series were rather dumb, I believe the "180" was a reference to the flight number in the original film.

The number 180 comes up a lot in the series for some reason.  On Route 23 where the big pileup happened, there was a VMS saying "Road Work Next 180 Miles".  (There's a topic for a new thread -- longest construction zone?)  In later films, they actually did (in dialog and/or in a newspaper clipping) refer to that incident as a pileup on Route 180, which I'm pretty sure is simply a mistake on the part of the writers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on September 05, 2011, 05:23:30 PM
QuoteBeyond the fact all the movies in the series were rather dumb,

Pretty much all one needs to say for that sub-thread.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on September 05, 2011, 08:44:29 PM
U.S. 9 now apparently exists in Oklahoma...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6065%2F6118564212_5bbd5d2c83_b.jpg&hash=c695464c536b0f802c7e53670be978fdfdda6ed7)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6210%2F6118564650_7c52abeddb_b.jpg&hash=4fbe7a0b0500645cee538ee7dcbdb9ce0e4696ee)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 05, 2011, 10:46:26 PM
Quote from: vtk on September 05, 2011, 02:33:41 PM
How about in Final Destination 2? The wreck happened on a Route 23, a four-lane divided road with possible access control, supposedly somewhere in the state of New York.  The route marker shown was clearly a US 23 shield. Of course, US 23 doesn't enter New York – or Canada, where the film was shot.  Maybe the film portrays an example of an error by NYSDOT.

That still doesn't explain why later films refer to it as a crash on Route 180.

Maybe filmed in Michigan?  Similar topography and foliage.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on September 06, 2011, 12:30:36 AM
The "180" is a thread through all the FD movies, and is, indeed, a reference to the flight of the original movie.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: pianocello on September 06, 2011, 05:50:27 PM
If you pause "Groundhog Day", set in PA, at the right time, you'll see an IL-120 sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 06, 2011, 05:57:40 PM
I can't find it now, but KYTV in Springfield, MO ran a story this past week about the widening of US 65, but posted an Interstate 65 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 06, 2011, 06:05:06 PM
QuoteI can't find it now, but KYTV in Springfield, MO ran a story this past week about the widening of US 65, but posted an Interstate 65 shield.

I'm working on a report for a city in Arizona where the engineers for the city sent me a chunk of text to include talking about how important "I-60" is.  X-(
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 06, 2011, 08:02:52 PM
Quote from: pianocello on September 06, 2011, 05:50:27 PM
If you pause "Groundhog Day", set in PA, at the right time, you'll see an IL-120 sign.

Yep, filmed in Woodstock, IL, up in McHenry County.  Woodstock has IL-120, IL-47, and US-14.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on September 06, 2011, 09:33:07 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi141.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr60%2Fmr740ti%2Froadpix%2F360fail.png&hash=a3893ffb626b7a020a15aee97647586fe9584a40)

Grand Prarie, TX, 10/2010.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 06, 2011, 09:35:47 PM
for $2.53 gas, I'll put up with a lot of abuses.  even '70 spec shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on September 07, 2011, 09:05:11 PM
Here's one that may or may not have been noticed or fixed, but in Salina, UT, there's an "SR-50" sign (http://maps.google.com/?ll=38.95586,-111.873239&spn=0.006783,0.013937&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.95586,-111.873239&panoid=TpoDYF-mywp7VT_MqjgjnA&cbp=12,145.74,,0,3.05) at the US-50/UT-24 junction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 13, 2011, 02:10:27 PM
A couple in Flagstaff

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fb40.jpg&hash=f3d714b7c3e6b22d9978c07bb8e7d25fa017a56f)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2F89a.jpg&hash=1b51d430c7eb523a8ad8cff3327d7daabc0e87e1) (should be SR 89A, pardon the graniness, I was on the elevated highway and shot across the car out the passenger window down to the road below me)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on September 13, 2011, 04:51:09 PM
Quote from: corco on September 13, 2011, 02:10:27 PM
A couple in Flagstaff

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fb40.jpg&hash=f3d714b7c3e6b22d9978c07bb8e7d25fa017a56f)

There was once a shield for K-89 at Halstead that actually said "K-89" with all four characters (hyphen included) crammed into a 2-digit shield. I didn't have a digital camera back then, so I wasn't ever able to get a shot for it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 13, 2011, 05:00:07 PM
QuoteThere was once a shield for K-89 at Halstead that actually said "K-89" with all four characters (hyphen included) crammed into a 2-digit shield. I didn't have a digital camera back then, so I wasn't ever able to get a shot for it.

Like this?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2Fco%2F25%2F70to70bus%2F2.JPG&hash=1130e0873d0cae1b8b5ace8b5fbf6014a58d5975)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on September 13, 2011, 06:00:35 PM
Reminds me of one of the proposals for what the original Interstate shield should have looked like. One of them was the current US route shield (although then following the '48 specs), only the legend said "I-x."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 13, 2011, 08:52:17 PM
At The Mall At Tuttle Crossing, there is some directional signage pointing drivers to the correct way out of the parking lots to lead to different destinations and major roads.  On these signs, the Outerbelt is referred to thusly:

Interstate I-(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F82%2FI-270.svg%2F25px-I-270.svg.png&hash=3661a564f1822c27d1c7441dbffeb96174a302d8)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on September 13, 2011, 09:55:02 PM
This is not technically incorrect. It is, however, improper style.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg31.imageshack.us%2Fimg31%2F6874%2Farrowabove.jpg&hash=996919cbe21b95bf25e286a47227e432e1eb9eeb)

Arrow goes below the shield, not above! :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 14, 2011, 02:02:08 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 13, 2011, 09:55:02 PM
This is not technically incorrect. It is, however, improper style.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg31.imageshack.us%2Fimg31%2F6874%2Farrowabove.jpg&hash=996919cbe21b95bf25e286a47227e432e1eb9eeb)

Arrow goes below the shield, not above! :pan:

Plus, isn't that a wrong-way multiplex between a main US route and its unofficial alternate?  I could see people being confused by this.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on September 14, 2011, 07:53:55 PM
Quote from: vtk on September 14, 2011, 02:02:08 PM
Plus, isn't that a wrong-way multiplex between a main US route and its unofficial alternate?  I could see people being confused by this.

Yes, but those are the actual existing conditions (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=elizabethtown,+ny&hl=en&sll=40.714353,-74.005973&sspn=0.560015,0.999756&vpsrc=0&t=m&z=14).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 14, 2011, 08:42:25 PM
You didn't happen to go through Lake George, did you?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 14, 2011, 10:49:04 PM
I just noticed this one on Old 80/the I-10 business loop in Lordsburg, New Mexico.

"Dougles" is supposed to be "Douglas" Arizona
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fdougles.jpg&hash=8d07dbafcba49a3093cb3490a67c41ef01d03e30)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on September 14, 2011, 11:30:13 PM
I also see a California-style US Route shield on that BGS. That black outline makes it look really sharp.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 14, 2011, 11:38:07 PM
QuoteI also see a California-style US Route shield on that BGS. That black outline makes it look really sharp.

New Mexico does that reasonably often- not all the time (it's New Mexico!) but reasonably often. I agree, it looks really good.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on September 14, 2011, 11:46:12 PM
I remember seeing exactly one California-style shield in Oregon when on vacation a few weeks back, but it was on a construction sign. I think it was for US-26, but I can't remember for sure.

I guess if they're not in California, they would technically be in error as they aren't the '70 specs, but hey, I'm not complaining.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on September 15, 2011, 12:12:44 AM
Quote from: corco on September 13, 2011, 05:00:07 PM
QuoteThere was once a shield for K-89 at Halstead that actually said "K-89" with all four characters (hyphen included) crammed into a 2-digit shield. I didn't have a digital camera back then, so I wasn't ever able to get a shot for it.

Like this?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2Fco%2F25%2F70to70bus%2F2.JPG&hash=1130e0873d0cae1b8b5ace8b5fbf6014a58d5975)
Very much so.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 15, 2011, 07:04:23 AM
Quote from: Quillz on September 14, 2011, 11:30:13 PM
I also see a California-style US Route shield on that BGS. That black outline makes it look really sharp.

Looks more like an Iowa sign to me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 15, 2011, 08:58:20 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 13, 2011, 09:55:02 PM
This is not technically incorrect. It is, however, improper style.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg31.imageshack.us%2Fimg31%2F6874%2Farrowabove.jpg&hash=996919cbe21b95bf25e286a47227e432e1eb9eeb)

Arrow goes below the shield, not above! :pan:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3523%2F3308403372_093da05f36_d.jpg&hash=365231714daaf880cffb4489215157d3067df66a)

Missouri is just as guilty.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on September 15, 2011, 09:17:21 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 14, 2011, 08:42:25 PM
You didn't happen to go through Lake George, did you?

I did, why?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 15, 2011, 10:46:02 PM
Just wondering, I have family that has a house up there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on September 16, 2011, 02:11:00 AM
Quote from: US71 on September 15, 2011, 08:58:20 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 13, 2011, 09:55:02 PM
This is not technically incorrect. It is, however, improper style.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg31.imageshack.us%2Fimg31%2F6874%2Farrowabove.jpg&hash=996919cbe21b95bf25e286a47227e432e1eb9eeb)

Arrow goes below the shield, not above! :pan:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3523%2F3308403372_093da05f36_d.jpg&hash=365231714daaf880cffb4489215157d3067df66a)

Missouri is just as guilty.


A 169 shield at the U.S. 400 exit has the arrow placed above. I tried to get a pic of it on Saturday but I had no place to pull off and get a clear image.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 16, 2011, 03:23:55 PM
You mean this one?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2675%2F5792399144_4276e70e41.jpg&hash=8c4bf9abd283c4802ccf4007095bce5c7885dfe8)

Got that pic when I was in Kansas back in the spring.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on September 18, 2011, 01:58:23 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 16, 2011, 03:23:55 PM
You mean this one?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2675%2F5792399144_4276e70e41.jpg&hash=8c4bf9abd283c4802ccf4007095bce5c7885dfe8)

Got that pic when I was in Kansas back in the spring.


Exactly! It was still that way last week.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 18, 2011, 08:21:18 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6079%2F6160376959_63e4434aaa_b.jpg&hash=87a085b08a88a55a932f72504c2ccba17a4b91f7)

US 62 became OH 62 somewhere north of New Albany, going northbound.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on September 18, 2011, 08:55:24 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 13, 2011, 09:55:02 PM
Arrow goes below the shield, not above! :pan:

How about beside the shield:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOregon%2520State%2520Routes%2FOR99EAlbany1.jpg&hash=2e25c98192d3dd78b9ad27bb7f60c8e79b7b160f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 19, 2011, 12:23:31 AM
Quote from: formulanone on September 18, 2011, 08:21:18 PM
US 62 became OH 62 somewhere north of New Albany, going northbound.

Ooh, did you see the mailbox with the button copy house number on it? It would have been on your left, if still there at all.

Also, you (perhaps accidentally) pointed out another error in that sign assembly: It says "east" where it should say "north".  This error persists for most of US 62's length from Mexico to Canada.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on September 19, 2011, 12:25:27 AM
My favorite goof of all time are the signs when the U.S. 400 bypass first opened around Parsons.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F9833625%2Fsn%2F1879221281%2Fname%2Fn_a&hash=43f6457ae2f1ed4c0adf75745a9a8331297a4c0c) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F9833625%2Fsn%2F968492112%2Fname%2Fn_a&hash=18cb1478322df61d1b729bb1e1f32916aa80bacf)

About six of them in each direction. In Kansas.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 19, 2011, 12:31:35 AM
Quote from: vtk on September 19, 2011, 12:23:31 AM
Quote from: formulanone on September 18, 2011, 08:21:18 PM
US 62 became OH 62 somewhere north of New Albany, going northbound.

Ooh, did you see the mailbox with the button copy house number on it? It would have been on your left, if still there at all.

Also, you (perhaps accidentally) pointed out another error in that sign assembly: It says "east" where it should say "north".  This error persists for most of US 62's length from Mexico to Canada.

"East" is correct. 62 is an even number.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 19, 2011, 12:50:19 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 19, 2011, 12:31:35 AM
62 is an even number.

You're right: the number 62 is also wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Anonymity Lane on September 19, 2011, 02:18:56 AM
Quote from: apeman33 on September 19, 2011, 12:25:27 AM
My favorite goof of all time are the signs when the U.S. 400 bypass first opened around Parsons.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F9833625%2Fsn%2F1879221281%2Fname%2Fn_a&hash=43f6457ae2f1ed4c0adf75745a9a8331297a4c0c) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F9833625%2Fsn%2F968492112%2Fname%2Fn_a&hash=18cb1478322df61d1b729bb1e1f32916aa80bacf)


About six of them in each direction. In Kansas.

How did that happen? Inattentiveness?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 19, 2011, 09:42:55 AM
Quote from: vtk on September 19, 2011, 12:50:19 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 19, 2011, 12:31:35 AM
62 is an even number.

You're right: the number 62 is also wrong.

I don't agree. 62's original extent was Carlsbad NM to Maysville KY; this is obviously more E-W than N-S. The extension to Niagara Falls muddies the issue significantly, but by a visual estimation on a map El Paso and Niagara Falls appear to be separated further E-W than they are N-S. SW-NE routes are always a crapshoot as to their numbering, but in the end, one or the other has to be picked. Were the number assigned to the route today, I would call it 50-50, but considering the history, I would say the number 62 was appropriate.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on September 19, 2011, 10:56:08 AM
There are several US routes that change cardinal directions along their alignments -- a couple tend to change at or near the Ohio border:

US 24:  N-S in MI, E-W in OH and West.
US 42:  N-S in OH, E-W in KY
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 19, 2011, 11:28:13 AM
If you think misplaced arrows are a problem, what about NO arrows?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2544%2F3741109578_986a8e47c9_z_d.jpg&hash=e2157e65106c38a4bf23fdde3f2f5c344ddc8c65)
South of Osceola, MO

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3054%2F3057924628_3b08689bc7_d.jpg&hash=e91a9001cd3a058111a5c5ef5a8373a0fc3002db)
DeQueen, AR

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3570%2F3829093364_ddc1d821dc_d.jpg&hash=60ac8a52bcc24d500132ec9513c24a0ad8428d66)
Along I-40 near Mulberry
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 19, 2011, 11:28:44 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on September 19, 2011, 10:56:08 AM
There are several US routes that change cardinal directions along their alignments -- a couple tend to change at or near the Ohio border:

US 24:  N-S in MI, E-W in OH and West.
US 42:  N-S in OH, E-W in KY


Lots more than that, most involving Ohio.

US 35: N-S in IN and WV, E-W in Ohio.
US 33: E-W in all but IN, N-S there.
US 250: N-S in WV, E-W in VA and OH.
US 68: E-W in KY, N-S in OH.
US 52: E-W in IL, IN and OH, N-S in WV, VA, NC and SC. (Not sure about IA or other states off the top of my head.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 19, 2011, 11:45:35 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 19, 2011, 09:42:55 AMWere the number assigned to the route today, I would call it 50-50, but considering the history, I would say the number 62 was appropriate.

I'd only allow that number if it intersected US 17-1.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 19, 2011, 03:34:48 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 19, 2011, 09:42:55 AM
Quote from: vtk on September 19, 2011, 12:50:19 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 19, 2011, 12:31:35 AM
62 is an even number.

You're right: the number 62 is also wrong.

I don't agree. 62's original extent was Carlsbad NM to Maysville KY; this is obviously more E-W than N-S. The extension to Niagara Falls muddies the issue significantly, but by a visual estimation on a map El Paso and Niagara Falls appear to be separated further E-W than they are N-S. SW-NE routes are always a crapshoot as to their numbering, but in the end, one or the other has to be picked. Were the number assigned to the route today, I would call it 50-50, but considering the history, I would say the number 62 was appropriate.

Okay, I can't really argue with that, if we're being serious.  I can, however, opine that diagonal US routes should be able to change their direction at state borders, if it corresponds closely to a geographical direction change – as they often do in reality – and that US 62 should be signed N-S in OH, NY, and probably PA (to match neighbors OH and NY).  I think ODOT is fairly wishy-washy on this; directional banners are simply omitted in many cases, and most assemblies I've seen of the US 62 / OH 3 overlap have a single shared NORTH or SOUTH banner, if any directional banner at all.  So "EAST US 62" may be technically "correct" in Ohio, but I still say it's an error – perhaps not an erroneous sign, but an erroneous decision made by someone at ODOT decades ago.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on September 19, 2011, 03:52:22 PM
US 62 really should not be a continuous route. In many places it's an alternate to another route or just a minor road. For example US 68 is a better road from Lexington-Versailles to Maysville, and it looks to do way too much stairstepping northeast of Canton.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 19, 2011, 10:44:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 19, 2011, 03:52:22 PM
US 62 really should not be a continuous route. In many places it's an alternate to another route or just a minor road. For example US 68 is a better road from Lexington-Versailles to Maysville, and it looks to do way too much stairstepping northeast of Canton.

Kentucky has four classifications of roads -- state primary (includes interstates and parkways), state secondary, rural secondary and supplemental. Once upon a time a segment of US 62 in Mason County was classified as a supplemental road. That has since changed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on September 20, 2011, 12:04:38 AM
When in doubt, sign it as both.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2F62en.JPG&hash=6bf6c32fb4fb843b3ba3a340fb6246407b6d515f)
Nelson Road, just north of Broad St. in Bexley. 2003
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on September 20, 2011, 01:26:22 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on September 20, 2011, 12:04:38 AM
When in doubt, sign it as both.
[picture]
Nelson Road, just north of Broad St. in Bexley. 2003

My first thought is "why do you need two reassurance markers so close together in the first place?"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 20, 2011, 02:01:12 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on September 20, 2011, 01:26:22 AM
My first thought is "why do you need two reassurance markers so close together in the first place?"

New York does that almost as a matter of course. You'll see a route marker with the directional banner, then just a few feet down the road the route sign without the directional banner. Seems awfully redundant to me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on September 21, 2011, 08:17:20 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2011, 02:01:12 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on September 20, 2011, 01:26:22 AM
My first thought is "why do you need two reassurance markers so close together in the first place?"

New York does that almost as a matter of course. You'll see a route marker with the directional banner, then just a few feet down the road the route sign without the directional banner. Seems awfully redundant to me.

Might it have something to do with various construction, signage projects or updating signage when routes are changed or realigned. I.e. the contract documents specify a new sign to be installed, but for whatever reason the old sign(s) are not removed even if duplicative. The distance between could be due to updates to or new compliance with sign spacing standards. Just speculating...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on September 21, 2011, 12:23:55 PM
Probably.  NY signage varies not only by region but by what government maintains the road.  It's also not uncommon to see only signs immediately where a route turns or intersects another but nowhere else, at least in cities.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: gonealookin on September 23, 2011, 04:55:46 PM
The last couple hundred yards of NV 28 along the east shore of Lake Tahoe seems like an odd place to put a "Begin" sign in reference to US 50.

(Edit:  Image posted on Photobucket deleted)

The sign that one replaced had the more conventional "Junction" reference:

https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada028/nv-028_eb_lake_tahoe_75.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada028/nv-028_eb_lake_tahoe_75.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on September 23, 2011, 04:56:42 PM
I also like how it's a hugely oversized "BEGIN," too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on September 23, 2011, 06:25:13 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on September 23, 2011, 04:55:46 PM
The last couple hundred yards of NV 28 along the east shore of Lake Tahoe seems like an odd place to put a "Begin" sign in reference to US 50.

Virginia does this kind of thing at Virginia 207's junction with US 301:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20050525%2Fbeginus301endva207.jpg&hash=c3e9d293ddf41b4c0ff3f63f916767b699b816dc)

No, US 301 doesn't begin anywhere near here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 23, 2011, 09:56:20 PM
They're not they only BEGIN signs like that.  The south end of the Tri-State Tollway has the following:
END - {294}
BEGIN - {80} {94}

However, one is already on I-80 (combined with I-294) and merging with I-94.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 23, 2011, 10:41:21 PM
Quote from: Jim on September 23, 2011, 06:25:13 PM
No, US 301 doesn't begin anywhere near here.

It doesn't end, either. ;)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2578%2F4023506420_8037874c98_z.jpg&hash=81d9e5941407312aea707a0cbf665598f373ca7d) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4023506420/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 23, 2011, 10:54:20 PM
I think there are a lot of examples of a "begin" banner whose intended meaning is "you are now on" suchandsuch a road.  Correct, no; rare, unfortunately no.  I don't think "end" is similarly misused in as many cases.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on September 25, 2011, 06:42:14 AM
Quote from: gonealookin on September 23, 2011, 04:55:46 PM
The last couple hundred yards of NV 28 along the east shore of Lake Tahoe seems like an odd place to put a "Begin" sign in reference to US 50.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi147.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr302%2Filikeem102%2Faaroads%2FEndofNV28.jpg&hash=9b3a44dcc8ab4f07457843de3732d59b2e1e4a0a)

The sign that one replaced had the more conventional "Junction" reference:

https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada028/nv-028_eb_lake_tahoe_75.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada028/nv-028_eb_lake_tahoe_75.jpg)

SR 28 was repaved not too long ago (within the last year or so), so many signs were probably replaced--I noticed the two shields switched positions and the SR 28 shield is the newer design (using the approximated outline of the southern tip) and also the parking regulation sign in the background is also different. Thus, I assume that 'begin' plate is a contractor error.

That type of error is fairly rare for Nevada, as NDOT is pretty good a posting end/jct assemblies outside of urban areas.

Also, I have never seen an oversized "begin" banner in Nevada before--typically, they're undersized if not the standard banner height.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 26, 2011, 11:16:26 AM
Leafing through my old pics from January 2008: It should be a US 441 shield, not a Florida State Road one (FL 441 is to the northeast).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6176%2F6185095559_e3f376ed4f_b.jpg&hash=0cbacd38b2b9b90974ae35584707081ffea43bfa)
Conners Highway "SR 441" road (http://www.flickr.com/photos/formulanone/6185095559/in/photostream) by formulanone (http://www.flickr.com/photos/formulanone/) on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on September 29, 2011, 01:03:41 AM
Here's one I've managed to fix:  In Salina, UT, at the junction of UT-24 and US-50, an erroneous "UT-50" shield was placed there (http://g.co/maps/dny3n).  I got in touch with a regional employee, and this has been replaced.  I'm actually going to see if I can get it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on September 29, 2011, 08:19:58 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 29, 2011, 01:03:41 AM
Here's one I've managed to fix:  In Salina, UT, at the junction of UT-24 and US-50, an erroneous "UT-50" shield was placed there (http://g.co/maps/dny3n).  I got in touch with a regional employee, and this has been replaced.  I'm actually going to see if I can get it.

Dang, don't tell them about it!  I'd rather see the error remain in place.

Does the erroneous Utah beauty pictured below still exist?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FUS191MoabSignGoof1-1.jpg%3Ft%3D1317342156&hash=7bcb2f15f4ed53defc625af9c60b5ac63ed04a86)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kniwt on September 29, 2011, 09:24:05 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on September 29, 2011, 08:19:58 PM
Does the erroneous Utah beauty pictured below still exist?

As of early July, yes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on October 04, 2011, 05:33:18 PM
How is U.S. 281 North both straight and to the right? When ODOT added the "North" tab, they didn't change the arrows...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6085%2F6090739377_e3050c782f_b.jpg&hash=afc7cfddaefbd4801a7f2628a980f5f3ca603c2d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Lightning Strike on October 05, 2011, 02:14:57 AM
I don't have a picture because it caught me off guard, but as i was driving the usual route on 80/94 WB towards Chicago I did notice the sign at the 2mi mark prior to the split off has 94 listed as NB to Chicago. First time I've noticed it and I've been taking that route for almost 5 yrs. Is this new or is it me?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on October 05, 2011, 07:15:21 AM
Quote from: Lightning Strike on October 05, 2011, 02:14:57 AM
I don't have a picture because it caught me off guard, but as i was driving the usual route on 80/94 WB towards Chicago I did notice the sign at the 2mi mark prior to the split off has 94 listed as NB to Chicago. First time I've noticed it and I've been taking that route for almost 5 yrs. Is this new or is it me?

A number of I-94 North or South signs exist out there due to the direction I-94 takes in Illinois.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on October 05, 2011, 11:09:38 AM
Quote from: Lightning Strike on October 05, 2011, 02:14:57 AM
I don't have a picture because it caught me off guard, but as i was driving the usual route on 80/94 WB towards Chicago I did notice the sign at the 2mi mark prior to the split off has 94 listed as NB to Chicago. First time I've noticed it and I've been taking that route for almost 5 yrs. Is this new or is it me?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6140%2F5942852940_195a580277_b.jpg&hash=2b604741104dae7359912bab1b1cc7cd293083ef)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on October 05, 2011, 07:51:31 PM
^^ That's an InDOT sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 05, 2011, 07:59:56 PM
A place where there is one good erronious road sign is On US 10 near Ludington, MI for US 31.  Just east of Ludington US 10 and US 31 duplex for a few miles, but a mile west of the two route concurrency, US 10 intersects with Business US 31.  At that intersection the trailblazing for US 31 for those departing the Cross Lake Ferry that has TO US 31 shields all the way from the ferry dock, shows SB US 31 Business as the way to go to access both directions of US 31.

I have a photo that I will upload to here, but for now take my word or check google street view.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on October 16, 2011, 10:32:59 PM
A series from Wisconsin - the Sign Goof State.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6176%2F6252445276_aeb54b1a96.jpg&hash=474b2e74b83175c6259dfbc019afdec6257662f0) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6252445276/)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6049%2F6251865187_8016db7bd8.jpg&hash=ed3e4e42192cf653d9e12776e775a459b63ff1a5) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6251865187/)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6232%2F6251865727_cc3a1cd2aa.jpg&hash=4dd1012608c44ff09969a3e025f4112cfe892a85) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6251865727/)
I don't recall a WIS 61, but I know US 61 is ahead of us.  (Side note, the third assembly should be right at the stop sign.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6219%2F6252394226_5062db8dfc.jpg&hash=8170f62e3ee5d44387e079a7b9f1239d02a4ed0d) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6252394226/)
Such large numbers - not standard for sure

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6104%2F6251962139_66d9e37dff.jpg&hash=a7f0c32322c685e435ad16b2fd9ad885d51b749d) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6251962139/)
MUTCD Yellow?  Don't these get the new neon green?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6055%2F6225316148_d65aaa5b85.jpg&hash=b00683c0ff2f9aa425f021255d8792c9a15cfd7f) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6225316148/)
More of a vintage sign, the "I" fell off, seems the dash did too.  Also the pic isn't standard.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on October 16, 2011, 11:51:10 PM
Quote from: Master son on October 16, 2011, 10:32:59 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6219%2F6252394226_5062db8dfc.jpg&hash=8170f62e3ee5d44387e079a7b9f1239d02a4ed0d) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6252394226/)
Such large numbers - not standard for sure

I don't know if it's MUTCD-standard, but New York uses numbers that size in it's new Speed Zone Ahead signs...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 17, 2011, 12:32:57 AM
a Wisconsin error gantry going the other way:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WI/WI19820591i1.jpg)

and one which cannot make up its mind:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WI/WI19700083i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on October 17, 2011, 09:43:23 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 17, 2011, 12:32:57 AM
...and one which cannot make up its mind:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WI/WI19700083i1.jpg)

At least they made the effort...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 17, 2011, 11:04:27 AM
Quote from: formulanone on October 17, 2011, 09:43:23 AM


At least they made the effort...

having either "WIS" or "US" above the number was a standard until 1982 or so.  This makes it a different situation than, say, here:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/VT/VT19610031i1.jpg)

the sign, while a tad non-standard, does illustrate that US-3 is ahead, but is in New Hampshire.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on October 17, 2011, 11:16:13 AM
Looks like the sign maker painted that sign :/ :pan: :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on October 17, 2011, 12:55:28 PM
Here's a tricky one: This is on the Dallas North Tollway northbound; U.S. 380 is signed as Business U.S. 380 here.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6069%2F6118555510_e660d58131_b.jpg&hash=ee59c75ed23390fec944434db4597ff36aae4413)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 17, 2011, 01:25:34 PM
Quote from: Master son on October 17, 2011, 11:16:13 AM
Looks like the sign maker painted that sign :/ :pan: :eyebrow:

that is surprisingly commonly done
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on October 18, 2011, 07:00:38 AM
Quote from: Master son on October 17, 2011, 11:16:13 AM
Looks like the sign maker painted that sign :/ :pan: :eyebrow:
Looks more like sharpie marker.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on October 18, 2011, 08:13:47 AM
Quote from: deanej on October 18, 2011, 07:00:38 AM
Quote from: Master son on October 17, 2011, 11:16:13 AM
Looks like the sign maker painted that sign :/ :pan: :eyebrow:
Looks more like sharpie marker.

I was thinking the same thing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: sp_redelectric on October 19, 2011, 01:14:58 AM
Quote from: Master son on October 16, 2011, 10:32:59 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6219%2F6252394226_5062db8dfc.jpg&hash=8170f62e3ee5d44387e079a7b9f1239d02a4ed0d) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6252394226/)

That's not a goof, that's Oregon making its presence known in the rest of the nation!  Wisconsin adds the word "Limit" to make it a Wisconsin sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: codyg1985 on October 19, 2011, 07:37:03 AM
Quote from: cu2010 on October 16, 2011, 11:51:10 PM
Quote from: Master son on October 16, 2011, 10:32:59 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6219%2F6252394226_5062db8dfc.jpg&hash=8170f62e3ee5d44387e079a7b9f1239d02a4ed0d) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6252394226/)
Such large numbers - not standard for sure

I don't know if it's MUTCD-standard, but New York uses numbers that size in it's new Speed Zone Ahead signs...

So does Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Although, with that said I don't think the numbers that those states use are quite as large as the ones in your original picture, but they are larger than on a standard speed limit sign.

Sign W3-5 in the MUTCD 2009 shows larger numerals as well:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWoYuc.png&hash=9a7c4a8d06d01bcbc4d367bcfeb31f8638ac35d4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 21, 2011, 04:22:26 AM
Somebody either forgot to take these US-150 signs down, or just put them up, because they look rather new.  And this isn't US-150 (at least now, but I think it was before US-150 was put on I-64 here).

http://g.co/maps/7xfy8
http://g.co/maps/824hb
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 23, 2011, 08:09:08 PM
The infamous "PA 97" signs at the intersection of WV 97 and US 52/WV 80 in Wyoming County are still there. Saw them yesterday. Got photos.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ftballfan on October 25, 2011, 10:53:09 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on October 19, 2011, 07:37:03 AM
Quote from: cu2010 on October 16, 2011, 11:51:10 PM
Quote from: Master son on October 16, 2011, 10:32:59 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6219%2F6252394226_5062db8dfc.jpg&hash=8170f62e3ee5d44387e079a7b9f1239d02a4ed0d) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6252394226/)
Such large numbers - not standard for sure

I don't know if it's MUTCD-standard, but New York uses numbers that size in it's new Speed Zone Ahead signs...

So does Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Although, with that said I don't think the numbers that those states use are quite as large as the ones in your original picture, but they are larger than on a standard speed limit sign.

Sign W3-5 in the MUTCD 2009 shows larger numerals as well:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWoYuc.png&hash=9a7c4a8d06d01bcbc4d367bcfeb31f8638ac35d4)
Michigan has signs like those now, especially on state highways.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 25, 2011, 11:21:36 AM
I suspect this is misspelled. From Oceana, WV:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6235%2F6275957643_feeb9b270f.jpg&hash=e406d9531ccba86ddb97e346e21dbaa2c829be62)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on October 25, 2011, 07:54:53 PM
What shield is that '961'?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on October 25, 2011, 08:03:35 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on October 25, 2011, 07:54:53 PM
What shield is that '961'?
"Home access road program", basically a shared driveway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: adt1982 on October 29, 2011, 11:20:20 PM
This should be an Illinois sign.  And it's even worse how all each sign overlaps the one below it.

It's at the intersection of Farmersville Road and Illinois 4 in Girard.  I'm guessing this assembly came from the county highway department.  I didn't see any type of IDOT markings.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv346%2Fadt1982%2FIMAG0230.jpg&hash=2d5bcbaa85d1b8b5c6d99d09a144f05aa0e40982)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CL on October 30, 2011, 02:21:04 AM
Utah usually does well in keeping signage errors to a minimum. Once in a blue moon, a state highway shield may be installed where a U.S. highway shield was called for. Once in a hundred blue moons...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6218%2F6294026028_80b6535653_z.jpg&hash=f3f5a6ee871925ea11668d1d45b97a50e252994f)

This is on Bangerter Highway at SR-201. That interchange was just reconfigured to a diverging diamond. The stunning thing about this is that there are several correct SR-201 shields that were installed at the same time, as part of the same project. I don't know how two US-201 shields were produced alongside several SR-201 signs. This is only one of two instances I know of where a U.S. highway shield was installed in place of a state highway shield. The other is SR-210 at SR-190 (and it still stands).

On the plus side, UDOT chose to use a three-digit width shield...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 30, 2011, 10:46:12 AM
Quote from: CL on October 30, 2011, 02:21:04 AM
On the plus side, UDOT chose to use a three-digit width shield...

Not a plus in m book.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on November 04, 2011, 02:46:25 AM
This temporary guide sign along I-71 southbound in Columbus has an Ohio 40 shield instead of a US 40 shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1090.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi370%2Flongestaugust%2FRoads%2FDSCN5093.jpg&hash=afdcacce5a0701b538d0bf4c7a6a0d9e1e2ff619)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 04, 2011, 08:50:17 PM
Temporary signage, in Clearview no less.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on November 04, 2011, 08:53:13 PM
Is Ohio a state that classifies all numbered highways, regardless of actual class, as state routes? If so, that would not technically be an error shield.

Some states, like California, do that. That is, I-5 is actually maintained as "CA-5."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on November 04, 2011, 09:15:02 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 04, 2011, 08:53:13 PM
Is Ohio a state that classifies all numbered highways, regardless of actual class, as state routes? If so, that would not technically be an error shield.

Some states, like California, do that. That is, I-5 is actually maintained as "CA-5."
Yes, Ohio does that as well. So admittedly, it's not technically incorrect, but I still count it as an error because OH 40 is supposed to be signed as US 40.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on November 04, 2011, 11:45:49 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 04, 2011, 08:53:13 PM
Is Ohio a state that classifies all numbered highways, regardless of actual class, as state routes? If so, that would not technically be an error shield.

Some states, like California, do that. That is, I-5 is actually maintained as "CA-5."

That may be open to interpretation. Numbers aren't duplicated, so a route number alone (such as on bridge plaques) is unambiguous. However, the Straight Line Diagrams consistently distinguish between route classes, like this: IR 71R, US 40R, SR 16R.  But that doesn't stop state and local officials from lumping in US routes with state routes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 05, 2011, 09:24:16 PM
Most of the route classification errors I've seen in Ohio have been classifying US routes as state routes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on November 05, 2011, 09:31:40 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 05, 2011, 09:24:16 PM
Most of the toute classification errors I've seen in Ohio have been classifying US routes as state routes.

Didn't know that...makes sence that I found that OH 62 shield along US 62.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on November 05, 2011, 11:19:26 PM
VA does all kinds of them. State primaries with US shields, state primaries with secondary shields, US routes with state primary shields, secondaries with primary shields...my theory as to why this happens so much is that the VA primary route shield looks like the halfway point between the US shield and a secondary shield (a circle).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 05, 2011, 11:46:06 PM
Quote from: Takumi on November 05, 2011, 11:19:26 PM
VA does all kinds of them. State primaries with US shields, state primaries with secondary shields, US routes with state primary shields, secondaries with primary shields...my theory as to why this happens so much is that the VA primary route shield looks like the halfway point between the US shield and a secondary shield (a circle).

Not to mention the one isolated case of a VA primary route signed in an interstate business loop shield (VA 7).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on November 08, 2011, 03:43:52 PM
NY 9W should be US 9W:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6033%2F6326177295_6985b57d23_z.jpg&hash=dd40eb2eeff730eb4a30f9c93c347db9927b952b)

I-84 eastbound at the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xcellntbuy on November 08, 2011, 05:03:10 PM
Just before Exits 10N-S on Interstate 84 are signs for NY 9D Wappinger Falls instead of Wappingers Falls.  The Town is Town of Wappinger.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on November 08, 2011, 08:58:01 PM
Two separate signs for US 22 in White Plains:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg402.imageshack.us%2Fimg402%2F4364%2Fimg4999e.jpg&hash=9241121fcfd5939bddca9763a41e84c398b72658)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg207.imageshack.us%2Fimg207%2F2026%2Fimg5001x.jpg&hash=9d89ec05b319c4170867757867e4941f21869b15)

This makes a grand total of four US 22 shields that I know of in New York (the other two are waaay upstate north of the Adirondacks, I believe I posted one of them before).

Now for a more subtle error:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg32.imageshack.us%2Fimg32%2F1026%2Fimg5095c.jpg&hash=17e6f1db4724452943477e10d3d8698875d315e3)

While this is geographically accurate, I-278 is technically an east-west route, so this sign is not following proper convention.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on November 08, 2011, 09:20:36 PM
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/in-009_at_i-074_us-421.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/in-009_at_i-074_us-421.jpg)

U.S. 421 is signed as Indiana 421 on both overheads along SR 9 at the interchange with I-74 & U.S. 421.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on November 08, 2011, 10:33:48 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 08, 2011, 08:58:01 PM
While this is geographically accurate, I-278 is technically an east-west route, so this sign is not following proper convention.


It is?  3dis can go any direction, and are not limited by the even-odd rules.  I-294 is a north-south 3di here, and I-196 is a north-south 3di in Michigan, thus I-278 can be north-south in New York.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on November 08, 2011, 11:19:27 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 08, 2011, 10:33:48 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 08, 2011, 08:58:01 PM
While this is geographically accurate, I-278 is technically an east-west route, so this sign is not following proper convention.


It is?  3dis can go any direction, and are not limited by the even-odd rules.  I-294 is a north-south 3di here, and I-196 is a north-south 3di in Michigan, thus I-278 can be north-south in New York.

Yes, 3dI's can go in any direction.  This one goes east-west because NYSDOT says so, not because of its even number.  Geographically, I-278 appears to go every direction at some point or another, but runs overall southwest to northeast, slightly closer to west to east than south to north.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on November 08, 2011, 11:48:58 PM
Within Brooklyn and Queens, though, 278 runs north-south, or more precisely, the Gowanus and BQE run north-south, even though 278 is signed east-west. It's a case where the individual roadway names are so well known in the area, usually the numbering plays second fiddle, and that can happen to directions even with the number posted. (95 runs east-west on the Cross Bronx, and that's how traffic reports call it.)

Thanks for the White Plains signs, I hadn't been through there on 22 SB, so I'll make a detour next time.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on November 09, 2011, 07:43:44 AM
"Gowanus" and "BQE" might be more than just "well-known" in the area. I referred to I-278 and none of my relatives (who at the time lived in Bay Ridge and Staten Island) had any clue what I-278 once. I was shocked, but when they realized what I meant they said nobody calls NYC's highways by number.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 19, 2011, 04:48:19 PM
Spotted last week in the Empire State:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.staticflickr.com%2F6101%2F6358264445_d25c7ed90a.jpg&hash=79318da2bcd00480059b1b2a046ef8d2181b1310)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.staticflickr.com%2F6060%2F6358265703_2aa0680995.jpg&hash=0383d649e08bafc886fa46c7525ac3fa05798240)

These were the only two I saw northbound, not sure if there were any southbound or not.

And that's a funky shape for the NY shield in the bottom photo, too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on November 19, 2011, 05:20:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 19, 2011, 04:48:19 PM
And that's a funky shape for the NY shield in the bottom photo, too.

But not uncommon, sadly. Those are all over the place.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ftballfan on November 19, 2011, 09:01:06 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 08, 2011, 10:33:48 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 08, 2011, 08:58:01 PM
While this is geographically accurate, I-278 is technically an east-west route, so this sign is not following proper convention.


It is?  3dis can go any direction, and are not limited by the even-odd rules.  I-294 is a north-south 3di here, and I-196 is a north-south 3di in Michigan, thus I-278 can be north-south in New York.
I-196 runs BOTH north-south (with US-31) and east-west (without US-31).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on November 20, 2011, 12:47:40 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on November 04, 2011, 09:15:02 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 04, 2011, 08:53:13 PM
Is Ohio a state that classifies all numbered highways, regardless of actual class, as state routes? If so, that would not technically be an error shield.

Some states, like California, do that. That is, I-5 is actually maintained as "CA-5."
Yes, Ohio does that as well. So admittedly, it's not technically incorrect, but I still count it as an error because OH 40 is supposed to be signed as US 40.

Well, i dont know if this is still done, but at one time, Ohio had their roads classified as State Highways...and the numbers often didnt match the route numbers....for instance, i had a map of Ashtabula County many years ago that had State Highways written alongside the shields...I-90 was also noted as State Highway 1...and the various routes in the County had State Highway numbers that were nothing like the Route numbers they carry
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 20, 2011, 11:47:13 PM
California is surprisingly good at not getting route classifications mixed up.  I remember a construction zone at the East LA Interchange had a lovely I-101 shield on a "your tax dollars at work" sign for a year or two.  I've also seen interstates 1, 50, and 99. 

there was a lovely US-99 posted in Sacramento a few months ago but it was quickly patched to the correct state 99.  that is the only state-to-US error I've ever seen made by Caltrans.  there is a US-12 shield on a county road green sign in Santa Rosa and a US-86 street blade in El Centro.  as those examples are all on green guide signs, I have never once spotted a US route cutout with a state route number in California.  that would be quite the find.

as for other states... North Dakota seems to have had a problem in the 1950s - I have seen at least four cutouts for North Dakota state routes in US shields.  I've also seen (in fact, owned) a red Mississippi US 18 cutout from 1956, and have heard that there is a Colorado US 9 out there.

then there is this attempt at a US-83 shield from Oklahoma.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OK/OK19300381i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 23, 2011, 12:39:29 AM
Somewhat of an oddity- The normal shields are wrong, while the detour shields are right: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.834563,-77.715225&spn=0.000063,0.027595&t=m&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=42.834667,-77.715192&panoid=CYgSGiKrHNRo6p4t30PwbQ&cbp=12,58.67,,1,-0.28
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on November 23, 2011, 03:01:36 AM
That is, sadly, a common error throughout NY...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JREwing78 on November 24, 2011, 08:38:17 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on November 19, 2011, 09:01:06 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 08, 2011, 10:33:48 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 08, 2011, 08:58:01 PM
While this is geographically accurate, I-278 is technically an east-west route, so this sign is not following proper convention.


It is?  3dis can go any direction, and are not limited by the even-odd rules.  I-294 is a north-south 3di here, and I-196 is a north-south 3di in Michigan, thus I-278 can be north-south in New York.
I-196 runs BOTH north-south (with US-31) and east-west (without US-31).

Brought to you by the same state that also posts a north-south and east-west I-69. Hang the convention - the east-west section would make no sense posted north-south.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on November 26, 2011, 01:52:41 PM
Here are a couple of examples where the sign is only erroneous due to its orientation:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Ferror-124823.jpg&hash=f74e88ea5e6d909e3e71ed56652f77dbef88f3eb)
Renner Rd, westbound at St James Lutheran Ln in Columbus.  It's the I-70 trailblazer combo on the right that's wrong.  Turning left here certainly will not lead you to I-70.  Instead, go to the next intersection and turn left onto Hilliard—Rome Rd.  Years ago there was a traditional 3-piece trailblazer assembly here, facing St James Lutheran Ln, and that made sense.  Apparently the error was made when the assembly was replaced with this one-piece dealie.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Ferror-102506.jpg&hash=0b51b1276b82581cb38e2d3adf23756c0da091db)

US 52 westbound at US 23 northbound in Portsmouth.  The OH 73 / US 52 assembly on the right is wrong.  Again, the markers should be facing northbound traffic, guiding them to turn west.  Instead, this seems to instruct westbound US 52 traffic to turn left here, which would send them the wrong way down a one-way street!  It's possible this display was installed correctly, and became disoriented later; the signs are mounted on a U-channel, but that U-channel has been secured to the adjacent light post rather clumsily.  By the way, this is the first time I've taken a roadgeek photo while on the job – apparently I'm willing to do that when moving very slowly and not carrying a crew.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on November 26, 2011, 09:25:06 PM
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MN/MN19800951i1.jpg)
MN 95 is signed with a Wisconsin shield before the state line.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on November 26, 2011, 09:39:18 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on November 26, 2011, 09:25:06 PM
MN 95 is signed with a Wisconsin shield before the state line.

Am I correct that it looks like they added "MINN" to the shield?

If so, it reminds me of this beauty from El Paso:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FUS62-85ElPaso7.jpg%3Ft%3D1322361530&hash=66dc0d4ccf1e999a923b95e417a5f5ac586717e3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 27, 2011, 01:20:14 AM
Keokee, Va.:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Finterestingsigns%2Fva%2FTo_KY_38.jpg&hash=a1bdd88c44dc6c2e789bc7306897d37e7d8cc924)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.staticflickr.com%2F6162%2F6182140717_bb797eb11e.jpg&hash=6b33db632e5909f480f9f5d3b33d5da2c2b6dc0b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on November 27, 2011, 09:47:52 AM
Along these lines but not so bad since they used a reasonable-looking New York shield.  From North Bennington, Vermont:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20041016%2Fny7vt279vt67a.jpg&hash=e58caca4091a2a5f267ecbdb75cdb71ae2a8f7ee)

There are and have been a variety of "To NY 7"'s in the Bennington area, necessitated by the unfortunate proximity of NY 7 and US 7.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on November 29, 2011, 12:00:58 AM
This is bilingualism at its finest:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_130-139_images%2F138_sign_417_east-east.jpg&hash=296c178bd6ab69ff32361f219bed5dadb71a1b8d)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on November 29, 2011, 12:03:27 AM
Wow- that is all kinds of terrible
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on November 29, 2011, 01:16:42 PM
Some of Canada's sign bilingualism is really just silly. Even an English speaker who's never heard a word of French in their lives should be able to figure out what "Est", "Ouest", "Sud", and "Nord" mean in context, and the same goes for a French speaker with "East", "West", "South", and "North". Quebec only posts the French and nobody from outside has trouble with it.

Attempting to do "East/Est" and messing it up as depicted is hilarious, though. :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on November 29, 2011, 01:55:14 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 29, 2011, 01:16:42 PM
Some of Canada's sign bilingualism is really just silly. Even an English speaker who's never heard a word of French in their lives should be able to figure out what "Est", "Ouest", "Sud", and "Nord" mean in context, and the same goes for a French speaker with "East", "West", "South", and "North". Quebec only posts the French and nobody from outside has trouble with it.

Attempting to do "East/Est" and messing it up as depicted is hilarious, though. :-D

There's a sign near Ottawa listing an exit as serving "Av Maitland Ave." To me that's really carrying bilingualism to an extreme.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: twinsfan87 on November 29, 2011, 03:16:28 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on November 26, 2011, 09:25:06 PM
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MN/MN19800951i1.jpg)
MN 95 is signed with a Wisconsin shield before the state line.

I believe this shield has since been replaced with the correct Mn/DOT "JCT 95" assembly (Google Streetview seems to confirm my belief).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 29, 2011, 03:35:03 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 29, 2011, 01:16:42 PMEven an English speaker who's never heard a word of French in their lives should be able to figure out what "Est", "Ouest", "Sud", and "Nord" mean in context

honestly, east and west can get confusing if you're familiar with too many languages.  West is "oeste" in Spanish.  In German, east is "öst", which can get transliterated into "oest".

big trouble brewing... I know I got confused several times when crossing between Latin and Germanic countries.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on November 29, 2011, 03:40:59 PM
I do like that Ontario sign using square corners rather than the fake rounded ones most American signs use.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on November 29, 2011, 04:12:15 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 29, 2011, 01:16:42 PM
Some of Canada's sign bilingualism is really just silly. Even an English speaker who's never heard a word of French in their lives should be able to figure out what "Est", "Ouest", "Sud", and "Nord" mean in context, and the same goes for a French speaker with "East", "West", "South", and "North". Quebec only posts the French and nobody from outside has trouble with it.

Attempting to do "East/Est" and messing it up as depicted is hilarious, though. :-D

I think that bilingual signage in Ontario has more to do with a commitment by government to provide services in both official languages rather than the need to translate "east" to "est" for francophones.

Language has been a controversial issue in Canada at times.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on November 30, 2011, 10:12:54 AM
Quote from: Quillz on November 29, 2011, 03:40:59 PM
I do like that Ontario sign using square corners rather than the fake rounded ones most American signs use.

Glad that in NY we use REAL rounded corners.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xcellntbuy on November 30, 2011, 05:35:23 PM
Having stocked and handled aluminum road signs in my Warehouse days in New York, believe me, radius (rounded) corners were always specified.  Sharp 90-degree angled signs could have the potential to slip and leave quite a gash or even worse, lop off a hand, especially handling the heavy signs. :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 30, 2011, 05:39:22 PM
I've actually gotten quite a few spikes and pokes just from the pointed tips of cutout US route markers.

mmm... tetanus.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on November 30, 2011, 06:05:09 PM
Quote from: BigOkie on August 29, 2011, 10:39:45 AM
Quote from: okroads on August 28, 2011, 10:19:21 PM
The sign on the right should say "Sand Springs'...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6088%2F6091521160_0eb8106d06_b.jpg&hash=44a668c6d9f1849a2dc3dfedfb21af9d901f1525)

Is that the southbound Tisdale Interchange at I-244/US412?  Good job, ODOT!  LOL.

ODOT does not maintain the Tisdale, it is a city-maintained freeway.  Did ODOT handle the resigning?

There used to be some cool button copy signs on the SB Tisdale approaching I-244.  They disappeared before I could get pictures of them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 30, 2011, 08:26:50 PM
This is what that sign replaced. (I may have posted this pic previously...)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_OKC_Day_4%2FImages%2F229.jpg&hash=c25d44cc7bcf6ef8ffa1fcf4225e9e7a2de9f72f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on December 01, 2011, 03:24:10 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 29, 2011, 03:35:03 PM
In German, east is "öst", which can get transliterated into "oest".

No umlaut.  It's just "ost."  To make it an adjective, you add the umlaut and the -lich ending (östlich or oestlich).

There are multiple pictures on the Autobahn Atlas site (autobahnatlas-online.de, click on Gallery) which show the cardinal directions in German (nord, süd, ost, west [pronounced "vest"]).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 01, 2011, 03:41:27 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on December 01, 2011, 03:24:10 PM
No umlaut.  It's just "ost."  To make it an adjective, you add the umlaut and the -lich ending (östlich or oestlich).

There are multiple pictures on the Autobahn Atlas site (autobahnatlas-online.de, click on Gallery) which show the cardinal directions in German (nord, süd, ost, west [pronounced "vest"]).

oops, Swedish not German.  here I had thought German, too, because I had believed "österreich" (Austrian) meant "eastern kingdom", which would make sense geographically.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on December 05, 2011, 01:54:32 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 01, 2011, 03:41:27 PM
I had believed "österreich" (Austrian) meant "eastern kingdom", which would make sense geographically.

You are correct, sir.  Give that man a lady in the balcony.  (and if you remember that reference:  You are OLD!)  "Öster-" and "östlich-" mean the same thing.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 05, 2011, 07:38:22 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7174%2F6460577643_9dd09a9dd2.jpg&hash=8660e416fdc935e26b2cfe484bafd41d5aba0153)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on December 05, 2011, 09:07:33 PM
^ Swapped directional tabs?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on December 05, 2011, 10:08:52 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on December 05, 2011, 01:54:32 PM
You are correct, sir.  Give that man a lady in the balcony.  (and if you remember that reference:  You are OLD!)  "Öster-" and "östlich-" mean the same thing.

M*A*S*H, right?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 06, 2011, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: formulanone on December 05, 2011, 09:07:33 PM
^ Swapped directional tabs?

Yep. And I didn't even notice until I was looking through my photos from last Sunday's little trip.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on December 06, 2011, 12:16:38 PM
WTOP here in the DC area has this picture of a new sign that appeared on I-66 yesterday when the new third lane opened:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arlnow.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2Fsycamore-st-sign-600x363.jpg&hash=92dee5ce3e1bbec32c564be84fda9baa28a4b54a)

Link to article (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=139&sid=2658879)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 06, 2011, 01:49:25 PM
A contractor recently installed a sign on KY 1057 where two ramps are being added to the former partial interchange with the Mountain Parkway. The exit is for Clay City but the sign on KY 1057 points the way to Clay County. I don't have a photo of my own yet but the local newspaper published one that someone submitted to them.

I guess technically the sign is correct, because if you continue in that direction on KY 1057 you intersect KY 11, which does run through Clay County.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on December 07, 2011, 10:58:49 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 29, 2011, 01:16:42 PM
Some of Canada's sign bilingualism is really just silly.

I want to be the guy who has the contract for portable changeable message signs up there.  Last time I drove on 401 there had to be a dozen construction sites, each with multiple sign setups, with a sign for each language. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on December 08, 2011, 04:20:25 PM
I couldn't get any pictures (my mom and stepdad wouldn't stop! :pan:), but on Thanksgiving Day, I saw two US 222 shields on NY 222.  One was westbound, just west of Salt Road (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.592451,-76.324698&spn=0.000008,0.008256&t=m&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=42.59246,-76.32441&panoid=H9FHHFhAJzz2hvpwnt_wgQ&cbp=12,286.21,,1,1.61), and the other was eastbound, just east of LaFayette Road (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.593888,-76.287003&spn=0.000008,0.008256&t=m&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=42.59395,-76.286905&panoid=roBS9XQ4l4bZM6yB-BQ1GQ&cbp=12,82.64,,0,5.67).  Both Street View links show the correct shields.  I'm guessing they were recently replaced because NY 222 had new pavement.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on December 09, 2011, 11:47:25 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 05, 2011, 10:08:52 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on December 05, 2011, 01:54:32 PM
You are correct, sir.  Give that man a lady in the balcony.  (and if you remember that reference:  You are OLD!)  "Öster-" and "östlich-" mean the same thing.

M*A*S*H, right?

Indeed..."Welcome to Korea," part 2.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on December 10, 2011, 01:24:01 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 29, 2011, 03:35:03 PMhonestly, east and west can get confusing if you're familiar with too many languages.  West is "oeste" in Spanish.  In German, east is "öst", which can get transliterated into "oest".

big trouble brewing... I know I got confused several times when crossing between Latin and Germanic countries.

Cardinal directions can get confusing in Spanish itself.  "North" by itself is norte, but when it is used as part of a compound expression, the second syllable is dropped:  hence noreste ("northeast") and noroeste ("northwest").  Plus, unlike the case with Germanic languages, Romance languages tend to have adjectival forms of the cardinal directions which are not cognate with the commonly used noun forms.  Poniente or occidente for "western," settentrionale for "northern" and meridionale for "southern," oriente for "eastern," etc.

Direction signs in Spain invariably use the "friendly" cognates since there is some awareness of the need to serve long-distance and international traffic.  For example, you can expect to see norte as the obvious cognate to north (English) and nord (French, Italian, and German).  But in principle septentrión could also be used.  Note that the etymology for norte in Spanish Wikipedia references Old English:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septentrional
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on December 14, 2011, 09:41:46 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5630/21094351861_46236d1d87_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/y934TK)

At the off-ramp from I-77 North, at Exit 8 for Fancy Gap, Virginia.

(Street View (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=36.673926,-80.708399&spn=0.013355,0.055189&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=29.716225,56.513672&vpsrc=6&hnear=Fancy+Gap,+Carroll,+Virginia&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=36.673824,-80.708384&panoid=LT6hcVsgQYjQqNZb4LXX0g&cbp=13,354.43,,1,5.26), some views actually obscure the left error shield?)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on December 14, 2011, 10:03:32 PM
Good to know those are still there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on December 14, 2011, 10:28:07 PM
It's hard to tell from the photo, but the shields were pointing down somewhat. Not sure if removal was about to occur.

On the other hand, I wasn't using a GPS device, so I was really confused for a moment.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on December 14, 2011, 11:06:17 PM
Spotted a few US 161 shields today on OH 3. One is on NB OH 3, independent mount, part of an assembly for the upcoming turn to access OH 161 WB.  The other two are on nearly identical, back-to-back miniature BGSes (which look new) at the turn to access OH 161 EB.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on December 20, 2011, 05:04:51 PM
I see so many erroneous signs erected by local jurisdictions!  I want to make a bunch of labels that say 'WRONG SIGN' with a blank where I can write in the reference to the correct sign.

I drive by this one all the time.  It's on the exit ramp from I-135 northbound to 1st and 2nd streets.  They are a pair of one-way streets.  You most certainly do not proceed straight through the first stoplight (as the sign suggests) to reach 1st Street.  In fact, that stoplight IS 1st Street.  And there is no street sign for 1st Street at the actual intersection.  Anyone from out of town would reasonably blow by their turn without knowing it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2F1st-2nd.png&hash=fedb00705e9fcaa11349da851e3d8fc2651e231d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on December 26, 2011, 06:42:39 PM
The fairly recently completed widening of PA-65 in Avalon features this sign, that is blue for some reason....

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-HR9-bxIGm6k/TvkFJCuI0-I/AAAAAAAAAFM/NNlUxPxrGPo/s640/GEDC0199.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on December 26, 2011, 07:22:15 PM
Obviously they're doing you a service telling you how to get to Pittsburgh!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on December 26, 2011, 07:26:46 PM
Was it supposed to be white on green?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on December 26, 2011, 07:51:07 PM
An NY 9W shield at the north end of the US 9W/NY 32 duplex in Albany.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7025%2F6546186485_10a17ea2cb_z.jpg&hash=aa76cd330238f9f2190d8c6f444bdb07d82c09e4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on December 26, 2011, 10:33:38 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 26, 2011, 07:22:15 PM
Obviously they're doing you a service telling you how to get to Pittsburgh!

Or how to AVOID Pittsburgh, depending on one's point of view.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on December 27, 2011, 04:05:21 PM
Quote from: Quillz on December 26, 2011, 07:26:46 PM
Was it supposed to be white on green?

Yup.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 27, 2011, 07:12:51 PM
Here is one on  US 431 Southbound in Dothan, AL.  This sign says that it is "TO US 431 SOUTH" along with US 231 SB, but it is for real the actual US 431.  The AL 210 may seem erroneous, but its the designation given to the Ross Clark Circle that is a complete 13 mile loop of Dothan that was not given any direction.  Usually, like interstate beltways, it is either inner or outer, or the direction at the place like I-465 near Indy.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/5043752012/in/photostream/lightbox/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on January 13, 2012, 01:50:54 PM
NH153 rides the ME state line for a bit, maintained by MDOT.
Not to be confused with the real ME153 elsewhere, here's a ME153 marker on the NH side of the road:
http://yakra.dyn-o-saur.com/roads/me_ends/nh153-north/IMG_0282.JPG
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on January 13, 2012, 03:01:36 PM
Quote from: yakra on January 13, 2012, 01:50:54 PM
NH153 rides the ME state line for a bit, maintained by MDOT.
Not to be confused with the real ME153 elsewhere, here's a ME153 marker on the NH side of the road:
http://yakra.dyn-o-saur.com/roads/me_ends/nh153-north/IMG_0282.JPG

But hey, at least it's a nice old LeHay font wooden sign!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on January 15, 2012, 12:32:09 AM
Found a new one, if anyone can get to it quickly enough.  I curse myself for not having a camera today to capture it.  At 175th St and Harlem Ave (IL-43), there is a 43 in a circle shield (square black blank) for northbound traffic.  It lacks any cardinal direction and is smaller than normal for a shield, but it is an error nonetheless.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 16, 2012, 02:41:25 PM
I haven't gone to Iowa, so this should be a VA 208 shield...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7021%2F6706799621_4321922fbe_z.jpg&hash=85edfcc18fe740c36ca765cba1bf9d8a94a79f94)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on January 16, 2012, 05:24:21 PM
I've seen more of those blue signs with the wrong shield (4+) than the right one (2).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 16, 2012, 07:10:42 PM
That seems to be a problem with the Fredericksburg and Culpeper Districts of VDOT, which seem to use those blue signs more than the other districts. Most of them contain incorrect shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on January 16, 2012, 07:25:13 PM
There's one for US 60 on Bypass Road westbound in Williamsburg with a full US 60 shield (i.e. with the black backing) and a correct SR 629 on US 460 westbound in New Bohemia. In addition to the erroneous ones I've posted on here before, Mapmikey says there are circles in ones for VA 62 and VA 119 on US 58-360 eastbound.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on January 16, 2012, 09:39:36 PM
There used to be a BGS for VA-123 on the eastbound Dulles Toll Road after the main toll plaza that used a circle as the shield. I reported it to VDOT but they ignored it....perhaps justifiably, as the sign was removed during the current construction project associated with the Beltway "Express Lanes."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on January 16, 2012, 10:06:55 PM
One I discovered on Saturday: on US 322 westbound in Blue Ball, PA, there is a US 23 shield for PA 23. Couldn't get a photo since I was going the other direction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 21, 2012, 12:55:27 AM
Here's some major "FAIL's" by FDOT:

FDOT tells you to get to US-17/FL-228 by getting off @ Exit 352A on I-95 (http://g.co/maps/pcfas).  The problem is.... you're ALREADY on US-17/FL-228 and it doesn't even get off at that exit.  What it's pointing you to is the old route in-town till they re-routed it onto I-10/I-95.  And here's the BGS (http://g.co/maps/dhdu7) on the ramp pointing you to the old route.  The problem is that no signage what-so-ever remains for the old route, so you up to guessing where US-17/FL-228 are!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: codyg1985 on January 26, 2012, 07:41:28 AM
Here is an interesting signage error. On I-30 eastbound at State Line Avenue, there is a mileage sign for AR 245 that was posted by TxDOT. The error is that TxDOT uses an FM shield (square) instead of an AR state shield: http://g.co/maps/z9p5a
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on January 26, 2012, 10:51:28 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 26, 2012, 07:41:28 AM
Here is an interesting signage error. On I-30 eastbound at State Line Avenue, there is a mileage sign for AR 245 that was posted by TxDOT. The error is that TxDOT uses an FM shield (square) instead of an AR state shield: http://g.co/maps/z9p5a

What's with blurring out the word "EXIT" in the exit number tab and the "EXIT ONLY" wording?

Looks like they are wrapping up construction, so this must be a fairly recent photo. My wife said it was still a major mess when she was through there last spring.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on January 26, 2012, 07:38:28 PM
Pretty sure this isn't in the MUTCD:



QuoteWhat's with blurring out the word "EXIT" in the exit number tab and the "EXIT ONLY" wording?

Google Streetview automatically blurs things that look like human faces and license plates. This leads to unintentional blurring of signs, shields, billboards, and faces on billboards.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on January 27, 2012, 01:56:46 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2012, 10:51:28 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 26, 2012, 07:41:28 AM
Here is an interesting signage error. On I-30 eastbound at State Line Avenue, there is a mileage sign for AR 245 that was posted by TxDOT. The error is that TxDOT uses an FM shield (square) instead of an AR state shield: http://g.co/maps/z9p5a

What's with blurring out the word "EXIT" in the exit number tab and the "EXIT ONLY" wording?

Looks like they are wrapping up construction, so this must be a fairly recent photo. My wife said it was still a major mess when she was through there last spring.

I guess that explains all the blurs on the lower-case e's.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on January 27, 2012, 08:03:44 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 26, 2012, 07:38:28 PM
Pretty sure this isn't in the MUTCD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT8O5vweitk

Hah. So did someone intentionally modify the signal or did it just happen to break in a most amusing manner?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on January 28, 2012, 06:17:33 PM
I've read about these -- supposedly it's snow getting stuck in the grate in front of the signal... in a most amusing manner!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on January 29, 2012, 05:37:54 AM
^ Doubtful that it's snow stuck in the grate... The snow would be visible, and the snow would cover the display equally such that all upper fingers would be obscured.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on January 29, 2012, 11:17:54 AM
There was a US-37 shield in Delaware, OH which may have been mentioned already; it seems to have been corrected recently.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 29, 2012, 06:21:53 PM
Quote from: vtk on January 29, 2012, 11:17:54 AM
There was a US-37 shield in Delaware, OH which may have been mentioned already; it seems to have been corrected recently.
There are still several US 37 shields in Delaware.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 31, 2012, 08:42:09 PM
How about the Orlando Oran
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 21, 2012, 12:55:27 AM
Here's some major "FAIL's" by FDOT:

FDOT tells you to get to US-17/FL-228 by getting off @ Exit 352A on I-95 (http://g.co/maps/pcfas).  The problem is.... you're ALREADY on US-17/FL-228 and it doesn't even get off at that exit.  What it's pointing you to is the old route in-town till they re-routed it onto I-10/I-95.  And here's the BGS (http://g.co/maps/dhdu7) on the ramp pointing you to the old route.  The problem is that no signage what-so-ever remains for the old route, so you up to guessing where US-17/FL-228 are!
How about the Orlando Orange County Expressway Authority forgeting to remove the TO I-4 shield at the Florida Turnpike Interchange Southbound near Winter Garden when FL 429 finally was completed to I-4.  At least, change it to a "TO I-4 East" assembly, but for westbound I-4, it is easier to stay on FL 429 to its terminus.  You would also figure how much toll money they are giving away considering the OOCEA is a business to make money.  There is still one more dollar plus toll booth to go that they own between the FL Turnpike and I-4 on FL 429.  Check it out on street view the erroneous shield SB at the Turnpike exit.  I am all thumbs to provide the link when it comes to street view, or else I would post the link myself here to show you all.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on February 05, 2012, 12:04:55 PM
96 can go upside down just as well as 69, I suppose.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg195.imageshack.us%2Fimg195%2F969%2Fpc0204.jpg&hash=9b0904781518f762a1e297a9f50dc0da7bf558ff)

This one is more subtle. When you see it...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg33.imageshack.us%2Fimg33%2F563%2Fpc0179.jpg&hash=7942d370a11422e3042c7f7e8992f66010ec36f4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on February 13, 2012, 07:45:08 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 02, 2010, 03:30:13 PM
PA 322 shield errors on PA 261 at its northern terminus at US 322 in Bethel Township, PA...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTH_4136Q8PI%2FAAAAAAAAiJM%2FefdWIhym_VA%2Fs640%2FIMG_1878.JPG&hash=ff4eee3c141f75e96bfd344fc8a99bae6a37b3bb)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTH_42cR9zKI%2FAAAAAAAAiJU%2FI8_1bW_XK7I%2Fs640%2FIMG_1879.JPG&hash=475929247a2fd29d8ecdefb6bef384d5309ea4eb)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTH_43AhtgJI%2FAAAAAAAAiJc%2FXN1QX0NalHY%2Fs640%2FIMG_1880.JPG&hash=54bd695ecbf0db27ed8bee7cf128deb87aad5a4a)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTH_434tsnJI%2FAAAAAAAAiJk%2FJ1pcyU6pEaM%2Fs640%2FIMG_1881.JPG&hash=2e0a0edd914fbfa49b86442cc23cceb3bce88f2f)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTH_44rtUxVI%2FAAAAAAAAiJs%2Fi0Eku3BnZd0%2Fs640%2FIMG_1882.JPG&hash=c3a26d7fbe9d49fe228a15ce9a12a6cb952d2260)
I don't have a pics but along southbound Amosland Road in Prospect Park/Norwood (Delaware County) PA; there are 5 PA 13 signs leading up to the Chester Pike (US 13) intersection.  The signs SHOULD BE US 13.  What's even more pitiful was that the original signs that were erected and replaced after one year HAD the correct shields.

Quote from: dfilpus on November 21, 2010, 05:54:04 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 21, 2010, 05:03:09 PM
I wouldn't really consider that error "infamous", seeing as US-202 switches to DE-202 not too far north of there.  It's a fairly silly switch in route importance; why not call the whole thing US-202 all the way to the end?  especially since at least three or four signs are in error.
Actually, at one time, it was indeed US 202 south of I-95.  For some reason, DelDOT decided to re-route US 202 onto I-95 and Route 141 and end it at US 13/40.  The old US 202/current DE 202 ends at Business US 13.  I guess DelDOT didn't like a US route ending on a Businees US route.  IMHO, DelDOT should've left US 202 alone.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on February 13, 2012, 09:08:00 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 13, 2012, 07:45:08 PM
I don't have a pics but along southbound Amosland Road in Prospect Park/Norwood (Delaware County) PA; there are 5 PA 13 signs leading up to the Chester Pike (US 13) intersection.  The signs SHOULD BE US 13.  What's even more pitiful was that the original signs that were erected and replaced after one year HAD the correct shields.

Ooh, thanks for the heads up! Might need to check that out this weekend. I also need to desperately get down to Philadelphia to get a photo of a new black PA 291 sign that Jake told me about.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on February 13, 2012, 10:32:31 PM
On OH 38 northbound entering London, there's a OH 56 North assembly.  The only explanation I can think of is maybe it once had a Detour sign on top.  I'm not sure, but this error may have been standing for several years now.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on February 14, 2012, 07:42:13 AM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 13, 2012, 09:08:00 PMI also need to desperately get down to Philadelphia to get a photo of a new black PA 291 sign that Jake told me about.
Where abouts is that sign... at the western end of Pattison Ave.?
Heads Up: starting Feb. 20, a 2-year construction project on the Platt Bridge will mean only one lane of traffic in each direction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kurumi on February 14, 2012, 09:57:39 AM
Maybe I-99 was supposed to be PA 99 all along, and some of us got upset over a simple mistake...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on February 14, 2012, 03:20:00 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 14, 2012, 07:42:13 AM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 13, 2012, 09:08:00 PMI also need to desperately get down to Philadelphia to get a photo of a new black PA 291 sign that Jake told me about.
Where abouts is that sign... at the western end of Pattison Ave.?

It's on PA 291 itself going westbound just after Pattison Avenue. It's mounted on a traffic signal pole just before the railroad overpass.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on February 14, 2012, 07:27:42 PM
Permanent signs with no construction in sight should not be orange! There are several of these along PA 154.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg812.imageshack.us%2Fimg812%2F1996%2Fpc0217.jpg&hash=265b3881277ecfec5ad681c18bf44b5efb29d41b)

And US 9 gets cut down to size, twice:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg560.imageshack.us%2Fimg560%2F7428%2Fpc0290.jpg&hash=cdbd33775f408a16110fdb4ce8182b4a9fdd57ab)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg263.imageshack.us%2Fimg263%2F6100%2Fpc0291.jpg&hash=96663b5fd1efff7a901693b6a9e7620809c09d33)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on February 14, 2012, 07:34:48 PM
Quote from: vtk on February 13, 2012, 10:32:31 PM
On OH 38 northbound entering London, there's a OH 56 North assembly.  The only explanation I can think of is maybe it once had a Detour sign on top.  I'm not sure, but this error may have been standing for several years now.

If it wasn't last year, it was the year before, but 56 was closed at that park just outside downtown (can't remember the name) for reconstruction.  I do work at London Correctional sometimes and kept getting caught by that damnable detour.  I did learn all the local shortcuts, though :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on February 15, 2012, 01:27:36 PM
That's not Aero Drive, NYSDOT: http://g.co/maps/fv6wv

EDIT: Went past there today, and it's been corrected.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on March 06, 2012, 06:22:55 PM
In Prospect Park, PA, another incorrect trailblazer sign for US 13 south has recently been erected along PA 420 northbound. 

The original multi-trailblazer setup assembly (containing signage for US 13 North & South along with Truck Route 420 South) was replaced with separate assemblies; probably due to the original setup getting knocked over & damaged in an accident. 

The signage for US 13 North & Truck Route 420 South is correct; but the shield for 13 South is the PA keystone.  Adding insult to injury, the numerals for said PA 13 sign is the narrow Series B or even A font; very ugly IMHO.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on March 11, 2012, 01:11:40 PM
A US highway used to pass through El Centro.

It however wasn't this nonexistent one:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7057%2F6825812560_557ebe5434.jpg&hash=766314bfdc7ceaaefc951a36fcd333dcc74908c9) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/6825812560/)
DSC_5893 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/6825812560/) by csampang (http://www.flickr.com/people/csampang/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on March 11, 2012, 09:20:57 PM
At least it's a nice '61-spec shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on March 11, 2012, 09:49:12 PM
I was noticing that on I-80 EB near Netcong, NJ on google street view there it shows the overhead gantry at Exit 25 (US 206 NB) it has Netcong & New York City as control points on the I-80 pull through sign which is situated to the left of the forthcoming Exit 27 and present Exit 25.  The thing is that is the exit for Netcong (the only exit on I-80 for that town) is Exit 27 and is used as control point for that sign too.  So you have Netcong for both I-80 EB and NJ 183 NB on the same assembly with only one route going there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on March 13, 2012, 05:20:03 PM
This is not VA 317, nor is any road currently VA 317. This is actually Frontage Road 317, which should be posted as F317 by Virginia standards. It's also an old alignment of VA 40.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-dNV03KRdHGc/T1-4tkBQQjI/AAAAAAAABl4/dZaEh_op6as/s816/DSC00471.JPG)

This is just silly. Yeah, SR 602 curves to the right eventually, but still...

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-A-IX6_xWZDA/T1-36C0ASeI/AAAAAAAABfI/EV1rc3Qk2s0/s816/DSC00410.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on March 15, 2012, 09:14:35 AM
Columbus, on Main St eastbound just past the Scioto River:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F62e3s.jpg&hash=d9fb69d5ba980c39907328414bbe7249a05df53d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 15, 2012, 10:45:36 AM
Quote from: vtk on March 15, 2012, 09:14:35 AM
Columbus, on Main St eastbound just past the Scioto River:
[62 and 3]

what is wrong with it?  is 3 supposed to be east west, or 62 north-south?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on March 15, 2012, 11:22:56 AM
3 should be north.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on March 15, 2012, 09:17:14 PM
OH 3 should be north. 

Optionally, US 62 can also be north, and I personally believe it should be, but that's another subject entirely. Technically US 62 is E—W in Ohio, but it's actually signed N—S in many places, particularly where it overlaps N—S OH 3, but also in some less obvious places.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on March 15, 2012, 11:07:18 PM
Well, at least they got shields right.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 16, 2012, 11:31:37 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 15, 2012, 11:22:56 AM
3 should be north.

and now I know.  is 3 so diagonal that it could be construed as east-west locally?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on March 16, 2012, 05:31:35 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 16, 2012, 11:31:37 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 15, 2012, 11:22:56 AM
3 should be north.
is 3 so diagonal that it could be construed as east-west locally?

Maybe in a hyper-local sense.  It does run on E—W streets for maybe 2 miles total in and near downtown, and across the entire state it's quite diagonal, but everyone around here is familiar with SR 3 as a N—S route.  After all, it's the 3C Highway (Cincinnati—Columbus—Cleveland; not sure if the number 3 is a coincidence) and Columbusites usually think of Cincinnati and Cleveland to be south and north (sometimes southwest and northeast, never west and east), respectively.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on March 16, 2012, 06:10:26 PM
Quote from: vtk on March 16, 2012, 05:31:35 PM
After all, it's the 3C Highway (Cincinnati—Columbus—Cleveland; not sure if the number 3 is a coincidence)
It's probably intentional, since when the initial state route numbers were assigned in the early 1920s, the first 10 or so followed named highways.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 16, 2012, 06:58:46 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 16, 2012, 06:10:26 PM
Quote from: vtk on March 16, 2012, 05:31:35 PM
After all, it's the 3C Highway (Cincinnati—Columbus—Cleveland; not sure if the number 3 is a coincidence)
It's probably intentional, since when the initial state route numbers were assigned in the early 1920s, the first 10 or so followed named highways.

are there any other trails that lend themselves easily to a numerical designation?  I know the Lincoln Highway was ... 5.  No idea why they chose that one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on March 16, 2012, 08:27:22 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 16, 2012, 06:58:46 PM
are there any other trails that lend themselves easily to a numerical designation?  I know the Lincoln Highway was ... 5.  No idea why they chose that one.
There were special rectangular nameplates placed above the route shields for 1-10:
*1 National Road
*2 Buffalo-Chicago Highway
*3 Three-C Highway
*4 Scioto Trail
*5 Lincoln Highway
*6 Dixie Highway
*7 Ohio River Road
*8 Cleveland-Marietta Road
*9 Wayne Highway
*10 Harding Highway
The 1923 state map shows the routes and an example of a plate for the Lincoln Highway. I'm not sure about all the names.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 16, 2012, 08:59:03 PM
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OH/OH19200051i1.jpg)

one of the Lincoln markers (just the Lincoln, no 5) sold on eBay for $800 or so a few weeks ago.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: eagle14410 on March 21, 2012, 12:33:23 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 26, 2012, 07:38:28 PM
Pretty sure this isn't in the MUTCD:



QuoteWhat's with blurring out the word "EXIT" in the exit number tab and the "EXIT ONLY" wording?

Google Streetview automatically blurs things that look like human faces and license plates. This leads to unintentional blurring of signs, shields, billboards, and faces on billboards.

This was in Spokane a couple of years ago.....the LED lights went out on the sign......it got alot of attention that day!!!!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 22, 2012, 11:25:35 PM
Richmond has screwed up the directions on some new US 33 signage they've put up; while it may seem correct, they are signing it as a north-south route when it's signed east-west in Virginia, and it generally goes from east to west in the city.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on March 24, 2012, 04:17:33 PM
Here's an example of a sign that has a really strange font that I only see in my area:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7041%2F6865747692_e93abbd306_c.jpg&hash=e841eaa7b915afbe6aacaae264f0ea13cf2ddb3c)

Does anyone happen to know what font this is? Whatever it is, I really hate it. It's also everywhere in Salinas.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on March 24, 2012, 06:37:00 PM
Looks like Clarendon (http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/bitstream/clarendon/) to me, though maybe slightly compressed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on March 24, 2012, 10:24:53 PM
Yep, that's Clarendon. Believe it or not it was actually once used on National Park Service road signs. (It's since been replaced by Rawlinson, which is still a serif font.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on March 26, 2012, 12:45:23 AM
The all-way tab is also off somehow.  I can't quite tell if it's actually off-font, or just off-spaced, but it's definitely not right.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: luokou on March 26, 2012, 04:13:07 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 26, 2012, 12:45:23 AM
The all-way tab is also off somehow.  I can't quite tell if it's actually off-font, or just off-spaced, but it's definitely not right.

Seems like slightly compressed Helvetica (as if compression of any font isn't already bad enough), and the corner radius for the inner red rectangle look to be the same as the corner radius for the outer white rectangle, making it even more awkward. Blargh!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on March 26, 2012, 04:30:17 AM
...Is "ALL-WAY" usually hyphenated like that? It looks weird to me, though maybe I'm just misremembering because I haven't seen a "standard" all-way plaque in a while.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on March 26, 2012, 05:39:26 AM
I don't think so.  I know it does if there's a number (i.e., 2-WAY).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on March 26, 2012, 05:33:15 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on March 26, 2012, 04:30:17 AM
...Is "ALL-WAY" usually hyphenated like that? It looks weird to me, though maybe I'm just misremembering because I haven't seen a "standard" all-way plaque in a while.

Given that that's not what's bugging me, I'm going to choose to believe that I've seen it done both ways.

EDIT:  Never mind.  Looked around GSV a bit, all the ones I saw were unhyphenated.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on March 26, 2012, 07:23:46 PM
Here's a figure from the MUTCD with the STOP sign and a plaque example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmutcd.fhwa.dot.gov%2Fhtm%2F2009%2Fimages%2Ffig2b_01.gif&hash=5207c02fef9b403fc3d827c5c738b4b3c944b504)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on March 29, 2012, 10:58:30 PM
Going through my pictures and saw this (don't really know what to call this) weird arrow directions:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7211%2F7028408093_91135f5959_c.jpg&hash=187886c794f984131d4ea1c1e6139a8ebd20a536)
This is located along I-5 at the March Lane exit in Stockton. Notice how the white-on-green arrow points to the upper-right, while the exit only arrow only points down.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on March 29, 2012, 11:57:06 PM
I wanna start jumping up n down and shaking my fist, screaming about how that belong in the "Worst of Road Signs" thread...
But it's got button copy! D'awwwww!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on March 30, 2012, 02:48:44 AM
Here's another goof...

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images237/ca-237_eb_exit_003b_03.jpg)
From the AARoads' Gallery
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on March 30, 2012, 11:20:25 AM
This should say U.S. 70 WEST and OK 199 EAST...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7044%2F6845211558_8be72fd5d9_c.jpg&hash=2cb1d04e329157e7bd904399350f591c7bd6b40b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on March 30, 2012, 12:35:04 PM
I went through there just last month and didn't catch ^^that^^ one. I did see on the exit 21, Oswalt road exit that there's a sign once you exit with an arrow that says "TO SH 77" (Or "TO SR 77",  I can't remember).   Definitely US 77 there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on March 30, 2012, 02:46:43 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on March 30, 2012, 12:35:04 PM
I went through there just last month and didn't catch ^^that^^ one. I did see on the exit 21, Oswalt road exit that there's a sign once you exit with an arrow that says "TO SH 77" (Or "TO SR 77",  I can't remember).   Definitely US 77 there.

I admit I didn't even notice this error until the 3rd or 4th time I drove by it.

The Oswalt Road exit off-ramps in both directions have SH-77 listed. There used to be some error OK 77 shields in that general area but I believe they've been fixed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 30, 2012, 03:05:14 PM
At present, there's construction between Exits 1 and 3 of I-91 in Springfield, MA. Last Friday, I saw a MA Route 91 square in place of where the interstate shield should've been. No, it wasn't on an overhead gantry, but still! It made me think of the RI Route 6 state route sign which used to be along US Route 6 east in the Foster, RI area for years! :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on March 31, 2012, 09:49:48 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 30, 2012, 03:05:14 PM
At present, there's construction between Exits 1 and 3 of I-91 in Springfield, MA. Last Friday, I saw a MA Route 91 square in place of where the interstate shield should've been. No, it wasn't on an overhead gantry, but still! It made me think of the RI Route 6 state route sign which used to be along US Route 6 east in the Foster, RI area for years! :)

MA makes the square-for-a-US mistake frequently. I know of at least a dozen squares for 1 on the north shore alone (both standalone and on paddle signs), and noticed that some square 202s were still up in Belchertown yesterday.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on March 31, 2012, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on March 31, 2012, 09:49:48 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 30, 2012, 03:05:14 PM
At present, there's construction between Exits 1 and 3 of I-91 in Springfield, MA. Last Friday, I saw a MA Route 91 square in place of where the interstate shield should've been. No, it wasn't on an overhead gantry, but still! It made me think of the RI Route 6 state route sign which used to be along US Route 6 east in the Foster, RI area for years! :)

MA makes the square-for-a-US mistake frequently. I know of at least a dozen squares for 1 on the north shore alone (both standalone and on paddle signs), and noticed that some square 202s were still up in Belchertown yesterday.

Square 1s are the rarest per mile of any of them, followed probably by 6. 202 and 20 are the most common by far, with 44 close behind. 5 and 7 fall between those extremes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on April 02, 2012, 05:48:05 PM
Quote from: Steve on March 31, 2012, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on March 31, 2012, 09:49:48 AM
MA makes the square-for-a-US mistake frequently. I know of at least a dozen squares for 1 on the north shore alone (both standalone and on paddle signs), and noticed that some square 202s were still up in Belchertown yesterday.

Square 1s are the rarest per mile of any of them, followed probably by 6. 202 and 20 are the most common by far, with 44 close behind. 5 and 7 fall between those extremes.
The 'Square' 1s I've seen are in MA are in the Salisbury area.  I've also seen some Square 20s in the Auburn/Charlton area.

It's been a while but I wonder if there are any accidental Square 3s north of Cambridge? :D

Conversely in PA, I've seen a couple of US 3 shields for PA 3 erected (they've since been replaced w/the proper shields) near PA 352 a few years back and in NJ along US 130 between US 322 & I-295, there WERE US 44 shields mistakenly erected for NJ 44 shields (those have since been replaced w/correct shields).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 02, 2012, 06:14:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 02, 2012, 05:48:05 PM

It's been a while but I wonder if there are any accidental Square 3s north of Cambridge? :D

isn't there one on the freeway US-3 northbound somewhere near 495?  36 incher.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on April 02, 2012, 07:23:01 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 02, 2012, 06:14:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 02, 2012, 05:48:05 PM

It's been a while but I wonder if there are any accidental Square 3s north of Cambridge? :D

isn't there one on the freeway US-3 northbound somewhere near 495?  36 incher.
There are a couple of free postings, and many on paddle signs, such as along MA 3A and 4.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on April 03, 2012, 05:32:02 PM
This sign on eastbound I-210 is just plain weird:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5040%2F6897024500_348d9f7770_c.jpg&hash=4facb4b619b0b92f0e783a2a183d412da17d204b)
First of all, this sign says 3/4 mile twice. Second, a fourth of this arrow is covered by the extra 3/4.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 03, 2012, 05:43:14 PM
It clearly wishes to convey that the Grand Avenue exit is 3/4 of the way between the sign and the pavement; hence the 3/4-down.  This is also why, in fact, 3/4 of the arrow was left showing on the sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on April 03, 2012, 05:47:55 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on April 03, 2012, 05:32:02 PM
This sign on eastbound I-210 is just plain weird:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5040%2F6897024500_348d9f7770_c.jpg&hash=4facb4b619b0b92f0e783a2a183d412da17d204b)
First of all, this sign says 3/4 mile twice. Second, a fourth of this arrow is covered by the extra 3/4.
I wonder if the original 3rd-line message was EXIT 3/4 MILE?  What's interesting is that the first/left "3/4 MI" is button-copy and better resembles the rest of the sign while the cut-off down-arrow and the other "3/4 MI" message is not.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on April 03, 2012, 05:58:18 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on April 03, 2012, 05:32:02 PM
This sign on eastbound I-210 is just plain weird:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5040%2F6897024500_348d9f7770_c.jpg&hash=4facb4b619b0b92f0e783a2a183d412da17d204b)
First of all, this sign says 3/4 mile twice. Second, a fourth of this arrow is covered by the extra 3/4.
Ah, don't you love it when greenout patches fall off?  It appears this is an old porcelain sign fabricated before button reflectors became a requirement that originally read Grand Ave -- Glendora -- EXIT (arrow) 3/4 MI.  At some point the bottom line was greened out and replaced with "3/4 MILE" and button reflectors were added to the main legend.  Then recently, part of the greenout patch fell off revealing the original wording.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on April 04, 2012, 05:43:49 PM
I just got back from a trip to Mammoth, and saw this in a visitor's guide:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg819.imageshack.us%2Fimg819%2F6827%2Fscan120950000.jpg&hash=8d5a9de39ba9265c4569606c232f20d112e25cb6)

Note the "gullwing" US-395 shield and how some of the state routes use federal standard circle shields, while others have the proper miner's spade. But most importantly, notice the map showing the non-existant California State Route 420, which, to my knowledge, has never existed within the state. (There have been legislatively routes numbered as such, but the number has never been printed onto a shield.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on April 04, 2012, 05:50:36 PM
Quote from: Quillz on April 04, 2012, 05:43:49 PM
There have been legislatively routes numbered as such, but the number has never been printed onto a shield.
Where was Route 420? http://cahighways.org/305-440.html doesn't list it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 04, 2012, 06:49:18 PM
is there a Forest Route 420 up there?

and that 395 goes well past gullwing into unattractive territory.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on April 04, 2012, 08:11:01 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 04, 2012, 06:49:18 PM
is there a Forest Route 420 up there?

and that 395 goes well past gullwing into unattractive territory.
According to this, yes: http://www.eatstayplay.com/html/ca/a3724p1454c2031.html

But it's County Route 420, Forest Route 18.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 04, 2012, 08:12:31 PM
Quote from: Quillz on April 04, 2012, 08:11:01 PM
But it's County Route 420, Forest Route 18.

I don't think I've seen a signed county route at any intersection to that segment of 395.  I know Lassen County doesn't use the standard letter-number style that most of California does, and apparently this county (Mono?) doesn't either. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on April 04, 2012, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 04, 2012, 08:12:31 PM
Quote from: Quillz on April 04, 2012, 08:11:01 PM
But it's County Route 420, Forest Route 18.

I don't think I've seen a signed county route at any intersection to that segment of 395.  I know Lassen County doesn't use the standard letter-number style that most of California does, and apparently this county (Mono?) doesn't either. 
It's just an inaccurate map to begin with. Notice it's using a generic circle shield for CA-270, a fully signed route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 04, 2012, 08:16:20 PM
Quote from: Quillz on April 04, 2012, 08:13:44 PM
It's just an inaccurate map to begin with. Notice it's using a generic circle shield for CA-270, a fully signed route.

indeed.  I just find it interesting that they'd pluck out an unsigned (at least, in my observation) county reference route number, as opposed to using the signed Forest 18 in whatever symbol they deemed correct at the time.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on April 04, 2012, 11:11:48 PM
What's an "Exit 1/2"?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7254%2F6995627445_fa23a5c3ec_b.jpg&hash=c0ee9708b635588e41f3abb9949a878eaf90c867)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mobilene on April 05, 2012, 09:25:14 AM
Quote from: okroads on April 04, 2012, 11:11:48 PM
What's an "Exit 1/2"?

It's for narrow cars and motorcycles.  :-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 05, 2012, 02:08:46 PM
It should be read thusly:  EXIT ONE OF TWO
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on April 05, 2012, 04:35:26 PM
Another one from Louisiana; this one is a little less obvious at first glance:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.staticflickr.com%2F6043%2F6996446797_dc16b17626_c.jpg&hash=14954c7727ba4c546df88140754411f386491feb)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on April 05, 2012, 04:41:18 PM
Quote from: okroads on April 05, 2012, 04:35:26 PM
Another one from Louisiana; this one is a little less obvious at first glance:

(Picture snipped)

I see it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on April 05, 2012, 06:10:12 PM
Another map error: http://www.putnam-fl.com/bocc/images/stories/mud/trailsmasterplan.pdf
Look closely at the state road shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 05, 2012, 06:25:42 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 05, 2012, 06:10:12 PM.pdf

this topic should be renamed to "erroneous web formats".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 05, 2012, 11:06:41 PM
Quote from: okroads on April 05, 2012, 04:35:26 PM
Another one from Louisiana; this one is a little less obvious at first glance:
Image snipped again
I'll defer to Urban Praire Schoner, pertaining to Louisiana signage and routing, but I believe there to be two sign errors at that intersection.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on April 06, 2012, 10:33:30 AM
Quote from: okroads on April 05, 2012, 04:35:26 PM
Another one from Louisiana; this one is a little less obvious at first glance:

[image omitted]

So which one is correct?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on April 06, 2012, 11:33:40 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=30.442934,-91.187489&spn=0.001848,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=30.443026,-91.18749&panoid=XahfkqNhGvaq04D57yP_vQ&cbp=12,350.71,,0,3.9 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=30.442934,-91.187489&spn=0.001848,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=30.443026,-91.18749&panoid=XahfkqNhGvaq04D57yP_vQ&cbp=12,350.71,,0,3.9)

Well, here's what it looked like before. (hooray green shields!), but I don't know what the 2nd error is
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 06, 2012, 09:24:07 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on April 06, 2012, 11:33:40 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=30.442934,-91.187489&spn=0.001848,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=30.443026,-91.18749&panoid=XahfkqNhGvaq04D57yP_vQ&cbp=12,350.71,,0,3.9 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=30.442934,-91.187489&spn=0.001848,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=30.443026,-91.18749&panoid=XahfkqNhGvaq04D57yP_vQ&cbp=12,350.71,,0,3.9)

Well, here's what it looked like before. (hooray green shields!), but I don't know what the 2nd error is

Maybe it's not an error, but something that bothered me during my 5 years in Baton Rouge.
LA 30 splits into two one way streets north of South Blvd. NB La 30 follows Saint Louis St, while SB La 30 follows Saint Phillip St.
Government St (La 73) is the northern (western?) extent of La 30, but at the intersection of St. Louis & Government, you see a La 30 shield and corresponding left arrow. Following that signage for La 30 only redirects you back the way you came on La 30, just a big U-turn.
So my arguement is that both the black and green La 30 sign assemblies are wrong for implying that La 30 continues beyond Government St.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on April 07, 2012, 09:17:18 PM
Those black on white shields with Series B ought to be error shields. The old white on green ones were much nicer.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Darkchylde on April 08, 2012, 09:27:17 PM
Quote from: Quillz on April 07, 2012, 09:17:18 PM
Those black on white shields with Series B ought to be error shields. The old white on green ones were much nicer.
Eh, should at least be in Worst of Road Signs - the width between the digits is horrendous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on April 11, 2012, 04:03:08 PM
Yet another incorrect 33 shield in Richmond. This is at VA 161 and should be US 33. Had the non-US portion stayed VA 4 (as VA 5 did when US 250 came to town) I don't think you'd see as many of these.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-8RceWO3d0po/T4XFvouAfNI/AAAAAAAAB2k/E71NdPHOmdA/s816/DSC00622.JPG)

Several VA 147 shields in the Carytown area are posted North-South instead of the correct East-West. The South ones should be West.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oAU72uJ0aXg/T4XGYBAg2uI/AAAAAAAAB7c/k3rbS49DCXA/s816/DSC00663.JPG)

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-06ucpTxLI4U/T4XGa7Dx-7I/AAAAAAAAB7o/OGGzdJw9zhc/s816/DSC00665.JPG)

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-cnMYWLlLpEQ/T4XGcjf6sUI/AAAAAAAAB70/l_qfisDkDYY/s816/DSC00667.JPG)

Here's one that was covered up.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-0RQELRsQDCI/T4XGxE_jvKI/AAAAAAAAB-U/OoJ3sSmKuXk/s816/DSC00690.JPG)

Conversely, I-195 should be North-South (South in this particular case).
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-IYiimrxTAq0/T4XGfij0hyI/AAAAAAAAB8M/8gpDUxiuYZE/s816/DSC00664.JPG)

And I'm posting this again because it deserves it.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-E6SL_LJgMFw/T4XGXKXEceI/AAAAAAAAB7M/St_pBwStUWY/s816/DSC00657.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2012, 04:36:26 PM
that 250 is no Marilyn Monroe either, with its silly "EM compressed to D width" font.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2012, 04:40:49 PM
Quote from: Takumi on April 11, 2012, 04:03:08 PM

Conversely, I-195 should be North-South (South in this particular case).
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-IYiimrxTAq0/T4XGfij0hyI/AAAAAAAAB8M/8gpDUxiuYZE/s816/DSC00664.JPG)

I like the old-style layout of the 195 shields.  looks like it is a '57 layout with extra large '61 style numerals.

QuoteAnd I'm posting this again because it deserves it.

quick, someone change the cardinal direction of one of the "east 250"s.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on April 11, 2012, 05:53:00 PM
Noted today that this US 98 shield (https://www.aaroads.com/southeast/alabama098/us-098_wb_at_dearborn_st.jpg) assembly along Government Street westbound in Mobile was finally replaced. What is erroneous about the replacement is that the new US 98 shield is posted alongside a US 90 shield. US 90 has not traveled along this stretch of Government Street since before 1999. Was not able to snag a photo, but will do so in the future.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2012, 06:15:40 PM
Quote from: Alex on April 11, 2012, 05:53:00 PM
finally replaced

what was wrong with the shield in the photo that it needed replacement?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on April 11, 2012, 06:46:25 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2012, 06:15:40 PM
Quote from: Alex on April 11, 2012, 05:53:00 PM
finally replaced

what was wrong with the shield in the photo that it needed replacement?

All others were replaced in recent years, this was a holdout. Mildew'd signs tend to get replaced more often, which is a regular problem with signs on the Gulf Coast.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on April 11, 2012, 06:51:55 PM
Quote from: Alex on April 11, 2012, 06:46:25 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2012, 06:15:40 PM
Quote from: Alex on April 11, 2012, 05:53:00 PM
finally replaced

what was wrong with the shield in the photo that it needed replacement?

All others were replaced in recent years, this was a holdout. Mildew'd signs tend to get replaced more often, which is a regular problem with signs on the Gulf Coast.

Plus it wasn't one of Alabama's "narrow neck" shields (as I call them)  ;)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5060%2F5561348329_bd02c04053_z_d.jpg&hash=24d1828c0f37b3bcf8f3975ff7b07ce45f4ee486)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2012, 07:06:56 PM
indeed, the narrow neck is a venerable design.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AL/AL19600901i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on April 11, 2012, 07:12:04 PM
Is it just me or does the '8' in that pic US71 post look a little crooked, tilted to the right?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2012, 07:12:59 PM
Quote from: yakra on April 11, 2012, 07:12:04 PM
Is it just me or does the '8' in that pic US71 post look a little crooked, tilted to the right?

you are correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on April 11, 2012, 09:28:54 PM
Mildly erroneous as you will be on IL-56 at the bridge going to I-88 East.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_1779.jpg&hash=bb25686115ce8013c029ac45efade59e7f9abf99)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on April 14, 2012, 03:31:44 PM
Zzyzx Road is a sight not to be forgotten out on I-15 in the California desert. But on NB I-15, the people that made this sign might've forgotten the exit number.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7272%2F6931344028_eb41598d7e_c.jpg&hash=fc68d4f3c5fdc3afe4cc4f634e712b4ffde33f2a)
This sign is supposed to say "Exit 239", but they left out the nine. It does say the correct exit number (Exit 239, not Exit 23) for the "1 MILE" sign, image below.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5191%2F6931356268_9f24650f79_c.jpg&hash=79d416d0319c2267cc2e7ab1fb37508cf497b20b)
Maybe the first sign's contractors probably just came from a night in Vegas when they made this sign, or that they could go to Vegas after completing the sign, so they rushed it. I dunno, whatever the reason is, this is a strange sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on April 14, 2012, 08:38:58 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on April 14, 2012, 03:31:44 PM
Zzyzx Road is a sight not to be forgotten out on I-15 in the California desert. But on NB I-15, the people that made this sign might've forgotten the exit number.
[snip picture]
This sign is supposed to say "Exit 239", but they left out the nine. It does say the correct exit number (Exit 239, not Exit 23) for the "1 MILE" sign, image below.
[snip picture]
Maybe the first sign's contractors probably just came from a night in Vegas when they made this sign, or that they could go to Vegas after completing the sign, so they rushed it. I dunno, whatever the reason is, this is a strange sign.

Is the gore sign for the exit correct? Can't tell in the first picture.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on April 14, 2012, 09:41:43 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on April 14, 2012, 08:38:58 PM
Is the gore sign for the exit correct? Can't tell in the first picture.

Seeing from Google Street View, the gore sign indeed says "Exit 239"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on April 16, 2012, 12:55:58 PM
No photos but a couple to add:

Somers Point, NJ along NJ 52 Northbound.

A couple trail-blazer signs (one for NORTH 52, the other to TO 9 NORTH w/an approach Right-Turn arrow) have correct shields but incorrect cardinal signs in terms of color.  The signs in question are colored for a County Route (blue background w/gold/yellow lettering) rather than the proper white background/black lettering & borders.

While I've seen Interstate cardinals mixed in (for a state or US route) and vice-versa; this is the first time I've seen County Route colors improperly applied for state and US trailblazer signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 16, 2012, 07:06:58 PM
I found this today, while taking a drive to Inverness, Florida, and making a U-Turn through Rutland, and Lake Panasofkee. Over at the beginning of Sumter County Road 470 at Florida State Road 44, there's a shield for CR 470 with a cardinal direction of "North." At that angle the road runs SOUTHEAST! In general Sumter CR 470 is a west-to-east road.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg280.imagevenue.com%2Floc20%2Fth_616850942_WrongWaySumterCR470SignatFL44_122_20lo.JPG&hash=84df6a2abcd9807d60f26c4c8b5a1e904f087d34) (http://img280.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=616850942_WrongWaySumterCR470SignatFL44_122_20lo.JPG)
     
I'm also going to send this to Sumter County Department of Public Works this week.


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on April 16, 2012, 08:30:06 PM
The error I mentioned on NY 222 between Groton and Cortland this past Thanksgiving was still there when I went through on Easter last week:

Quote from: Michael on December 08, 2011, 04:20:25 PM
I couldn't get any pictures (my mom and stepdad wouldn't stop! :pan:), but on Thanksgiving Day, I saw two US 222 shields on NY 222.  One was westbound, just west of Salt Road (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.592451,-76.324698&spn=0.000008,0.008256&t=m&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=42.59246,-76.32441&panoid=H9FHHFhAJzz2hvpwnt_wgQ&cbp=12,286.21,,1,1.61), and the other was eastbound, just east of LaFayette Road (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.593888,-76.287003&spn=0.000008,0.008256&t=m&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=42.59395,-76.286905&panoid=roBS9XQ4l4bZM6yB-BQ1GQ&cbp=12,82.64,,0,5.67).  Both Street View links show the correct shields.  I'm guessing they were recently replaced because NY 222 had new pavement.

I was prepared to get a picture, so I had my mom try since I was in the back seat.  She missed it (curse you, shutter lag!), and we took a different route some, so I wasn't able to stop at the one in the other direction.  When we took our turn, I noticed a reassurance shield for traffic continuing west just after our turn with the "West" plaque below the (proper) NY 222 shield.  Here's (http://maps.google.com/?ll=42.599081,-76.281622&spn=0.003305,0.006968&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.599049,-76.281764&panoid=OQVCWisvyz9-3pARZ43kfQ&cbp=12,44.61,,2,4.73) a (crappy) Street View link showing the back of the sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on April 18, 2012, 12:17:05 PM
With UDOT responding to my email about the erroneous "UT-89"/US-91 sign setup at the north end of UT-165 in Providence/South Logan, it's been fixed:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.panoramio.com%2Fphotos%2Fmedium%2F70511557.jpg&hash=938749f273f8084d4d86e6fc009aaf552dcbe766)

Compare to the old sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmw2.google.com%2Fmw-panoramio%2Fphotos%2Fmedium%2F55282244.jpg&hash=6a0c411a2aa39b0cd0af77316d4884bfec5b5eeb)

However, they said that the US-89 signs would be put up when it was ordered and delivered, implying a newer sign. The US-89 sign here, however, doesn't look so new.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 18, 2012, 12:44:49 PM
how long had that UT-89 sign been up in error?  the corresponding 91 is a '61 spec shield, which Utah stopped using sometime in the mid-90s or so.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on April 21, 2012, 11:02:34 PM
I spotted a U.S. 19 error shield on northbound Lake Shore Drive (U.S. 41) today. It should be an IL 19 shield.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8020%2F7100779277_e9bf4c3e26_c.jpg&hash=7273554a85ef33ffb7f7341fded1685942a5325e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Sanctimoniously on April 22, 2012, 01:28:20 PM
I should've gotten a picture, but I saw a "US HWY 210" street blade on NC 210 near Surf City. It was a private installation for a subdivision.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 24, 2012, 09:28:53 AM
OK, this is not technically a sign, but.....

My wife and I were watching an old season of Storm Chasers on Netflix last night, and the chasers were in north-central Missouri.  I keep my atlas next to me during episodes so I can track their movements.  I asked where they were at one point and she said, "Interstate 63 in Missouri".  Sure enough, we backed up and read the caption on the screen.  Interstate 63 Missouri.  Good grief!  Someone had to specifically choose not to put Highway 63, and stick Interstate in there instead.  Grrrr....
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on April 24, 2012, 05:39:13 PM
Didn't have a camera with me but I saw I shield for BUS US 380 where the Dallas North Tollway ends north of Frisco. I think the nearest BUS 380 route is in Decatur or Bridgeport
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on April 24, 2012, 09:06:25 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 05, 2012, 11:06:41 PM
Quote from: okroads on April 05, 2012, 04:35:26 PM
Another one from Louisiana; this one is a little less obvious at first glance:
Image snipped again
I'll defer to Urban Praire Schoner, pertaining to Louisiana signage and routing, but I believe there to be two sign errors at that intersection.

LA 30 NB ends at that intersection, LA 30 SB begins at Government and St. Phillip Streets, and the block of Government between the two ends is also considered LA 30.  (LA 73 simply ends at Government and St. Louis Streets.) Until 2000, LA 30 used to continue west and north along Gov't Street and River Road to Florida Street (US 61/190 BUS). This roadway (and LA 37 west of Airline Hwy) was turned back to the city at that time so that the state could assume maintenance of Bluebonnet Blvd (LA 1248). The LA 30 northern terminus is therefore a loop utilizing St. Louis-Goverment-St. Phillip Streets - as the signage reflects.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on April 24, 2012, 10:25:12 PM
Not sure where this really goes since it's not signage per se, but the designers of the graphics used on Gannett-owned TV stations must either be in Florida or associated with Florida?  If it's a toll road, it gets a Florida-style Toll shield, which looks way out of place in Ohio. 

http://www.wkyc.com/video/1575582980001/0/Woman-killed-in-Turnpike-bus-accident-identified-nine-hurt

And somehow I-90 even gets a "Toll 90" shield after it leaves the Ohio Turnpike.  Note that there are also both I-80 and "Toll 80" shields.

I've thought about complaining but it's probably something that came from ownership nationally, not locally, and they will say that they can not change it. I wish they would lose those wacky shields though.

No one around here refers to "Toll 80", "Toll 90", etc.....it's rare for me to even hear anyone refer to the Ohio Turnpike by any numbers at all.  It's just the Turnpike.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Stratuscaster on April 24, 2012, 10:38:07 PM
WFLD-TV Fox Channel 32 in Chicago uses those "FL-style" TOLL route shields on their map graphics as well.

My guess? It's a service supplying the graphics to whoever pays for it, and they just don't know any better.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Anonymity Lane on April 25, 2012, 01:22:33 AM
The graphics are generated by Denver-based Gannett Graphics Group (Denver is where KUSA, Gannett's flagship station, is), and much of the core package (at least how it looked back when it was introduced in the fall of 2008) was done by a New York City-based company named Pyburn Films.

Which would render the Florida shields' presence more bizarre (though Gannett owns three stations in the state).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on April 25, 2012, 02:29:33 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on April 24, 2012, 10:38:07 PM
WFLD-TV Fox Channel 32 in Chicago uses those "FL-style" TOLL route shields on their map graphics as well.

My guess? It's a service supplying the graphics to whoever pays for it, and they just don't know any better.

We just need to go after your boring-square state route shields, and the conversion will be complete...as long as nobody from southwestern Illinois minds a section going missing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on April 28, 2012, 02:44:25 PM
I just think the "TO" on this sign is placed on the wrong place. I think it is better to be placed between the 205 and 580 shield, so to say "205 TO 580."
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5196%2F7114496147_d63125d931_c.jpg&hash=f4f4db12f9cd355f6efb455b5f4da28fbd91004a)
However, I think this sign used to say "TO 580 | 205," just like the sign above, which I think is also weird. How would it be "TO" 205 if the exit is already 205?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7216%2F6968419200_89584a3771_c.jpg&hash=fbdbb843e28e4b690ddd1e822729fa1f6515c722)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on April 28, 2012, 06:42:49 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on April 28, 2012, 02:44:25 PM
I just think the "TO" on this sign is placed on the wrong place. I think it is better to be placed between the 205 and 580 shield, so to say "205 TO 580."
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5196%2F7114496147_d63125d931_c.jpg&hash=f4f4db12f9cd355f6efb455b5f4da28fbd91004a)
While I agree the "TO" is in the wrong place, this advanced guide sign's layout matches the exit direction sign further upstream and the new exit direction sign is a carbon copy of the old sign that got replaced as part of the I-205 widening project.  Here's the old sign...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5s_458B_ed-old.png&hash=f0173233552bb25dd5c58328ef673e4787f8186e)

and here is new sign...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5s_458B_ed-new.png&hash=80ee77c9574651b07027e7f8b20a3f3020068df1)

I would have preferred to see the I-205 exit sign laid out like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5s_458B_ed-alt.png&hash=33942a17189c9bc893229eee08ca44435f887975)

EDIT: There's another goof I just noticed.  The I-5 pull-through sign should have been widened to show 3 down arrows as there are 3 through lanes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: connroadgeek on April 28, 2012, 09:15:17 PM
Don't like signs indicating an exit without an exit tab. Why does CA do this? Exits should stand out above the rest of the information in some way whether by tab or horizontal line across the entire sign like Illinois. Also think the new left exit banner in the tabs is lame. Definitely grabs attention better the way it used to be.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on April 28, 2012, 09:22:37 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on April 28, 2012, 09:15:17 PM
Don't like signs indicating an exit without an exit tab. Why does CA do this? Exits should stand out above the rest of the information in some way whether by tab or horizontal line across the entire sign like Illinois. Also think the new left exit banner in the tabs is lame. Definitely grabs attention better the way it used to be.

They have some sort of bullshit rationale involving wind loading.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on April 28, 2012, 10:31:14 PM
Really?  Are we going to have this discussion AGAIN?!?!?   :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on April 28, 2012, 10:36:45 PM
Not to seem biased,  but I actually like CA-style exit tabs.  Makes the sign look nice in my opinion and makes the gantry look consistent (in sign size).! It is also pretty distinctive.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on April 28, 2012, 10:40:23 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 28, 2012, 10:31:14 PM
Really?  Are we going to have this discussion again?!?!?   :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Yeah, you're right, let's not.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3294.25
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wytout on April 29, 2012, 07:16:47 AM
HOT off the sign presses.  Part of the new Signing project on CT -20 Bradley connector.  EB there have always been "TO - I91" signs separately of the CT-20 Reassurance Markers.  However now they've combined them in 1 assembly.  The problem is the Order.  The Assembly indicates it's TO 91 AND EAST 20.  when in fact it's EAST 20 TO 91.  The to and 91 shields should appear under the EAST 20 signs.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7115%2F6978014380_eacac367b1_z.jpg&hash=9b45d196c6b841bf7d557ea67015dec0df55a665) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/6978014380/)
IMG_1933 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/6978014380/) by wytout (http://www.flickr.com/people/76971031@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on April 29, 2012, 05:52:26 PM
Erroneous US 140 (supposed to be NJ 140) on US 40 westbound in Deepwater, NJ
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8007%2F6979839254_8e4eda1680_z.jpg&hash=8fec18e4d27e4804a2f8a4525711d254aef3cce4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on April 29, 2012, 10:49:19 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on April 28, 2012, 02:44:25 PM
I just think the "TO" on this sign is placed on the wrong place. I think it is better to be placed between the 205 and 580 shield, so to say "205 TO 580."

There is a long-standing erroneously-placed "TO" on a sign at Lowell St. and US 1 in Peabody, Mass (http://g.co/maps/cw8xr).  All of the BGS at that interchange are strange oddballs, both on US 1 and on Lowell St.  The old sign in question was replaced in the very early 90s by the current weirdo, which does not include button copy in the I-shield as this was just before that really caught on.  The old sign was a classic, with even a state-name I-shield.  I-shields dominated at the interchange on Lowell St., with US 1 signed as "TO I-95" both north and southbound.  All were replaced in about 1990, and I only wish I had taken pictures.  (The old paddle signs were replaced with new ones that don't have shields, near the end of that before they started using shields instead of text on paddle signs.)  The new sign has the US 1 and I-95 shields tightly squeezed on either side of NORTH instead of on either side of TO.  Even my non-roadgeek brother noticed that was a mistake when they first erected the sign.  The current sign is somewhat visible in the Google Street View link above, but below is a cartoon of the old vs. existing signage.  I miss that old sign...having once lived less than 2 miles away from it when it was replaced, I saw it a lot and took it for granted.  The existing sign also has an oddly long arrow, while I remember that the old sign had a properly tapered and sized arrow.

(Note that the overheads on US 1 also have wacky arrows, (http://g.co/maps/8t8b3) and they even put a sign pointing down at a lane that doesn't yet exist for the exit.  Oddly low quality for then-MassHighway.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FUS1lowellSt.png&hash=f9cefbd06f474736a0ac719134127371c86a405b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on April 30, 2012, 11:36:36 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on April 29, 2012, 10:49:19 PMThere is a long-standing erroneously-placed "TO" on a sign at Lowell St. and US 1 in Peabody, Mass (http://g.co/maps/cw8xr).  All of the BGS at that interchange are strange oddballs, both on US 1 and on Lowell St.  The old sign in question was replaced in the very early 90s by the current weirdo, which does not include button copy in the I-shield as this was just before that really caught on.  The old sign was a classic, with even a state-name I-shield.  I-shields dominated at the interchange on Lowell St., with US 1 signed as "TO I-95" both north and southbound.  All were replaced in about 1990, and I only wish I had taken pictures.  (The old paddle signs were replaced with new ones that don't have shields, near the end of that before they started using shields instead of text on paddle signs.)  The new sign has the US 1 and I-95 shields tightly squeezed on either side of NORTH instead of on either side of TO.  Even my non-roadgeek brother noticed that was a mistake when they first erected the sign.  The current sign is somewhat visible in the Google Street View link above, but below is a cartoon of the old vs. existing signage.  I miss that old sign...having once lived less than 2 miles away from it when it was replaced, I saw it a lot and took it for granted.  The existing sign also has an oddly long arrow, while I remember that the old sign had a properly tapered and sized arrow.

(Note that the overheads on US 1 also have wacky arrows, (http://g.co/maps/8t8b3) and they even put a sign pointing down at a lane that doesn't yet exist for the exit.  Oddly low quality for then-MassHighway.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FUS1lowellSt.png&hash=f9cefbd06f474736a0ac719134127371c86a405b)
The old sign actually was narrower than what's depicted above.  The US 1, TO & I-95 shields and lettering were spaced in such a way that it did not extend beyond the "NORTH" message.  The shields weren't that much larger than the "TO" lettering and the spacings between the "NORTH" letting were widerthan normal as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on April 30, 2012, 06:07:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 30, 2012, 11:36:36 AM
The old sign actually was narrower than what's depicted above.  The US 1, TO & I-95 shields and lettering were spaced in such a way that it did not extend beyond the "NORTH" message.  The shields weren't that much larger than the "TO" lettering and the spacings between the "NORTH" letting were widerthan normal as well.

Yes, all of what you said.  It was the best "cartoon" I could conjure up from my memories and from my poor sign rendering skillz.  The shields on the old sign were smaller than is usual now, probably the sizes of shields for independent mounting, but it was getting to be too much to try to be accurate to what I thought might be false recollection. 

I'm just glad someone else remembers that sign!  (And as you probably recall, it had a counterpart facing EB traffic which was identical except for the arrow direction.)

I miss that old sign and hate the new one to this day for replacing it, especially with the errors.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on April 30, 2012, 06:49:01 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on April 29, 2012, 05:52:26 PM
Erroneous US 140 (supposed to be NJ 140) on US 40 westbound in Deepwater, NJ
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8007%2F6979839254_8e4eda1680_z.jpg&hash=8fec18e4d27e4804a2f8a4525711d254aef3cce4)
It always annoyed me that New Jersey keeps the black background behind the route shields on their BGS.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: on_wisconsin on April 30, 2012, 08:52:25 PM
Bypass I-894 does not exist:
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n208/triplemultiplex/Mitchell%20Interchange%2018%20Nov%2011/IMG_1623.jpg?t=1321655212
:ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: twinsfan87 on April 30, 2012, 09:01:56 PM
^^ I noticed that last time I was in Milwaukee too. I get what WisDOT's trying to say, but it's not really correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on April 30, 2012, 09:02:46 PM
Quote from: Quillz on April 30, 2012, 06:49:01 PM
It always annoyed me that New Jersey keeps the black background behind the route shields on their BGS.

It used to bug me, but now I've gotten used to it. It'd be a little strange if NJDOT just stopped doing it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: adt1982 on April 30, 2012, 10:26:57 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on April 30, 2012, 09:02:46 PM
Quote from: Quillz on April 30, 2012, 06:49:01 PM
It always annoyed me that New Jersey keeps the black background behind the route shields on their BGS.

It used to bug me, but now I've gotten used to it. It'd be a little strange if NJDOT just stopped doing it.

INDOT does it too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: elsmere241 on May 01, 2012, 08:51:59 AM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on April 30, 2012, 09:02:46 PM
Quote from: Quillz on April 30, 2012, 06:49:01 PM
It always annoyed me that New Jersey keeps the black background behind the route shields on their BGS.

It used to bug me, but now I've gotten used to it. It'd be a little strange if NJDOT just stopped doing it.

What seems strange to me is the white backgrounds behind the county route shields, in contrast.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 01, 2012, 10:09:44 AM
Quote from: Quillz on April 30, 2012, 06:49:01 PM
It always annoyed me that New Jersey keeps the black background behind the route shields on their BGS.

I, on the other hand, like the practice.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on May 01, 2012, 06:14:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 01, 2012, 10:09:44 AM
Quote from: Quillz on April 30, 2012, 06:49:01 PM
It always annoyed me that New Jersey keeps the black background behind the route shields on their BGS.

I, on the other hand, like the practice.

It does quite literally address the idea that shields on BGS should appear as they do independently mounted.  Wasn't that in play when California made their standalone shields green?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on May 01, 2012, 07:38:30 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on April 30, 2012, 06:07:52 PMI'm just glad someone else remembers that sign!  (And as you probably recall, it had a counterpart facing EB traffic which was identical except for the arrow direction.)

I miss that old sign and hate the new one to this day for replacing it, especially with the errors.
Then you probably remember the similar-vintage (early 70s) US 1 South Exit signs off MA 114.  Those signs had a similar arrangement:
1st line SOUTH
2nd line 1 (offset to the left*)
3rd line Boston
45 degree right arrow underneath.

*Blank space was reserved for I-95 shields had the original I-95 alignment been built south of MA 128. 
The current Exit 46 off I-95 northbound entry/southbound exit movements were originally supposed to be the opposite; northbound exit off I-95 (for US 1 North & Lowell Street)/southbound entrance (for traffic coming from MA 114).  The current ramp configuration (circa 1987-1988) is a modified version of what was originally intended to be a temporary condition/arrangement (that opened in 1974-1975) until the completion of I-95 to at least 128.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on May 01, 2012, 10:23:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 01, 2012, 07:38:30 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on April 30, 2012, 06:07:52 PMI'm just glad someone else remembers that sign!  (And as you probably recall, it had a counterpart facing EB traffic which was identical except for the arrow direction.)

I miss that old sign and hate the new one to this day for replacing it, especially with the errors.
Then you probably remember the similar-vintage (early 70s) US 1 South Exit signs off MA 114.  Those signs had a similar arrangement:
1st line SOUTH
2nd line 1 (offset to the left*)
3rd line Boston
45 degree right arrow underneath.

*Blank space was reserved for I-95 shields had the original I-95 alignment been built south of MA 128. 
The current Exit 46 off I-95 northbound entry/southbound exit movements were originally supposed to be the opposite; northbound exit off I-95 (for US 1 North & Lowell Street)/southbound entrance (for traffic coming from MA 114).  The current ramp configuration (circa 1987-1988) is a modified version of what was originally intended to be a temporary condition/arrangement (that opened in 1974-1975) until the completion of I-95 to at least 128.


Yep, I do remember those and miss them too.  The replacements don't have nearly the character of the originals.  I recall on US 1 NB, near what was then Thompson's garden center but a little closer to 114, just past where Costco is today, a pair of signs for 114 on the same posts, one for 114 EB and one for 114 WB, with smallish rectangular 114 shields with outlines, unlike many old Mass signs that had rectangular borderless shields (even for 2-digit routes).  They actually replaced those once with carbon-copy signs with similar shields before the current generation signs appeared, but the carbon copies didn't last all that long.

The opposite movements at Exit 46 are visible in the Historic Aerials view from 1978 (http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=1.6E-05&lat=42.5409560254882&lon=-70.9856325732421&year=1978), albeit already not in use anymore.  (Linking to that is not perfect; one bump of zoom out will give a better view.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on May 02, 2012, 12:59:26 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 01, 2012, 10:23:32 PMThe opposite movements at Exit 46 are visible in the Historic Aerials view from 1978 (http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=1.6E-05&lat=42.5409560254882&lon=-70.9856325732421&year=1978), albeit already not in use anymore.  (Linking to that is not perfect; one bump of zoom out will give a better view.)
Nice find.  I do remember seeing that small US 1 North overpass and wondered back then what it was for; I found out several years later.

Quote from: PurdueBill on May 01, 2012, 10:23:32 PMI recall on US 1 NB, near what was then Thompson's garden center but a little closer to 114, just past where Costco is today, a pair of signs for 114 on the same posts, one for 114 EB and one for 114 WB, with smallish rectangular 114 shields with outlines, unlike many old Mass signs that had rectangular borderless shields (even for 2-digit routes).

Those 114 BGS signs that you speak of also originally had the erroneous NORTH-SOUTH cardinals rather than the WEST-EAST ones.  I commented on this on either another thread or further back on this one.  These signs were all erected in 1971, at least a decade after 114 switched from a N-S to W-E.  The corrections on the original BGS signs were made sometime in 1974.

All the original 70s-eras BGS signs at US 1/Lowell St., US 1/I-95/MA 114, and most of the US 1/I-95/Centre/Dayton St. had outlines for both the US 1 & MA 114 shields.  Even the original structure-mounted BGS for MA 62 along I-95 North (at the Centre Street overpass) featured an outline for the MA 62 shield.  Those must've all been installed in the same contract.  The signs further north (closer to MA 62 and the I-95/US 1 (Exit 50) interchange) featured no outlines for the US & MA shields.

IIRC, most of the shields were replaced on the original signs during the early-to-mid 80s due to dirt and the shields becoming harder to read at night as they aged.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on May 07, 2012, 12:52:33 PM
No pictures, but I found a couple of major errors yesterday:
-In Plattsburg at the eastern end of NY 3, not only do they mistake US 9 for NY 9, they also sign it wrong.  As signed, straight is for NY 9 north, and right is for NY 9 south.  In reality, left is for US 9 north, and straight is for US 9 south.  They also neglect to mention NY 22.
-In Burlington on US 7/US 2 south/east, signage at a turn actually directs traffic to US 7 Alternate.  A portion of city streets is also signed as US 2 as a result.
-NY 22 is not signed north of US 11
-NY 374 is barely signed north of US 11; just the assembly saying that it heads to the border exists.  The reference markers also start at US 11.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on May 07, 2012, 09:20:50 PM
Quote from: deanej on May 07, 2012, 12:52:33 PM
-NY 22 is not signed north of US 11
-NY 374 is barely signed north of US 11; just the assembly saying that it heads to the border exists.  The reference markers also start at US 11.
Jury's out on NY 22 as to whether it was actually truncated or not, because all the signs seem to have been consciously removed at some point, but the legal definition remains to the border. So now you raise the question as to whether the same has happened to NY 374, and if so, what "the same" is...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on May 08, 2012, 12:36:22 AM
Quote from: deanej on May 07, 2012, 12:52:33 PM
-NY 374 is barely signed north of US 11; just the assembly saying that it heads to the border exists.  The reference markers also start at US 11.

NY374 north of US11 is maintained by Franklin County, not NYSDOT, hence the lack of reference markers.  Likewise, NY22 north of Mooers is maintained by Clinton County.  As Steve said, in both cases, the legal definition remains, even if signs don't.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on May 08, 2012, 11:54:39 AM
Indeed, though it's odd that they start at 1000 when posted at US 11.  Then again, this is the first time I've actually payed attention to the reference markers on a road where the DOT didn't maintain the starting point.  Maybe they normally they start at the first portion the DOT maintains.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on May 08, 2012, 07:30:52 PM
Quote from: cu2010 on May 08, 2012, 12:36:22 AM
Quote from: deanej on May 07, 2012, 12:52:33 PM
-NY 374 is barely signed north of US 11; just the assembly saying that it heads to the border exists.  The reference markers also start at US 11.

NY374 north of US11 is maintained by Franklin County, not NYSDOT, hence the lack of reference markers.  Likewise, NY22 north of Mooers is maintained by Clinton County.  As Steve said, in both cases, the legal definition remains, even if signs don't.
Was that always the case? I know Doug and others have said that NY 22 was well signed to the border in the past, never asked about 374.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on May 10, 2012, 12:28:25 AM
NY 219 should be US 219: http://g.co/maps/8tw7c

Granted, that street view image is from 5 years ago, so it possible that the error has since been corrected.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CL on May 10, 2012, 09:00:27 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 18, 2012, 12:44:49 PM
...a '61 spec shield, which Utah stopped using sometime in the mid-90s or so.

You sure? I'm pretty sure Utah stopped using '61-spec shields around the time that the '70-specs came out.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5019%2F5508196552_b172f35852_z.jpg&hash=58b78e2f81050f5c8ab035f1b8a9b85378317a39)

I think that's a '70-spec US-91 shield, taken probably in 1970 (construction through this stretch finished in 1971).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 10, 2012, 09:37:00 PM
Quote from: CL on May 10, 2012, 09:00:27 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 18, 2012, 12:44:49 PM
...a '61 spec shield, which Utah stopped using sometime in the mid-90s or so.

You sure? I'm pretty sure Utah stopped using '61-spec shields around the time that the '70-specs came out.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5019%2F5508196552_b172f35852_z.jpg&hash=58b78e2f81050f5c8ab035f1b8a9b85378317a39)

I think that's a '70-spec US-91 shield, taken probably in 1970 (construction through this stretch finished in 1971).

that is technically a 1957-spec California shield, except not a cutout with "US" on it.

I think that is more a one-off than anything else.

but yes, they probably were using 1970 spec here and there, but their formal MUTCD specifications called for '61 for many more years.  there are a lot of '61 spec shields with good-condition white Scotchlite that I believe they are 80s-90s.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on May 11, 2012, 12:03:09 PM
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/central/ok-009_eb_at_us-271.jpg)

This scene would not be erroneous other than the fact that this should be a U.S. 271 trailblazer, not U.S. 270! This was taken just west of the Arkansas state line southwest of Fort Smith near the entrance ramp to U.S. 271 north.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on May 11, 2012, 06:55:06 PM
Sorry, no photo, but...

On I-71 SB approaching I-670, there was an exit sequence sign listing the distances to 5th Ave, I-670, and Cleveland Ave. Due to the Columbus Crossroads project currently underway, the Cleveland Ave exit has closed permanently. The sign was duly patched with a bright orange CLOSED panel.

That sign was mounted on the 11th Ave bridge. Since the Cleveland Ave exit closed, that bridge has been dismantled and is being rebuilt now. The exit sequence sign came down with the old bridge. Its replacement, a shiny new Clearview sign, is mounted on a new cantilever structure.

The shiny new sign includes the Cleveland Ave exit, which is closed and will never reopen.  There isn't even a CLOSED panel.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on May 11, 2012, 09:54:30 PM
A bit blurry, but for what it's worth:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8164%2F7179533854_1618ba0123_c.jpg&hash=a92257c770bd4e6441219685fb7b932de9193bb1)

Somehow the inclusion of Cleveland Avenue completely escaped me when I took the picture.

EDIT: Turns out I also have a shot of the old one:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8147%2F7179555868_ec83410aa7_c.jpg&hash=b106214d94c78fcf61688f4bf527491a46288bc5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 11, 2012, 10:46:52 PM
The fools should have left the Leonard Ave/Jack Gibbs Blvd/Cleveland Ave off ramp from I-71 SB open till they completed the access road/ramp to the eastside (Spring, Long, Broad, Bryden, Main)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on May 11, 2012, 10:49:22 PM
On that brown sign on the right, why is the exit tab not aligned properly?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on May 11, 2012, 11:07:42 PM
Why did they change the exit number from 109C to 108B?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on May 11, 2012, 11:46:53 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 11, 2012, 11:07:42 PM
Why did they change the exit number from 109C to 108B?

Exit 109C is closed, so they're directing Convention Center and Nationwide Arena traffic to 108B instead.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on May 12, 2012, 01:38:34 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on May 11, 2012, 10:49:22 PM
On that brown sign on the right, why is the exit tab not aligned properly?

Very good question. I can't come up with details that make sense, but I think that sign may have a long history of modifications.

Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 11, 2012, 10:46:52 PM
The fools should have left the Leonard Ave/Jack Gibbs Blvd/Cleveland Ave off ramp from I-71 SB open till they completed the access road/ramp to the eastside (Spring, Long, Broad, Bryden, Main)

I don't think that would have been possible. BTW, that CD road you refer to will be / is called Lester Dr.

More detailed discussion of this belongs in the Columbus Crossroads thread, I think.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on May 13, 2012, 11:25:32 AM
A street blade in Salinas with an extra capital letter... (Well, at least it's not Clarendon)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5462%2F7186263752_70dd9487b2_c.jpg&hash=e9ddca5d06d7a1b833ceecea3c22d297868918e6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: the49erfan15 on May 16, 2012, 05:39:50 PM
Brand-new here (awesome forum!) and I've yet to take any pics specifically to post here, but I already had this one...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv324%2Fthe49erfan15%2Fturbevile.jpg&hash=1754f4ac3bc845d1ca3bf1b7b039b12045a451b2)

How exactly do you misspell a city ending in "-ville?"

Funny thing is, it's correct on Google Maps...but the sign had been replaced since the Google car passed it December 2007:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=turbeville,+sc&hl=en&ll=33.968175,-80.040336&spn=0.002554,0.005284&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.86519,86.572266&hnear=Turbeville,+Clarendon,+South+Carolina&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=33.968223,-80.040229&panoid=S8XIG85bWBbjYJlaEJzNFw&cbp=12,246.1,,0,16.9 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=turbeville,+sc&hl=en&ll=33.968175,-80.040336&spn=0.002554,0.005284&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.86519,86.572266&hnear=Turbeville,+Clarendon,+South+Carolina&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=33.968223,-80.040229&panoid=S8XIG85bWBbjYJlaEJzNFw&cbp=12,246.1,,0,16.9)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 17, 2012, 11:38:08 AM
Need to dig out my old photo of the sign that must have been the recipient of that missing "L" and spelled Paintsville as "Paintsvillle."

It was a subtle error and I passed it a zillion times before I saw it. Luckily I got a pic; it was later repaired and the spelling corrected.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on May 19, 2012, 10:53:18 PM
At the US-191 North/AZ-264 west roundabout northwest of Ganado

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2F191invert.jpg&hash=ca39049325db59327b2fd18a60443347ea404b4f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on May 19, 2012, 11:42:26 PM
Maybe Arizona hasn't steered away from colored route shields.   :colorful:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on May 19, 2012, 11:50:18 PM
My first thought is "why even bother with the Clearview there?"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on May 20, 2012, 05:24:08 AM
That white on black US route shield is cool, but would have been better if they used the proper (California) wide template rather than just stretching out the standard shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on May 20, 2012, 11:55:23 PM
Why would they use the California template? The sign is in Arizona.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: blawp on May 21, 2012, 01:24:12 AM
ca>az lOl
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on May 21, 2012, 09:46:18 AM
Quote from: blawp on May 21, 2012, 01:24:12 AM
ca>az lOl

wut
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on May 21, 2012, 10:29:00 AM
I think he's trying to say that the California cut-out shield is nicer than Arizona's, and then laughing out loud (for no reason, like most "lol"s).

Either that, or he received a round of electroshock therapy while typing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on May 21, 2012, 10:38:55 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 21, 2012, 09:46:18 AM
Quote from: blawp on May 21, 2012, 01:24:12 AM
ca>az lOl

wut

Let a=1, c=3, and z=2.
(c*a)>(a*z)

Get it?  It's funny.  I laughed out loud.  lOl
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on May 21, 2012, 04:09:25 PM
Maybe it's not an "LOL". Maybe "lOl" is an emoticon denoting his head is being gradually crushed in a vise and "ca>az" is his frantically clawing at the keyboard to escape the nefarious captors doing that to him...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on May 21, 2012, 04:30:07 PM
lOl is used for people with big heads and short arms, like a Tyrannosaurus Rex. Or perhaps to denote the presence of TIE fighters.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on May 21, 2012, 05:15:22 PM
lolzz
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: blawp on May 21, 2012, 05:28:16 PM
lOL idk.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on May 21, 2012, 05:48:45 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2012, 10:38:55 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 21, 2012, 09:46:18 AM
Quote from: blawp on May 21, 2012, 01:24:12 AM
ca>az lOl

wut

Let a=1, c=3, and z=2.
(c*a)>(a*z)

Get it?  It's funny.  I laughed out loud.  lOl

Sure about that? Maybe it's meant to be (c*a) > (a*z)*absolute value of 0. Why he just couldn't say c > 0 is beyond me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bulkyorled on May 21, 2012, 06:56:23 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2012, 10:38:55 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 21, 2012, 09:46:18 AM
Quote from: blawp on May 21, 2012, 01:24:12 AM
ca>az lOl

wut

Let a=1, c=3, and z=2.
(c*a)>(a*z)

Get it?  It's funny.  I laughed out loud.  lOl

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.memes.at%2Fpics%2Fcereal-guy-spitting-low.jpg&hash=afb09a5a418c4e3e68b391a5a8b4478b4761e7d3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on May 21, 2012, 06:59:02 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on May 21, 2012, 05:48:45 PM
Maybe it's meant to be (c*a) > (a*z)*absolute value of 0. Why he just couldn't say c > 0 is beyond me.
Because a might be negative.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on May 21, 2012, 09:05:29 PM
this thread has the value of |0| so let's post some stupid signs again k thx
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on May 22, 2012, 02:50:58 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 20, 2012, 11:55:23 PM
Why would they use the California template? The sign is in Arizona.
I was referring to this specific case where they just took the California cutout design and stretched it out, instead of using the proper wide California cutout design. I, too, am not sure why they wouldn't just go with the standard 1970 specs, though. Seems it's more effort to actively create an erroneous bubble shield of sorts.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on May 23, 2012, 06:18:36 PM
Oh look, it's back.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-geFVlpvDQUY/T71hxq421kI/AAAAAAAAClI/1BnDx2FqFlM/s816/DSC01013.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on May 23, 2012, 07:48:46 PM
^ That's one big lazy unisign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on May 24, 2012, 08:41:53 PM
Here's a strange gore point sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8167%2F7264819142_e921796f8f_c.jpg&hash=ac4c59de4767402ab4f167c071ac78ea12929efc)
This is located at the CA-1/CA-156 split in Castroville.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on May 24, 2012, 09:18:14 PM
What's the error with that?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on May 24, 2012, 09:18:50 PM
I didn't know exactly where to put it and it sure is different...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bulkyorled on May 24, 2012, 11:10:17 PM
It looks way too large for what it has on it. The side with CA 1 on it needs to be smaller (not so much blank space) and the exit number tab looks huge.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 25, 2012, 12:40:46 AM
Yeah, I'd classify that as a "worst of" and not an error, but it looks pretty bad. That's not what a gore point sign should look like (just the "EXIT 414B" and maybe a CA 156 shield).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on May 25, 2012, 02:40:15 AM
That CA-1/CA-156 sign is a carbon-copy of what used to be there.  The original sign had the same layout minus the exit "tab".  Beyond this exit, CA-1 narrows back down into a 2-lane conventional highway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 25, 2012, 08:14:22 AM
Quote from: corco on May 19, 2012, 10:53:18 PM
At the US-191 North/AZ-264 west roundabout northwest of Ganado

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2F191invert.jpg&hash=ca39049325db59327b2fd18a60443347ea404b4f)
I remember Suffolk County Department of Public Works had signs on Nicolls Road where they reversed the colors on the NY 25 shields in their MGS's.

This was before the SPUI interchange, BTW.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 25, 2012, 11:23:48 AM
there are several in Citronella, AL, for no explicable reason

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AL/AL19760452i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 25, 2012, 11:27:21 AM
that 1/156 is a unisign take on an old Cal Division of Highways standard.

this is not gore point signage, but if it were gore point, it would look exactly like this.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19540991i1.jpg)

there is a gore point split gantry like this one at the 5/99 split in Wheeler Ridge, but I do not have the photo offhand.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on May 25, 2012, 12:57:53 PM
Florida still does it, even though it's not US 98.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FUS17%2BUS92-InverseShields.jpg&hash=6ac62727729928ad9efebf4007f5f661627ef002)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F10%2FBlackUS1-greenFTsign.jpg&hash=fdd45879ccb3d22eb0951982b764f9c121c4ec7b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 26, 2012, 06:59:47 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/7275882520/in/photostream

Here is one on FL 408, for the EB exit for FL 436 (as seen from nearby Lake Underhill Drive in Orlando, FL) that shows Andes Avenue leading to both FL 436 and Semoran Boulevard.   The actual ramp leads you to Lake Underhill Drive, that is a frontage road that connects to both Andes Avenue and FL 436/ Semoran Boulevard. 

Maybe the "TO" should be above both named roads and it would work, or replace Andes with Lake Underhill.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on May 27, 2012, 12:46:12 AM
This sign is supposed to say "Mather Field Rd," but omits the "Rd."
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7083%2F7277328294_0abcdd63d0_c.jpg&hash=b0ebb4d1b554a6a912aa68bd8adac087f3ceed23)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on May 27, 2012, 07:18:11 AM
I'm not sure about the placing of the arrow, and I think the 'EXIT ONLY' shoukl be the below the legend. Maybe the legend doesn't need to be left-aligned...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on May 27, 2012, 10:42:02 AM
That's just typical CalTrans cramming.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on May 27, 2012, 11:26:37 AM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on May 27, 2012, 12:46:12 AM
This sign is supposed to say "Mather Field Rd," but omits the "Rd."
Not sure if this qualifies as a true error because it's a carbon copy.  Here's the original sign from the AARoads Gallery...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images050/us-050_wb_exit_015_04.jpg)

Also note the new sign makes use of the existing sign structure to save money hence the odd layout.  With that said, I think "Mather Field" would have fit on the top line with the "EXIT ONLY" and arrow below.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: architect77 on May 27, 2012, 09:07:46 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 27, 2012, 11:26:37 AM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on May 27, 2012, 12:46:12 AM
This sign is supposed to say "Mather Field Rd," but omits the "Rd."
Not sure if this qualifies as a true error because it's a carbon copy.  Here's the original sign from the AARoads Gallery...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images050/us-050_wb_exit_015_04.jpg)

Also note the new sign makes use of the existing sign structure to save money hence the odd layout.  With that said, I think "Mather Field" would have fit on the top line with the "EXIT ONLY" and arrow below.
Maybe there is an actual field. Do exit signs have to indicate the road or can it be an attraction or destination instead?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on May 27, 2012, 10:47:30 PM
Well, yeah, you can have just a destination on there. Kansas does this several times on I-35 ("Andover", "Cattle Pens", "Homewood", etc.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 27, 2012, 10:49:41 PM
Just did the required Google Fu.  Looks like there is in fact a Mather Field that Mather Field Road goes to.

But what's baffling to me is that eastbound the exit is signed as Mather Field Road, whereas the signs above are from the westbound side.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on May 27, 2012, 10:59:20 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 27, 2012, 10:49:41 PM
Just did the required Google Fu.  Looks like there is in fact a Mather Field that Mather Field Road goes to.

But what's baffling to me is that eastbound the exit is signed as Mather Field Road, whereas the signs above are from the westbound side.
I noticed that too. I suspect that because the exit ramp was widened to two lanes (an exit-only and an option lane), the existing sign structure was too small to accommodate the additional arrow and EXIT ONLY plaque so the contractor replaced the sign structure with one that can hold a larger guide sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on May 27, 2012, 11:17:27 PM
It's hard to tell from this photo, but for some reason this sign is the fluorescent yellow-green intended for pedstrian signs, instead of just straight yellow.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7105%2F7281670302_dc66963d3f_z.jpg&hash=61f5f1fae067ce51872b657b38531a6693aa9e87)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on May 27, 2012, 11:55:48 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on May 27, 2012, 11:17:27 PM
It's hard to tell from this photo, but for some reason this sign is the fluorescent yellow-green intended for pedstrian signs, instead of just straight yellow.

Not only that, but it's posted on the wrong side of the road!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: architect77 on May 28, 2012, 02:47:59 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on May 27, 2012, 11:17:27 PM
It's hard to tell from this photo, but for some reason this sign is the fluorescent yellow-green intended for pedstrian signs, instead of just straight yellow.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7105%2F7281670302_dc66963d3f_z.jpg&hash=61f5f1fae067ce51872b657b38531a6693aa9e87)
I hate that ugly fluorescent green btw.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on May 28, 2012, 03:02:21 PM
A lot of municipalities seem to overuse FYG, perhaps to call "extra" attention to the hazard or condition or regulation.  They probably put "extra" effort into traffic enforcement, too.  They think it makes their town "extra" safe.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 28, 2012, 03:15:57 PM
Speaking of, it appears that in a lot of places, the yellow used for warning signs is brighter than it used to be.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on May 28, 2012, 03:32:56 PM
^ In addition to the FYG color required for school and optional for other pedestrian-related signs, there is an allowable "fluorescent yellow" color that can be used on standard warning signs (which is definitely brighter than what we're used to).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on May 28, 2012, 09:16:05 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on May 27, 2012, 11:55:48 PM
Not only that, but it's posted on the wrong side of the road!

Haha, you're right! I knew something else seemed "off" about it...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: HighwayMaster on May 30, 2012, 05:12:41 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on May 27, 2012, 11:55:48 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on May 27, 2012, 11:17:27 PM
It's hard to tell from this photo, but for some reason this sign is the fluorescent yellow-green intended for pedstrian signs, instead of just straight yellow.

Not only that, but it's posted on the wrong side of the road!
North Canton has several NO PASSING ZONE signs posted the wrong way too. They're not FYG, though. I know there's two: one on Easthill and one on Schneider.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Special K on June 06, 2012, 10:43:04 AM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on May 27, 2012, 12:46:12 AM
This sign is supposed to say "Mather Field Rd," but omits the "Rd."
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7083%2F7277328294_0abcdd63d0_c.jpg&hash=b0ebb4d1b554a6a912aa68bd8adac087f3ceed23)
Erroneous use of EXIT ONLY plaque as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on June 06, 2012, 12:25:34 PM
Quote from: Special K on June 06, 2012, 10:43:04 AM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on May 27, 2012, 12:46:12 AM
This sign is supposed to say "Mather Field Rd," but omits the "Rd."
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7083%2F7277328294_0abcdd63d0_c.jpg&hash=b0ebb4d1b554a6a912aa68bd8adac087f3ceed23)
Erroneous use of EXIT ONLY plaque as well.
No it's not.  That's how California signs lane drops.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Special K on June 06, 2012, 12:58:10 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 06, 2012, 12:25:34 PM
Quote from: Special K on June 06, 2012, 10:43:04 AM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on May 27, 2012, 12:46:12 AM
This sign is supposed to say "Mather Field Rd," but omits the "Rd."
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7083%2F7277328294_0abcdd63d0_c.jpg&hash=b0ebb4d1b554a6a912aa68bd8adac087f3ceed23)
Erroneous use of EXIT ONLY plaque as well.
No it's not.  That's how California signs lane drops.

Genius.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on June 07, 2012, 10:20:33 AM
This should be a "F32" in this area of Michigan, since Mio is in the F-zone:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F01%2FM33-M72-C32errorAssembly.jpg&hash=db1598f1a7fea8bc3ca6d0c6747dcedec350926b)

Bonus wrong-way concurrency!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 07, 2012, 08:12:07 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 07, 2012, 10:20:33 AM
This should be a "F32" in this area of Michigan, since Mio is in the F-zone:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F01%2FM33-M72-C32errorAssembly.jpg&hash=db1598f1a7fea8bc3ca6d0c6747dcedec350926b)

Bonus wrong-way concurrency!

And since when does a County Route get top billing over not just one, but two state routes???
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on June 07, 2012, 09:00:46 PM
I understand how it can exist, but on an instinctual level the idea of a county route having an overlap with a state route bothers me - it seems contradictory since it implies that the road is both state and county maintained.

Yeah, I know, class of signage and jurisdiction of maintenance don't always match...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on June 08, 2012, 09:36:41 AM
County highway signs tend to match the jurisdiction of maintenance for some reason.  I guess the counties don't usually view their routes a much more than a maintenance index even when signed.  Personally, I think it's quite odd to have routes end at city and village boundaries rather than major roads just because the city/village maintains the last segment.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on June 08, 2012, 08:49:16 PM
No Virginia, there is no US 798!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash4%2F481367_4224026528157_1629948037_n.jpg&hash=2921ec93d906aa76492438504de6ac0c5969d03e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on June 08, 2012, 09:07:17 PM
From last weekend. MD 70 actually ends at this intersection in Annapolis, but this sign suggest it continues on ahead.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8016%2F7342926850_3c33274b20_z.jpg&hash=4ba7c2ef2b2376ed1ff9c1bd1d6bb594eb78e09d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on June 08, 2012, 09:11:51 PM
Quote from: mefailenglish on June 08, 2012, 08:49:16 PM
No Virginia, there is no US 798!
(798)

I've seen only three of those with the correct shield, and at least twice that many with the wrong one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on June 09, 2012, 12:34:50 AM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on June 08, 2012, 09:07:17 PM
From last weekend. MD 70 actually ends at this intersection in Annapolis, but this sign suggest it continues on ahead.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8016%2F7342926850_3c33274b20_z.jpg&hash=4ba7c2ef2b2376ed1ff9c1bd1d6bb594eb78e09d)

It actually doesn't end there, but about 250 feet beyond Compton Drive: http://www.roads.maryland.gov/Location/2010_Anne%20Arundel.pdf (p. 66/237)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on June 09, 2012, 08:59:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 09, 2012, 12:34:50 AM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on June 08, 2012, 09:07:17 PM
From last weekend. MD 70 actually ends at this intersection in Annapolis, but this sign suggest it continues on ahead.


It actually doesn't end there, but about 250 feet beyond Compton Drive: http://www.roads.maryland.gov/Location/2010_Anne%20Arundel.pdf (p. 66/237)
The state highway map was incorrect on this point, then.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on June 10, 2012, 09:24:27 PM
Ohio needs to learn to spell.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_1963.jpg&hash=3577f386e147ba70084c8fc10812a3e3d856b227)

Ohio Welcome Center, I-70 Eastbound near Indiana.  Bienvenue a l'Ohio.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on June 10, 2012, 09:56:14 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 10, 2012, 09:24:27 PM
Ohio needs to learn to spell.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_1963.jpg&hash=3577f386e147ba70084c8fc10812a3e3d856b227)

Ohio Welcome Center, I-70 Eastbound near Indiana.  Bienvenue a l'Ohio.

So we misspelled a French word, big deal. They never pronounce the last letter of a word, anyway.  Our city of Bellefontaine is pronounced bell-FOUNTain, so we don't exactly have a good track record with french anyway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 10, 2012, 11:45:56 PM
To be fair, it's more of a grammar error than a spelling error.  (Bienvenu is the correctly spelled masculine form, but in this context, it's supposed to be feminine.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 11, 2012, 12:29:35 AM
Sometimes, I hate myself for being so conscientious at doing my job.

Kentucky recently opened two new ramps at the interchange of the Mountain Parkway and KY 1057 in Powell County. This was built as a partial interchange but the two ramps were added to make it a full diamond interchange. New signage was installed. I had driven by the exit several times and nothing caught my eye.

Frankfort got an email last week from someone who had noticed that on the two new route markers, "Mountain" was misspelled  as "Mountian." Those messages are received by the Office of Public Affairs, which forwards them on to the district PIOs. So I got this one and as required, forwarded it to the engineer in charge of the sign crew. He said he would check the situation out.

So Friday when I am on my way to the Dayton meet, I notice two signposts with only directional banners on them and no Mountain (or "Mountian") Parkway markers. I curse myself the rest of the weekend for not noticing and getting pictures before the erroneous signs were removed.

On the way home today I got off at the exit and searched for any other erroneous markers that may have been installed along KY 1057. None. I also noticed that the error signage that listed "Clay County" instead of "Clay City" had also been taken down. At least I got a picture of it back a few months ago after a photo appeared in the local paper.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on June 11, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
On the subject of spelling/grammar issues, the Thruway has signs that say "Buffalo - An All-America City" (also for Syracuse too).  I did not know that Buffalo occupied the entirety of the US.

What's scary is that the village of St. Regis Falls erected similar signs on NY 458, making a small Adirondack village become all of america.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on June 11, 2012, 08:06:50 PM
Quote from: deanej on June 11, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
On the subject of spelling/grammar issues, the Thruway has signs that say "Buffalo - An All-America City" (also for Syracuse too).  I did not know that Buffalo occupied the entirety of the US.

What's scary is that the village of St. Regis Falls erected similar signs on NY 458, making a small Adirondack village become all of america.

"All-America City" is an award given out, and IIRC, that is the title of the award.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on June 11, 2012, 08:07:49 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 10, 2012, 11:45:56 PM
To be fair, it's more of a grammar error than a spelling error.  (Bienvenu is the correctly spelled masculine form, but in this context, it's supposed to be feminine.)

If you'll note, some helpful Louisianan or Quebecois fixed it for them.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route56 on June 11, 2012, 10:35:35 PM
Caught this cluster on US 59 in Garnett

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route56.com%2Fgallery%2Fzp-core%2Fi.php%3Fa%3D2012%2FMay12%2F20120531%26amp%3Bi%3D43817.jpg%26amp%3Bs%3D540%26amp%3Bq%3D85&hash=26d8dd30dc5ec0da4ca92c30c332d58ef85b4289)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 11, 2012, 11:07:24 PM
Quote from: route56 on June 11, 2012, 10:35:35 PM
Caught this cluster on US 59 in Garnett

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route56.com%2Fgallery%2Fzp-core%2Fi.php%3Fa%3D2012%2FMay12%2F20120531%26amp%3Bi%3D43817.jpg%26amp%3Bs%3D540%26amp%3Bq%3D85&hash=26d8dd30dc5ec0da4ca92c30c332d58ef85b4289)

I think that's residual from when US 59 was closed at the roundabout going north into downtown.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on June 12, 2012, 03:23:39 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 11, 2012, 08:06:50 PM
Quote from: deanej on June 11, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
On the subject of spelling/grammar issues, the Thruway has signs that say "Buffalo - An All-America City" (also for Syracuse too).  I did not know that Buffalo occupied the entirety of the US.

What's scary is that the village of St. Regis Falls erected similar signs on NY 458, making a small Adirondack village become all of america.

"All-America City" is an award given out, and IIRC, that is the title of the award.
It gets even stranger in that case.  Rochester doesn't have any signs for it despite winning the award twice, and according to Wikipedia, Syracuse never won the award despite having a sign.  Plus, why would the Thruway sign them if it's an award?  They don't like local signage!  I always assumed they were signed because they're major areas.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on June 12, 2012, 04:14:04 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on May 27, 2012, 12:46:12 AM
This sign is supposed to say "Mather Field Rd," but omits the "Rd."
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7083%2F7277328294_0abcdd63d0_c.jpg&hash=b0ebb4d1b554a6a912aa68bd8adac087f3ceed23)
I was in the area Monday and noticed that sign has been corrected.  The sign panel is the same size but it now reads...

Mather Field
Rd (arrow) [EXIT ONLY]

The exit number appears to be larger than the one in this photo so I suspect the entire sign was replaced rather than "greened" out.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route56 on June 12, 2012, 11:25:57 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 11, 2012, 11:07:24 PM
Quote from: route56 on June 11, 2012, 10:35:35 PM
Caught this cluster on US 59 in Garnett

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route56.com%2Fgallery%2Fzp-core%2Fi.php%3Fa%3D2012%2FMay12%2F20120531%26amp%3Bi%3D43817.jpg%26amp%3Bs%3D540%26amp%3Bq%3D85&hash=26d8dd30dc5ec0da4ca92c30c332d58ef85b4289)

I think that's residual from when US 59 was closed at the roundabout going north into downtown.

Probably... You would think the contractor would be smart enough to, say, restore the signage to its previous condition....
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 13, 2012, 11:21:35 PM
Actually...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2136%2F5792422354_ba64b33f69.jpg&hash=4c534598a96a33d1c96726d14b5a759a63a1e217)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kniwt on June 14, 2012, 12:15:45 AM
Spotted last week at SR 1 and Jensen Road, near Watsonville, Calif.:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzoza.com%2F%7Ekniwt%2FP1020014.JPG&hash=325cf24c250c89b82864a13ca36dd4289f78bde3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 14, 2012, 12:20:23 AM
What's with the round yellow arrows?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kniwt on June 14, 2012, 12:34:40 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 14, 2012, 12:20:23 AM
What's with the round yellow arrows?
They were there that day only for a bicycle event.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on June 14, 2012, 12:36:11 AM
"Bienvenue" as a greeting always takes an 'e'. And because Ohio is a state and starts with a vowel, it should be:
"Bienvenue en Ohio - Le cÅ"ur des États-Unis" Indeed, "noyau" doesn't sound quite right here, as it should be used when the "center" in question is more important than what is around it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: codyg1985 on June 14, 2012, 07:51:02 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 14, 2012, 07:27:42 PM
Permanent signs with no construction in sight should not be orange! There are several of these along PA 154.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg812.imageshack.us%2Fimg812%2F1996%2Fpc0217.jpg&hash=265b3881277ecfec5ad681c18bf44b5efb29d41b)

I know I am way late to the party on this one, but I have seen this in Alabama once along AL 124 at it's western terminus with AL 118 (old US 78): http://goo.gl/maps/nHLQ. I think this was done to get the driver's attention, but other methods could have been used (rumble strips, flashing lights, etc.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Special K on June 14, 2012, 08:17:39 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 14, 2012, 12:20:23 AM
What's with the round yellow arrows?

Directions to places of strategic importance for the impending NATO invasion.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on June 14, 2012, 01:51:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2012, 11:21:35 PM
Actually...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2136%2F5792422354_ba64b33f69.jpg&hash=4c534598a96a33d1c96726d14b5a759a63a1e217)

Even under normal circumstances, though, the signage at that intersection hasn't been right for a few years. This just made it worse. I'm pretty sure the arrow under the Bus. 169 sign in Richie's pic has always been just a left-only arrow when it should be a left/straight arrow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 14, 2012, 11:06:25 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2331%2F2303220451_5022d0122b_z.jpg&hash=6c5f551c07bf71d2bae0f25fc1aa23258d47530f) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2303220451/)

This photo is quite old, and a few signs on southbound VA 288 have been replaced, but this section of Woolridge Road in Chesterfield County, Virginia is still heavily signed as SR 3840...when it's actually SR 668. I didn't realize this until today.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: elsmere241 on June 15, 2012, 10:02:08 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjoshreads.com%2Fimages%2F12%2F06%2Fi120615jp.jpg&hash=3f422689b7cb85188df83ed8b91373b53d03bba7)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on June 15, 2012, 09:20:17 PM
Yeah, I was curious about that, too.  Long-time Judge Parker reader
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 15, 2012, 11:06:57 PM
Here is one that has gotten me confused.  If you follow NY 3 Eastbound in Watertown, NY you will find an assembly at the intersection of Massey Street for US 11 showing that Massey is indeed its alignment.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/7377294814/in/photostream  Then at another intersection with Washington Street ( a few blocks east of Massey Street) you will find another sign assembly that shows that Washington and straight through NY 3 EB is US 11. http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/7377310728/in/photostream

Both cannot be, so one of the two assemblies is wrong then.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 15, 2012, 11:28:52 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2012, 11:06:57 PM
Here is one that has gotten me confused.  If you follow NY 3 Eastbound in Watertown, NY you will find an assembly at the intersection of Massey Street for US 11 showing that Massey is indeed its alignment.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/7377294814/in/photostream  Then at another intersection with Washington Street ( a few blocks east of Massey Street) you will find another sign assembly that shows that Washington and straight through NY 3 EB is US 11. http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/7377310728/in/photostream

Both cannot be, so one of the two assemblies is wrong then.

Note in the background of the first photo, there's an assembly that reads TRUCK SOUTH US 11 straight.  My assumption is that the signs on Washington Street should have TRUCK banners.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 16, 2012, 10:18:57 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 15, 2012, 11:28:52 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2012, 11:06:57 PM
Here is one that has gotten me confused.  If you follow NY 3 Eastbound in Watertown, NY you will find an assembly at the intersection of Massey Street for US 11 showing that Massey is indeed its alignment.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/7377294814/in/photostream  Then at another intersection with Washington Street ( a few blocks east of Massey Street) you will find another sign assembly that shows that Washington and straight through NY 3 EB is US 11. http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/7377310728/in/photostream

Both cannot be, so one of the two assemblies is wrong then.

Note in the background of the first photo, there's an assembly that reads TRUCK SOUTH US 11 straight.  My assumption is that the signs on Washington Street should have TRUCK banners.

I checked it out thorough, if you follow US 11 North on Washington, at Paddock Street (where the western so called alignment comes back to Washington Street) it has a shield directing you straight ahead on Washington.

Then if you head southbound on US 11 from the North at the split of Mill and Massey Streets it has signage directing you to Massey Street.  It is almost like the Massey alignment is for SB and the Washington, State Street, and Mill Street is for NB.

I have seen two different roadways used for two directions of travel before, but not both signed for it from adjoining routes.

The TRUCK banner does not make sense cause  Washington Street is through the Downtown area, where usually trucks are banned from.  Massey Street bypasses the business area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on June 17, 2012, 01:28:15 AM
Sign recycling gone wrong:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/KY/KY19470001i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on June 18, 2012, 05:38:35 PM
*LONG POST INCOMING*
All these signs are along I-680 northbound.
Next is this sign that has a little too much space between "Crow" and "Canyon"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7089%2F7396884484_cf8cc1f38d_c.jpg&hash=4ae06cd086df41b3eba292097cdf6de4404375a3)

The Diablo Road sign isn't just crowded, but also has a Helvetica speed sign next to it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5072%2F7396913264_e02d00c43b_c.jpg&hash=bc67181b2f5db24b68da242e7b579a65caaa4161)

On this next sign, I'm pretty sure the I-680 pull-through sign is supposed to have down arrows instead of what's there.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7083%2F7396920184_2a0e7ed3d5_c.jpg&hash=55854c369895cb4bb01818d1c661e7f96efde1b4)

This one has strange greenout on it, as well as a lot of other signs in the area. To me, this one is notable because the exit tab on the 262 sign has no border around it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7231%2F7396926192_3fbc0c648a_c.jpg&hash=d04a9005b121b130de37478ae77cf3f3a9a633ce)

This last one just has a bunch of strange stuff on it. First is the state-named 780 shield, then the undersized "3/4" for the mileage.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5198%2F7396932502_2b9d88bc7e_c.jpg&hash=dfb23a17eea0e0e90b68b666e624cc862d6fac50)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 18, 2012, 11:08:16 PM
I guess 'erroneous' could be a synonym for 'having design errors'.....but.....I wouldn't really call any of those above signs 'wrong' in the sense of conveying erroneous information.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on June 19, 2012, 02:22:18 AM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on June 18, 2012, 05:38:35 PM
The Diablo Road sign isn't just crowded, but also has a Helvetica speed sign next to it.
and that's very typical of when Caltrans modifies the sign layout to accommodate the exit tab.  If they had increased the sign panel height to 120 inches from 110, it would have made things layout better...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F680n_39.png&hash=ca86f5dc09df6558b6584c78d5dff21f87239b28)

Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on June 18, 2012, 05:38:35 PM
On this next sign, I'm pretty sure the I-680 pull-through sign is supposed to have down arrows instead of what's there.
This sign is original to when the 680-24 interchange was reconstructed back in 1999.  When the interchange was reconstructed, 680-bound traffic was switched from the right lanes to the left lanes and that might be a reason why the pull through sign has upward pointing arrows to drive home the point that the lane configuration has changed.

Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on June 18, 2012, 05:38:35 PM
This one has strange greenout on it, as well as a lot of other signs in the area. To me, this one is notable because the exit tab on the 262 sign has no border around it.
This (and other) signs along this portion of I-680 between 24 and 242 were all replaced relatively recently (late 90's I believe) so they were not at the end of their useful lives.  This was one of the rare stretches where Caltrans tried to add exit numbers to existing button copy signs and frankly, they didn't do a very good job... a prime example was the sign you pictured.  The original sign kind of looked like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F680n_49b.png&hash=27e5f315777ca26ca9d1a95a707caaf061834c76)
...the size and location of the route shield made it difficult to add an exit number.  I'm not sure why the exit tab has no border other than contractor laziness and the route shield leaves much to be desired.

Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on June 18, 2012, 05:38:35 PM
This last one just has a bunch of strange stuff on it. First is the state-named 780 shield, then the undersized "3/4" for the mileage.
This sign had to be modified when the toll plaza was moved from the north end to the south end of the Benicia Bridge because it shows the distance to the toll plaza.  It also appears that this is an old porcelain sign (judging by how deep the green color is) which means it probably dates back to when I-680 was routed onto what is now I-780 and the current I-680 was CA-21.  That means, under the greenout that the I-780 shield sits on top of is probably an old CA-21 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 19, 2012, 10:56:11 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on June 17, 2012, 01:28:15 AM
Sign recycling gone wrong:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/KY/KY19470001i1.jpg)

That's in Grayson, on the old alignment of KY 7 northbound approaching US 60. The sign was on an old assembly and was hanging like that. I myself took several pictures of it a number of years ago. I think it's gone now but I wouldn't swear to it.

My photo of the entire assembly is here:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Foldsigns%2Fky%2Foldassembly.jpg&hash=95e2e49465cf9602ef35b3372839b394a76b0e8c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 20, 2012, 09:46:25 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 19, 2012, 10:56:11 PM
I think it's gone now but I wouldn't swear to it.

been gone for a while.  I tried finding it in July, 2007 and had no luck.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 27, 2012, 05:35:10 PM
I see this kind of mistake a lot.  No, the lane doesn't actually end.  In some cases, the sign is posted in advance of a right-turn-only lane.  In this case, the lane actually is the slip between frontage road and mainline (the lane most traffic actually uses at this location).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2FLaneEnds.png&hash=bb251249fac194ce369795ab98c62928eedd36d9)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on June 28, 2012, 10:40:10 PM
I didn't get a picture yet, but on OH 3 northbound just past I-270 there's a fairly recent US 3 reassurance assembly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 28, 2012, 11:13:31 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2008_Richmond_trip_Day_3%2FImages%2F34.jpg&hash=b16c28befc5907e7dc27d2a1644dfde10d12f09f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 28, 2012, 11:14:55 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 27, 2012, 05:35:10 PM
I see this kind of mistake a lot.  No, the lane doesn't actually end.  In some cases, the sign is posted in advance of a right-turn-only lane.  In this case, the lane actually is the slip between frontage road and mainline (the lane most traffic actually uses at this location).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2FLaneEnds.png&hash=bb251249fac194ce369795ab98c62928eedd36d9)

I think that's the first time I've ever seen an overhead sign directing traffic between the mainline and frontage road (in OK, standard assemblies placed on the side of the frontage road and in the gore handle the situation much more cheaply).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on June 28, 2012, 11:28:42 PM
I've seen New Mexico do this with that sign on numerous occasions to indicate a lane is beginning
(https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/292627_3780495707595_768329058_n.jpg)

Also in New Mexico, Indian Route 4 signed as New Mexico 4 with ZUNI banner
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fjunk%2Ferroneous%2F1.jpg&hash=bd977b9190e8f34d942914a00702d0ec1c2f9fdd)

US-163 signed as AZ 163
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fjunk%2Ferroneous%2F3.jpg&hash=76956eedc836b59e33f9e7e3ad307519d0aa864c)

Along US-50 between La Junta and Canon City, CDOT seems to be favoring an erroneous three digit blank
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fjunk%2Ferroneous%2F4.jpg&hash=56c6f8504226c9fc1d52b9e713180af4a1eec455)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fjunk%2Ferroneous%2F5.jpg&hash=fa6518175a2f54d327cbaa915b25f47a5451a896)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fjunk%2Ferroneous%2F6.jpg&hash=a239e06edf464f6e08ea0a386d803df9847b642e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fjunk%2Ferroneous%2F7.jpg&hash=00caa08056c94437554de8770a06fde85fd1b393)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fjunk%2Ferroneous%2F8.jpg&hash=600342f8706c049160d2c182c3048e8d246070c9)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fjunk%2Ferroneous%2F9.jpg&hash=55d73e44a75ff403c641ef0397f20a43808e79fb)

US-287/385 signed as Oklahoma 287/385 in Boise City
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fboisecity%2F11.jpg&hash=8444b4b07b242fdb94a75e9bbf2270e5b6a8af74)

US-59 signed as Arkansas 59 in De Queen
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fjunk%2Ferroneous%2F10.jpg&hash=4de59d28c02b04924def6284bd0904a202e4f199)

Weird New Mexico shield design on US-70/380
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fjunk%2Ferroneous%2F11.jpg&hash=f017d5957346a892427ce6c7425b76a2982e29a8)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 29, 2012, 01:20:35 PM
Quote from: corco on June 28, 2012, 11:28:42 PM
I've seen New Mexico do this with that sign on numerous occasions to indicate a lane is beginning
(https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/292627_3780495707595_768329058_n.jpg)

Is that sign not approved for use?  I've seen it in other countries' list of highway signs so didn't realize we weren't supposed to use it here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on June 29, 2012, 06:22:24 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 28, 2012, 11:14:55 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 27, 2012, 05:35:10 PM
I see this kind of mistake a lot.  No, the lane doesn't actually end.  In some cases, the sign is posted in advance of a right-turn-only lane.  In this case, the lane actually is the slip between frontage road and mainline (the lane most traffic actually uses at this location).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2FLaneEnds.png&hash=bb251249fac194ce369795ab98c62928eedd36d9)

I think that's the first time I've ever seen an overhead sign directing traffic between the mainline and frontage road (in OK, standard assemblies placed on the side of the frontage road and in the gore handle the situation much more cheaply).

The yellow sign can also be used to indicate the road narrows, IIRC. And the overhead signs were probably put up by the City of Wichita, which is mostly responsible for Kellogg (54/400). I chalk up a lot of the sign oddities on Kellogg to the city posting them instead of KDOT.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 29, 2012, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: apeman33 on June 29, 2012, 06:22:24 PM
The yellow sign can also be used to indicate the road narrows, IIRC.

Absolutely not.  Presumably they added the lane markings to the sign in the MUTCD to clear up that misconception.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on June 29, 2012, 08:12:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 29, 2012, 01:20:35 PM
Quote from: corco on June 28, 2012, 11:28:42 PM
I've seen New Mexico do this with that sign on numerous occasions to indicate a lane is beginning
(https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/292627_3780495707595_768329058_n.jpg)

Is that sign not approved for use?  I've seen it in other countries' list of highway signs so didn't realize we weren't supposed to use it here.

Not in that fashion, because it is a symbolic "lane ends" sign. Presumably, there is no need for a warning that a road widens.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on June 29, 2012, 08:38:35 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 29, 2012, 08:12:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 29, 2012, 01:20:35 PM
Quote from: corco on June 28, 2012, 11:28:42 PM
I've seen New Mexico do this with that sign on numerous occasions to indicate a lane is beginning
(https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/292627_3780495707595_768329058_n.jpg)

Is that sign not approved for use?  I've seen it in other countries' list of highway signs so didn't realize we weren't supposed to use it here.

Not in that fashion, because it is a symbolic "lane ends" sign. Presumably, there is no need for a warning that a road widens.
Some states have fashioned an equivalent black on white regulatory sign to indicate a passing lane ahead. To me, a warning sign is the most appropriate way to do it, but there's no right answer.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on June 29, 2012, 09:10:58 PM
^ Any pictures? I've never seen a symbolic "Passing Lane Ahead" sign.

I think more recent guidance says the textual "passing lane ahead" type signs should be white on green.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 29, 2012, 10:46:01 PM
Kentucky's  black-on-white signage reads, "Truck Lane 500 Feet."

At the spot where the lane is added, signage will read either "Keep Right Except To Pass" or "Slower Traffic Keep Right."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on June 30, 2012, 12:54:40 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 28, 2012, 11:13:31 PM

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2008_Richmond_trip_Day_3%2FImages%2F34.jpg&hash=b16c28befc5907e7dc27d2a1644dfde10d12f09f)
The '246' in that VA shield needs to be vertically centered better.
Quote from: corco on June 28, 2012, 11:28:42 PM

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fjunk%2Ferroneous%2F11.jpg&hash=f017d5957346a892427ce6c7425b76a2982e29a8)
I'd prefer the zia to be red. Kurumi SignMaker uses a 2-digit red zia for its NM shields.
Quote from: corco on June 28, 2012, 11:28:42 PM

I've seen New Mexico do this with that sign on numerous occasions to indicate a lane is beginning
(https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/292627_3780495707595_768329058_n.jpg)
Why is the pavement grooved?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on June 30, 2012, 04:07:54 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on June 30, 2012, 12:54:40 AM
Why is the pavement grooved?

Looks like it was milled in preparation for resurfacing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on June 30, 2012, 11:53:47 AM
Quote from: roadfro on June 29, 2012, 09:10:58 PM
^ Any pictures? I've never seen a symbolic "Passing Lane Ahead" sign.

I think more recent guidance says the textual "passing lane ahead" type signs should be white on green.
Actually, I think I was thinking Canadian.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnl%2Ftch_1%2Fepass.jpg&hash=5c879ee0748291699b662b8736fe318be01e5564)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on June 30, 2012, 11:09:54 PM
^ Hmm...interesting. In some ways, I like it...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 01, 2012, 01:33:13 PM
Quote from: Steve on June 30, 2012, 11:53:47 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnl%2Ftch_1%2Fepass.jpg&hash=5c879ee0748291699b662b8736fe318be01e5564)

Is that a repurposed Nevada state route marker?  :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: akotchi on July 01, 2012, 06:41:36 PM
Quote from: corco on June 28, 2012, 11:28:42 PM
I've seen New Mexico do this with that sign on numerous occasions to indicate a lane is beginning
(https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/292627_3780495707595_768329058_n.jpg)


I just saw one used this way near my home.  The one I saw, though, has the lane lines in it.  Not real sure what kind of benefit it has . . .
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on July 03, 2012, 12:36:27 AM
Edit: Noticed a new thread which is a better home for my post.  [moved here] (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.msg158343#msg158343)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on July 11, 2012, 12:16:08 AM
(Not Pictured, but try GSV)

In downtown Columbus, westbound Rich St at Front St has an assembly directing US 62 and OH 3 traffic to turn right onto Front St.  This instruction hasn't been correct for several years – although to be fair, there was no "correct" until a few days ago – it should be changed to direct traffic straight ahead.

Side note: ODOT's Straight Line Diagrams, the online versions of which claim to be up to date as of 2009 January, still indicate US 62 WB and OH 3 SB use a portion of Town St which hasn't existed since City Center Mall was built in the 80's.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: sp_redelectric on July 12, 2012, 12:50:19 AM
Quote from: Steve on June 29, 2012, 08:38:35 PMSome states have fashioned an equivalent black on white regulatory sign to indicate a passing lane ahead. To me, a warning sign is the most appropriate way to do it, but there's no right answer.

Oregon uses a regulatory (black on white) "Passing Lane 1 Mile" (or 1/2 Mile) in places where there is usually congestion and motorists begging to pass slower traffic...this way it lets the rubberneckers know that they don't have long and they'll be able to get around the slow pokes.

Here's an example (not my picture): http://www.flickr.com/photos/elithebearded/2754171132/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mcdonaat on July 12, 2012, 01:09:39 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 28, 2012, 11:14:55 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 27, 2012, 05:35:10 PM
I see this kind of mistake a lot.  No, the lane doesn't actually end.  In some cases, the sign is posted in advance of a right-turn-only lane.  In this case, the lane actually is the slip between frontage road and mainline (the lane most traffic actually uses at this location).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2FLaneEnds.png&hash=bb251249fac194ce369795ab98c62928eedd36d9)

I think that's the first time I've ever seen an overhead sign directing traffic between the mainline and frontage road (in OK, standard assemblies placed on the side of the frontage road and in the gore handle the situation much more cheaply).
The only example that I know of in Louisiana where frontage road traffic is on an overhead assembly: http://goo.gl/maps/Dvzw
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on July 12, 2012, 10:47:53 AM
Just an FYI to the other Philly crew, I just spotted a brand new PennDOT installed (as identified by the PennDOT symbol) PA 13 shield at the intersection of PA 420 and US 13 in Ridley Park. I'll have to go out soon and snap some photos before it's replaced.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on July 12, 2012, 09:25:35 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 11, 2012, 06:55:06 PM
The shiny new sign includes the Cleveland Ave exit, which is closed and will never reopen.  There isn't even a CLOSED panel.

Quote from: Central Avenue on May 11, 2012, 09:54:30 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8164%2F7179533854_1618ba0123_c.jpg&hash=a92257c770bd4e6441219685fb7b932de9193bb1)

Update: The bottom line of this sign has been greened out, resulting in a sign with a lot of apparently-unnecessary green space.  That's probably the permanent solution, at least until a few more severe wind storms come through the area...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on July 12, 2012, 11:37:32 PM
Tacky, but admittedly less wasteful than replacing the sign outright.

Still, it would be nice if they eventually patch on the appropriate third exit...not that I'm holding my breath.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on July 13, 2012, 11:54:21 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on July 12, 2012, 11:37:32 PM
Tacky, but admittedly less wasteful than replacing the sign outright.

Still, it would be nice if they eventually patch on the appropriate third exit...not that I'm holding my breath.

I'm not sure why I didn't think of that, but it's a great idea, and I hope that's what they do.  What they'll call the exit is still a bit of a mystery to me, though.  Lester Dr? Spring St? Downtown? Considering there will also be a Main St exit downstream, as well as a Broad St exit for probably several more years, I think just Downtown is unlikely.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on July 16, 2012, 02:52:20 PM
The west intersection of VA 10 and its business route. I think the arrow next to Smithfield should be pointing left, because, you know, that's where the business route goes.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-lyizaTq2X5Y/UARD5ols0MI/AAAAAAAACpM/tjhZwJ-M5Ao/s816/DSC01082.JPG)

Suffolk has lots of missing Business banners from US 58 and 460 shields.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-zM1bgmxWT1c/UAREHKuPZuI/AAAAAAAACtE/v8gA49Lxr2E/s816/DSC01107.JPG)

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-CnK2U3n4jps/UAREIYmWpRI/AAAAAAAACtI/-42rXbfsdqs/s816/DSC01115.JPG)

As previously mentioned, VA 403 does not go north here.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-SYc_hJ9P8Fk/UARFI52LrhI/AAAAAAAAC_I/N0mJ2N0ADZc/s816/DSC01269.JPG)

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-i4cusVSwY6Q/UARFI43mbZI/AAAAAAAAC_k/WWBxVwmEQA4/s816/DSC01270.JPG)

The exit tab is on the wrong side.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-g3L19IWQQTY/UARFT6LaNQI/AAAAAAAADDg/9wp6A3Na6mA/s816/DSC01305.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JustDrive on July 18, 2012, 12:14:55 PM
EB Covina Hills Road at Via Verde in San Dimas, CA has a sign pointing towards "Los Angeles/Pomona Freeway" except that Via Verde only has an access road to I-10 on one end and a full interchange with CA 57 on the other.  Sure, you can take the 57 to the 60 west (towards Los Angeles), but it still strikes me as odd that they'd place a Pomona Fwy sign north of I-10.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=San+Dimas,+CA&hl=en&ll=34.069974,-117.836845&spn=0.004986,0.010568&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=38.963048,86.572266&hnear=San+Dimas,+Los+Angeles,+California&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=34.070011,-117.836765&panoid=-d1qrtA4pqpgxjKoYer0xw&cbp=12,163.8,,0,3.2
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: gotwins76 on July 18, 2012, 04:43:42 PM
I didn't even notice this the first time I went through the pictures I took on this trip, because I was trying to get the mileage sign...and then all of a sudden, PA 30.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1048.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs372%2Fgotwins76%2FIMGP3197.jpg&hash=53414aa1783eaf80643b74a11700c1d3e4c70efd)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on July 19, 2012, 09:57:47 AM
Quote from: Takumi on July 16, 2012, 02:52:20 PM
The exit tab is on the wrong side.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-g3L19IWQQTY/UARFT6LaNQI/AAAAAAAADDg/9wp6A3Na6mA/s816/DSC01305.JPG)

This seems to be a recurring problem in Virginia. The eastbound 1 mile advance sign for US 17 / J Clyde Morris Blvd on I-64 in Newport News has a left-aligned exit tab even though the interchange is a simple cloverleaf with both ramps on the right.
That whole sign is an oddity... it's mounted Georgia-style.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Sanctimoniously on July 19, 2012, 03:03:07 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-M4xMZi_9s7I%2FUAMNOeRXSxI%2FAAAAAAAAAI4%2FK6SUMOuaD4g%2Fs1600%2FDSC_0010.JPG&hash=f3a23148b18be1dca51861c55cdf70c2b9e16e90)

Don't tell Virginia Beach it isn't VA 615 anymore. (Or SR 615.) Princess Anne Road southbound, six miles from the North Carolina border.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 19, 2012, 09:57:59 PM
At first glance one would think they were trying to sign it as I-615...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Sanctimoniously on July 19, 2012, 10:06:14 PM
It's almost a candidate for The Worst Of.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 19, 2012, 10:16:08 PM
Quote from: Sanctimoniously on July 19, 2012, 10:06:14 PM
It's almost a candidate for The Worst Of.

Well, that's true for 90% of the signs Virginia Beach puts up. ;)

EDIT: Speaking of which...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4072%2F4232759540_c77e1272a8_z.jpg&hash=afc325ccaa028abe49f8dc0646801fe18cdef2a6) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4232759540/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on July 19, 2012, 10:22:34 PM
I realized that this sign error was posted recently and need to let someone know (ODOT, I guess--although technically Akron owns the roadway in question). 

On I-76 WB/I-77 NB, where OH 59 ends and merges as a 3+2=4 merge (left lane of 59 merges with right lane of 76), the sign below USED to be posted--perhaps nonstandard but effective.  As roadfan.com says, closer to Cleveland a merge sign with "two tails" would be used (http://www.roadfan.com/westexp.html)--which to me is less intuitive.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2F2merge.jpg&hash=09ac712a0a7ab828b32addfdba4fd362e4134d9b)

It was replaced recently in the replacement of most signs on that stretch (except for BGS, which were replaced in 2003 and are good enough as is evidently; the underlighting was removed from overheads but signs remained) with a standard added-lane sign, which is inaccurate.  The right lane of 76 DOES have traffic merging.  They really need to fix it somehow.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG7187.JPG&hash=1f1e766b584e5d1586ce82b5e71b385a19927ee0)
(You might note that also recently, the original bridge railings were removed and guardrail was installed on the concrete instead--this was done on all such overpasses on that stretch of the road.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on July 19, 2012, 10:32:03 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 19, 2012, 10:16:08 PM
Quote from: Sanctimoniously on July 19, 2012, 10:06:14 PM
It's almost a candidate for The Worst Of.

Well, that's true for 90% of the signs Virginia Beach puts up. ;)

EDIT: Speaking of which...
(VA 615 shield)

Coming from VA 149 there's another LGS like that. It looked like there were two VA 615 shields on it, from what I could tell (which, as you could tell from the video, wasn't that much due to the downpour).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on July 20, 2012, 12:07:23 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 19, 2012, 10:22:34 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2F2merge.jpg&hash=09ac712a0a7ab828b32addfdba4fd362e4134d9b)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG7187.JPG&hash=1f1e766b584e5d1586ce82b5e71b385a19927ee0)

I suspect that, in the process of sign replacement, someone mis-identified the original non-standard sign as a standard lane-added sign (or thought it was "close enough").  Visually, it did look more like a lane-added sign than the correct standard "inside lanes merge" sign.  And I'm pretty sure it's still ODOT who does all the maintenance on Interstates within city limits, unless there's a specific agreement in place.  (Non-Interstate freeways are usually city-maintained, which can lead to some subpar signage sometimes...)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on July 20, 2012, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: vtk on July 20, 2012, 12:07:23 AM
I suspect that, in the process of sign replacement, someone mis-identified the original non-standard sign as a standard lane-added sign (or thought it was "close enough").  Visually, it did look more like a lane-added sign than the correct standard "inside lanes merge" sign.  And I'm pretty sure it's still ODOT who does all the maintenance on Interstates within city limits, unless there's a specific agreement in place.  (Non-Interstate freeways are usually city-maintained, which can lead to some subpar signage sometimes...)

Indeed they probably looked at it quick and misidentified it.  They should correct it somehow though.  As far as maintenance, just about all plowing, patching, etc. on the expressway is done by City of Akron Highway Department trucks and personnel, not ODOT.  When an exit gore sign is knocked down, it's the City that either puts it back up or replaces it in its own style (evident in several wacky gore signs that aren't quite up to state specs).  Major work is done by ODOT, like the full repaving/bridge joint and railing replacement last year, or BGS replacement.  It is the same on not only I-76/77 and the separate I-76 and I-77 stretches inside Akron, but I-277 and route 8 as well.  Either they do have an agreement in place, or Akron is just getting screwed.  :P  (I believe that Cleveland also has freewayage that it is responsible for instead of ODOT.)  The work that replaced the sign in question was ODOT major rehab and in the process the existing AKTE signage that had appeared over the years was removed.

The roadfan.com page linked shows a couple other unique merge/added lane signs (http://www.roadfan.com/westexp.html) that are now gone that were one-of-a-kind AKTE creations, and the shot of the overhead BGS at Grant St. shows one of Akron's shots at an exit gore sign that has a small suffix letter for whatever reason.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 20, 2012, 10:14:16 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 20, 2012, 09:25:38 AM
The roadfan.com page linked shows a couple other unique merge/added lane signs (http://www.roadfan.com/westexp.html) that are now gone that were one-of-a-kind AKTE creations, and the shot of the overhead BGS at Grant St. shows one of Akron's shots at an exit gore sign that has a small suffix letter for whatever reason.

Thanks for the update to my Marc's site?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on July 21, 2012, 01:20:33 PM
The rare "US 32":

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Ffromfl-20120718-19%2F19%2FDSCF0294-640.jpg&hash=b6c97c1357f6fdaaf73ca17e0fafc07ab24381e8)

Taken on Feura Bush Rd in Glenmont, NY, from its intersection with US 9W.  Other NY 32 signs I saw in the area were all correct.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on July 21, 2012, 04:23:25 PM
Quote from: Jim on July 21, 2012, 01:20:33 PM
The rare "US 32":

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Ffromfl-20120718-19%2F19%2FDSCF0294-640.jpg&hash=b6c97c1357f6fdaaf73ca17e0fafc07ab24381e8)

Taken on Feura Bush Rd in Glenmont, NY, from its intersection with US 9W.  Other NY 32 signs I saw in the area were all correct.


That's an improvement then, unless you didn't keep taking Feura Bush. A bunch of errors there, as well as a lot of old reference markers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on July 21, 2012, 06:37:44 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 21, 2012, 04:23:25 PM
Quote from: Jim on July 21, 2012, 01:20:33 PM
The rare "US 32":

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Ffromfl-20120718-19%2F19%2FDSCF0294-640.jpg&hash=b6c97c1357f6fdaaf73ca17e0fafc07ab24381e8)

Taken on Feura Bush Rd in Glenmont, NY, from its intersection with US 9W.  Other NY 32 signs I saw in the area were all correct.


That's an improvement then, unless you didn't keep taking Feura Bush. A bunch of errors there, as well as a lot of old reference markers.

We didn't.  Just back up 9W to the Thruway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on July 21, 2012, 07:14:05 PM
Spotted this on OH 3 near Westerville, Ohio. Pretty recent one, too:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7254%2F7618266378_745342ef61_c.jpg&hash=fa78bcd9682b7045269eb1a45d3386a90153c104)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on July 21, 2012, 09:31:43 PM
I quite like the US 3 shield, but not the 'NORTH' banner.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on July 23, 2012, 08:57:56 AM
Quote from: Takumi on July 16, 2012, 02:52:20 PM
....

The exit tab is on the wrong side.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-g3L19IWQQTY/UARFT6LaNQI/AAAAAAAADDg/9wp6A3Na6mA/s816/DSC01305.JPG)

I've been seeing a lot of "wrong-side exit tabs" in Northern Virginia recently, although most of them are in a slightly different scenario from what you've posted. See below for an example from the Beltway's Outer Loop–picture taken on April 26 and the sign has since been corrected after I sent a picture to VDOT.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F81544014.jpg&hash=dc91b4bfeef8dee1f5b977f04b8df3a4664b2a7e)

The error, for those unfamiliar with the road, is that the exit for US-50 is on the right. But I think someone at VDOT's Northern Virginia office, or else someone at the company that's building the high-occupancy/toll lanes on the Beltway, thinks that the exit tab goes on the left for an exit that's not the immediate next exit. I suspect this because I've seen the same mistake in multiple places–a similar problem existed on the Inner Loop at the Gallows Road overpass where the exit sign for US-50 had the tab on the right and the adjacent sign for I-66 had the tab on the left. VDOT fixed that one as well after I reported it and I hadn't seen any more of this for awhile.....until last week. I've been commuting to Reston Town Center for the past week and on two occasions I took the Dulles Toll Road on the way home instead of the Fairfax County Parkway. As you approach the Beltway after going through the main toll plaza, you see signs for both I-495 south (first exit on the right) and I-495 north (second exit on the right), along with a third sign in between that's covered up (almost certainly for the not-yet-open HO/T lane ramp). The sign for I-495 south correctly has the exit tab on the right, but the sign for I-495 north incorrectly has it on the left. I think the person who's been finalizing the sign specs must think it's a symmetry thing or some such.

I haven't reported the Toll Road sign yet.

(BTW, in the picture I posted above the covered-up sign pretty obviously has a left-aligned exit tab, but that one is correct–the not-yet-completed exit from the HO/T lanes will be on the left.)


Edited to add: Here is a picture I took today of the Dulles Toll Road sign mentioned above. Both exits for the Beltway are on the right, as is the yet-to-open Express Lanes ramp. Obviously I misremembered when I said before that the center sign was covered up.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F0d0a6b28.jpg&hash=b64411abfbaf22eb910a70b2922787ac7739bc0f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 26, 2012, 07:09:40 AM
Courtesy of the Idiot..er..Illinois Department of Transportation.

I-55 Exit 165.  Should be marked as Exit 165, but oddly marked as Exit 165A only on this sign.  Note that the gore sign in the background is correct.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2277.jpg&hash=73c7ba0df535dfb47689885ad3966a4c25de8a7e)

Someone had a massive brain fart when making this sign, or decided that "Exit 165, Exit 165A, close enough, let's reuse this one for the southbound side."  The northbound side has both Exits 165 A & B.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on July 26, 2012, 07:45:30 AM
And since when is "BUSN" an appropriate abbreviation for business?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on July 26, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
And since when is that the proper way to hyphenate?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on July 26, 2012, 01:44:31 PM
I've seen both the BUSN abbreviation and the hyphenation convention elsewhere before.

I specifically remember a university name on an auxiliary sign on I-410 southeast of San Antonio being hyphenated in that manner.  It's the best way to denote that it is not simply one town's name being hyphenated, but rather two town names.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on July 26, 2012, 03:31:28 PM
The hyphen isn't even necessary in the first place since the names are on a separate line.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Special K on July 26, 2012, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 26, 2012, 07:45:30 AM
And since when is "BUSN" an appropriate abbreviation for business?

And there is no need to abbreviate it in the first place... plus, it's on the wrong side of the shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on July 26, 2012, 06:53:56 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 26, 2012, 07:45:30 AM
And since when is "BUSN" an appropriate abbreviation for business?

Better than "BUS", which would seem to imply that the route is designed for buses.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 26, 2012, 08:29:20 PM
I think this one takes the cake.https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Valley+Forge,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.089662,-75.41683&spn=0.008339,0.021136&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.082817,86.572266&oq=valley+f&hnear=Valley+Forge,+Schuylkill,+Chester,+Pennsylvania&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.089708,-75.416685&panoid=hOnXfNKOlP7crC0FAfcHlg&cbp=12,90,,0,0

I do not know if it was posted already or not, but I do not think anything could be more wrong than what the pull through for the PA Turnpike uses at Valley Forge.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on July 26, 2012, 08:47:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 26, 2012, 08:29:20 PM
I think this one takes the cake.https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Valley+Forge,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.089662,-75.41683&spn=0.008339,0.021136&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.082817,86.572266&oq=valley+f&hnear=Valley+Forge,+Schuylkill,+Chester,+Pennsylvania&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.089708,-75.416685&panoid=hOnXfNKOlP7crC0FAfcHlg&cbp=12,90,,0,0

I do not know if it was posted already or not, but I do not think anything could be more wrong than what the pull through for the PA Turnpike uses at Valley Forge.

Steve's I-76 page has more info about that disastrous assembly. (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-76/)  The exit sign is a little messy but understandable, but the NJTP patch over I-276 is inexcusable.  What were they thinking?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: akotchi on July 26, 2012, 09:03:39 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 26, 2012, 08:47:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 26, 2012, 08:29:20 PM
I think this one takes the cake.https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Valley+Forge,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.089662,-75.41683&spn=0.008339,0.021136&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.082817,86.572266&oq=valley+f&hnear=Valley+Forge,+Schuylkill,+Chester,+Pennsylvania&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.089708,-75.416685&panoid=hOnXfNKOlP7crC0FAfcHlg&cbp=12,90,,0,0

I do not know if it was posted already or not, but I do not think anything could be more wrong than what the pull through for the PA Turnpike uses at Valley Forge.

Steve's I-76 page has more info about that disastrous assembly. (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-76/)  The exit sign is a little messy but understandable, but the NJTP patch over I-276 is inexcusable.  What were they thinking?
I just passed through there yesterday on my way home from Pittsburgh.  The pull-through has been patched over with an overlay with a proper I-276 shield.  There is a supplemental sign in advance of it with the message "NJTP use East I-276," or something like it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 27, 2012, 08:01:29 AM
What I think is also wrong with the sign is the fact there is a I-476 shield on the I-76 exit sign.  It is true that I-76 does lead to I-476, but if you are going north on 476 toward Allentown it the best way is to stay on the turnpike to the Mid County Interchange. 

The same is on I-78 in Springfield, NJ that has a "TO I-287" shield on the Exit 48 guide signs for NJ 24.   Since NJ 24 was completed to I-287 in the early 90s that was added to that sign to let motorists know the freeway was finally completed after years of it ending at the JFK Parkway.  However, if you are heading south on I-287 to Somerville from I-78 west, then staying on it for another 18 miles is the best and shortest way of achieving that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on July 27, 2012, 12:54:24 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 26, 2012, 03:31:28 PM
The hyphen isn't even necessary in the first place since the names are on a separate line.

But Bloomington—Normal is commonly referred to as such.  So, in another sense, it is one place name.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on July 27, 2012, 02:07:27 PM
Quote from: akotchi on July 26, 2012, 09:03:39 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 26, 2012, 08:47:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 26, 2012, 08:29:20 PM
I think this one takes the cake.https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Valley+Forge,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.089662,-75.41683&spn=0.008339,0.021136&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.082817,86.572266&oq=valley+f&hnear=Valley+Forge,+Schuylkill,+Chester,+Pennsylvania&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.089708,-75.416685&panoid=hOnXfNKOlP7crC0FAfcHlg&cbp=12,90,,0,0

I do not know if it was posted already or not, but I do not think anything could be more wrong than what the pull through for the PA Turnpike uses at Valley Forge.

Steve's I-76 page has more info about that disastrous assembly. (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-76/)  The exit sign is a little messy but understandable, but the NJTP patch over I-276 is inexcusable.  What were they thinking?
I just passed through there yesterday on my way home from Pittsburgh.  The pull-through has been patched over with an overlay with a proper I-276 shield.  There is a supplemental sign in advance of it with the message "NJTP use East I-276," or something like it.
I was last on that stretch 2 to 3 weeks ago and never saw such a sign.  Does that mean PTC's finally going to right the wrong they made with that pull-through BGS back in the mid-90s?  Note: the older 70s(?) vintage BGS had the correct content.  I'm not sure whether or not the current BGS was first erected without the NJTP shield posted on the of the I-276 shield or not.  At the earliest, it could've been done before the sign was erected but after it was fully fabricated.

Quote from: roadman65 on July 27, 2012, 08:01:29 AM
What I think is also wrong with the sign is the fact there is a I-476 shield on the I-76 exit sign.  It is true that I-76 does lead to I-476, but if you are going north on 476 toward Allentown it the best way is to stay on the turnpike to the Mid County Interchange.
That sign is clear example of what NOT to do. 

As stated in Steve's commentary (tid-bit courtesy of yours-truly BTW), the 476 shields first appeared on those BGS in late '91/early '92 prior to the Blue Route connecting to the NE Extension (which was still known as PA 9 until a few years after the connection was finally completed in late '92/early '93).

In the wake of the Blue Route finally connecting the NE Extension and the latter receiving the I-476 designation as well; those I-76 East BGS' should've had the 476 shields removed (especially along I-276 Westbound) and supplemental BGS' along the eastbound Turnpike (I-76 leg) should've been erected directing those needing to get on I-476 in the follwoing manner (somebody can feel free to use the sign software to create):

TO 476

Plymouth Mtg.
Allentown

USE 276

Conshohocken
Chester

USE 76


The above could be done as one BGS panel erected on an overhead gantry with the TO 476 message centered on top with the separate messages placed next to each other with a white border divider placed in the middle.

Also, US 422 shields should also be placed on the main Exit BGS next to the US 202 shields.

Another PTC BGS faux-pas is at the Norristown interchange and has been there since the mid-1990s.  Once one clears the toll plaza (to get on I-276), the westbound BGS reads 76 WEST Harrisburg which is not technically correct.  It should read as 276 WEST Harrisburg or 276 WEST TO 76 Harrisburg.  IIRC, the old 60s-era button-copy BGS read WEST 276 TO 76 Harrisburg Pittsburg Ohio.

To their credit, PennDOT recently corrected their idiotic listing of Philadelphia as a control destination for I-276 East BGS' along I-476 North.  A brand new BGS now lists (going by memory here) both New Jersey Turnpike and New York for I-276 East destinations.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: akotchi on July 27, 2012, 03:55:06 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 27, 2012, 02:07:27 PM
Quote from: akotchi on July 26, 2012, 09:03:39 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 26, 2012, 08:47:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 26, 2012, 08:29:20 PM
I think this one takes the cake.https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Valley+Forge,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.089662,-75.41683&spn=0.008339,0.021136&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.082817,86.572266&oq=valley+f&hnear=Valley+Forge,+Schuylkill,+Chester,+Pennsylvania&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.089708,-75.416685&panoid=hOnXfNKOlP7crC0FAfcHlg&cbp=12,90,,0,0

I do not know if it was posted already or not, but I do not think anything could be more wrong than what the pull through for the PA Turnpike uses at Valley Forge.

Steve's I-76 page has more info about that disastrous assembly. (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-76/)  The exit sign is a little messy but understandable, but the NJTP patch over I-276 is inexcusable.  What were they thinking?
I just passed through there yesterday on my way home from Pittsburgh.  The pull-through has been patched over with an overlay with a proper I-276 shield.  There is a supplemental sign in advance of it with the message "NJTP use East I-276," or something like it.
I was last on that stretch 2 to 3 weeks ago and never saw such a sign.  Does that mean PTC's finally going to right the wrong they made with that pull-through BGS back in the mid-90s?  Note: the older 70s(?) vintage BGS had the correct content.  I'm not sure whether or not the current BGS was first erected without the NJTP shield posted on the of the I-276 shield or not.  At the earliest, it could've been done before the sign was erected but after it was fully fabricated.

Quote from: roadman65 on July 27, 2012, 08:01:29 AM
What I think is also wrong with the sign is the fact there is a I-476 shield on the I-76 exit sign.  It is true that I-76 does lead to I-476, but if you are going north on 476 toward Allentown it the best way is to stay on the turnpike to the Mid County Interchange.
That sign is clear example of what NOT to do. 

As stated in Steve's commentary (tid-bit courtesy of yours-truly BTW), the 476 shields first appeared on those BGS in late '91/early '92 prior to the Blue Route connecting to the NE Extension (which was still known as PA 9 until a few years after the connection was finally completed in late '92/early '93).

In the wake of the Blue Route finally connecting the NE Extension and the latter receiving the I-476 designation as well; those I-76 East BGS' should've had the 476 shields removed (especially along I-276 Westbound) and supplemental BGS' along the eastbound Turnpike (I-76 leg) should've been erected directing those needing to get on I-476 in the follwoing manner (somebody can feel free to use the sign software to create):

TO 476

Plymouth Mtg.
Allentown

USE 276

Conshohocken
Chester

USE 76


The above could be done as one BGS panel erected on an overhead gantry with the TO 476 message centered on top with the separate messages placed next to each other with a white border divider placed in the middle.

Also, US 422 shields should also be placed on the main Exit BGS next to the US 202 shields.

Another PTC BGS faux-pas is at the Norristown interchange and has been there since the mid-1990s.  Once one clears the toll plaza (to get on I-276), the westbound BGS reads 76 WEST Harrisburg which is not technically correct.  It should read as 276 WEST Harrisburg or 276 WEST TO 76 Harrisburg.  IIRC, the old 60s-era button-copy BGS read WEST 276 TO 76 Harrisburg Pittsburg Ohio.

To their credit, PennDOT recently corrected their idiotic listing of Philadelphia as a control destination for I-276 East BGS' along I-476 North.  A brand new BGS now lists (going by memory here) both New Jersey Turnpike and New York for I-276 East destinations.
Considering that the Norristown interchange provides access to I-476 south after the toll plaza (for eastbound users), I don't see how I-476 needs to appear on the Valley Forge guide signs at all, in either direction.  I would second the use of U.S. 422 shields in their place.

I get on the Turnpike at Norristown occasionally and have not paid attention to the guide sign error . . . Looking at a Streeview image from 2009, the ramp to westbound has a West/276 confirmation assembly after the BGS error!

Also of note on the BGS you refer to on I-476 North is that the Turnpike shield had East over it, when both I-276 East and I-476 North are part of the Turnpike system.  Not sure if that was also resolved . . .

I will try to get pictures of the new supplemental sign next time I am out that way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on July 27, 2012, 05:12:08 PM
Quote from: akotchi on July 27, 2012, 03:55:06 PMAlso of note on the BGS you refer to on I-476 North is that the Turnpike shield had East over it, when both I-276 East and I-476 North are part of the Turnpike system.  Not sure if that was also resolved . . .
That sign was totally replaced with new signs that I don't believe shows any PA Turnpike shield.

The new sign shows both I-276 & 476 shields and lists Allentown along with the fore-mentioned 276 East control destinations.

Quote from: akotchi on July 27, 2012, 03:55:06 PMConsidering that the Norristown interchange provides access to I-476 south after the toll plaza (for eastbound users), I don't see how I-476 needs to appear on the Valley Forge guide signs at all, in either direction.

Supplemental signage letting those know that one can get to I-476's more southerly destinations via I-76 (the Schuylkill Expressway) from the Eastbound Turnpike even with the Blue Route-NE Extension link long since completed still has some merit.  Also, keep in mind that the Turnpike is tolled (with very expensive toll rates even w/EZ-Pass discounts might I add) and the Schuylkill Expressway (I-76 East of Valley Forge) is not. 

That said, why on earth would one heading to Delaware County (as an example) pay an extra $1.33-1.60 in tolls to head about 7 miles east to the Norristown interchange to pick up I-476 South unless there was a traffic jam and/or vehicle pileup along I-76 between I-276 and I-476?

If one looks at a map of the area showing I-76-276-476, the region bounded by those roads resemble an elongated triangle w/I-476 between 76 & 276 heading in a northeast-southwesterly direction.  An Delaware County-bound driver along the eastbound Turnpike using Norristown to get on 476 South is somewhat back-tracking.

Not to mention the fact that I-476 South signage along the eastbound I-276 is restricted to one supplemental BGS as opposed to the main BGS exit signs.

Again, the PTC signed this whole area in a rather bass-ackward manner these last 20+ years.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: akotchi on July 27, 2012, 06:01:04 PM
PhlBos, I agree with everything you have said.  What I failed to suggest earlier (facetiously, perhaps) is that PTC might have preferred to sign it that way to squeeze some additional toll revenue out of those unaware of the highway network in this area.

Brings up another question . . . why would there be that slip ramp to I-476 South at the Norristown toll plaza if access is already provided via Exit 20 (WB) and Exit 326 (EB)?  Was this ramp completed prior to completion of Mid-County connection?  I don't remember the order of construction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on July 28, 2012, 11:50:50 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 29, 2012, 01:20:35 PM
Quote from: corco on June 28, 2012, 11:28:42 PM
I've seen New Mexico do this with that sign on numerous occasions to indicate a lane is beginning
(https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/292627_3780495707595_768329058_n.jpg)

Is that sign not approved for use?  I've seen it in other countries' list of highway signs so didn't realize we weren't supposed to use it here.

Here's a Mexican example from GMSV:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2FAmpliacion.png&hash=202f41835af93e3f1d19f1e054f0537314a5ba03)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on July 28, 2012, 12:17:52 PM
And then you have the situations where the sign is simply hung upside down:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg607.imageshack.us%2Fimg607%2F3170%2Fzpc0700.jpg&hash=76c1ddf8ac764f705456448b36dcaa32e169acf8)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on July 28, 2012, 03:56:00 PM
Quote from: akotchi on July 27, 2012, 06:01:04 PMBrings up another question . . . why would there be that slip ramp to I-476 South at the Norristown toll plaza if access is already provided via Exit 20 (WB) and Exit 326 (EB)?  Was this ramp completed prior to completion of Mid-County connection?  I don't remember the order of construction.
Much of the Norristown interchange and toll plaza predates the Mid-County plaza.  The ramp to I-476 south from the Norristown interchange I believe predates the completion of Mid-County and Blue Route/NE Extension link.

The reasoning for not having a direct ramp from I-276 East to I-476 South is due to the close proximity of the Norristown and Mid-County interchanges.  And again, while eastbounders heading to Delaware County will use Valley Forge; those heading to Plymouth Meeting will use Norristown.

The ramp to I-476 South at the Norristown interchange still has a reason to exist IMHO.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on July 28, 2012, 05:01:57 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 28, 2012, 12:17:52 PM
And then you have the situations where the sign is simply hung upside down:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg607.imageshack.us%2Fimg607%2F3170%2Fzpc0700.jpg&hash=76c1ddf8ac764f705456448b36dcaa32e169acf8)

That seems to make no sense at all. "MERGE AHEAD" but the diamond indicates that the road widens.  :confused:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on July 28, 2012, 09:47:59 PM
Quote from: apeman33 on July 28, 2012, 05:01:57 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 28, 2012, 12:17:52 PM
And then you have the situations where the sign is simply hung upside down:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg607.imageshack.us%2Fimg607%2F3170%2Fzpc0700.jpg&hash=76c1ddf8ac764f705456448b36dcaa32e169acf8)

That seems to make no sense at all. "MERGE AHEAD" but the diamond indicates that the road widens.  :confused:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXnRnv.jpg&hash=51310919a57393b2e9e88bb96ae1c2c677140e30)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 28, 2012, 10:34:24 PM
So lets see, I've  seen NJ 1, NJ 202, NJ 206, NJ 130 thus far.

As of today, this can join it:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-snc7%2F483351_304184693013785_579343231_n.jpg&hash=06492761e5c243895a006cee1cb082387b599744)

(Galloway Township, New Jersey)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on July 28, 2012, 10:37:24 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2012, 11:50:50 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 29, 2012, 01:20:35 PM
Quote from: corco on June 28, 2012, 11:28:42 PM
've seen New Mexico do this with that sign on numerous occasions to indicate a lane is beginning

Is that sign not approved for use?  I've seen it in other countries' list of highway signs so didn't realize we weren't supposed to use it here.

Here's a Mexican example from GMSV:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2FAmpliacion.png&hash=202f41835af93e3f1d19f1e054f0537314a5ba03)
Widening to four lanes warrants an overhead sign?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on July 30, 2012, 08:11:17 AM
PA Turnpike BGS UPDATE:

While driving from Valley Forge (I-76) to Willow Grove (PA 611) this past Saturday evening, I noticed a BGS message change along the westbound Turnpike (I-276).  The BGS panels for the Valley Forge exit from the westbound direction have been stripped of I-476 shields and US 422 shields are now in their place.  Not sure whether the exits signs in the eastbound direction sport this change or not.

Somebody on the PTC must've either read this thread or Steve's site.  :)

However, in my return travels from Hatboro; I noticed another PennDOT (or PTC) BGS boo-boo.  The BGS along PA 611 South for the PA Turnpike (I-276) entrance lists Philadelphia as its eastbound(?) control destination.  Typically, these signs (along with the BGS past the toll plaza) list New Jersey as the eastbound control destination.

Theoretically, one can get to Philly from there by either using the eastbound (to US 1) or westbound (to PA 309 or I-476) Turnpike as well as staying on southbound PA 611 (not advisable).

Quote from: akotchi on July 27, 2012, 03:55:06 PMAlso of note on the BGS you refer to on I-476 North is that the Turnpike shield had East over it, when both I-276 East and I-476 North are part of the Turnpike system.  Not sure if that was also resolved . . .
While driving home that Saturday night along I-476 south, I quickly looked back at the new sign (which is located about a mile south of the now-removed old ones); there is indeed a PA Turnpike shield and it is located next to the I-276 shield and the below the right-half of the "EAST" cardinal.

The BGS reads:

NORTH 476 EAST 276 *PA Turnpike shield*
Allentown
N.J. Tpke. - New York


I would just re-arranged the shields and cardinals so that the PA Turnpike shield is located between the 476 and 276 shields and the respective "NORTH" and "EAST" cardinals.

If the use of New Jersey as a control destination for eastbound I-276 is no longer being allowed, the BGS along PA 611 should simply use N.J. Tpke. and/or New York (as in the city) as opposed to ambiguous Philadelphia.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on July 30, 2012, 06:18:33 PM
The exit tab? Yeah, wrong side. Same way southbound.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-qPzumXj5dkc/UBb9XRTc4MI/AAAAAAAADb0/7ZsGFt2U8SI/s720/DSC01480.JPG)

Outside M&T Bank Stadium beside MD 295.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-KGlIPGguLq0/UBb-XryH46I/AAAAAAAADwI/5HaRQ8-QvIg/s720/DSC01627.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on July 30, 2012, 09:32:13 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 28, 2012, 10:34:24 PM
So lets see, I've  seen NJ 1, NJ 202, NJ 206, NJ 130 thus far.

As of today, this can join it:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-snc7%2F483351_304184693013785_579343231_n.jpg&hash=06492761e5c243895a006cee1cb082387b599744)

(Galloway Township, New Jersey)
Tuckerton's had an NJ 9 for years - actually may have been fixed since I posted it on my site, which NJDOT does read. Also, NJ 30 and NJ 40 are definitely out there - 40 by the western end, 30 by the eastern end. 322, not sure I've ever seen, or 9W (possibly due to length/lack of intersecting roads).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on July 31, 2012, 04:29:47 PM
It's Richmond, it's a 33...you know what that means.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-IqnViLgRgOs/UBg3PWAdAsI/AAAAAAAAD_s/vQC1215j1fI/s816/DSC01803.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 31, 2012, 05:44:50 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 31, 2012, 04:29:47 PM
It's Richmond, it's a 33...you know what that means.

...Crack open a Rolling Rock?  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on July 31, 2012, 06:26:29 PM
I think their sign department has had more than a few sometimes :cheers:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on July 26, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
And since when is that the proper way to hyphenate?

19
-70
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on July 31, 2012, 10:17:12 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on July 26, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
And since when is that the proper way to hyphenate?

19
-70

Made me lolz.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on August 12, 2012, 08:59:46 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8442%2F7770143616_3bf1029467.jpg&hash=e44253b3b8515307d107c95baef8328a35e21b56) (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8442/7770143616_3bf1029467.jpg)



I'm not sure if this counts as erroneous; native Texans help me here. Is Beltway 8 synonymous with Loop 8 in Houston? Or is this a remnant/replica sign of before it was called a beltway?


-- Fixed img code. -rmf67
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on August 12, 2012, 09:01:50 PM
TxDOT's website did say this...



Minute Order 062581, dated 07/31/1969; Adm. Cir. 062-1969, dated 08/15/1969
No change in description.  (Harris County)  Designation changed from Loop to Beltway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on August 13, 2012, 01:32:01 AM
Seems to me the sign is erroneous then.  No way it was posted pre-1969.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Road Hog on August 13, 2012, 01:56:18 AM
All the Beltway signs I've ever seen are really old. TxDOT probably just signs beltways as loops nowadays, but Beltway 8 is the only Texas state one I know about and I admittedly don't get to Houston that often.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on August 13, 2012, 08:46:28 AM
A new one to add for Somers Point, NJ along NJ 52.  Southbound approach trailblazer signs for the County Route 559 junction/intersection have 558 on the County shields.  Oops!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2012, 10:13:13 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 13, 2012, 01:32:01 AM
Seems to me the sign is erroneous then.  No way it was posted pre-1969.

99% chance that it is an error.  easiest way to tell would be to look at the style of reflective sheeting.  before 1969, Texas used the beaded white Scotchlite, switching over to honeycomb high intensity sometime in the 1970s.  they used the silver scotchlite (which is kinda green-tinted) surprisingly rarely.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on August 14, 2012, 09:34:58 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 30, 2012, 08:11:17 AM
While driving from Valley Forge (I-76) to Willow Grove (PA 611) this past Saturday evening, I noticed a BGS message change along the westbound Turnpike (I-276).  The BGS panels for the Valley Forge exit from the westbound direction have been stripped of I-476 shields and US 422 shields are now in their place.  Not sure whether the exits signs in the eastbound direction sport this change or not.

Somebody on the PTC must've either read this thread or Steve's site.  :)

The eastbound ones don't have 476 replaced with 422 since that's an easy way to get to 476 (southbound, at least :P). Westbound also has more of a need for 422 in terms of a through-route, since it's another way west, and EB Tpke-WB 422 is pretty much a really big U-turn.

Also, the odd "EAST NJ Tpke." with an NJTP shield pasted over a 276 shield on the turnpike eastbound at the 76-276 ramp split has been greened out and replaced with a 276 shield. A new sign on the right a bit back says

NJTP
USE
EAST
I-276

Something like that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on August 14, 2012, 01:40:40 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 14, 2012, 09:34:58 AMThe eastbound ones don't have 476 replaced with 422 since that's an easy way to get to 476 (southbound, at least :P). Westbound also has more of a need for 422 in terms of a through-route, since it's another way west, and EB Tpke-WB 422 is pretty much a really big U-turn.
Not really, if one's heading to Valley Forge Park or Trooper via 422.  While I wouldn't expect that the I-476 shields on the eastbound Turnpike be replaced w/US 422 shields; there should be at least a supplemental BGS stating such.

Something like:

TO 422
King of Prussia
USE 76 EAST

or similar.

Personally, I would change the shields on the primary BGS (to match the westbound ones) and place the I-476 info. on supplemental BGS as I stated earlier.

Quote from: Roadsguy on August 14, 2012, 09:34:58 AM
Also, the odd "EAST NJ Tpke." with an NJTP shield pasted over a 276 shield on the turnpike eastbound at the 76-276 ramp split has been greened out and replaced with a 276 shield. A new sign on the right a bit back says

NJTP
USE
EAST
I-276

Something like that.
It's about time (15+ years) that PTC righted the wrong with that through-BGS.  That NJTP shield should have never been placed over that I-276 shield in the first place.  Hopefully, those numerals on that shield are of the proper type (series C vs. the narrower series B that the one covered over had).

Now if PTC can correct that BGS for the westbound Turnpike just beyond the Norristown toll plaza, (it reads 76 WEST where it should read 276 WEST like ALL the surrounding lead-in BGS' in that area); we should be golden.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on August 19, 2012, 09:12:53 AM
I think they've cleaned up most (all?) of the East 75/West 75 shields through the Alley, but I can't believe they've missed these:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FIMG_0099.jpg&hash=1a65b6e64ff546b8356809079a6ef40458df0ba4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FIMG_0098.jpg&hash=49636203e53f6065fcd88bc2141c420a32c7c951)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on August 19, 2012, 05:08:19 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 14, 2012, 01:40:40 PM
Now if PTC can correct that BGS for the westbound Turnpike just beyond the Norristown toll plaza, (it reads 76 WEST where it should read 276 WEST like ALL the surrounding lead-in BGS' in that area); we should be golden.

It's kinda right, but not well executed. One way or another, if you take that ramp, you'll reach the end of I-276 with no other exits, and so you'll be dumped into I-76. Except not just westbound...

Whatever the case, someone goofed in the sign shop or the design team.

I also spy a covered PA 9 shield. :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on August 19, 2012, 05:29:30 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fbadsign-104lanes.jpg&hash=fe89f52266d003500eb7c236c8dc98b23154cf7e)

EB Frank Rd at I-71 in Columbus.  These signs have been here as long as I can remember.  The stippled-lane diagram on the right panel makes it appear as though, of the three lanes, the center lane is an option that can go either east or south.  Actually, the left lane is for I-71 NB only, the center lane is for OH 104 EB only, and the right lane can go either east or south on OH 104.  Given the way the lanes shift just east of that intersection, I don't think this was the original arrangement, and the diagram on the sign may have been correct at some point in the past.  On the other hand, if you just remove the stipples, you happen to have a correct (if not perfectly aligned) arrow-per-lane diagram spanning two separate signs!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on August 20, 2012, 02:25:14 AM
Even if the stippled-arrow diagram were correct, the inclusion of the straight-ahead arrow on the left of the sign seems redundant.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on August 20, 2012, 05:54:48 AM
Quote from: mefailenglish on August 19, 2012, 09:12:53 AM
I think they've cleaned up most (all?) of the East 75/West 75 shields through the Alley, but I can't believe they've missed these:

I'm guessing SR 29...a rather lonely interchange in its own right.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on August 20, 2012, 07:41:00 AM
Quote from: vtk on August 19, 2012, 05:29:30 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fbadsign-104lanes.jpg&hash=fe89f52266d003500eb7c236c8dc98b23154cf7e)

EB Frank Rd at I-71 in Columbus.  These signs have been here as long as I can remember.  The stippled-lane diagram on the right panel makes it appear as though, of the three lanes, the center lane is an option that can go either east or south.  Actually, the left lane is for I-71 NB only, the center lane is for OH 104 EB only, and the right lane can go either east or south on OH 104.  Given the way the lanes shift just east of that intersection, I don't think this was the original arrangement, and the diagram on the sign may have been correct at some point in the past.  On the other hand, if you just remove the stipples, you happen to have a correct (if not perfectly aligned) arrow-per-lane diagram spanning two separate signs!

Wow...that is less than 2 miles from where i live...i see it every other day and i never noticed that one before....wow!  Guess i'll have to try to be more observant...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on August 20, 2012, 09:02:09 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 19, 2012, 05:08:19 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 14, 2012, 01:40:40 PM
Now if PTC can correct that BGS for the westbound Turnpike just beyond the Norristown toll plaza, (it reads 76 WEST where it should read 276 WEST like ALL the surrounding lead-in BGS' in that area); we should be golden.

It's kinda right, but not well executed. One way or another, if you take that ramp, you'll reach the end of I-276 with no other exits, and so you'll be dumped into I-76. Except not just westbound...

Whatever the case, someone goofed in the sign shop or the design team.

I also spy a covered PA 9 shield. :)
Although that pipe gantry is recent (5 years max. (?)), both of those current BGS' actually date back to the early-to-mid-90s.  Which explains why there originally was a PA 9 shield on the eastbound panel.

Back to the westbound BGS, while it is true that I-276 ends at I-76 at the next exit; that is still absolutely no excuse for that BGS panel error... especially when all, repeat ALL surrounding BGS panels in that area (including newer ones erected along I-476 north and south erected by both PennDOT and PTC) for the westbound Turnpike have 276 shields on them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jemacedo9 on August 20, 2012, 08:21:42 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 14, 2012, 09:34:58 AM
The eastbound ones don't have 476 replaced with 422 since that's an easy way to get to 476 (southbound, at least :P). Westbound also has more of a need for 422 in terms of a through-route, since it's another way west, and EB Tpke-WB 422 is pretty much a really big U-turn.

Also, the odd "EAST NJ Tpke." with an NJTP shield pasted over a 276 shield on the turnpike eastbound at the 76-276 ramp split has been greened out and replaced with a 276 shield. A new sign on the right a bit back says

NJTP
USE
EAST
I-276

Something like that.

Snagged pics today:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2Fc4bfedaeed934e4f990d01058a3ebb2c&hash=ea638a80c9148c4788c56154590bb3860849a5b9)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2Fb0ee72b24e4a4a058888881a0907ebec&hash=914ad261bd0dab1c4eb8f5ad960688907af3e6c8)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jemacedo9 on August 20, 2012, 08:45:24 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 30, 2012, 08:11:17 AM
The BGS reads:

NORTH 476 EAST 276 *PA Turnpike shield*
Allentown
N.J. Tpke. - New York


Was able to get some pics today.  The first two are the new ones mentioned above, which were part of the I-476 reconstruction project.  The last one is the original one from the Express E-Z Pass Lanes project.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2Fb777a2fe77ac420292d22624094f7559&hash=118ae347e448704f0b046c4049567efb001c86d4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2F1c922d1ad5864374aab689a934a49217&hash=4e2bc22364ca9bd1a4dc9b38c0bc64beaa190132)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2F16a4d45e77cc42039bfabcb1d060e3aa&hash=09c098aa86c137a1d34c01a160140bb70627959a)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on August 20, 2012, 08:53:40 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on August 20, 2012, 02:25:14 AM
Even if the stippled-arrow diagram were correct, the inclusion of the straight-ahead arrow on the left of the sign seems redundant.
It looks like that's not an original arrow, probably added when the lane designations changed. That's when the stipples should have disappeared.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on August 21, 2012, 12:13:37 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 20, 2012, 08:53:40 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on August 20, 2012, 02:25:14 AM
Even if the stippled-arrow diagram were correct, the inclusion of the straight-ahead arrow on the left of the sign seems redundant.
It looks like that's not an original arrow, probably added when the lane designations changed. That's when the stipples should have disappeared.

I considered that, but if that's the case it means the sign originally had a lot of blank space...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 21, 2012, 01:57:34 AM
I didn't get a picture of them, but heading east on I-84/US 6 in West Hartford, CT, there are a couple of incorrect shield assemblies. The ground signs are now showing:

EAST

I-84
-------------
CT 6

Of course, they should be saying US Route 6. Connecticut doesn't even have a state route 6, as we don't duplicate US and interstate routes here (it's why there's no state routes 1, 5, 7, 44, 84, 91, 95 or 202 either). The worst part of it all? These error signs are brand new (they were NOT there in mid-May). The "6" signs may also really be upside down "9" signs, since CT Route 9 ends a couple of miles to the west, near the Farmington/West Hartford town line.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on August 21, 2012, 04:48:40 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 20, 2012, 08:45:24 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 30, 2012, 08:11:17 AM
The BGS reads:

NORTH 476 EAST 276 *PA Turnpike shield*
Allentown
N.J. Tpke. - New York


Was able to get some pics today.  The first two are the new ones mentioned above, which were part of the I-476 reconstruction project.  The last one is the original one from the Express E-Z Pass Lanes project.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2Fb777a2fe77ac420292d22624094f7559&hash=118ae347e448704f0b046c4049567efb001c86d4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2F1c922d1ad5864374aab689a934a49217&hash=4e2bc22364ca9bd1a4dc9b38c0bc64beaa190132)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2F16a4d45e77cc42039bfabcb1d060e3aa&hash=09c098aa86c137a1d34c01a160140bb70627959a)
Gosh, those I-276 shields look awful.  X-(
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on August 21, 2012, 08:36:45 AM
It seems the PTC is big on Series B.

This (http://kendrick.org/ShieldsUp/default.aspx) awesome little tool proves that Series C fits just as well and looks far more normal.

(It also shows that Series E is almost useless. :P)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on August 21, 2012, 09:26:05 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 21, 2012, 01:57:34 AM
I didn't get a picture of them, but heading east on I-84/US 6 in West Hartford, CT, there are a couple of incorrect shield assemblies. The ground signs are now showing:

EAST

I-84
-------------
CT 6
Those must've been erected during the summer.  I was last along I-84 in CT in mid-June and no CT 6 sign shields.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 20, 2012, 08:21:42 PMSnagged pics today:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2Fc4bfedaeed934e4f990d01058a3ebb2c&hash=ea638a80c9148c4788c56154590bb3860849a5b9)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2Fb0ee72b24e4a4a058888881a0907ebec&hash=914ad261bd0dab1c4eb8f5ad960688907af3e6c8)
*Blows Whistle* Unauthorized Use of Clearview!  The word USE on that LGS is Clearview.

Quote from: Roadsguy on August 21, 2012, 08:36:45 AM
It seems the PTC is big on Series B.
As earlier stated, for I-276 shields, both PTC and PennDOT are guiltly of using Series B.  The original 276 shield on that through BGS was also Series B.  Both PennDOT & PTC are a little better with the I-476 shields.  Most of those shields are in Series C.

A recent PTC BGS gantry erected along I-476 South features 3 I-shields that have different fonts and shield shapes.  The one for I-476 South is fine (normal wide-shield w/Series C font).  The ones for I-276 are a mess (the one for I-276 East features a normal wide-shield w/Series B font but the one for I-276 West features a bubble-wide shield w/a very-crowded Series D).

A non-roadgeek friend of mine complained that the new BGS for I-276 West no longer includes Norristown (for the nearby interchange) in it.

Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 20, 2012, 08:45:24 PM
Was able to get some pics today.  The first two are the new ones mentioned above, which were part of the I-476 reconstruction project.  The last one is the original one from the Express E-Z Pass Lanes project.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2Fb777a2fe77ac420292d22624094f7559&hash=118ae347e448704f0b046c4049567efb001c86d4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2F1c922d1ad5864374aab689a934a49217&hash=4e2bc22364ca9bd1a4dc9b38c0bc64beaa190132)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.photoshop.com%2Fv1.0%2Faccounts%2F5f6c33c6abcf43be8d6d6adf06460436%2Fassets%2F16a4d45e77cc42039bfabcb1d060e3aa&hash=09c098aa86c137a1d34c01a160140bb70627959a)
The above-photos show a clear-cut reason WHY the MUTCD guideline/requirement that street names and destinations not being placed on the same BGS is absolutely bogus and asinine.  Kudos to agencies like NJDOT and MassDOT for flat-out ignoring that.

The Germantown Pike references have been completely exorcized from the new BGS' despite the fact that one ramp from Exit 20 dumps one directly onto that road.  Not everyone that uses that cloverleaf ramp is getting on I-276 Westbound... unless PennDOT/PTC decides to place a divider/collector distributor lane along westbound Germantown Pike in that area (local traffic would use the Plymouth Road ramp); but that's another topic for another thread.

The wording on the old BGS were more correct and appropriate IMHO.  The Harrisburg listing should be on a supplemental ground-mounted BGS (reading Harrisburg USE EXIT 20) similar to what was done further south as I-476 Northbound approaches Exit 16A-B (the I-76 interchange).

I'm surprised that you didn't get photos showing the new BGS at the Ridge Pike (Exit 18A-B) interchange.  Particularly the faux-pas PennDOT made at that overpass.  They painted the overpass blue about a year ago.  While painting the overpass, they temporarily took down the structure-mounted BGS' along I-476 Northbound and re-installed them when they were done. 

Fast-forward to this summer; PennDOT erects a new overhead gantry just before (south of) the overpass w/new BGS' and takes down one of the structure-mounted BGS (the one for Exit 19).  As a result, there are 8 small 'green' squares where the BGS once stood that remain unpainted.  It appears that the bridge painting contractor and the sign contract (as part of the I-476 reconstruction project) never coordinated with each other.

Side bar (and this could be a whole other thread in and of itself): what's the deal with structure-mounted BGS'?  I've noticed that its use has been declining for nearly a decade.  I checked the latest MUTCD and I didn't see any mention of the practice being discouraged.  I've seen plenty of BGS replacement projects (not just in PA) that seem to forsake this practice despite the fact that many replacement BGS' are the same size as the structure-mounted ones they're replacing.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 23, 2012, 03:09:05 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8011%2F7105721923_c31098d68a_c.jpg&hash=9a975d6740d7d3f2768a8268eb7ba65e144a4f66)

U.S. 68 & KY 80 West just west of the Lake Barkley/Cumberland River bridge. Photo taken 4/22/12.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on August 23, 2012, 07:43:20 PM
To be honest, it should really be mounted on the opposite side of the road, just before it narrows to cross the bridge.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: doorknob60 on August 23, 2012, 10:40:20 PM
Just drove by this one today, caught my attention. It's on US 26 in Mt Vernon, OR (West of John Day). Didn't get a picture myself but grabbed a good one from Google Maps:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi47.tinypic.com%2Fsfa4c5.png&hash=7f626d25db8f69d9433dd5eb39d3463bd0a8252f)

Maps link: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=44.417781,-119.114628&spn=0.033902,0.084543&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=44.417756,-119.114342&panoid=IvA_-WfubjnaYYlJzB8qRg&cbp=12,119.83,,1,6.53
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on August 24, 2012, 12:13:02 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 23, 2012, 07:43:20 PM
To be honest, it should really be mounted on the opposite side of the road, just before it narrows to cross the bridge.

If it were rotated 180 degrees it would be fine where it is.  :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on August 24, 2012, 02:46:15 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on August 24, 2012, 12:13:02 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 23, 2012, 07:43:20 PM
To be honest, it should really be mounted on the opposite side of the road, just before it narrows to cross the bridge.

If it were rotated 180 degrees it would be fine where it is.  :spin:
True. Of course!  :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on August 24, 2012, 11:26:16 AM
Quote from: okroads on August 23, 2012, 03:09:05 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8011%2F7105721923_c31098d68a_c.jpg&hash=9a975d6740d7d3f2768a8268eb7ba65e144a4f66)

U.S. 68 & KY 80 West just west of the Lake Barkley/Cumberland River bridge. Photo taken 4/22/12.

I feel like that actually both of the diamond signs are erroneous.  Obviously the one in the foreground needs to be flipped the right way around.  But the one in the background probably ought to be replaced by R4-7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MUTCD_R4-7.svg).  Once you're at the divide, it's no longer warning you of an upcoming hazard, so it should be a black-on-white regulatory sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 24, 2012, 12:07:32 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on August 23, 2012, 10:40:20 PM
Just drove by this one today, caught my attention. It's on US 26 in Mt Vernon, OR (West of John Day). Didn't get a picture myself but grabbed a good one from Google Maps:


20, 26, and 95 seem to be the most frequently mismade US shields.  that district must be extra sloppy, because I've also seen US-27 in that general area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 24, 2012, 12:39:09 PM
Why is the a dash between "NJ" and "Tpk"?  It's not the New Jersey - Turnpike.

Or is PA telling something they can access New Jersey, Turnpike, & New York?

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 24, 2012, 03:45:09 PM
Just a note, it's generally helpful to quote the original post you're referring to when the post is 4 days old and over half a page back in the thread, and the conversation has generally moved on.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on August 24, 2012, 07:06:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 24, 2012, 12:39:09 PM
Why is the a dash between "NJ" and "Tpk"?  It's not the New Jersey - Turnpike.

Typo?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 24, 2012, 12:39:09 PM
Or is PA telling something they can access New Jersey, Turnpike, & New York?

Unlikely. Generally you only see "PA Turnpike" instead of just "Turnpike." The fairly new (as in, not dark green and text-only :P) BGSes southbound on US 1 approaching the Turnpike are an exception.

Also, there's no space before and after the hyphen, like there is between "Turnpike" and "New York."

"NJ-TPK - NEW YORK"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on August 24, 2012, 08:04:11 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 24, 2012, 12:07:32 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on August 23, 2012, 10:40:20 PM
Just drove by this one today, caught my attention. It's on US 26 in Mt Vernon, OR (West of John Day). Didn't get a picture myself but grabbed a good one from Google Maps:


20, 26, and 95 seem to be the most frequently mismade US shields.  that district must be extra sloppy, because I've also seen US-27 in that general area.
Also from Oregon is this disasterous, mismade US 97 shield, posted earlier by Chris (xonhulu)
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3521.msg158066#msg158066 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3521.msg158066#msg158066)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on August 24, 2012, 08:34:44 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 24, 2012, 07:06:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 24, 2012, 12:39:09 PM
Why is the a dash between "NJ" and "Tpk"?  It's not the New Jersey - Turnpike.

Typo?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 24, 2012, 12:39:09 PM
Or is PA telling something they can access New Jersey, Turnpike, & New York?

Unlikely. Generally you only see "PA Turnpike" instead of just "Turnpike." The fairly new (as in, not dark green and text-only :P) BGSes southbound on US 1 approaching the Turnpike are an exception.

Also, there's no space before and after the hyphen, like there is between "Turnpike" and "New York."

"NJ-TPK - NEW YORK"

Reminds me of a sign for Industrial Parkway (old US 33) in Union County, Ohio which for some reason includes a hyphen: Industrial-Pkwy
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 24, 2012, 09:32:21 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on August 23, 2012, 10:40:20 PM
Just drove by this one today, caught my attention. It's on US 26 in Mt Vernon, OR (West of John Day). Didn't get a picture myself but grabbed a good one from Google Maps:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi47.tinypic.com%2Fsfa4c5.png&hash=7f626d25db8f69d9433dd5eb39d3463bd0a8252f)

It's been there for a few years; I have a photo of it from 2010.

And there is absolutely nothing unusual about that kind of error in Oregon.  Head south on US 395 to Burns; there, you'll see several assemblies with state route shields for both 395 and 20:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FUS20-395Burnssigngoofa-1.jpg&hash=0f17150b6a40405bccdd8a8e44251097c6d12211)

This summer, I saw my first ever OR 30 mistake, near Westport between Astoria and Clatskanie:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FUS30WestportSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1345858111&hash=e79536184d253a6327f1d7ea694ee57e8a875889)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on August 25, 2012, 12:02:49 AM
That US 68/KY 80 segment is fairly new. I suspect contractor error on those signs, especially since the signpost is U-channel. KYTC no longer uses U-channel posts.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: doorknob60 on August 25, 2012, 02:47:48 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 24, 2012, 09:32:21 PM
[And there is absolutely nothing unusual about that kind of error in Oregon.  Head south on US 395 to Burns; there, you'll see several assemblies with state route shields for both 395 and 20:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FUS20-395Burnssigngoofa-1.jpg&hash=0f17150b6a40405bccdd8a8e44251097c6d12211)

Yeah, drove through there last month, those bugged me, and they're all over the place in that town :P

EDIT: Also, is it just me or in the original picture (with OR 26), do the numbers look different on the N and S 395 shields? Seems like they take up more space in the southbound one to me. Maybe they're both correct (I have no idea), but they should be consistent on the same assembly.

Quote from: national highway 1 on August 24, 2012, 08:04:11 PM
Also from Oregon is this disasterous, mismade US 97 shield, posted earlier by Chris (xonhulu)
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3521.msg158066#msg158066 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3521.msg158066#msg158066)

And that one, I haven't seen that one in person, but I would assume (and hope) that that is not ODOT's sign :P, maybe the county or something? Though assuming it is in Deschutes county, I've never seen any other bad shields put up by them, but maybe I'm not looking hard enough. Either way, that one is so bad that it's good :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on August 25, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
Meanwhile in neighboring Idaho, with the highway that connects the north with the main southern part of the state.
(credits to Corco)
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/ID/ID19700771i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 25, 2012, 10:51:51 PM
Meanwhile, in Idaho's neighbor Utah from a few years back (I'd be shocked if these were still up):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FUS191MoabSignGoof1-1.jpg%3Ft%3D1317342156&hash=7bcb2f15f4ed53defc625af9c60b5ac63ed04a86)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 25, 2012, 11:39:40 PM
Slightly inaccurate as you get on IL-56 to get to I-88 East.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2594.jpg&hash=0fc12c2f899c0ed3ee111e17de58dc7514d4e7af)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2593.jpg&hash=814c9a4f69dbabd766c0b78383eab32f89ecfe91)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_1779.jpg&hash=bb25686115ce8013c029ac45efade59e7f9abf99)

But, at least IDOT is consistent in being wrong.  :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 26, 2012, 01:12:11 AM
I take it the error is that 56 is not actually east?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 26, 2012, 07:29:39 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 26, 2012, 01:12:11 AM
I take it the error is that 56 is not actually east?

The error is that IL-56 begins here, and that you are on IL-56, not on "TO IL-56".  The signs should read, to be accurate, "EAST IL-56 TO I-88 EAST".  The ground signage actually says this.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: texaskdog on August 27, 2012, 02:05:24 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 25, 2012, 10:51:51 PM
Meanwhile, in Idaho's neighbor Utah from a few years back (I'd be shocked if these were still up):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FUS191MoabSignGoof1-1.jpg%3Ft%3D1317342156&hash=7bcb2f15f4ed53defc625af9c60b5ac63ed04a86)

DUDE, I took one of this on the trip because I was shocked.  Was going to post it today.  It is still up as of 8/14/12!!!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 27, 2012, 02:43:02 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 27, 2012, 02:05:24 PM
I took one in New Mexico of US 60/70/84 posted as state highways. Can't figure out how to post the pic here or I would.

1. Go to http://imgur.com. Click Computer, then select your image.
2. After the image is displayed, look to the right and select the code that begins with "[IMG" ...
3. Copy and paste that into a post here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2012, 03:09:12 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 27, 2012, 02:05:24 PM
I took one in New Mexico of US 60/70/84 posted as state highways. Can't figure out how to post the pic here or I would.

all on the same gantry? dang.  I must have missed that in my exploration of Clovis.

I have seen (all on different gantries in various parts of the state), state route shields for US 54, 60, 64, and 82.  I believe I saw a 285 as well but would have to review my photos.

this has been around for years in Lordsburg

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NM/NM19630702i1.jpg)

when US-80 was decommissioned, a brief segment of it (well west of Lordsburg) was designated NM-80.  this segment just had a blind search-and-replace done on the old US-80 shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: texaskdog on August 27, 2012, 03:25:20 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fz6N3f.jpg&hash=40d2c3fbca9cc0b76587d82b64689712f86f7489)

Thanks Scott.  This was right inside the New Mexico border from Texas, on the US highways. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on August 27, 2012, 04:25:59 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 24, 2012, 12:39:09 PM
Why is the a dash between "NJ" and "Tpk"?  It's not the New Jersey - Turnpike.

Or is PA telling something they can access New Jersey, Turnpike, & New York?

In the vein of misplaced hyphens or dashes, this sign used to be located on I-295 in the District of Columbia but was removed within the past year or so due to much-needed reconstruction. Picture from AARoads.com.

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/district_of_columbia/i-295_nb_exit_004_03.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on August 28, 2012, 04:34:22 PM
The latest in a series of orange sunflowers posted on detour routes (and it always seems to be K-47 that gets them)

(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/574930_10152075535820331_1201962786_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on August 28, 2012, 05:10:11 PM
Reminds me of: On I-270 at the cloverleaf with US 33 on the southeast side of Columbus, the exit gores have orange signs about 8'×4', where the left half is a huge black-on-orange-on-black US 33 marker, and the right half is an upward-rightward pointing black arrow on orange.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on August 29, 2012, 10:33:18 AM
On Kentucky Avenue in Norton, Va.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8454%2F7887451818_3ec54f7699.jpg&hash=5256f10cba52afc2abaf6340aaaf7097c11f5bb3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route56 on August 29, 2012, 09:27:20 PM
Quote from: apeman33 on August 28, 2012, 04:34:22 PM
The latest in a series of orange sunflowers posted on detour routes (and it always seems to be K-47 that gets them)

(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/574930_10152075535820331_1201962786_n.jpg)

FTR, they were previously spotted in 1999 by Scott:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route56.com%2Fgallery%2Fzp-core%2Fi.php%3Fa%3D1999%2FMay99%26amp%3Bi%3Dsen1.jpg%26amp%3Bs%3D700&hash=27d4d9340743b667fb06b4a5bcfb1907af0b63a0)

And in 2000 by Me:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route56.com%2Fgallery%2Fzp-core%2Fi.php%3Fa%3D2000%2Fmar00%2F032400%26amp%3Bi%3D10092.jpg%26amp%3Bs%3D700&hash=2191622d8f299075a4eda97d57205bc8612406ae)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route56.com%2Fgallery%2Fzp-core%2Fi.php%3Fa%3D2000%2Fmar00%2F032400%26amp%3Bi%3D10095.jpg%26amp%3Bs%3D700&hash=823b015047f5e55d9eaeb5cb79ff243713f428d3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on August 30, 2012, 01:11:42 AM
I wonder why it's always K-47...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 30, 2012, 02:39:58 AM
How exactly do the orange K-47's fit in this thread?  I've seen plenty of situations where they use an orange version of a route shield to indicate a detour or construction zone. 

I will grant you that the first two photos with the white directional banner look a little odd, but that's pretty minor, imo.  I'd be willing consider them unusual or interesting, but unless the detour they're indicating is wrong, they're hardly "erroneous."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 30, 2012, 02:40:40 AM
Could be that these are the exact same signs being reused in different work zones.

I actually sort of like the idea of temporary/detour routings being marked in orange, actually.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on August 30, 2012, 04:55:00 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 30, 2012, 02:39:58 AM
How exactly do the orange K-47's fit in this thread?  I've seen plenty of situations where they use an orange version of a route shield to indicate a detour or construction zone. 

I will grant you that the first two photos with the white directional banner look a little odd, but that's pretty minor, imo.  I'd be willing consider them unusual or interesting, but unless the detour they're indicating is wrong, they're hardly "erroneous."


It seems different people here have different definitions of what constitutes an "erroneous" sign. Personally, I'm with you; I only consider a sign erroneous if the information it's presenting is incorrect or misleading, but it seems others consider design errors and standards violations to be "erroneous" as well. (Though the latter have a dedicated thread now (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.0), in any event.)

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 30, 2012, 02:40:40 AM
Could be that these are the exact same signs being reused in different work zones.

Ah, hadn't considered that.

I'm reminded of that US 32 [sic] sign with the Helvetica "2" that ODOT seems to pull out every time they need a temporary OH 32 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on August 30, 2012, 07:43:30 AM
Could be worse...found this outside of Mansfield on I-71 a few weeks ago:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Froads%2Foh%2FBlankOhioSign.jpg&hash=d2611eba1d15e794509d46cc22bbdc5f6a043c9d)

...good thing that wasn't my exit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 30, 2012, 07:45:01 AM
Yes, it was. The entire state of Ohio was supposed to detour there. Didn't you get the memo?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on August 30, 2012, 07:46:21 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 30, 2012, 07:45:01 AM
Yes, it was. The entire state of Ohio was supposed to detour there. Didn't you get the memo?

I thought the roads seemed a bit sparse near my destination...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: elsmere241 on August 30, 2012, 09:45:48 AM
No, it's the entire United States that was supposed to detour there.  (I know the Ohio shield is based on the shape of the state, but it looks too much like the U.S. shield for my tastes.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on August 30, 2012, 02:58:59 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 30, 2012, 07:45:01 AM
Yes, it was. The entire state of Ohio was supposed to detour there. Didn't you get the memo?

Actually, its just for the inhabitants of Southern Ohio (including Columbus).  The population of Northern Ohio cant stand what's been going on at the capitol as of late.  (see: Bridge, I-90 Innerbelt Project)  :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Special K on August 30, 2012, 03:15:56 PM
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 30, 2012, 09:45:48 AM
No, it's the entire United States that was supposed to detour there.  (I know the Ohio shield is based on the shape of the state, but it looks too much like the U.S. shield for my tastes.)

If you ignore Florida, as you should.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 30, 2012, 10:14:53 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 30, 2012, 07:43:30 AM
Could be worse...found this outside of Mansfield on I-71 a few weeks ago:

BlankOhioSign.jpg

...good thing that wasn't my exit.

Couldn't you have photoshoped in the layout for Mid-Ohio Road Course before posting that? :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on August 31, 2012, 12:33:11 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 30, 2012, 02:39:58 AM
How exactly do the orange K-47's fit in this thread?  I've seen plenty of situations where they use an orange version of a route shield to indicate a detour or construction zone. 

I will grant you that the first two photos with the white directional banner look a little odd, but that's pretty minor, imo.  I'd be willing consider them unusual or interesting, but unless the detour they're indicating is wrong, they're hardly "erroneous."


They're errors in Kansas. The orange K-47 signs are the only instance any of us who have taken the photos have ever seen. The orange directional banners aren't standard here, either. This is why I thought these were errors. Where do you see these enough that they're common?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 31, 2012, 01:21:35 AM
My point is that they're not erroneous; the orange color is intentional.  Orange is the standard color for construction warning signs, including many detours, and that's what those K-47's are.

Regretably, I don't have very many photos of the various orange shields I've seen over the years; they're generally in active construction zones, where pulling over to snap photos would be difficult-to-impossible.  But here's one from Boston:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FInterstate%2520Routes%2FI93BostonOrangeShield1.jpg%3Ft%3D1346389257&hash=8fed4790167d517ed6c2f217001d2b340e65229a)

Way more common is to see shields depicted on orange signs; here are a couple involving OR 53 that actually are erroneous:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR53CannonBeachJctSignGoof2.jpg%3Ft%3D1346390297&hash=939059adca1fa16d9acef5de77675e81dbea93d9)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR53CannonBeachJctSignGoof1.jpg%3Ft%3D1346390346&hash=d0395ab2532db32f03e0fd1ce965ae7cefb1ce3a)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on August 31, 2012, 07:37:10 PM
Route shields are always supposed to be the proper colors, even in work zones. It's only guide, warning, and a limited number of regulatory signs that are supposed to change color. The MUTCD has a separate TTC section in the book and in Standard Highway Signs for just this reason.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 31, 2012, 11:41:02 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 31, 2012, 01:21:35 AMRegretably, I don't have very many photos of the various orange shields I've seen over the years; they're generally in active construction zones, where pulling over to snap photos would be difficult-to-impossible.  But here's one from Boston:

http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Interstate%20Routes/I93BostonOrangeShield1.jpg?t=1346389257

I could stomach that orange 93 if everything about it weren't so damn ugly. And nevermind the fact that you can still find those up in multiple places (I drive by one on US 1 SB approaching the Tobin Bridge regularly), even years after the Big Dig construction has been completed. Also, I find it funny that the one in your pic is rendered completely redundant by the overhead sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on September 02, 2012, 01:25:43 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 31, 2012, 01:21:35 AM
My point is that they're not erroneous; the orange color is intentional.  Orange is the standard color for construction warning signs, including many detours, and that's what those K-47's are.

The orange color may perhaps be intentional on the part of the company that made the sign, but that does not make it correct. Kansas standard is for the shield to be its regular color in a construction zone. These aren't warning signs. Therefore, by Kansas standards, these shields are errors.

Had I known about the other thread, I'd have posted the orange sunflowers there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 02, 2012, 10:00:39 AM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/7913503906/in/photostream

Here is one on Northbound I-81 and Westbound NY 17 where the two route concurrency ends near Binhamton, NY.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 07, 2012, 08:09:40 PM
Courtesy of the DuPage County Highway Department, at the western end of 75th Street.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2690.jpg&hash=258412c07917518191c2863f558eaddbf9259abb)

And I was looking at Google Maps and found this in Miami, FL:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=25.785488,-80.189507&spn=0.00251,0.002411&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=25.785472,-80.189398&panoid=cboa8ElA0KRMjgzSbH_bIQ&cbp=12,68.4,,0,-3.4
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mcdonaat on September 07, 2012, 08:48:05 PM
So what's wrong with the US 395 sign?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 07, 2012, 09:02:26 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on September 07, 2012, 08:48:05 PM
So what's wrong with the US 395 sign?

US 395 is in California...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mcdonaat on September 07, 2012, 09:04:01 PM
Oh! Well then... Wait a second, California still has US routes?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on September 07, 2012, 09:25:59 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 07, 2012, 09:02:26 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on September 07, 2012, 08:48:05 PM
So what's wrong with the US 395 sign?

US 395 is in California...
I am definitely sure that the US 395 shield is meant to be an I-395 shield.
Quote from: mcdonaat on September 07, 2012, 09:04:01 PM
Oh! Well then... Wait a second, California still has US routes?
Yes, it still has US 6, US 50, US 95, US 97, US 101, US 199 and US 395.  ;-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mcdonaat on September 07, 2012, 09:48:50 PM
Still removed US 40, 48, 50, 60, 66, 70, 80, 91, 99, 299, 399, and 466! Louisiana has actually added US routes, so it's funny to see a state like California remove a route, then immediately sign it as a historic route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on September 08, 2012, 12:10:56 AM
Except for hallowed 66 and a piece of former 101 along Pacific Highway north of San Diego, I don't remember any "Historic" U.S. highway markings in California. I've driven long stretches of 99, 299, 58 (466) and 1 (Alt. 101) and seen no brown signs.

Since California decommissioned U.S. routes either because it was following AASHTO guidance about single-state routes, or because the U.S. routes were functionally replaced by interstates, there is really not much for it to post. In Louisiana, the interstates were largely constructed on right of way well off the existing U.S. routes, so there is at least an argument to retain the markings. I'd also argue about the new and extended U.S. routes in Louisiana, which seem to be a conspiracy with Arkansas to maximize U.S. route mileage. In California, the existing historic U.S. routes were mostly converted to freeway along the same right of way. There is thus no value with posting two routes instead of one along the freeway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on September 08, 2012, 12:41:36 AM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on September 08, 2012, 12:10:56 AM
Except for hallowed 66 and a piece of former 101 along Pacific Highway north of San Diego, I don't remember any "Historic" U.S. highway markings in California. I've driven long stretches of 99, 299, 58 (466) and 1 (Alt. 101) and seen no brown signs.
99 has some at the south end at least: http://www.usends.com/90-99/099/099.html
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on September 08, 2012, 02:29:43 AM
Quote from: NE2 on September 08, 2012, 12:41:36 AM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on September 08, 2012, 12:10:56 AM
Except for hallowed 66 and a piece of former 101 along Pacific Highway north of San Diego, I don't remember any "Historic" U.S. highway markings in California. I've driven long stretches of 99, 299, 58 (466) and 1 (Alt. 101) and seen no brown signs.
99 has some at the south end at least: http://www.usends.com/90-99/099/099.html
I've witnessed them for US 80 in San Diego, as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on September 08, 2012, 03:00:50 AM
Quote from: mcdonaat on September 07, 2012, 09:48:50 PM
it's funny to see a state like California remove a route, then immediately sign it as a historic route.
Anyway, the correct response is that 40 years is only 'immediately' if you're a redwood.

US 40 has some ugly ass historic signs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2077%2F4506775516_d1e197fcc1.jpg&hash=d33cc43650cc0ff9e8c03d35772b6ab028aaf931)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ibagli on September 08, 2012, 06:04:45 AM
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 30, 2012, 09:45:48 AM
No, it's the entire United States that was supposed to detour there.  (I know the Ohio shield is based on the shape of the state, but it looks too much like the U.S. shield for my tastes.)

You're not the only one who thinks that. (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=40.022775,-82.449828&spn=0.002083,0.005284&sll=25.785471,-80.189397&sspn=0.001745,0.002642&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.022727,-82.450079&panoid=eeiRzWfdtJURKjqWH3rpmA&cbp=12,134.22,,0,4.61)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on September 08, 2012, 06:35:36 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on August 30, 2012, 04:55:00 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 30, 2012, 02:39:58 AM
How exactly do the orange K-47's fit in this thread?  I've seen plenty of situations where they use an orange version of a route shield to indicate a detour or construction zone. 

I will grant you that the first two photos with the white directional banner look a little odd, but that's pretty minor, imo.  I'd be willing consider them unusual or interesting, but unless the detour they're indicating is wrong, they're hardly "erroneous."


It seems different people here have different definitions of what constitutes an "erroneous" sign. Personally, I'm with you; I only consider a sign erroneous if the information it's presenting is incorrect or misleading, but it seems others consider design errors and standards violations to be "erroneous" as well. (Though the latter have a dedicated thread now (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.0), in any event.)

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 30, 2012, 02:40:40 AM
Could be that these are the exact same signs being reused in different work zones.

Ah, hadn't considered that.

I'm reminded of that US 32 [sic] sign with the Helvetica "2" that ODOT seems to pull out every time they need a temporary OH 32 shield.

You mean this one?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2F2010%2520Get%2520the%2520Hell%2520Out%2520of%2520Town%2520Tour%2FDad1009.jpg&hash=5a5c00e6dbb9cdc0661455054769b5e5fb557591)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on September 08, 2012, 02:29:32 PM
While this one could be open for debate, it clearly is erroneous in the eyes of MUTCD.

BGS for PA 534 exit along I-80 westbound near Hickory Run
EXIT 274
534
Hickory Run
State Park
EXIT 2 MILES


Note: the BGS in question is a fairly new (Control destinations are in Clearview font) so one can safely rule out any notion that the BGS predated any exit numbering assignments (i.e. the now-long-gone 70s-era BGS along I-95 between Peabody and Newburyport, MA).

It's worth noting that the 1 mile approach BGS for this exit is correct and does not have the word EXIT in it twice.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 08, 2012, 04:16:50 PM
There was an instance of an Ohio 400 shield being posted...on US-400...in Kansas.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on September 08, 2012, 05:35:17 PM
Quote from: ibagli on September 08, 2012, 06:04:45 AM
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 30, 2012, 09:45:48 AM
No, it's the entire United States that was supposed to detour there.  (I know the Ohio shield is based on the shape of the state, but it looks too much like the U.S. shield for my tastes.)

You're not the only one who thinks that. (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=40.022775,-82.449828&spn=0.002083,0.005284&sll=25.785471,-80.189397&sspn=0.001745,0.002642&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.022727,-82.450079&panoid=eeiRzWfdtJURKjqWH3rpmA&cbp=12,134.22,,0,4.61)

On a similar note, I spotted an OH 62 shield on US 62 WB near New Albany. I didn't get a picture because it was dark when I went past...

Quote from: ctsignguy on September 08, 2012, 06:35:36 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on August 30, 2012, 04:55:00 AM
I'm reminded of that US 32 [sic] sign with the Helvetica "2" that ODOT seems to pull out every time they need a temporary OH 32 shield.

You mean this one?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2F2010%2520Get%2520the%2520Hell%2520Out%2520of%2520Town%2520Tour%2FDad1009.jpg&hash=5a5c00e6dbb9cdc0661455054769b5e5fb557591)

Yes, that's the one! *shudder*
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on September 08, 2012, 06:22:29 PM
I'm guessing (hoping, really) that it was originally a US 33 shield that was eventually, um, altered.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on September 08, 2012, 06:46:58 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 08, 2012, 06:22:29 PM
I'm guessing (hoping, really) that it was originally a US 33 shield that was eventually, um, altered.

Actually, that was an original US 35 shield.....that was.....mutated.....
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on September 08, 2012, 07:08:46 PM
I figured that's what it was, but I can't decide if that makes it better or that much worse...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 08, 2012, 10:40:18 PM
"Error 404" (no, not that error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_404)) on westbound Del. 404 just north of Bridgeville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeville,_Delaware), Sussex County.

In addition to the error U.S. shield, the "JCT" is also in error, since the Bridgeville Bypass is Del. 404. 

Sorry for the flash  - it was getting late and the rain was starting (again).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Ferror404.jpg&hash=29000cc904ae99edea710c164139b895cd3d52d1)

Before the Bypass was built, Bridgeville was notorious as a speed trap for motorists headed between metropolitan Washington and Baltimore and the Delaware Atlantic Ocean resorts (especially Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach).  I've always preferred the beaches in Ocean City, Maryland and Virginia Beach, Virginia, so I have seldom come this way - but about 10 years ago, I had reason to drive through Bridgeville (before the bypass was complete) one June evening and had an unmarked white Ford Crown Vic police sedan roar out of a side street (nearly crashing into the driver that was following me) and get behind me, apparently hoping I would exceed the 25 MPH posted limit, and I decided to give the cop a little payback, by not driving over 20 MPH until I was safely out of his jurisdiction.  Looking in my mirrors, I could see the Bridgeville officer getting visibly agitated at my poky pace, but what was he going to do?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 08, 2012, 11:02:35 PM
Not only is it incorrect to use a US outline, but they used the 2-digit shape stretched out to 3-digit proportions.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on September 09, 2012, 04:18:41 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2012, 04:16:50 PM
There was an instance of an Ohio 400 shield being posted...on US-400...in Kansas.

I took photos of them. They were put on the bypass around Parsons when it first opened. The first time I saw them, I didn't have my camera. And they were there long enough that I had a second chance to get them on film a month later while I was driving to Coffeyville to cover a basketball game for the paper I work for (at that time, we practically never ran color, so that's why I shot the pics with black-and-white film).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F9833625%2Fsn%2F1879221281%2Fname%2Fn_a&hash=43f6457ae2f1ed4c0adf75745a9a8331297a4c0c)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F9833625%2Fsn%2F968492112%2Fname%2Fn_a&hash=18cb1478322df61d1b729bb1e1f32916aa80bacf)

Those were at U.S. 400 and 32nd St (as Parsons calls it)/Ness Road (as Labette County calls it). There were at least two other sets of them.
(You've got a pretty good memory; I posted them to the Yahoo Central Roads group in 2003.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 09, 2012, 08:56:45 AM
^^ To be honest, I have always thought the Ohio state route shied looks very much like a US route shield.  From a distance, they're harder to tell apart.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on September 09, 2012, 09:00:39 AM
Wisconsin is much closer.

And Alabama is a sideways Massachusetts.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 09, 2012, 12:19:54 PM
Also, Missouri is Georgia.  And Georgia is Misouri.

And Ohio is a pair of underwear.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Funited_shapes.png&hash=191d604aa609e5dd72904663d0338d8a98b8169e) (http://xkcd.com/1079/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 09, 2012, 02:54:51 PM
Well, now that you've said it, I think a stretched Ohio shield appears very much like a soggy diaper.

(Xkcd is being extremely family-friendly with Florida though.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 09, 2012, 04:08:45 PM
Quote from: formulanone on September 09, 2012, 02:54:51 PM
(Xkcd is being extremely family-friendly with Florida though.)

Apparently you didn't see the hover-over text: "That eggplant is in something of a flaccid state."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on September 09, 2012, 10:49:32 PM
Here's Steve's pic of DE 404:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fde%2Fde_404%2Fwus.jpg&hash=225b649a2aefc01d44a0b601753984aee94f6972)

Closer to my neck of the woods is NY 404 (http://alpsroads.net/roads/ny/ny_404/).  I linked to the page since there's multiple error shields.

In Oswego, as of a few years ago there was this US 104 shield on Lake St at West 1st St (again, from Steve):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fny_104%2Fus.jpg&hash=d3b9580fb408cdaf6caf6f174c06f5e5f5a2826d)
The shield was too new to be one leftover from the redesignation of US 104.  I took a picture of it myself, but I can't find it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 11, 2012, 12:58:51 AM
Upside down in Falfurrias, Texas along the construction on US 281:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F07%2FInvertedTrafficLightSign-Falfurrias.jpg&hash=c92e6897bb2364afa45c96046e1293ea220f26f8)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: digitalphiltv on September 11, 2012, 04:07:59 AM
One of the best ones was FDOT (Archer Western Contractors) in Pensacola, FL, after Hurricane Ivan. The Escambia Bay Bridge replacement caused an overweight/oversize truck detour. Signs posted were supposed to read "RESTRICTION/OVERWEIGHT/OVERSIZED/TRUCKS EASTBOUND" ... One of the signs posted at US-29 read "RESTRICTINO" (sic)... the typo was obviously never going to be fixed because it was a temporary need, inside a federal disaster area...FEMA directly paid for the emergency bridge replacement, if I remember correctly. I snapped a photo of this, but there is NO telling what I did with the lousy thing, I have had SEVERAL hard drive failures since then.

US-29 is also signed FL-29 erroneously in MANY places. This breaks Florida's State Road Re-numbering system... I believe the 1950's was when they renumbered everything... FL-29 would be a North/South road in the Eastern part of the State someplace. US-29 was actually SR-95 (And the old US-29 running next to it, Escambia County Road 95A...)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 11, 2012, 03:18:31 PM
^^ Those upside down signal ahead signs seem to be all but uncommon, especially in construction zones. Here's another one up in Jersey City, NJ about a year ago.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5295%2F5423155876_6a3ec1171b_z.jpg&hash=adceb4f6ea638ccfe49a7829487ca638b73bca43)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mcdonaat on September 11, 2012, 07:06:48 PM
Don't have any photos at the moment, but La 415's intersection with Spur La 415, US 190, and La 987-3 is messed up. Northbound on La 415, you see two different North La 415 signs, one on what is actually Spur La 415, and another on the true LA 415 North. Southbound on La 415, you see a BGS for South La 415, but the road is actually Spur La 415 (the proper BGS should say TO 415 South). Stay southbound on La 415, and you'll see that to get to La 987-3, you turn left, or you can turn right, although the actual 987-3 is to the right. Continue down La 415 South, and you'll get to a sign that says 987-3 to the left (the road loops under 415), but even though the road is signed as East 987-3, it's Spur 987-3. The true 987-3 is signed as Spur La 987-3. Confusing? Here's some photos from Google Maps Streetview (they'll have to do).

LA 987-3 to the right... http://goo.gl/maps/cZ0na
...and to the left. http://goo.gl/maps/YxPJ7
Turn right to get to North LA 415... http://goo.gl/maps/HxY6h
..but wait, you can go straight to get to North LA 415. http://goo.gl/maps/1SYRY
LA 987-3 about to junction Spur LA 987-3... http://goo.gl/maps/BaML8
...but LA 987-3 Spur is actually the whole road. http://goo.gl/maps/7ovB0
Spur LA 987-3... http://goo.gl/maps/SxJdF
... but remember the double arrow Spur? That's wrong, the whole road is LA 987-3. http://goo.gl/maps/z6wDY
http://goo.gl/maps/P9q5D shows us that Spur LA 987-3 is to the right. LaDOTD maps show LA 987-3 turning to the right, with the spur straight ahead.

Keep in mind this is all in the same parish. Apparently, mainline US routes can be north-south. http://goo.gl/maps/CDkBa
Bypass routes still exist, 50 years after decommissioning - http://goo.gl/maps/aEymb
LA 3246 can be West... http://goo.gl/maps/d3E58
...and north/south. http://goo.gl/maps/X5Aoe
LA 3064 can be east/west..http://goo.gl/maps/4Yfyn
...and north/south. http://goo.gl/maps/TpKlN

Also just for fun... US 425 patch over the defunct LA 137. http://goo.gl/maps/5q1Jh
However, it still appears cosigned on the highway. http://goo.gl/maps/oHloa
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on September 12, 2012, 03:24:23 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on September 11, 2012, 07:06:48 PM
Also just for fun... US 425 patch over the defunct LA 137. http://goo.gl/maps/5q1Jh
However, it still appears cosigned on the highway. http://goo.gl/maps/oHloa

Ugh, that used to bug me to no end. They left the original LA 137 exit sign up for years after US 425 was present, then when it was "fixed", they left 137 out when it's still cosigned. But there are many other Louisiana interstate exits that don't show the signed highway or cosigned highway.

Ex: I-20-
Exit 19B Traffic St (LA 72)
Exit 22 Airline Dr (LA 3105)
Exit 23 Industrial Drive (LA 782-2)
Exit 85 Ruston (shows US 167, but not US 63 or LA 146)


I-49:
Exit 86 now shows LA 28 one direction in additon to US 165 and US 167, but not both
Exit 27 Lebeau, LA 10 is present but not LA 182

I-10:
Exit 157B  Acadian Thruway (LA 427)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mcdonaat on September 12, 2012, 08:48:07 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on September 12, 2012, 03:24:23 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on September 11, 2012, 07:06:48 PM
Also just for fun... US 425 patch over the defunct LA 137. http://goo.gl/maps/5q1Jh
However, it still appears cosigned on the highway. http://goo.gl/maps/oHloa

Ugh, that used to bug me to no end. They left the original LA 137 exit sign up for years after US 425 was present, then when it was "fixed", they left 137 out when it's still cosigned. But there are many other Louisiana interstate exits that don't show the signed highway or cosigned highway.

Ex: I-20-
Exit 19B Traffic St (LA 72)
Exit 22 Airline Dr (LA 3105)
Exit 23 Industrial Drive (LA 782-2)
Exit 85 Ruston (shows US 167, but not US 63 or LA 146)


I-49:
Exit 86 now shows LA 28 one direction in additon to US 165 and US 167, but not both
Exit 27 Lebeau, LA 10 is present but not LA 182

I-10:
Exit 157B  Acadian Thruway (LA 427)
I-20:
Exit 38 Goodwill Road (PR 117)
Exit 108 Cheniere (LA 15 is at the same intersection as US 80/LA 546)
Exit 112 Well Road (LA 3249)

I-49:
Exit 132 LA 478 (PR 620 not signed)

Not exactly erroneous, but a lack of detail. Mods, can we get a topic spun off with these two posts for highways that are unsigned at exits?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 13, 2012, 12:42:33 PM
Ohio signs in Kansas.

Alabama signs in Massachusetts.

Pennsylvania signs in West Virginia.

Other examples that we know of?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 13, 2012, 12:49:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 13, 2012, 12:42:33 PM
Ohio signs in Kansas.

Alabama signs in Massachusetts.

Pennsylvania signs in West Virginia.

Other examples that we know of?

Not a sign, but there is a TV commercial that is running  in the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore TV markets for a waterfront resort in Calvert County, Maryland (western shore of the Chesapeake Bay) which prominently features Md. Route 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Route_4) (that's the "main street" of Calvert County).  Only problem - it uses a Virginia shield for Md. 4.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 13, 2012, 12:57:41 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 13, 2012, 12:42:33 PM
Ohio signs in Kansas.

Alabama signs in Massachusetts.

Pennsylvania signs in West Virginia.

Other examples that we know of?

I remember someone mentioning a Pennsylvania keystone 31 on US-31 in Michigan. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 13, 2012, 01:07:10 PM
Oh yeah. But wasn't that a temporary construction error?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 13, 2012, 01:22:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 13, 2012, 01:07:10 PM
Oh yeah. But wasn't that a temporary construction error?

I think you're right.  I remember there being an orange banner above it, but I don't recall if that is for construction, or one of Michigan's ALTERNATE tabs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 13, 2012, 03:01:08 PM
I remember seeing some photos of it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route56 on September 13, 2012, 05:34:17 PM
Quote from: apeman33 on September 09, 2012, 04:18:41 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2012, 04:16:50 PM
There was an instance of an Ohio 400 shield being posted...on US-400...in Kansas.

I took photos of them. They were put on the bypass around Parsons when it first opened.

So did I....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route56.com%2Fgallery%2Fzp-core%2Fi.php%3Fa%3D2003%2Fdec03%2F120603%26amp%3Bi%3D19353.jpg&hash=812afa8c2a350eaadbe87aaa2f4c27e608ccaaf9)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route56.com%2Fgallery%2Fzp-core%2Fi.php%3Fa%3D2003%2Fdec03%2F120603%26amp%3Bi%3D19355.jpg&hash=b05526bc260b67cbc01658a46e335e76b946b99b)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route56.com%2Fgallery%2Fzp-core%2Fi.php%3Fa%3D2003%2Fdec03%2F120603%26amp%3Bi%3D19354.jpg&hash=cf9063889e1f09b412bdb326af98aba0252c14a6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 13, 2012, 05:55:43 PM
There is also a "Connecticut 51" shield in Payne County, Oklahoma, although that one is arguable since it's just a white square someone decided to leave the meat cleaver off of (and then center).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 13, 2012, 06:09:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 13, 2012, 05:55:43 PM
There is also a "Connecticut 51" shield in Payne County, Oklahoma, although that one is arguable since it's just a white square someone decided to leave the meat cleaver off of (and then center).

does it have the thick border?  if not, then it is a Massachusetts/Maine/old NH.

by that argument, there are several dozen Massachusetts shields in Connecticut. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on September 13, 2012, 06:49:55 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 13, 2012, 06:09:52 PM
by that argument, there are several dozen Massachusetts shields in Connecticut. 

There have been a few documented white squares in Virginia as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 13, 2012, 07:09:27 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 13, 2012, 06:09:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 13, 2012, 05:55:43 PM
There is also a "Connecticut 51" shield in Payne County, Oklahoma, although that one is arguable since it's just a white square someone decided to leave the meat cleaver off of (and then center).

does it have the thick border?  if not, then it is a Massachusetts/Maine/old NH.

by that argument, there are several dozen Massachusetts shields in Connecticut. 

It has no border. It's on a BGS.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on September 13, 2012, 07:21:52 PM
Don't see a lot of this kind of mistake in Colorado (Thenetwork's avatar notwithstanding). Sign replacement as part of a pavement rehabilitation project between Manzanola and Rocky Ford along (still) U.S. 50.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8450%2F7983924996_0e7e1e0eaf.jpg&hash=44232579b2ce317ded2c2a1654c3339241fc40e8) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29887636@N08/7983924996/)
CO-50 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29887636@N08/7983924996/) by The High Plains Traveler (http://www.flickr.com/people/29887636@N08/), on Flickr

Here is a through-the-dirty-windshield shot where I had no safe place to stop, with the old sign immediately behind the new.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8036%2F7983925118_ef4c69a2ea.jpg&hash=63b7fec971f553973e1c8b019927643de6f8a721) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29887636@N08/7983925118/)
50-50 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29887636@N08/7983925118/) by The High Plains Traveler (http://www.flickr.com/people/29887636@N08/), on Flickr

Thenetwork's CO-24 signs over Tennessee Pass were up for over a year, I think. They finally disappeared between two trips I took there between September and October last year. We'll see if the CDOT project engineer's final inspection on this project yields a quick correction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on September 13, 2012, 07:58:40 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on September 13, 2012, 07:21:52 PM
Don't see a lot of this kind of mistake in Colorado (Thenetwork's avatar notwithstanding). Sign replacement as part of a pavement rehabilitation project between Manzanola and Rocky Ford along (still) U.S. 50.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8450%2F7983924996_0e7e1e0eaf.jpg&hash=44232579b2ce317ded2c2a1654c3339241fc40e8) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29887636@N08/7983924996/)
CO-50 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29887636@N08/7983924996/) by The High Plains Traveler (http://www.flickr.com/people/29887636@N08/), on Flickr


Thenetwork's CO-24 signs over Tennessee Pass were up for over a year, I think. They finally disappeared between two trips I took there between September and October last year. We'll see if the CDOT project engineer's final inspection on this project yields a quick correction.
Is the black outline around the 'C' in the Colorado shields standard practice or is it just a one-off?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on September 13, 2012, 10:32:05 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on September 13, 2012, 07:58:40 PM
Is the black outline around the 'C' in the Colorado shields standard practice or is it just a one-off?
Look at the shield gallery. I just did, despite the fact I drive past three different CO-state routes almost every day and couldn't otherwise have told you for sure. The border around the "C" on the state flag is standard. What I noted about the new signs along this stretch was a lack of CDOT maintenance decals on either side - true for all the new signage, including speed limit. Almost always they're on the front of the sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Road Hog on September 14, 2012, 01:28:52 AM
For a while in Texarkana eastbound on I-30, there was a US 93 shield on a BGS on the Texas side instead of Texas SH 93.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on September 14, 2012, 03:05:54 AM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on September 13, 2012, 07:21:52 PM
Thenetwork's CO-24 signs over Tennessee Pass were up for over a year, I think. They finally disappeared between two trips I took there between September and October last year. We'll see if the CDOT project engineer's final inspection on this project yields a quick correction.


Actually, the sign that is in my avatar was seen in beautiful downtown Minturn, CO

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=minturn,+co&hl=en&ll=39.589171,-106.431491&spn=0.004754,0.01237&sll=38.997934,-105.550567&sspn=4.908379,12.667236&hnear=Minturn,+Eagle,+Colorado&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.589129,-106.431391&panoid=GoaQLndSWtl3aSM0zXQWOA&cbp=12,345.49,,0,12.72

and IIRC was the last 24 shield (US, state, or otherwise) on WB US-24 before the END US-24 assembly at I-70/US-6.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on September 14, 2012, 07:31:35 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on September 13, 2012, 07:58:40 PM
Is the black outline around the 'C' in the Colorado shields standard practice or is it just a one-off?
It's that way on my wall, so it's likely standard.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on September 14, 2012, 09:10:02 PM
I find myself wondering what the reasoning behind the outlined "C" is. It's not like it's rendered that way on the flag the shield is based on...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on September 14, 2012, 09:38:13 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 13, 2012, 12:57:41 PM
I remember someone mentioning a Pennsylvania keystone 31 on US-31 in Michigan.

We happened to have a 2 page thread on this subject here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1775.0). ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kendancy66 on September 14, 2012, 10:20:48 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 08, 2012, 02:29:43 AM
Quote from: NE2 on September 08, 2012, 12:41:36 AM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on September 08, 2012, 12:10:56 AM
Except for hallowed 66 and a piece of former 101 along Pacific Highway north of San Diego, I don't remember any "Historic" U.S. highway markings in California. I've driven long stretches of 99, 299, 58 (466) and 1 (Alt. 101) and seen no brown signs.
99 has some at the south end at least: http://www.usends.com/90-99/099/099.html
I've witnessed them for US 80 in San Diego, as well.
There are also historic US-395 signs in San Diego County, and historic US-99 signs on San Fernando Rd in Los Angeles.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on September 14, 2012, 11:00:37 PM
Quote from: kendancy66 on September 14, 2012, 10:20:48 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 08, 2012, 02:29:43 AM
Quote from: NE2 on September 08, 2012, 12:41:36 AM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on September 08, 2012, 12:10:56 AM
Except for hallowed 66 and a piece of former 101 along Pacific Highway north of San Diego, I don't remember any "Historic" U.S. highway markings in California. I've driven long stretches of 99, 299, 58 (466) and 1 (Alt. 101) and seen no brown signs.
99 has some at the south end at least: http://www.usends.com/90-99/099/099.html
I've witnessed them for US 80 in San Diego, as well.
There are also historic US-395 signs in San Diego County, and historic US-99 signs on San Fernando Rd in Los Angeles.
So, speaking of Erroneous signs and Historic US 395, I'd like to show you this erroneous 'Historic US 163' sign on CA 163 in San Diego:
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images163/ca-163_historic_route_signage.jpg)
...and its replacement, which even though it is a white CA 163 spade, CA 163 itself only came into existence after 1964, when US 395 was truncated at I-15 at Hesperia in 1972.
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images163/ca-163_nb_exit_001a_06.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on September 16, 2012, 06:41:30 PM
Spotted on Langley Avenue in Whitehall, Ohio:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8031%2F7993748216_0c7b45db3a_c.jpg&hash=1a7836358dca2d1e15343f4a4256cfe1e27ca778)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 20, 2012, 11:05:01 PM
This isn't a road sign, but it fits in well with DOTs getting road types confused...I think. I can't really explain what's going on here other than Missouri having weird superstitions about Interstates somehow being part of the U.S. route system.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvoDJb.png&hash=fd5195980c7bf718c008c996298a14e55810966e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 21, 2012, 07:23:22 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 20, 2012, 11:05:01 PM
This isn't a road sign, but it fits in well with DOTs getting road types confused...I think. I can't really explain what's going on here other than Missouri having weird superstitions about Interstates somehow being part of the U.S. route system.

They sort of are, in that AASH(T)O manages both, and an application to change an Interstate is actually an application to change a US route with a couple of extra boxes checked.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 24, 2012, 04:58:14 PM
New sign on VA 195. VA 161 isn't Meadow Street, and the VA 161 exit is perfectly reachable without using the toll plaza.

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/--e7jlz4_ygg/UGCpdX7D-7I/AAAAAAAAFxI/vfdvF9wqjuQ/s800/K5PC3053.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on September 24, 2012, 07:27:04 PM
That's just to get drivers to go around Milwaukee - which is futile either way because that interchange clogs all the time.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on September 24, 2012, 09:08:33 PM
Zip code/area code discussion has been moved to Off-Topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=9.0).

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7725.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7725.0)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bjrush on September 25, 2012, 11:43:42 AM
Arkansas 162 marked as US 162 in Alma

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8322%2F8023551571_7869921d91_z.jpg&hash=278b2ee9f1b570d2e90ba1e34ee130beacecb98e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on September 26, 2012, 08:41:55 PM
geez...out of 6 words only one is spelled out
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 26, 2012, 08:50:55 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on September 26, 2012, 08:41:55 PM
geez...out of 6 words only one is spelled out

and it's the one which is the least meaningful.  it could be omitted without reducing the value of the sign any further.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on September 26, 2012, 11:49:10 PM
I once knew a girl named Agriexpsta. Or maybe Agnieszka. Those Polish tongue twisters.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on September 27, 2012, 11:23:38 PM
Fresh, but erroneous:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2561%2F3753370546_ecee99682a_z.jpg&hash=ecbeaa7a37d9f002cbe793a25d63a066ebac4081)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on September 29, 2012, 04:54:53 PM
What a surprise, Petersburg messing up a VA 36 shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2Fc56.0.608.405%2Fs600x600%2F534433_4601187468956_1096885346_n.jpg&hash=01d2421824157b5af0a803df38d7fda3c627f195)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on September 29, 2012, 08:01:56 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 29, 2012, 04:54:53 PM
What a surprise, Petersburg messing up a VA 36 shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2Fc56.0.608.405%2Fs600x600%2F534433_4601187468956_1096885346_n.jpg&hash=01d2421824157b5af0a803df38d7fda3c627f195)
THAT CAN BE ON THE MEET! Nah. (:

edit: THAT EXACT CAR IS IN GSV!! (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Star+Motel,+South+Crater+Road,+Petersburg,+VA&hl=en&ll=37.229111,-77.390791&spn=0.00217,0.004587&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=34.868931,75.146484&oq=star+motel+petersburg&hq=Star+Motel,&hnear=S+Crater+Rd,+Petersburg,+Virginia&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=37.229024,-77.390726&panoid=eYbPwbsew_sQvaypiflrLg&cbp=12,10.96,,0,-5.37) (But no sign yet)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on September 29, 2012, 09:59:57 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 29, 2012, 08:01:56 PM
edit: THAT EXACT CAR IS IN GSV!! (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Star+Motel,+South+Crater+Road,+Petersburg,+VA&hl=en&ll=37.229111,-77.390791&spn=0.00217,0.004587&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=34.868931,75.146484&oq=star+motel+petersburg&hq=Star+Motel,&hnear=S+Crater+Rd,+Petersburg,+Virginia&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=37.229024,-77.390726&panoid=eYbPwbsew_sQvaypiflrLg&cbp=12,10.96,,0,-5.37) (But no sign yet)
I don't take this way home from work much anymore, but I had to head downtown today (or so I thought, the place I was going wasn't open). The sign wasn't there last time I took that route, so it's probably less than a month old.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 30, 2012, 04:59:56 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 29, 2012, 04:54:53 PM
What a surprise, Petersburg messing up a VA 36 shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2Fc56.0.608.405%2Fs600x600%2F534433_4601187468956_1096885346_n.jpg&hash=01d2421824157b5af0a803df38d7fda3c627f195)

Not only that, they used the wide variety, not the usual square one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 30, 2012, 05:46:54 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=O%27Hare+International+Airport,+Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.97763,-87.891827&spn=0.008183,0.021136&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=oha&t=h&hq=O%27Hare+International+Airport,+Chicago,+IL&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.977804,-87.892057&panoid=FN1rHnQpfScZ5ufFZ8MY-A&cbp=12,133,,0,-17.26

US 12 is considered N-S along with US 45 leaving O' Hare Airport in Chicago.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Stratuscaster on October 01, 2012, 05:18:17 PM
Well, technically, Mannheim Road does run N-S there - I've never considered it an error, per se.

More like "dealing with a restricted space/layout, something had to give."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 03, 2012, 10:21:46 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 29, 2012, 04:54:53 PM
What a surprise, Petersburg messing up a VA 36 shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2Fc56.0.608.405%2Fs600x600%2F534433_4601187468956_1096885346_n.jpg&hash=01d2421824157b5af0a803df38d7fda3c627f195)

At least it's an actual shield used in the state of Virginia and not one of the hideous triangles, but still...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ace10 on October 05, 2012, 11:34:01 PM
Downtown Seattle:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fastareglobe.org%2FPhotos%2FAlbums%2FGetThumb.ashx%3FCollection%3D5f0a48c6f7044f4bb95a72b6b57ace10%26amp%3BAlbum%3D7ef098b322f84214ba2035f32f82575d%26amp%3BPhoto%3Dbfa27c43c1794a0face0bc14c20d2c3c%26amp%3BSize%3D800&hash=7249b2ec84a17e66a165d0c11730dc5fd81f3abe)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on October 05, 2012, 11:44:24 PM
Wasn't erroneous when it was put up. :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ace10 on October 05, 2012, 11:46:02 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on October 05, 2012, 11:44:24 PMWasn't erroneous when it was put up. :D

I know! I guess WSDOT is getting their full money's worth out of that sign!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on October 06, 2012, 12:08:12 AM
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7818.0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 06, 2012, 08:52:52 AM
For those newer to the forum, I posted the other VA 36 error in this thread over three years ago.  I haven't checked in awhile, but as far as I know the other US 36 sign is still there.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg30403;topicseen#msg30403 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg30403;topicseen#msg30403)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on October 06, 2012, 09:41:52 AM
It was as of last month.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on October 07, 2012, 12:18:54 AM
Quote from: Ace10 on October 05, 2012, 11:34:01 PM
Downtown Seattle:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fastareglobe.org%2FPhotos%2FAlbums%2FGetThumb.ashx%3FCollection%3D5f0a48c6f7044f4bb95a72b6b57ace10%26amp%3BAlbum%3D7ef098b322f84214ba2035f32f82575d%26amp%3BPhoto%3Dbfa27c43c1794a0face0bc14c20d2c3c%26amp%3BSize%3D800&hash=7249b2ec84a17e66a165d0c11730dc5fd81f3abe)
Quote from: Ace10 on October 05, 2012, 11:46:02 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on October 05, 2012, 11:44:24 PMWasn't erroneous when it was put up. :D

I know! I guess WSDOT is getting their full money's worth out of that sign!
Is the US 99 sign still existant, pending the demolition of the Alaskan Way viaduct?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ace10 on October 07, 2012, 12:35:14 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on October 07, 2012, 12:18:54 AMIs the US 99 sign still existant, pending the demolition of the Alaskan Way viaduct?

That photo was taken just under one month ago. I don't live in Seattle (though I'm trying to move there!) so I don't know if it's still there as of this moment, but I imagine it would remain until the Viaduct is removed.

I can't remember how I found out about that US 99 shield being on Columbia St, but I'm glad I found out about it before I took my trip up there. I imagine other pictures of it are hard to find, so I hope mine help to preserve what US 99 used to be, much like US 66.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on October 07, 2012, 08:02:35 AM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on October 01, 2012, 05:18:17 PM
Well, technically, Mannheim Road does run N-S there - I've never considered it an error, per se.

More like "dealing with a restricted space/layout, something had to give."

Very true, and few locals would consider that signs for Mannheim or LaGrange Roads to be erroneous.  At the Ike and the Stevenson, it's all three (12, 20, 45) north or south.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 07, 2012, 08:14:33 AM
Question:

Is this (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=37.679897,-97.316068&spn=0.004967,0.006899&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.679689,-97.315592&panoid=m0a9bjQhZSvcR9pQpIeX4g&cbp=12,212.62,,0,-1.96) an error?  To me, the yellow merge sign in the foreground is saying that traffic from the left will be merging into this traffic flow.  But then the yield sign in the background is saying that traffic in this lane will need to merge into the traffic coming from the left.

Or do I interpret the signs incorrectly?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on October 07, 2012, 09:13:04 AM
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2c.htm#section2C40
It says "on the major roadway", but what if the major roadway yields?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on October 07, 2012, 11:13:46 AM
I've seen situations where opposite merge signs are placed on each roadway.  I don't think it's necessarily meant to imply yielding, just that a ramp is coming in from the right (or left), and it's not an added lane.  Keep in mind that entrance ramps don't necessarily have yield signs at the end.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on October 08, 2012, 02:44:16 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 07, 2012, 08:14:33 AM
Question:

Is this (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=37.679897,-97.316068&spn=0.004967,0.006899&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.679689,-97.315592&panoid=m0a9bjQhZSvcR9pQpIeX4g&cbp=12,212.62,,0,-1.96) an error?  To me, the yellow merge sign in the foreground is saying that traffic from the left will be merging into this traffic flow.  But then the yield sign in the background is saying that traffic in this lane will need to merge into the traffic coming from the left.

Or do I interpret the signs incorrectly?

It seems kind of erroneous.  Or erroneously placed, it would go well with the adjacent ramp (pre-merge, of course)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ibagli on October 11, 2012, 02:00:10 AM
More OH-US confusion:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi49.tinypic.com%2F10zqp7m.jpg&hash=94d97634edd1f5136c00ef19ad230a456fdb1026)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on October 11, 2012, 12:18:13 PM
Quote from: ibagli on October 11, 2012, 02:00:10 AM
More OH-US confusion:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi49.tinypic.com%2F10zqp7m.jpg&hash=94d97634edd1f5136c00ef19ad230a456fdb1026)

That almost qualifies for Best Of, the way it fits 3 digits in a square shield at full height without using Series B...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on October 11, 2012, 05:55:29 PM
Quote from: vtk on October 11, 2012, 12:18:13 PM
That almost qualifies for Best Of, the way it fits 3 digits in a square shield at full height without using Series B...

Agreed. I find it aesthetically appealing, even if it's incorrect.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 11, 2012, 07:35:57 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on October 11, 2012, 05:55:29 PM
Quote from: vtk on October 11, 2012, 12:18:13 PM
That almost qualifies for Best Of, the way it fits 3 digits in a square shield at full height without using Series B...

Agreed. I find it aesthetically appealing, even if it's incorrect.

plus, it uses the '57 spec shield outline, not the garish '70 spec.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on October 11, 2012, 11:15:27 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 11, 2012, 07:35:57 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on October 11, 2012, 05:55:29 PM
Quote from: vtk on October 11, 2012, 12:18:13 PM
That almost qualifies for Best Of, the way it fits 3 digits in a square shield at full height without using Series B...

Agreed. I find it aesthetically appealing, even if it's incorrect.

plus, it uses the '57 spec shield outline, not the garish '70 spec.

I'm not sure what the difference is.  That looks like it matches the Ohio SDM to me...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 11, 2012, 11:27:13 PM
taking a page from Wisconsin:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WI/WI19650531i1.jpg)
1957 shield shape (as invented by California) on black square

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WI/WI19700162i1.jpg)
1965* shield shape (as invented by Pennsylvania)

* adopted as federal standard in 1970
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on October 12, 2012, 12:13:25 AM
To me, the error 315 has features common to both the old 53 and the newer 12, but not all the features of either. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 12, 2012, 01:47:12 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 07, 2012, 09:13:04 AM
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2c.htm#section2C40
It says "on the major roadway", but what if the major roadway yields?

The section you cited allows merge signs to be posted on both roadways if neither one can be considered the "major" roadway.  That breaks the link in my mind between "merge" and "yield".  So I suppose it isn't really erroneous–just a missing sign on the other roadway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on October 18, 2012, 01:42:17 PM
There are a couple of brand-new OH 33 shields at the junction of the new US 33 and the temporary connecting US 33 just west of Nelsonville.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on October 20, 2012, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 11, 2012, 11:27:13 PM


(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WI/WI19700162i1.jpg)
1965* shield shape (as invented by Pennsylvania)

* adopted as federal standard in 1970
I HATE Pennsylvania!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on October 26, 2012, 02:20:59 PM
Business is missing for US 460. Seeing as this was installed last year (I saw it happen!) it's an error and not just left over. Also, VA 109 needs a TO above it.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-XqvaaOe9tb4/UIrTnyKfcxI/AAAAAAAAEKc/CoFz2SmrliM/s640/DSC01989.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on October 28, 2012, 08:42:29 AM
Technically this isn't a road sign, but it seemed to fit in this thread better than elsewhere.

Do you consider littering to be a form of "water activity"? I sure don't.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2F19859F8F-B62C-48FA-9D2C-4E22B98DB6AE-27963-000017EE7E715685_zps3817eb48.jpg&hash=d4b54f242e495e3905495db3846bb7b3ebc1c62e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 28, 2012, 09:00:59 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 28, 2012, 08:42:29 AM
Do you consider littering to be a form of "water activity"? I sure don't.

It's basically aquatic shot-put.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on October 28, 2012, 11:42:51 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 28, 2012, 08:42:29 AM
Technically this isn't a road sign, but it seemed to fit in this thread better than elsewhere.

Do you consider littering to be a form of "water activity"? I sure don't.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2F19859F8F-B62C-48FA-9D2C-4E22B98DB6AE-27963-000017EE7E715685_zps3817eb48.jpg&hash=d4b54f242e495e3905495db3846bb7b3ebc1c62e)

I guess that also means no nookie in the water either.....
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek2500 on November 02, 2012, 09:24:20 AM
Look at what I found on StreetView in Philly

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1294.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb619%2Fkherm2000%2FCapture.png&hash=b903f415dbd65f998bc0d82df5d41e309851a2b9) :banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 02, 2012, 09:35:26 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek2500 on November 02, 2012, 09:24:20 AM
Look at what I found on StreetView in Philly


that's awesome.  is that a trailblazer for multiple freeways?  if so, it is used similar to this sign in Wisconsin:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WI/WI19880001i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on November 02, 2012, 09:38:35 AM
There used to be a blank Interstate shield like that on a BGS on the Inner Loop of I-695 around Baltimore as you approached its southwestern junction with I-95. This was in the days back before the Fort McHenry Tunnel opened (so, almost 30 years ago, as the tunnel opened in 1985) and the BGS in question was for the portion of I-95 that, at that time, stub-ended into Baltimore. I always assumed they omitted the "95" on the shield so as not to confuse people who didn't know it wasn't yet a thru route.

Practically speaking I can think of a few small towns where a blank shield like that would work just fine because there's only one Interstate in the area!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek2500 on November 02, 2012, 11:42:50 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 02, 2012, 09:35:26 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek2500 on November 02, 2012, 09:24:20 AM
Look at what I found on StreetView in Philly


that's awesome.  is that a trailblazer for multiple freeways?  if so, it is used similar to this sign in Wisconsin:


Could quite possibly, its right around I-95 and I-676
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on November 02, 2012, 12:23:20 PM
At least the turn arrow isn't in the interstate shield like the ones in Staunton.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on November 02, 2012, 06:41:26 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek2500 on November 02, 2012, 09:24:20 AM
Look at what I found on StreetView in Philly

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1294.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb619%2Fkherm2000%2FCapture.png&hash=b903f415dbd65f998bc0d82df5d41e309851a2b9) :banghead: :banghead:

I wonder if someone perhaps repainted the blue area, but for whatever reason painted over the number.  Note that the blue is, well, blue, while the red has faded to a barely visible grey.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on November 02, 2012, 06:48:57 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 02, 2012, 06:41:26 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek2500 on November 02, 2012, 09:24:20 AM
Look at what I found on StreetView in Philly

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1294.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb619%2Fkherm2000%2FCapture.png&hash=b903f415dbd65f998bc0d82df5d41e309851a2b9) :banghead: :banghead:

I wonder if someone perhaps repainted the blue area, but for whatever reason painted over the number.  Note that the blue is, well, blue, while the red has faded to a barely visible grey.
It's possible that the 95 numerals for that sign either peeled or fell off over time.  If one looks really close, one can see a slightly lighter shade of blue where the numerals once were.

That sign's probably at least 30 years old.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on November 02, 2012, 07:18:04 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek2500 on November 02, 2012, 09:24:20 AM
Look at what I found on StreetView in Philly

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1294.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb619%2Fkherm2000%2FCapture.png&hash=b903f415dbd65f998bc0d82df5d41e309851a2b9) :banghead: :banghead:
If you told us where you found it, one of us could go see it in person and get a high-res shot of it and let you know exactly what happened.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek2500 on November 02, 2012, 10:09:40 PM
I found it in StreetView at:

South Water Street, Philadelphia (Heading Northward, past Tasker St.)

Oh, and if you have one, I would like to see one of the blank shields with the arrow inside it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on November 02, 2012, 11:05:11 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek2500 on November 02, 2012, 10:09:40 PM
Oh, and if you have one, I would like to see one of the blank shields with the arrow inside it.

Steve's VA 254 page (http://steve's%20va%20254%20page) has one...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fva%2Fva_254%2Fe11b.jpg&hash=0ede90dd143c518fdf3033b32991d9d92c459975)
...and another from the same town on the US 250 page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/va/us_250/)...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fva%2Fus_250%2Farrow.jpg&hash=262a024e9f80a7843d26600e38962e213095dc07)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 03, 2012, 12:14:23 AM
Saw an error sign on westbound I-40 in Knoxville tonight and tried to snap a picture, but it was well after dark and I don't know how well the photo will turn out.

It was for an exit for US 11/US 25/US 70. Two problems with that. One is that US 25 does not run through Knoxville, US 25W does. The other is that US 25W hasn't run through downtown in years, it's routed along I-640.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on November 03, 2012, 09:34:26 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 03, 2012, 12:14:23 AM
Saw an error sign on westbound I-40 in Knoxville tonight and tried to snap a picture, but it was well after dark and I don't know how well the photo will turn out.

It was for an exit for US 11/US 25/US 70. Two problems with that. One is that US 25 does not run through Knoxville, US 25W does. The other is that US 25W hasn't run through downtown in years, it's routed along I-640.

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/i-040_wb_exit_388a_01.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/i-040_wb_exit_388a_01.jpg)

When I read your post, I checked my photos from June 25th and there it was.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek2500 on November 03, 2012, 09:58:52 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on November 02, 2012, 11:05:11 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek2500 on November 02, 2012, 10:09:40 PM
Oh, and if you have one, I would like to see one of the blank shields with the arrow inside it.

Steve's VA 254 page (http://steve's%20va%20254%20page) has one...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fva%2Fva_254%2Fe11b.jpg&hash=0ede90dd143c518fdf3033b32991d9d92c459975)
...and another from the same town on the US 250 page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/va/us_250/)...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fva%2Fus_250%2Farrow.jpg&hash=262a024e9f80a7843d26600e38962e213095dc07)
:ded: they should go in "worst of" immediately, the whole assembly is terrible
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on November 03, 2012, 03:38:39 PM
^ They're based on (and replaced) cutouts.

This VA 156 South reassurance shield is on VA 156 northbound.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash4%2Fs600x600%2F409023_4793853805494_1980038935_n.jpg&hash=8653440504279f3b0e1281910e1d819819d500d3)

And vice versa with this trailblazer.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2Fs600x600%2F579232_4793872805969_838164594_n.jpg&hash=0875b6009c32e36360147ea558ebbef735c9b34c)

All the other signage I saw here was correct. Last year there were a bunch of VA 636 and 643 shields and VA 156 was posted east-west.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 04, 2012, 01:31:02 AM
This is something I won't be proud of whenever I finally do clinch VA 156 north of VA 5.  It kinda hurts seeing this on the most important road I traveled on as a child.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 04, 2012, 10:41:58 AM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8154064401/in/photostream/

This exit also connects with NY 281 (In where the ramp ends at) and US 11.  Both routes should be also featured on this sign.  Taken on I-81 Northbound.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: RJ145 on November 04, 2012, 02:19:48 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftvrefill.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2Fmust-right-left.jpg&hash=df28103a2535de32c0f7272d06dde423bddd3106)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on November 04, 2012, 02:23:44 PM
Go home sign, you're drunk. (And perhaps probably Photoshopped.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on November 04, 2012, 02:30:09 PM
http://www.fourandsix.com/blog/2012/7/9/right-lane-must-right-left.html says it's shopped (see the comment).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on November 05, 2012, 01:49:07 PM
No photo but observation:

While this one may not necessarily fall under Erroneous; it clearly falls under the "Can't They Make Up Their Mind" Department.  The BGS' along I-476 South approaching Exit 18 (Ridge Pike).  The old 90s-vintage BGS' only had Norristown for the exit listing (the ramp places one along westbound Ridge Pike).  Recent replacement BGS included Conshohocken as well; the rationale likely being that one can use the Allen Wood Road jughandle to do a U-turn onto eastbound Ridge Pike.

Heading back from Harleysville last Saturday night along I-476 South; I noticed that all the new Exit 18 BGS' that had Conshohocken in its messages greened out.

Note to PennDOT: Kindly make up your minds before the signs get fabricated.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on November 06, 2012, 03:02:17 AM
I haven't yet gotten pictures, but...

A short detour for US 62 in New Albany, Ohio is signed with several Ohio 62 shields. Strangely stretched-looking Ohio 62 shields, to boot.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on November 06, 2012, 08:33:22 AM
^ I ran into that last year, and also was reminded that Ohio (smartly) uses the state route number for the US Route number, so it's not-quite-really an error? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg116074#msg116074) Well, it sure looked like a Florida-style goof to me, although at speed, an Ohio shield and a US Route shield might look much the same (although not as much as Wisconsin's).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.static.flickr.com%2F6079%2F6160376959_63e4434aaa_b.jpg&hash=87a085b08a88a55a932f72504c2ccba17a4b91f7)

Quote from: PurdueBill on November 02, 2012, 11:05:11 PM
Steve's VA 254 page (http://steve's%20va%20254%20page) has one...
...and another from the same town on the US 250 page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/va/us_250/)...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fva%2Fus_250%2Farrow.jpg&hash=262a024e9f80a7843d26600e38962e213095dc07)

That Interstate shield looks "angry" (turn left, you *%$#@!)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on November 07, 2012, 02:11:10 AM
Quote from: formulanone on November 06, 2012, 08:33:22 AMI ran into that last year, and also was reminded that Ohio (smartly) uses the state route number for the US Route number, so it's not-quite-really an error? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg116074#msg116074)

Yeah, it's one of those things that's arguably factually correct, but I figure it counts as an "error" anyway since it's obviously not how it's intended to be signed. *shrug*

US 62 in particular seems to get that treatment a lot in this part of the state...I wonder why that is...

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-eCBUCgk35Zc/UGhCkX8fc_I/AAAAAAAAA9A/xRldgQvvSIo/s800/DSCN4210.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on November 07, 2012, 10:29:31 AM
Actually I think the US->OH error is frequently associated with those combined directional signs like pictured above.  Another error I frequently see with those is the shields are the wide type (or square type stretched to 5:4 ratio) even when it's a 2-digit route number.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on November 08, 2012, 02:34:35 AM
Quote from: vtk on November 07, 2012, 10:29:31 AMAnother error I frequently see with those is the shields are the wide type (or square type stretched to 5:4 ratio) even when it's a 2-digit route number.

I think I've seen that done incorrectly more times than I've seen it done correctly. At one point I assumed it must be deliberate, though the drawings in ODOT's Sign Designs and Markings Manual show a proper 2-digit shield. (http://i.imgur.com/ghRSD.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on November 09, 2012, 11:22:58 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on November 06, 2012, 03:02:17 AM
I haven't yet gotten pictures, but...

A short detour for US 62 in New Albany, Ohio is signed with several Ohio 62 shields. Strangely stretched-looking Ohio 62 shields, to boot.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-mWnhMSXA1dY/UJ0nkgQGAHI/AAAAAAAACEE/zCoXvBoIvl4/s400/DSCF2097.JPG) (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gxVA67daz8o/UJ0neIju-aI/AAAAAAAACEE/RgM40pFrMxo/s400/DSCF2096.JPG) (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_wvvjh8eM3M/UJ0o2qLf5FI/AAAAAAAACEE/rXmK_f_PPfA/s400/DSCF2111.JPG) (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-B8EpcT_wxMk/UJ0pO8QjzPI/AAAAAAAACEE/XpXI-cgvq-A/s400/DSCF2115.JPG) (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ktNkjedq4Cg/UJ0pmt6LIiI/AAAAAAAACEE/QuJICZBoSp4/s400/DSCF2120.JPG) (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Un71ENFLinI/UJ0qPIPu34I/AAAAAAAACEE/sHAk2_CFrW4/s400/DSCF2127.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 09, 2012, 11:52:03 PM
Quote from: vtk on November 07, 2012, 10:29:31 AM
Another error I frequently see with those is the shields are the wide type (or square type stretched to 5:4 ratio) even when it's a 2-digit route number.
ODOT district 5 (Mt. Vernon, Newark, Lancaster, Zanesville) seems to love horizontal directional signs with the extra wide shield (both state and federal) for 2 digit signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kinupanda on November 10, 2012, 12:47:43 AM
Quote from: RJ145 on November 04, 2012, 02:19:48 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftvrefill.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2Fmust-right-left.jpg&hash=df28103a2535de32c0f7272d06dde423bddd3106)
I'm wondering what the law says about that one. Clearly the intent of the sign is obvious, but if a motorist were to go straight from the right lane, could their ticket be dismissed on the technicality of erroneous signage?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on November 10, 2012, 12:55:26 AM
The law says it's shopped.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on November 10, 2012, 02:28:14 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 10, 2012, 12:55:26 AM
The law says it's shopped.

Yes, yes, we established that already.

But hypothetically, if it were a real sign, would it be enforceable?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on November 10, 2012, 07:55:48 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on November 10, 2012, 02:28:14 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 10, 2012, 12:55:26 AM
The law says it's shopped.

Yes, yes, we established that already.

But hypothetically, if it were a real sign, would it be enforceable?
If there were no other signs or stripes indicating the intent, it's clearly unenforceable as written. But usually there's a second sign and arrows in the lane, such that you'd have a hard time if anyone ticketed you.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on November 10, 2012, 11:56:03 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on November 09, 2012, 11:22:58 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on November 06, 2012, 03:02:17 AM
I haven't yet gotten pictures, but...

A short detour for US 62 in New Albany, Ohio is signed with several Ohio 62 shields. Strangely stretched-looking Ohio 62 shields, to boot.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-mWnhMSXA1dY/UJ0nkgQGAHI/AAAAAAAACEE/zCoXvBoIvl4/s400/DSCF2097.JPG) (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gxVA67daz8o/UJ0neIju-aI/AAAAAAAACEE/RgM40pFrMxo/s400/DSCF2096.JPG) (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_wvvjh8eM3M/UJ0o2qLf5FI/AAAAAAAACEE/rXmK_f_PPfA/s400/DSCF2111.JPG) (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-B8EpcT_wxMk/UJ0pO8QjzPI/AAAAAAAACEE/XpXI-cgvq-A/s400/DSCF2115.JPG) (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ktNkjedq4Cg/UJ0pmt6LIiI/AAAAAAAACEE/QuJICZBoSp4/s400/DSCF2120.JPG) (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Un71ENFLinI/UJ0qPIPu34I/AAAAAAAACEE/sHAk2_CFrW4/s400/DSCF2127.JPG)

Ewwww!  *whacks them all with ugly sticks!!!!*

But not the worst Ohio shields i ever saw....Jake cringes when he sees monstrosities like this one (possibly designed by a bitter Michigan engineering grad
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Foh307.jpg&hash=fc640fef4cf80495f128e042ab82a1522c3e6bc3)
It appears Toledo and the northern strip were given back to Michigan in that design!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on November 10, 2012, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on November 09, 2012, 11:22:58 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on November 06, 2012, 03:02:17 AM
I haven't yet gotten pictures, but...

A short detour for US 62 in New Albany, Ohio is signed with several Ohio 62 shields. Strangely stretched-looking Ohio 62 shields, to boot.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-mWnhMSXA1dY/UJ0nkgQGAHI/AAAAAAAACEE/zCoXvBoIvl4/s400/DSCF2097.JPG) (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gxVA67daz8o/UJ0neIju-aI/AAAAAAAACEE/RgM40pFrMxo/s400/DSCF2096.JPG) (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_wvvjh8eM3M/UJ0o2qLf5FI/AAAAAAAACEE/rXmK_f_PPfA/s400/DSCF2111.JPG) (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-B8EpcT_wxMk/UJ0pO8QjzPI/AAAAAAAACEE/XpXI-cgvq-A/s400/DSCF2115.JPG) (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ktNkjedq4Cg/UJ0pmt6LIiI/AAAAAAAACEE/QuJICZBoSp4/s400/DSCF2120.JPG) (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Un71ENFLinI/UJ0qPIPu34I/AAAAAAAACEE/sHAk2_CFrW4/s400/DSCF2127.JPG)

Those look really goofy! Besides the square-format shape stretched to 5:4 or possibly 4:3 dimensions, they apparently made the number "as big as possible".  That looks as weird to me as a '70 spec neutered Interstate shield would look to someone accustomed to '57-spec state-named shields.

Quote from: ctsignguy on November 10, 2012, 11:56:03 AM
Ewwww!  *whacks them all with ugly sticks!!!!*

But not the worst Ohio shields i ever saw....Jake cringes when he sees monstrosities like this one (possibly designed by a bitter Michigan engineering grad
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Foh307.jpg&hash=fc640fef4cf80495f128e042ab82a1522c3e6bc3)
It appears Toledo and the northern strip were given back to Michigan in that design!


There are a bunch with that shape in Nelsonville, and I've seen a few in temporary installations for detours elsewhere.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on November 10, 2012, 05:14:39 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upstatenyroads.com%2Fregion-photos%2Fregion8%2F100_0043.jpg&hash=50f3fe02a48015e44f6b46143228fb320f4cd465)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on November 10, 2012, 09:30:20 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on November 10, 2012, 05:14:39 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upstatenyroads.com%2Fregion-photos%2Fregion8%2F100_0043.jpg&hash=50f3fe02a48015e44f6b46143228fb320f4cd465)

Hey, you stole my picture that I stole from the I-684 thread! :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on November 11, 2012, 06:37:53 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 10, 2012, 09:30:20 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on November 10, 2012, 05:14:39 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upstatenyroads.com%2Fregion-photos%2Fregion8%2F100_0043.jpg&hash=50f3fe02a48015e44f6b46143228fb320f4cd465)

Hey, you stole my picture that I stole from the I-684 thread! :P
Well it was erroneous, so it was pretty appropriate to repost here ;-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on November 11, 2012, 06:58:48 PM
holy crap guys look what I found in another post

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upstatenyroads.com%2Fregion-photos%2Fregion8%2F100_0043.jpg&hash=50f3fe02a48015e44f6b46143228fb320f4cd465)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on November 12, 2012, 09:56:00 AM
If I mash the Page Up and Page Down keys I can make it dance!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Federal Route Sixty-Nine on November 12, 2012, 11:54:48 AM
http://goo.gl/maps/FSlbU - Terrible sign. Implies the second lane from the right can exit at the Sam Houston Tollway, which is wrong. Also the black on white part is in Clearview which is a violation of the MUTCD.

Then, about a mile later, here's the former second lane from the right, which is clearly for IH-10 only.

http://goo.gl/maps/7cenF

Unacceptable, especially since it's a fairly new configuration.

Images courtesy of a person in a Google Street View Car.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on November 12, 2012, 01:54:24 PM
Mixed message (courtesy WSDOT SRView):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F0%2F02%2F04581M.JPG%2F800px-04581M.JPG&hash=509ef3d31bbd4ad2448047fd498dd06530264d9a) (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/0/02/04581M.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on November 12, 2012, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 12, 2012, 01:54:24 PM
Mixed message (courtesy WSDOT SRView):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F0%2F02%2F04581M.JPG%2F800px-04581M.JPG&hash=509ef3d31bbd4ad2448047fd498dd06530264d9a) (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/0/02/04581M.JPG)
What's erroneous about this one? Is it the left-aligned tab or the non-vertically centred arrow?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on November 12, 2012, 06:30:03 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on November 12, 2012, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 12, 2012, 01:54:24 PM
Mixed message (courtesy WSDOT SRView):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F0%2F02%2F04581M.JPG%2F800px-04581M.JPG&hash=509ef3d31bbd4ad2448047fd498dd06530264d9a) (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/0/02/04581M.JPG)
What's erroneous about this one? Is it the left-aligned tab or the non-vertically centred arrow?

Left-aligned tab for a right-side exit is the only error, although the arrow isn't very pretty either.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why Washington does not do exit tabs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on November 12, 2012, 10:07:40 PM
Quote from: yakra on November 12, 2012, 09:56:00 AM
If I mash the Page Up and Page Down keys I can make it dance!
Seriously. Win.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on November 13, 2012, 12:13:28 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 12, 2012, 06:30:03 PMLeft-aligned tab for a right-side exit is the only error, although the arrow isn't very pretty either.

The arrow is the de facto WSDOT standard for freeway guide signs.  It is used as a directional arrow on both ground-mounted and overhead exit direction signs, and also as a lane assignment arrow on overhead-mounted exit direction signs.  (I say de facto because I have not checked WSDOT's Sign Fabrication Manual to verify that it is the actual standard for these applications.)  I would personally prefer to see WSDOT use the Caltrans standard one-line and two-line arrows, but they didn't ask for my opinion . . .

QuoteAnd this, ladies and gentlemen, is why Washington does not do exit tabs.

I think this actually varies somewhat by WSDOT region.  I struggle to think of any examples of part-width exit tabs in WSDOT's Northwest Region, for example.  However, the photo I posted comes from photologging for I-5 in the Southwest Region, where part-width exit tabs abound.  Exits 9 through 14 inclusive have part-width tabs on both advance guide and exit direction signs, while at least one of the advance guide or exit direction signs for Exits 1A, 1B, 21, and 27 has a part-width tab.  And this is just what I managed to find in a quick surf of the photologging for I-5 between the Columbia River and MP 30 (I-5 is in the Southwest Region for about 85 miles).

I checked Interstate and selected state-route freeway photologging for the other WSDOT regions (North Central, Eastern, South Central, and Olympic) and could not find any examples of part-width exit tabs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on November 13, 2012, 05:33:15 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 13, 2012, 12:13:28 PMThe arrow is the de facto WSDOT standard for freeway guide signs.  It is used as a directional arrow on both ground-mounted and overhead exit direction signs, and also as a lane assignment arrow on overhead-mounted exit direction signs.  (I say de facto because I have not checked WSDOT's Sign Fabrication Manual to verify that it is the actual standard for these applications.)  I would personally prefer to see WSDOT use the Caltrans standard one-line and two-line arrows, but they didn't ask for my opinion . . .

Are you sure about this?  I'm looked at GSV for Bellingham, and it matches what I recalled from memory -- most of them use the longer-stemmed arrow.  There are a couple of BGSs with the stubby arrow, but always on the bottom of the sign as a lane assignment.

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 13, 2012, 12:13:28 PMI think this actually varies somewhat by WSDOT region.  I struggle to think of any examples of part-width exit tabs in WSDOT's Northwest Region, for example.  However, the photo I posted comes from photologging for I-5 in the Southwest Region, where part-width exit tabs abound.  Exits 9 through 14 inclusive have part-width tabs on both advance guide and exit direction signs, while at least one of the advance guide or exit direction signs for Exits 1A, 1B, 21, and 27 has a part-width tab.  And this is just what I managed to find in a quick surf of the photologging for I-5 between the Columbia River and MP 30 (I-5 is in the Southwest Region for about 85 miles).

I checked Interstate and selected state-route freeway photologging for the other WSDOT regions (North Central, Eastern, South Central, and Olympic) and could not find any examples of part-width exit tabs.

Everything you say here is true... thus making your first sentence untrue, IMHO.  I wouldn't say it varies by region, as every region except Southwest uses full-width tabs, and there are still plenty of full-width tabs to be found in the Southwest as well.

Only the Southwest region uses traditional tabs, with varying degrees of success.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on November 13, 2012, 11:38:25 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 13, 2012, 05:33:15 PMAre you sure about this?  I'm looked at GSV for Bellingham, and it matches what I recalled from memory -- most of them use the longer-stemmed arrow.  There are a couple of BGSs with the stubby arrow, but always on the bottom of the sign as a lane assignment.

Quite sure.  There are examples of the standard long-shaft arrow (not just in Bellingham) but they seem to be less common than the stubby arrow, with Bellingham representing a cluster of long-shaft arrows on I-5.

Bellingham overlaps I-5 between Exit 246 and Exit 260.  Between those two exits (inclusive), there are instances of the stubby arrow being used on ground-mounted signs and on overhead signs otherwise than for lane assignment.  Here is how arrow usage breaks down (increasing-milepost direction only, 2011 imagery):

*  Exits 246--Ground-mounted exit direction sign with standard long-shaft arrow (does not assign lanes)

*  Exits 250, 252, 253, 254, 257--Overhead-mounted exit direction sign with standard long-shaft arrow (does not assign lanes)

*  Exit 255--Overhead-mounted exit direction sign with stubby arrow (does not assign lanes)

*  Exits 256A-B--Overhead-mounted exit direction sign with stubby arrow (assigns lanes)

*  Exits 258, 260--Ground-mounted exit direction sign with stubby arrow (does not assign lanes)

In addition to the Bellingham length of I-5, I "drove" (flipped through downloaded SRView imagery at very high speed using an image browser) a length of I-5 northbound from MP 153 to MP 171 (approximately).  This portion of I-5 approaches downtown Seattle, is subject to variable speed limits, and has exit direction signs which are almost invariably overhead-mounted.  Here the stubby arrows have a definite numerical advantage over the long-shaft arrows.  The Caltrans single-line "spade" arrow is also used, but less often than either of the other two.  (For that matter it is also used just north of Bellingham, at Exit 263.)

Quote
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 13, 2012, 12:13:28 PMI think this actually varies somewhat by WSDOT region.  I struggle to think of any examples of part-width exit tabs in WSDOT's Northwest Region, for example.  However, the photo I posted comes from photologging for I-5 in the Southwest Region, where part-width exit tabs abound.  Exits 9 through 14 inclusive have part-width tabs on both advance guide and exit direction signs, while at least one of the advance guide or exit direction signs for Exits 1A, 1B, 21, and 27 has a part-width tab.  And this is just what I managed to find in a quick surf of the photologging for I-5 between the Columbia River and MP 30 (I-5 is in the Southwest Region for about 85 miles).

I checked Interstate and selected state-route freeway photologging for the other WSDOT regions (North Central, Eastern, South Central, and Olympic) and could not find any examples of part-width exit tabs.

Everything you say here is true... thus making your first sentence untrue, IMHO.  I wouldn't say it varies by region, as every region except Southwest uses full-width tabs, and there are still plenty of full-width tabs to be found in the Southwest as well.

Only the Southwest region uses traditional tabs, with varying degrees of success.

I had to hedge.  I have reviewed end-to-end photologging imagery for I-90 (decreasing-milepost direction only), I-82 (increasing-milepost direction only), and I-5 (increasing-milepost direction only).  I have not attempted both-directions coverage of any primary Interstates in Washington, or any of the loop or spur Interstates like I-182, I-705, or I-405.  I also haven't systematically investigated exit tab treatment on state-route freeways (some have them, while some don't).  This introduces the possibility of sample bias.  Counterexamples (which in this case would be part-width tabs in a WSDOT region other than Southwest) might exist in the field but not be included in any of the sample lengths I have so far chosen for downloading and virtual driving.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on November 14, 2012, 12:55:04 AM
Fair enough re: arrows.  I still find the specific use/placement on the Exit 46 sign particularly ugly though.

Unfortunately, my last road trip covered I-82 and I-90 in those same directions, but I can say with confidence that they are entirely full-width in both directions, as is I-405.  It's been some time since I've been on either I-182 or I-205, so I won't speak to them -- and I-205 is in the Southwest region besides.  I-705 has no exit numbers.

Regarding state route freeways, IIRC the only ones with exit numbers are 14, 16, and 3 -- the latter two haphazardly at best.  I've never been on 14.  I'm too lazy to street view again at the moment, but I think 16 & 3 may have some traditional tabs.  However, I think it's likely that those are due to retrofitting old signs rather than a conscious effort to use a different style.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on November 14, 2012, 09:50:43 AM
But I still wouldn't call the Exit 46 example "erroneous", just bad design.  All the information contained in the sign is correct, isn't it?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on November 14, 2012, 11:48:04 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 14, 2012, 12:55:04 AMRegarding state route freeways, IIRC the only ones with exit numbers are 14, 16, and 3 -- the latter two haphazardly at best.  I've never been on 14.  I'm too lazy to street view again at the moment, but I think 16 & 3 may have some traditional tabs.  However, I think it's likely that those are due to retrofitting old signs rather than a conscious effort to use a different style.

I cruised SR 16 (increasing-milepost direction only, 2012 imagery) and it was all full-width tabs.  I didn't see any unnumbered exits, and most of the signing looked fresh.  I haven't been through my collection of WSDOT construction plans, but I vaguely remember some of the cross streets from the "short titles" of past WSDOT jobs, so I think it has recently undergone work of some kind.

I haven't gotten to SR 3 or SR 14 yet.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on November 14, 2012, 12:21:48 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2012, 09:50:43 AM
But I still wouldn't call the Exit 46 example "erroneous", just bad design.  All the information contained in the sign is correct, isn't it?

Left tab is still wrong.  At least center it if not push it all the way right.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: texaskdog on November 14, 2012, 03:22:16 PM
Nitpicking.  There are far more egregiuos errors out there to catch.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kj3400 on November 14, 2012, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on November 14, 2012, 03:22:16 PM
Nitpicking.  There are far more egregious errors out there to catch.


Like that. :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on November 14, 2012, 04:29:08 PM
I'm pretty sure that was intentional.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kj3400 on November 14, 2012, 05:02:42 PM
Ah. This was a minor waste of my google searching time then (to find the correct spelling)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on November 14, 2012, 06:56:27 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 14, 2012, 11:48:04 AM
I cruised SR 16 (increasing-milepost direction only, 2012 imagery) and it was all full-width tabs.  I didn't see any unnumbered exits, and most of the signing looked fresh.  I haven't been through my collection of WSDOT construction plans, but I vaguely remember some of the cross streets from the "short titles" of past WSDOT jobs, so I think it has recently undergone work of some kind.

Makes sense; it's been a year or two since I've been out there.  I took a peek at the decreasing direction of 16 (only within Tacoma) and did spot a few retrofits (mostly Exit 1B) but with full-width tabs.

Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2012, 09:50:43 AM
But I still wouldn't call the Exit 46 example "erroneous", just bad design.  All the information contained in the sign is correct, isn't it?

While it may appear like it's merely bad design at first, a left side exit tab means the exit is on the left.  Since the exit is on the right, the information given by the tab is erroneous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on November 14, 2012, 10:54:52 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 14, 2012, 06:56:27 PM
While it may appear like it's merely bad design at first, a left side exit tab means the exit is on the left.  Since the exit is on the right, the information given by the tab is erroneous.

I don't think of a left side exit tab as meaning that an exit is on the left.  I think of it as merely a signing convention.  I highly doubt there's ever been a single driver who was confused as to whether his exit was on the right or the left because of that exit tab.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on November 14, 2012, 11:49:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2012, 10:54:52 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 14, 2012, 06:56:27 PM
While it may appear like it's merely bad design at first, a left side exit tab means the exit is on the left.  Since the exit is on the right, the information given by the tab is erroneous.

I don't think of a left side exit tab as meaning that an exit is on the left.  I think of it as merely a signing convention.  I highly doubt there's ever been a single driver who was confused as to whether his exit was on the right or the left because of that exit tab.

Hasn't the MUTCD called for alignment of exit tabs to the side of the exit for some time now?  Maybe not as a "shall" but at least as a "should"? A left tab for a right exit would seem to be an outright error, while a centered tab is an old style, not indicating either way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on November 15, 2012, 02:38:59 AM
At first, I thought the mixed message was that anything with a Headquarters could not be Pleasant.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on November 15, 2012, 05:56:18 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 15, 2012, 02:38:59 AM
At first, I thought the mixed message was that anything with a Headquarters could not be Pleasant.

Heh, I had the same thought, but I figured I'd sound silly if I said that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on November 15, 2012, 07:53:53 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2012, 10:54:52 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 14, 2012, 06:56:27 PM
While it may appear like it's merely bad design at first, a left side exit tab means the exit is on the left.  Since the exit is on the right, the information given by the tab is erroneous.

I don't think of a left side exit tab as meaning that an exit is on the left.  I think of it as merely a signing convention.  I highly doubt there's ever been a single driver who was confused as to whether his exit was on the right or the left because of that exit tab.

I'd wager that the majority of the non-roadgeek driving public are unaware of the correlation between exit tab side and ramp location.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on November 15, 2012, 08:52:53 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 15, 2012, 07:53:53 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2012, 10:54:52 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 14, 2012, 06:56:27 PM
While it may appear like it's merely bad design at first, a left side exit tab means the exit is on the left.  Since the exit is on the right, the information given by the tab is erroneous.

I don't think of a left side exit tab as meaning that an exit is on the left.  I think of it as merely a signing convention.  I highly doubt there's ever been a single driver who was confused as to whether his exit was on the right or the left because of that exit tab.

I'd wager that the majority of the non-roadgeek driving public are unaware of the correlation between exit tab side and ramp location.

Maybe not the majority, but people do notice, as noted  in this recent thread. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7907.0;topicseen) 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on November 15, 2012, 10:02:33 AM
The fact that hardly any of the general public notices that the side the tab's on is the side the exit's on makes me wonder why states still do it, and why we make a big deal out of it when a tab's on the wrong side. Especially now that "LEFT EXIT" tabs are mandated for left exits.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 15, 2012, 10:20:48 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 15, 2012, 02:38:59 AM
At first, I thought the mixed message was that anything with a Headquarters could not be Pleasant.

it's a big building where generals meet - but that's not important!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on November 15, 2012, 10:23:57 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 15, 2012, 10:02:33 AM
The fact that hardly any of the general public notices that the side the tab's on is the side the exit's on makes me wonder why states still do it, and why we make a big deal out of it when a tab's on the wrong side. Especially now that "LEFT EXIT" tabs are mandated for left exits.

Indeed, and I just mentioned this yesterday in the Northern Virginia HO/T lanes thread (link is to the entire thread, not a specific post) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7481.0). The picture below appeared yesterday on the Dr. Gridlock blog at the Washington Post website (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2012/11/14/virginia-officials-exude-confidence-in-beltway-express-lanes/) and it's a picture of the Inner Loop of I-495 (the Capital Beltway) showing the new "Express Lanes" (high-occupancy/toll) that open this Saturday on the left side and the existing general-purpose lanes to the right. What I found interesting about the picture is that the Express Lane exit for VA-267 (the Dulles Toll Road) and the Dulles Access Road doesn't have an exit tab, but the one for Jones Branch Drive does. As I thought about it, I thought it made perfect sense in this particular context: The MUTCD-mandated "E-ZPASS EXPRESS EXIT" banner serves as the functional equivalent of an exit tab for a right-side exit, and for the left-side exits they simply add the auxiliary "LEFT EXIT" tab to remind people it's on the left. (I should point out that the Express Lane exits do not have exit numbers. The general-purpose exits do.)

I assume the graininess indicates that the reporter used his mobile phone to take the picture.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fdr-gridlock%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F11%2FTysons-signs.jpg&hash=580e7e00ffcd292b999e887ed53ad0894868e4fa)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 15, 2012, 11:36:16 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 15, 2012, 10:23:57 AM
I assume the graininess indicates that the reporter used his mobile phone to take the picture.


I disagree.  the extreme compression of perspective implies a very high zoom.  I think they used an ordinary telephoto lens (maybe 200 or 400mm) and cropped it down to 800 or even more equivalent zoom.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kj3400 on November 15, 2012, 02:28:59 PM
Two of those signs for Rt 267 on I-495 have a white 'TOLL' banner.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on November 15, 2012, 02:37:08 PM
Quote from: kj3400 on November 15, 2012, 02:28:59 PM
Two of those signs for Rt 267 on I-495 have a white 'TOLL' banner.

Yeah, I think those were just copied from the old signs, which had been there for at least 15 years (probably more) and had white "TOLL" banners. No idea why some of them use yellow and some white. In general they've done a pretty good job with the signs on the Beltway during the reconstruction.

Here's a picture from AA Roads showing what the old signs looked like. I always found the absence of any destinations to be odd. This sign was located roughly where the very long gantry in the foreground of the new picture posted above is located (the one that spans both carriageways and carries four signs).

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia495/i-495_il_exit_045_01.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Henry on November 20, 2012, 01:02:45 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on November 20, 2012, 11:20:28 AM
Downtown Corydon, Indiana site of the latest sign goof. INDOT just put up big ole signs spelled Capital Blvd. Well it's spelled Capitol Blvd. INDOT might have been confused by Old Capital Bank at the corner (Capital as in money..). For those that don't know Corydon is the first state Capitol of Indiana.

Methinks it's a very common mistake. When you think of it, Capital refers to a city where the state/national governments meet, and Capitol refers to the building where said meetings take place. The three Capitol Streets in Washington (North, South, East) are somewhat of an exception, as they lead away from the U.S. Capitol. Why there's no West Capitol Street, I'd say that the Smithsonian museums and the city parkland might have something to do with it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on November 20, 2012, 06:23:11 PM
While I was positioning a Street View link for a Sine Salad I found at the east end of the Clark Bridge between Illinois and Missouri (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7573.msg185828#msg185828), I noticed that there were chevrons used to denote the end of the road (http://maps.google.com/?ll=38.88806,-90.172305&spn=0.005771,0.011362&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.88803,-90.172315&panoid=kK2hfuVjauzViZx4N0Hv7w&cbp=12,31.41,,0,6.5), which isn't allowed by the MUTCD (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2c.htm#section2C09_para07):
Quote from: MUTCD Section 2C.09, Paragraph 7
Chevron Alignment signs shall not be placed on the far side of a T-intersection facing traffic on the stem approach to warn drivers that a through movement is not physically possible, as this is the function of a Two-Direction (or One-Direction) Large Arrow sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on November 21, 2012, 06:38:33 AM
Why not have both? (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=44.151482,-69.664993&spn=0.046619,0.077162&t=m&z=14&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=44.151372,-69.665116&panoid=V1jtolqZ-kSSfENzf2uM0w&cbp=12,65.76,,0,1.35)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on November 21, 2012, 08:25:32 PM
I'm not familiar with MUTCD but judging by what I saw in that link, the double-headed horizontal arrow tabs are fine to stay. The chevrons aren't supposed to be there, unless there came an exempt for the chevrons to be installed next to the double-headed horizontal arrow tab, which I doubt.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on November 22, 2012, 12:50:29 AM
I'm willing to bet the two chevron examples predate this specific MUTCD prohibition.

At the very least, the text Michael quoted doesn't seem to be in the 2003 edition.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on November 22, 2012, 01:36:16 AM
The Maine example is "As Long As I Can Remember", which may be mid-late 80s.
Or so.
Or not.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on November 23, 2012, 01:36:26 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on November 22, 2012, 12:50:29 AM
I'm willing to bet the two chevron examples predate this specific MUTCD prohibition.

At the very least, the text Michael quoted doesn't seem to be in the 2003 edition.

Was that added in the '09 MUTCD update?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on November 23, 2012, 04:01:19 AM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on November 23, 2012, 01:36:26 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on November 22, 2012, 12:50:29 AM
I'm willing to bet the two chevron examples predate this specific MUTCD prohibition.

At the very least, the text Michael quoted doesn't seem to be in the 2003 edition.

Was that added in the '09 MUTCD update?

As far as I can tell, yes.

Of course, that doesn't mean the previous MUTCD condoned the misuse of chevrons in any way, just that they hadn't outright said NO yet.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on November 23, 2012, 07:08:36 AM
In Coldwater, MI yesterday I spotted a W2-4 sign (T intersection ahead diamond) on the far side of an intersection where a street ended.  No double-headed arrow, no chevrons, no red or yellow diamond reflector arrays.

Maybe we need a thread for "signage fail" – as in, "No, [local street agency], this is not adequate."  Or would that already be covered by this thread?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on November 23, 2012, 09:40:18 AM
Makes me think of Taylor Road Extension at Taylor Road in Reynoldsburg, Ohio. It's a normal T-intersection, but Taylor Road to the right is a dead end, and this is how they chose to signify that:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8048%2F8089274278_e7a588a58f_c.jpg&hash=8b44899622a856cc7f21fdc4b429f036377a1fc4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on November 26, 2012, 02:45:50 PM
Not sure if this one was ever picked up earlier in this thread (if it was, pardon any redundance); but along I-95/MA 128 southbound in Wakefield, there's a distance BGS for I-93, I-90/Mass Pike & Providence (around mile marker 60.5 or 60.6) .  It lists the distance to I-93 as 3-1/2 miles when in reality (this will become more apparent when MA switches over to mile-marker-based exit numbering in the foreseable future) it's about 5 miles (I-93 overpass is at mile marker 55.6).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 26, 2012, 03:53:22 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8199%2F8221958302_2d38065883.jpg&hash=a709261def17784ca6c09c7b927ba8eb7fdcc990)

Should be US 25W.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8068%2F8220882167_16d42f5612.jpg&hash=7a8a15fbe56a56b80fcec2790faba6d19a81b81c)

Spot the spelling error.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8070%2F8220942469_71d8bf14fa.jpg&hash=2fc05b5e32e47c51a6ecb9bd528d154b86b8c115)

This one's subtle.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8057%2F8222080506_f41fd340d8.jpg&hash=50de60248e4efe4c096907c0a6923958a49771a8)

In Harrisonburg, Va.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8345%2F8222088440_1123d530fa.jpg&hash=f2baae74b007998fab34a36274f3787b83829cd4)

One of these routes does not appear on the US Ends site.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on November 26, 2012, 04:05:52 PM
The 62/55 one is sailing over my head.
Should "Bluegrass" be spelled out?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on November 26, 2012, 04:41:11 PM
Quote from: yakra on November 26, 2012, 04:05:52 PM
The 62/55 one is sailing over my head.
Should "Bluegrass" be spelled out?
Colors are reversed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kniwt on November 26, 2012, 05:46:35 PM
Installed recently on San Antonio Road in Palo Alto, Calif.:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F62CYM.jpg&hash=6f9d036a992e25674c78105d08c0a8b932cfd873)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on November 26, 2012, 05:52:56 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 26, 2012, 04:41:11 PM
Quote from: yakra on November 26, 2012, 04:05:52 PM
The 62/55 one is sailing over my head.
Should "Bluegrass" be spelled out?
Colors are reversed.
No parking on the parkway hurr hurr hurr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 26, 2012, 07:00:05 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 26, 2012, 04:41:11 PM
Quote from: yakra on November 26, 2012, 04:05:52 PM
The 62/55 one is sailing over my head.
Should "Bluegrass" be spelled out?
Colors are reversed.

There were a lot more reversed BG signs than WK signs, although I saw a few of them too over the years.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on November 26, 2012, 07:13:42 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on November 26, 2012, 05:46:35 PM
Installed recently on San Antonio Road in Palo Alto, Calif.:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F62CYM.jpg&hash=6f9d036a992e25674c78105d08c0a8b932cfd873)
Don't tell anyone about it. I'll be there next year. Meet me there with bolt cutters.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on November 26, 2012, 09:25:42 PM
If they had used a white-on blue arrow, would it be better or worse?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on November 27, 2012, 07:53:36 AM
Quote from: Kniwt on November 26, 2012, 05:46:35 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F62CYM.jpg&hash=6f9d036a992e25674c78105d08c0a8b932cfd873)

:hyper:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: codyg1985 on November 27, 2012, 01:41:36 PM
Yay for a state name road shield, but this is in Tennessee...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkUlx9.jpg&hash=a7a9db11502ddc5f6d6360324d857300a9489aad)

This was taken in Birmingham, AL, not Houston, TX:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDyKbh.jpg&hash=6fd51e919695999e25cf04d4eb507fc53d7a7836)

I didn't know that No Hazardous Materials was a route number. Taken in Franklin, TN:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWllZi.jpg&hash=7f3e17ab4db4ca15aa955659535fe5f1bb437ac3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on November 27, 2012, 05:55:41 PM
Bonus: the error US 59 shield is an upside-down Truck Route sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on November 27, 2012, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 27, 2012, 05:55:41 PM
Bonus: the error US 59 shield is an upside-down Truck Route sign.

I don't know how you managed to see that.  After you said that, I squinted at it and managed to see something there, then realized that if I tilted my laptop screen all the way back, I could make it out.

The arrow is also painted over an upside-down up/left arrow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on November 27, 2012, 10:17:07 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 27, 2012, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 27, 2012, 05:55:41 PM
Bonus: the error US 59 shield is an upside-down Truck Route sign.

I don't know how you managed to see that.  After you said that, I squinted at it and managed to see something there, then realized that if I tilted my laptop screen all the way back, I could make it out.

The arrow is also painted over an upside-down up/left arrow.
Oh, I can top that. The TRUCK SOUTH is painted over a double arrow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on November 28, 2012, 01:40:26 AM
Quote from: Steve on November 27, 2012, 10:17:07 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 27, 2012, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 27, 2012, 05:55:41 PM
Bonus: the error US 59 shield is an upside-down Truck Route sign.

I don't know how you managed to see that.  After you said that, I squinted at it and managed to see something there, then realized that if I tilted my laptop screen all the way back, I could make it out.

The arrow is also painted over an upside-down up/left arrow.
Oh, I can top that. The TRUCK SOUTH is painted over a double arrow.

Oh, no worries.  I had that as well. :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on November 28, 2012, 10:09:45 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 27, 2012, 07:29:58 PM
I squinted at it and managed to see something there, then realized that if I tilted my laptop screen all the way back, I could make it out.

When I first read this, my mind glossed over the word 'laptop', and I was instead imagining you tilting a CRT monitor way far back.  Then I wondered how that could possibly be easier than just hunching yourself over and looking up at it.  Now it all makes sense...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on November 28, 2012, 07:07:33 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 27, 2012, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 27, 2012, 05:55:41 PM
Bonus: the error US 59 shield is an upside-down Truck Route sign.

I don't know how you managed to see that.  After you said that, I squinted at it and managed to see something there, then realized that if I tilted my laptop screen all the way back, I could make it out.

The arrow is also painted over an upside-down up/left arrow.

And it took me an extra few seconds to figure out that the whole flippin' sign was an upside down TRUCK ROUTE sign.  I was under the impression that it was only the banners that were upside-down/flip flopped (as in SOUTH TRUCK US-59).   :spin:

And that overhead wire sign looks real sad -- maybe the font is much bigger sitting in a semi cab 6 feet off the ground.  ;-)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on November 29, 2012, 03:24:51 PM
Saw this today in DC. I was on northbound Vermont Avenue at T Street NW. Had a while to stare at it while stopped at the red light and all I could say was, "WTF!"

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FMiscellaneousNovember2012113.jpg&hash=569f08303639aa5d3e1eb64f1a13e716d3db7881)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on November 29, 2012, 05:25:55 PM
To be fair, the arrow is still completely on the right of the median symbol. I guess it means "get in the left lane." :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JMoses24 on November 29, 2012, 07:03:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 26, 2012, 03:53:22 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8199%2F8221958302_2d38065883.jpg&hash=a709261def17784ca6c09c7b927ba8eb7fdcc990)

Should be US 25W.

US 441 actually DOES intersect I-75 at the next exit. Of course, that doesn't make this one any less incorrect.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 26, 2012, 03:53:22 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8068%2F8220882167_16d42f5612.jpg&hash=7a8a15fbe56a56b80fcec2790faba6d19a81b81c)

Spot the spelling error.

Ugh. Yeah, I saw that IMMEDIATELY. Cincinnati has 3 n's, but doesn't have two t's!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on November 29, 2012, 07:33:56 PM
Cincinnati has three N's. That's part of the problem. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JMoses24 on November 29, 2012, 08:17:57 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 29, 2012, 07:33:56 PM
Cincinnati has three N's. That's part of the problem. :P

Damn it. How sad is it that I miscounted the number of N's, and I live here?!? You're right.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 29, 2012, 08:32:51 PM
I just found it curious that Tennessee saw fit to sign Cincy on US 25W. Not to mention the misspelling.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JMoses24 on November 29, 2012, 09:20:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2012, 08:32:51 PM
I just found it curious that Tennessee saw fit to sign Cincy on US 25W. Not to mention the misspelling.

It is kind of weird that it's Cincinnati that's signed and not Lexington. You hit Lexington before Cincy, anyway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on November 30, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 29, 2012, 03:24:51 PM
Saw this today in DC. I was on northbound Vermont Avenue at T Street NW. Had a while to stare at it while stopped at the red light and all I could say was, "WTF!"

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FMiscellaneousNovember2012113.jpg&hash=569f08303639aa5d3e1eb64f1a13e716d3db7881)
Also amusing: green up arrow juxtaposed with right One Way arrow. Should be a green ball.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2012, 07:44:13 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 30, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Also amusing: green up arrow juxtaposed with right One Way arrow. Should be a green ball.

Usual practice in the District of Columbia seems to be to have a green up arrow on the side where a turn is denied and a green ball on the other side.  Hoo did not  snap an image of the right side signal head, but it's probably a green ball.  GSV saw a green ball on the right when they rolled through there (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=vermont+avenue,+n.w.+and+t+street,+nw,+washington+dc&hl=en&ll=38.915421,-77.026176&spn=0.002333,0.004823&safe=off&hnear=T+St+NW+%26+Vermont+Ave+NW,+Washington,+District+of+Columbia+20001&gl=us&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.915454,-77.02616&panoid=MBkMlBXBtHw1znh9PgFffw&cbp=12,45.09,,0,5.41). 

Years ago, it likely would have been a green up arrow and a green arrow to the right, or (in one lens) a green up arrow "crossed" with a green right arrow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on November 30, 2012, 09:17:40 PM
Somehow despite the fact that I lived not too far from here for four years, these evaded my notice until this week:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg441.imageshack.us%2Fimg441%2F635%2Fimg2678or.jpg&hash=5d558eea7b31ba720b9253287fa1ce68a72b5d34)

There's a third one facing the cross street, even!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on November 30, 2012, 11:37:31 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2012, 07:44:13 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 30, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Also amusing: green up arrow juxtaposed with right One Way arrow. Should be a green ball.

Usual practice in the District of Columbia seems to be to have a green up arrow on the side where a turn is denied and a green ball on the other side.  Hoo did not  snap an image of the right side signal head, but it's probably a green ball.  GSV saw a green ball on the right when they rolled through there (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=vermont+avenue,+n.w.+and+t+street,+nw,+washington+dc&hl=en&ll=38.915421,-77.026176&spn=0.002333,0.004823&safe=off&hnear=T+St+NW+%26+Vermont+Ave+NW,+Washington,+District+of+Columbia+20001&gl=us&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.915454,-77.02616&panoid=MBkMlBXBtHw1znh9PgFffw&cbp=12,45.09,,0,5.41). 

Years ago, it likely would have been a green up arrow and a green arrow to the right, or (in one lens) a green up arrow "crossed" with a green right arrow.

Seen similar in Akron a lot...when intersecting a one-way, they usually use green balls except for the signal closest to the wrong-way direction of the cross street, and then use a straight arrow (e.g., crossing a one-way to the left, the rightmost signal would have a straight arrow, not a green ball, to emphasize that right turns are not an option.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on December 01, 2012, 03:57:11 PM
Tip from my dad:

In Delaware Co, OH on US 23, a few traffic lights north of OH 750 (which might be Hidden Ravines Dr) there is reportedly a blade sign which reads "US State Route 23".  GSV is too outdated to confirm.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on December 01, 2012, 04:26:50 PM
Error circle 155 sign on US 60 eastbound approaching VA 155 near Providence Forge. This wasn't there in July.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-GVwyM9AjMhs/ULp1n0I2AcI/AAAAAAAAEV8/SsQ6Gj7l6T8/s640/IMG_0321.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 01, 2012, 08:24:00 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 01, 2012, 04:26:50 PM
Error circle 155 sign on US 60 eastbound approaching VA 155 near Providence Forge. This wasn't there in July.

I've seen more than a few of these tourism signs with secondary shields for primary routes in VA.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on December 01, 2012, 09:21:19 PM
The opposite is also true. The only two I've seen for US routes (301 in Stony Creek and 60 in Williamsburg) have both been right, but had the black background behind the shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on December 03, 2012, 09:32:09 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.052195,-82.738702&spn=0.008635,0.016512&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.052195,-82.738702&panoid=0QwgsniswB9MSss0sHo2uw&cbp=12,98.52,,1,8.13
OK, where do you turn left?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on December 03, 2012, 10:56:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 03, 2012, 09:32:09 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.052195,-82.738702&spn=0.008635,0.016512&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.052195,-82.738702&panoid=0QwgsniswB9MSss0sHo2uw&cbp=12,98.52,,1,8.13
OK, where do you turn left?

May I play the part of Captain Obvious?
The pavement markings on the drive predate the current median setup.
Or is there a 'sign' I'm missing?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on December 04, 2012, 06:25:47 AM
Quote from: Takumi on December 01, 2012, 04:26:50 PM
Error circle 155 sign on US 60 eastbound approaching VA 155 near Providence Forge. This wasn't there in July.

It was there in mid-October...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on December 04, 2012, 12:25:28 PM
Yeah, I meant to ask HB it it was there when he went to finish US 60 in Virginia then. I wonder why the prevalence of error shields on these is even higher than VDOT's normal rate. I've only seen one non-US one with the correct shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on December 05, 2012, 07:37:31 PM
I noticed this guy on I-10 EB in Louisiana today:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=jennings,+la&hl=en&ll=30.246465,-92.677027&spn=0.001557,0.002202&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=45.957837,72.158203&t=h&hnear=Jennings,+Jefferson+Davis,+Louisiana&z=19&layer=c&cbll=30.246464,-92.677274&panoid=m4xdyfAyAxxhwTu1vBXnWQ&cbp=12,120.97,,0,5.51

The bottom line says "EXIT 1/2"  instead of "1/2 MILE"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on December 05, 2012, 09:51:02 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on December 05, 2012, 07:37:31 PM
I noticed this guy on I-10 EB in Louisiana today:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=jennings,+la&hl=en&ll=30.246465,-92.677027&spn=0.001557,0.002202&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=45.957837,72.158203&t=h&hnear=Jennings,+Jefferson+Davis,+Louisiana&z=19&layer=c&cbll=30.246464,-92.677274&panoid=m4xdyfAyAxxhwTu1vBXnWQ&cbp=12,120.97,,0,5.51

The bottom line says "EXIT 1/2"  instead of "1/2 MILE"

It was correct in 2003 (http://www.southeastroads.com/louisiana001/i-010_eb_exit_064_02.jpg), but replaced by 2006 with the error you pointed out.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 07, 2012, 11:38:29 AM
Quote from: Steve on November 26, 2012, 07:13:42 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on November 26, 2012, 05:46:35 PM
Installed recently on San Antonio Road in Palo Alto, Calif.:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F62CYM.jpg&hash=6f9d036a992e25674c78105d08c0a8b932cfd873)
Don't tell anyone about it. I'll be there next year. Meet me there with bolt cutters.

why?  it's '70 spec neutered.  that right there is the real error.  this sign was far more interesting.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19611011i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on December 07, 2012, 06:02:31 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 07, 2012, 11:38:29 AM
why?  it's '70 spec neutered.  that right there is the real error.  this sign was far more interesting.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19611011i1.jpg)

Your tax dollars working hard to bring you this quality sign.  I feel like every time I look at it, I find something else wrong with it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on December 08, 2012, 08:35:34 PM
I drove past this in Miami, FL a while back.  It took me longer than it should to figure out why it didn't look right.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2F20121208%2520-%2520Miami%2520and%2520Collier%2FIMG_0865.jpg&hash=8534fea9c94b994dd88732c291ff1326c3eb412e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on December 09, 2012, 10:20:02 AM
That last one brings to mind this at a freeway exit in NJ - yes, it's a standard RIRO, no fancy left maneuvers.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fcr_753%2F42n.jpg&hash=2d8ce27946f62bdb8d5b907f20f736161cecb235)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mjb2002 on December 09, 2012, 05:54:40 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on November 02, 2012, 11:05:11 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek2500 on November 02, 2012, 10:09:40 PM
Oh, and if you have one, I would like to see one of the blank shields with the arrow inside it.

...and another from the same town on the US 250 page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/va/us_250/)...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fva%2Fus_250%2Farrow.jpg&hash=262a024e9f80a7843d26600e38962e213095dc07)


I am just cracking up now. An arrow inside of an interstate shield. Wow.  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 13, 2012, 12:20:40 AM
Saw a couple of NJ style shield on MA 9 today.  One westbound just before the Connecticut River bridge in Hadley, and the other just before Downtown Northampton.  Here's a link to one of them:

http://goo.gl/maps/7UJmB (http://goo.gl/maps/7UJmB)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 13, 2012, 10:01:11 AM
Incorrect  Va. 286 (secondary, not primary with "286" in Clearview font as a bonus) on Fair Lakes Parkway at Fairfax County Parkway in Fairfax (sorry for the repeated use of the string "Fair"):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc01277.jpg&hash=3bf773737e5480eb7ca975f2b1eba45805112a70)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 13, 2012, 10:12:34 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 13, 2012, 12:20:40 AM
Saw a couple of NJ style shield on MA 9 today.  One westbound just before the Connecticut River bridge in Hadley, and the other just before Downtown Northampton.  Here's a link to one of them:

http://goo.gl/maps/7UJmB (http://goo.gl/maps/7UJmB)

I believe there are several circle 9s in Boston: on Huntington Avenue near Northeastern University.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on December 13, 2012, 12:10:32 PM
I always just figured the Massachusetts signs with circles were just an old style (though I make no claim that I'm right).  Here's one from Route 2, taken in 2002 in Concord:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20020223%2Feastma2circle.jpg&hash=34afa4f793285b4fe33fe59f7458ee7931ddf10d)

Also from 2002, Goshen:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20021013%2Fma9ma112.jpg&hash=79d3754bc388fed6fa3164691d465dc597c72272)

From 2009 in Hadley:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20091026%2Fwestma9.jpg&hash=289e80e40bfaedc41f6c408581c14254eec41b9f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 13, 2012, 12:16:16 PM
nope, Mass has always been a square.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MA/MA19300021i1.jpg)

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MA/MA19390321i1.jpg)

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MA/MA19490431i1.jpg)

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MA/MA19491221i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on December 13, 2012, 05:22:31 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 13, 2012, 10:01:11 AM
Incorrect  Va. 286
At first I thought the text may have been patched onto a 7100 shield, but there appears to be no evidence of that, as the patches for the new routes (at least on I-95) are blatantly visible.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 13, 2012, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 13, 2012, 05:22:31 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 13, 2012, 10:01:11 AM
Incorrect  Va. 286
At first I thought the text may have been patched onto a 7100 shield, but there appears to be no evidence of that, as the patches for the new routes (at least on I-95) are blatantly visible.

No, the panel is brand-new (as in post-Va. 7100).  And yes, the patches are quite visible on the BGS panels on I-66 and Va. 267 as well.

When I snapped that image, the contractor was putting the finishing touches on the new Va. 286 bridge (which is now carrying motorized traffic across Fair Lakes Parkway - VDOT press release here (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/northern_virginia/2012/new_overpass_on_route61734.asp)).  This new interchange is just north of the I-66/Va. 286 interchange in Fairfax County.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on December 13, 2012, 05:55:14 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 13, 2012, 05:22:31 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 13, 2012, 10:01:11 AM
Incorrect  Va. 286
At first I thought the text may have been patched onto a 7100 shield, but there appears to be no evidence of that, as the patches for the new routes (at least on I-95) are blatantly visible.

That interchange in Fair Lakes is new–been the site of a construction project for the last several years to have the Fairfax County Parkway fly over Fair Lakes Parkway and Monument Drive (used to be ordinary traffic lights). So the sign ought to be brand-new as well.

My brother works around the corner from there. I ought to ask him how much of a difference it's making. He certainly grumbled about all the detours during the construction.....



Edited to add: How the hell did I miss cpzilliacus's post from 25 minutes earlier that basically said the same thing I just said????? Somehow I looked at it and COMPLETELY MISSED IT.   :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 13, 2012, 06:09:49 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 13, 2012, 05:22:31 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 13, 2012, 10:01:11 AM
Incorrect  Va. 286
At first I thought the text may have been patched onto a 7100 shield, but there appears to be no evidence of that, as the patches for the new routes (at least on I-95) are blatantly visible.

Surprised you didn't point out the blatant misuse of Clearview... ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 13, 2012, 07:26:09 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 13, 2012, 06:09:49 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 13, 2012, 05:22:31 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 13, 2012, 10:01:11 AM
Incorrect  Va. 286
At first I thought the text may have been patched onto a 7100 shield, but there appears to be no evidence of that, as the patches for the new routes (at least on I-95) are blatantly visible.

Surprised you didn't point out the blatant misuse of Clearview... ;)

I did (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg190452#msg190452).  :-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 13, 2012, 07:29:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 13, 2012, 05:55:14 PM
Edited to add: How the hell did I miss cpzilliacus's post from 25 minutes earlier that basically said the same thing I just said????? Somehow I looked at it and COMPLETELY MISSED IT.   :ded:

Nothing wrong with that. 

I suspect everyone has done that - even before the widespread use of computers (and I've been using computers pretty well continuously since the 1970's and  have been missing things pre- and post-computer).

I am old enough to have worked with 80-column punched cards - trying to find mistakes on those was a painful undertaking.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on December 13, 2012, 09:09:17 PM
I cringed a bit after seeing that 286 sign.  EVERYTHING is in Clearview!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on December 14, 2012, 04:59:05 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 13, 2012, 12:16:16 PM
nope, Mass has always been a square.
Well, you know what they say: It's hip to be square!

Also, yet again, I seem to be the only person in existence who likes Clearview.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 14, 2012, 08:23:37 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on December 14, 2012, 04:59:05 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 13, 2012, 12:16:16 PM
nope, Mass has always been a square.
Well, you know what they say: It's hip to be square!

Also, yet again, I seem to be the only person in existence who likes Clearview.

I don't mind Clearview for control cities/place names on sign panels.

In my opinion, the rules not allowing Clearview for route numbers is correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: spooky on December 14, 2012, 08:50:25 AM
Quote from: Jim on December 13, 2012, 12:10:32 PM
I always just figured the Massachusetts signs with circles were just an old style (though I make no claim that I'm right). 

I always figured it was lazy contractors.

Here's one on Route 27 in Sharon.

http://goo.gl/maps/yDJ4g
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on December 14, 2012, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 13, 2012, 12:20:40 AM
Saw a couple of NJ style shield on MA 9 today.  One westbound just before the Connecticut River bridge in Hadley, and the other just before Downtown Northampton.
In Salem, MA at the intersection of Lafayette & New Derby Streets, there were one or two MA 1A signs in the generic MUTCD circle (a la NJ or DE) that were erected during the 1980s when the adjacent traffic signal was erected.  I think the one for southbound 1A (along Lafayette St. is still there).

In Rochdale (Leicester), MA at the intersection of MA 56 and Stafford St.: not only are there generic MUTCD circle MA 56 shields but the LGS' are of the generic MUTCD type for guidance signs as opposed to the Massachusetts standard paddle-style LGS'.  These were erected a few years ago as part of a traffic signalization project.

Along MA 24 & 79 southbound, just after the Exit 7 'split'; there used to be a couple of generic circular trailblazer MA 24 & 79 shields erected erected sometime during the late 70s/early 80s.  Note sure if those are still there?


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: StogieGuy7 on December 14, 2012, 11:27:08 AM
Yes, there are a few Massachusetts state highways are marked with a circle rather than a square.  It's not common, yet there are such signs scattered around the state.  I've seen some on Route 2 in the Concord area (if they're still there).   
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JMoses24 on December 17, 2012, 03:13:53 AM
I was traveling down US 127 in Cincinnati over the weekend (coming back after dropping my fiancee off in Colerain Township) and at the corner of 127 and Ashtree Drive, I think I saw an incorrect OHIO 127 sign. Unfortunately, I didn't get a picture of it, as it was nighttime. If someone else does, feel free to post it. As of right now, Google Street View doesn't show this.

Reference location: http://goo.gl/maps/y3juh
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on December 19, 2012, 09:51:51 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=27.340512,-82.546828&spn=0.017383,0.033023&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=27.340164,-82.546719&panoid=x3kJaB4Y4X6vnsOJATOg0Q&cbp=12,332.34,,1,12.19
Oops :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on December 19, 2012, 11:10:16 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 19, 2012, 09:51:51 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=27.340512,-82.546828&spn=0.017383,0.033023&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=27.340164,-82.546719&panoid=x3kJaB4Y4X6vnsOJATOg0Q&cbp=12,332.34,,1,12.19
Oops :)

Wow, it took me a minute to figure out what was wrong.  That's awesome.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 19, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FY0Mbv.jpg&hash=ac5c3bd9a0417a0f4f6316a1b1f885db0a3c4a4b) (http://imgur.com/Y0Mbv)


sorry it's not a better picture but it was a short red light.

In Bossier City, LA - US 71 at LA 72. US 72 doesn't go that far west  :pan:


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on December 19, 2012, 05:36:30 PM
Norfolk County (became Chesapeake in 1963) secondary route numbers on I-664 (completed 1991).
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-4OjeA2agai8/UM8-V_0-ivI/AAAAAAAAEnI/1Oj9-YnFC7Y/s640/IMG_0404.JPG)

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Jn7Ogft874U/UM8-W-YNSiI/AAAAAAAAEnY/ubVUBLzvwX0/s640/IMG_0406.JPG)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7zI_bU-tyIg/UM8-XxQo3mI/AAAAAAAAEnk/gU-BzrnkRWg/s640/IMG_0407.JPG)

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-ndEnMmHtc1Y/UM8-ZpDUd0I/AAAAAAAAEoA/rsgUkkzkvik/s640/IMG_0415.JPG)

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-DB2q-ViiZCw/UM8-aaZJMEI/AAAAAAAAEoM/TzRlI3wtv0Y/s640/IMG_0418.JPG)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-MmmPMGen0eU/UM8_rM__fqI/AAAAAAAAExw/lbHY7pRqOb8/s640/IMG_0529.JPG)

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-8EbRjN65vXI/UM8_sqonj3I/AAAAAAAAEyI/UOjDyWybgDU/s640/IMG_0535.JPG)

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-NxKNnryssX0/UM8_tSZo37I/AAAAAAAAEyQ/szE0-CerazY/s640/IMG_0537.JPG)

These banners are backwards. VA 165 should be South (I guess...it heads east here) and VA 337 should be West.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ZEdtajeZWQg/UM8_mLzpIBI/AAAAAAAAEwc/s-_62_0qLFA/s640/IMG_0506.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on December 19, 2012, 05:41:21 PM
I was unable to get a picture, traffic was moving too fast, but in DC today I saw a sign, likely posted by the National Park Service because it was near the Lincoln Memorial, that said "State Law Yield to Peds" (using symbols for "Yield" and "Peds"). It's erroneous because DC is not a state.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 19, 2012, 05:49:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 19, 2012, 05:41:21 PM
It's erroneous because DC is not a state.

Not yet anyway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on December 19, 2012, 09:22:22 PM
Reminds me of the 'City of Reedy Creek Improvement District' signs Disney has posted. It's either just plain RCID or City of Bay Lake/Lake Buena Vista.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on December 20, 2012, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 19, 2012, 05:49:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 19, 2012, 05:41:21 PM
It's erroneous because DC is not a state.

Not yet anyway.

Which means the sign is erroneous.

The signs posted by the District's government, BTW, say "DC LAW" instead of "STATE LAW," which is one of the main reasons I figure it's an NPS mistake.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 20, 2012, 12:12:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 19, 2012, 05:41:21 PM
I was unable to get a picture, traffic was moving too fast, but in DC today I saw a sign, likely posted by the National Park Service because it was near the Lincoln Memorial, that said "State Law Yield to Peds" (using symbols for "Yield" and "Peds"). It's erroneous because DC is not a state.

the law is still present, though - I don't think it is made unenforceable due to a simple typo.  the sign is just a reminder of the law, as opposed to being the regulatory device itself. 

also: no symbol for "state law" exists in the MUTCD?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on December 20, 2012, 02:26:58 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on December 14, 2012, 04:59:05 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 13, 2012, 12:16:16 PM
nope, Mass has always been a square.
Well, you know what they say: It's hip to be square!

Also, yet again, I seem to be the only person in existence who likes Clearview.
Nope, I like Clearview myself. Not as much as I used to, but when Clearview is used properly, I really have no issues with it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on December 20, 2012, 02:48:26 PM
This is one that really bugs me:

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=33.76635,-84.38693&spn=0.003113,0.009581&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.766304,-84.386834&panoid=RuFdp7m79j6MT3Wb000Igw&cbp=12,305.33,,0,13.3

These signs were just installed in the last couple years (as evidenced by the fact they're in Series E(M) and have "standard" exit tabs).  The problem?  US 19/29 was moved off this routing in the mid-1980s.

To be fair, this exit does spit you out just a couple blocks away from current US 29 (though in that case, it should also mention US 78 and US 278, with which it is concurrent).  US 19 should still be mentioned here - but on the sign for exit 250, not 249D (it now runs along 14th Street).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on December 20, 2012, 03:13:55 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 20, 2012, 12:12:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 19, 2012, 05:41:21 PM
I was unable to get a picture, traffic was moving too fast, but in DC today I saw a sign, likely posted by the National Park Service because it was near the Lincoln Memorial, that said "State Law Yield to Peds" (using symbols for "Yield" and "Peds"). It's erroneous because DC is not a state.

the law is still present, though - I don't think it is made unenforceable due to a simple typo.  the sign is just a reminder of the law, as opposed to being the regulatory device itself. 

also: no symbol for "state law" exists in the MUTCD?

Yeah, I don't disagree with you that the message is still enforceable. But it's erroneous because of the wording. Sort of like the sign on an off-ramp about 7 miles from my house that says "Queensberry Rd" when the name of the street is "Queensberry Avenue." The latter sign is erroneous because it has the wrong type of street listed.

In other words, I didn't think the thread was limited to signs that are rendered irrelevant or inapplicable simply because they're erroneous.

Edited to add: I recall when I was a kid there was a sign outside the school I attended from 4th to 6th grade that read "NO PARIKNG THIS SIDE OF STREET." It was located in the bus lane. I don't think "the sign said 'parikng' and there's no such word" would be a reasonable defense to a parking ticket issued there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 20, 2012, 03:33:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 20, 2012, 03:13:55 PM
Edited to add: I recall when I was a kid there was a sign outside the school I attended from 4th to 6th grade that read "NO PARIKNG THIS SIDE OF STREET." It was located in the bus lane. I don't think "the sign said 'parikng' and there's no such word" would be a reasonable defense to a parking ticket issued there.

in that case, though, it is the sign itself which is the regulatory device... so, given a good enough lawyer, maybe.  "reasonable" is not universally the standard to which court cases are held.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on December 20, 2012, 05:16:17 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 20, 2012, 03:33:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 20, 2012, 03:13:55 PM
Edited to add: I recall when I was a kid there was a sign outside the school I attended from 4th to 6th grade that read "NO PARIKNG THIS SIDE OF STREET." It was located in the bus lane. I don't think "the sign said 'parikng' and there's no such word" would be a reasonable defense to a parking ticket issued there.

in that case, though, it is the sign itself which is the regulatory device... so, given a good enough lawyer, maybe.  "reasonable" is not universally the standard to which court cases are held.

In some places, that might well happen. No judge I've ever appeared before would ever allow someone to beat a ticket on that basis, though. BTW, I wasn't using "reasonableness" in this context to mean the standard of proof. I was using it simply to mean whether a defense is, well, a reasonable argument, one that would pass the "straight-face" test.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on December 20, 2012, 05:24:29 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 19, 2012, 09:51:51 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=27.340512,-82.546828&spn=0.017383,0.033023&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=27.340164,-82.546719&panoid=x3kJaB4Y4X6vnsOJATOg0Q&cbp=12,332.34,,1,12.19
Oops :)

I don't see it. Whatizit? :/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on December 20, 2012, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 20, 2012, 05:24:29 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 19, 2012, 09:51:51 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=27.340512,-82.546828&spn=0.017383,0.033023&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=27.340164,-82.546719&panoid=x3kJaB4Y4X6vnsOJATOg0Q&cbp=12,332.34,,1,12.19
Oops :)

I don't see it. Whatizit? :/

Please do not turn right from center turn lanes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on December 20, 2012, 05:31:09 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 20, 2012, 05:24:29 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 19, 2012, 09:51:51 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=27.340512,-82.546828&spn=0.017383,0.033023&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=27.340164,-82.546719&panoid=x3kJaB4Y4X6vnsOJATOg0Q&cbp=12,332.34,,1,12.19
Oops :)

I don't see it. Whatizit? :/

Though some bad drivers do it, you are not supposed to make a right turn from a shared left-turn lane.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 20, 2012, 06:58:18 PM
Found a few around town today. Denton has the nice practice of posting numbers on street blades. A few of them aren't correct:

N. Locust St IS FM 2164 further north, but not in the downtown square. They probably just made one set of signs for Locust St. and put them all up
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsfzqO.jpg&hash=9b935347bfdb5c709166b2c9a8f35198d2bc0149) (http://imgur.com/sfzqO)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FijC2D.jpg&hash=a1e337aaec220f3590a17e72335626a5a68ae697) (http://imgur.com/ijC2D)

This is eastbound US 380 in Denton. This sign is correct for FM 428.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHmeoN.jpg&hash=456c80799d13535510c0cdc672c28cb7867d5434) (http://imgur.com/HmeoN)

But this is once you turn north on US 77 and this one is not. It actually is FM 428.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUz11s.jpg&hash=cf44215553ac10687c27aff7d432abdea2dedede) (http://imgur.com/Uz11s)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on December 22, 2012, 09:10:20 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on December 20, 2012, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 20, 2012, 05:24:29 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 19, 2012, 09:51:51 AM
http://maps.google.com/bymaps?hl=en&ll=27.340512,-82.546828&spn=0.017383,0.033023&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=27.340164,-82.546719&panoid=x3kJaB4Y4X6vnsOJATOg0Q&cbp=12,332.34,,1,12.19
Oops :)

I don't see it. Whatizit? :/

Please do not turn right from center turn lanes.

This is Florida, and thus, we have a certain standard to dispense with.

Thanks, I spent 15 minutes not figuring that out...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 22, 2012, 10:22:23 PM
I was going through google street view and found this one in Hancock, MD.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Hancock,+MD&hl=en&ll=39.700005,-78.18532&spn=0.008007,0.021136&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=hancock&t=h&hnear=Hancock,+Washington,+Maryland&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.699755,-78.18503&panoid=b4YiR7HdtxD6W68g4SRrcA&cbp=12,135,,0,0

MD 522 South should be US 522, unless it was demoted from US route without anyone telling us.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 22, 2012, 10:30:45 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 19, 2012, 05:41:21 PM
I was unable to get a picture, traffic was moving too fast, but in DC today I saw a sign, likely posted by the National Park Service because it was near the Lincoln Memorial, that said "State Law Yield to Peds" (using symbols for "Yield" and "Peds"). It's erroneous because DC is not a state.

If it was on the "circle" around the Memorial, then that road is indeed maintained by  the  National Park Service.

There are signs that read "D.C. Law," though I don't recall the signs there in particular.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on December 22, 2012, 11:10:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 19, 2012, 09:51:51 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=27.340512,-82.546828&spn=0.017383,0.033023&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=27.340164,-82.546719&panoid=x3kJaB4Y4X6vnsOJATOg0Q&cbp=12,332.34,,1,12.19
Oops :)

Wow, now that's an epic fail on the part of the road crew.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on December 23, 2012, 01:02:24 AM
Quote from: Brandon on December 22, 2012, 11:10:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 19, 2012, 09:51:51 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=27.340512,-82.546828&spn=0.017383,0.033023&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=27.340164,-82.546719&panoid=x3kJaB4Y4X6vnsOJATOg0Q&cbp=12,332.34,,1,12.19
Oops :)

Wow, now that's an epic fail on the part of the road crew.

I like to think that someone noticed it as soon as they were done painting, said "oh crap", and hurried along to the next arrow. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brian556 on December 23, 2012, 09:26:01 PM
QuoteN. Locust St is FM 2164 further north, but not in the downtown square. They probably just made one set of signs for Locust St. and put them all up
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FijC2D.jpg&hash=a1e337aaec220f3590a17e72335626a5a68ae697)

Yeah, this error is annoying. This error goes as far south as I-35E. The blade assembly at I-35E and Locust has this error. Ironically, Locust St south of Eagle Dr was US 377 until 1941, so the city is falsly claiming that is is once again a state highway under a different system. As for the origin of this error, I believe that it could have been from a city employee using a Mapsco. They had this error on their maps for years.

QuoteBut this is once you turn north on US 77 and this one is not. It actually is FM 428.(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUz11s.jpg&hash=cf44215553ac10687c27aff7d432abdea2dedede)

I noticed this one, too. When i was working for TxDOT, ths sign was in the other guy's maintenance area, so I didn't fix it.

This intersection also has two other issues that annoy me.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsfzqO.jpg&hash=9b935347bfdb5c709166b2c9a8f35198d2bc0149)
1. The signal is not split-phased, and due to the one-two way transition, it causes two directions to head towards each other on green. The left turn yield on green concept does not work well here because oncoming traffic is normally on your left, not your right, as it is for eastbound traffic at this intersection.
2. There is no two-way traffic sign for eastbound traffic.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on December 25, 2012, 09:25:06 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on December 23, 2012, 09:26:01 PM
I noticed this one, too. When i was working for TxDOT, ths sign was in the other guy's maintenance area, so I didn't fix it.

I always wondered how this works. Does each TxDOT guy get his own maintenance area marked off on a map, and the assigned employee is responsible for driving around looking for missing/damaged signs/potholes/mangled guardrail every day, and turning in the necessary paperwork to get it fixed if they notice everything? Or is it something totally different than that?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 30, 2012, 05:19:18 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=West+Memphis,+AR&hl=en&ll=35.392111,-90.273542&spn=0.008974,0.021136&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=west+mem&t=h&hnear=West+Memphis,+Crittenden,+Arkansas&z=16&layer=c&cbll=35.392016,-90.273756&panoid=bX06qpiBQZg5bWEY4eLbOQ&cbp=12,270,,0,0
I was taking a virtual drive along I-55 in Arkansas and found that US 77 does exist in Arkansas.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on December 30, 2012, 11:45:06 PM
If this has been posted, my apologies.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8071%2F8327510624_25a716f6a6_c.jpg&hash=073eaa6083dce7a2ad1c4d2edad8e60e032e9c2f)

US 1 at SR 0073 in Philadelphia.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on December 31, 2012, 10:05:54 AM
And one intersection west of there, forget which one...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bud8Amp88 on January 05, 2013, 02:04:43 PM
Figured I'd bring some Nova Scotia screw-ups into the mix as my first board post.

NS-111 (The Circumferential Highway) is officially signed north/south, yet in no fewer than four different spots, is signed incorrectly.

1 - Route 322 NB, at the 111 SB on-ramp: http://goo.gl/maps/TS8FS (Signed as 111 EB)
2 - Route 322 SB, at the 111 SB on-ramp: http://goo.gl/maps/Ar5ep  (Signed as 111 EB)
3 - Burnside Drive/Highfield Park Dr., sign for 111 NB on-ramp: http://goo.gl/maps/bnUGT (Signed as 111 SB)
4 - Gantry approaching Exits 6A/6B on 111 SB: http://goo.gl/maps/PacRz (Signed as 111 EB)

The last one is particularly irritating considering the next gantry (which can be seen in the background) correctly signs the 111 as SB. The fact that the shields and plates are hideous doesn't help any.

Here's a couple other unrelated goofs I've found:

1 - http://goo.gl/maps/vxfyq
Trunk 1 EB in Weymouth, just east of NS-101 Exit 28. The [1][EAST] shields should be with the "Halifax, Digby" portion of the sign, and not pointing toward Weymouth Falls (unless this was on an old alignment or something, but I doubt it, as the road in question continues due east for quite some distance, and the signage WB is correct).

2 - http://goo.gl/maps/AzpQm
Downtown New Glascow - where there's sine salad at every corner! Not only is there a [104] plate missing for the T.C.H. shields (may be on purpose though, with T.C.H. 106 a couple kms to the west), but Trunk 4 is signed East/West, not North/South like these shields indicate (in fact, I believe this is the ONLY set of shields that sign Trunk 4 that way). Add in the inconsistent [TO] plates, and this salad is (to quote Gordon Ramsay) "bloody dreadful".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 05, 2013, 06:56:58 PM

I do not know if anyone caught this one in rural Collier County, FL.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Davie,+FL&hl=en&ll=26.152115,-81.344436&spn=0.004902,0.010568&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=dav&hnear=Davie,+Broward,+Florida&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=26.152984,-81.345088&panoid=GG16twEKkg3vPAi4jn6XWw&cbp=12,206.02,,0,0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on January 05, 2013, 11:36:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 05, 2013, 06:56:58 PM

I do not know if anyone caught this one in rural Collier County, FL.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Davie,+FL&hl=en&ll=26.152115,-81.344436&spn=0.004902,0.010568&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=dav&hnear=Davie,+Broward,+Florida&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=26.152984,-81.345088&panoid=GG16twEKkg3vPAi4jn6XWw&cbp=12,206.02,,0,0

Not terribly erroneous, although perhaps outdated, like finding an east/west US 1 or I-95 sign in Connecticut.

ETA:  The BGS on FL 29 NB for I-75 to Naples also says West instead of North (here (http://goo.gl/maps/gtA5H)), but the signs approaching the junction on either direction of FL 29 have North/South banners for I-75 (here (http://goo.gl/maps/Wtd43), here (http://goo.gl/maps/6PYJW)).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 06, 2013, 12:43:58 AM
Don't know if it's still kicking, as I haven't quite made it to that stretch of VT 121 yet, but apparently the town of Windham has decided to promote VT 121 to US 121 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.19748,-72.703228&spn=0.042235,0.104628&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=43.197444,-72.719581&panoid=Bls7E0DkN5H4KyrP6spoog&cbp=12,127.12,,0,9.06), even though VT 121 isn't even paved (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.197418,-72.703056&spn=0.042235,0.104628&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=43.197227,-72.719105&panoid=jewt12IpfYW0BFJl48MFBQ&cbp=12,124.71,,0,6.53) past the yellow sign in the background!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 06, 2013, 01:54:45 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on January 05, 2013, 11:36:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 05, 2013, 06:56:58 PM

I do not know if anyone caught this one in rural Collier County, FL.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Davie,+FL&hl=en&ll=26.152115,-81.344436&spn=0.004902,0.010568&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=dav&hnear=Davie,+Broward,+Florida&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=26.152984,-81.345088&panoid=GG16twEKkg3vPAi4jn6XWw&cbp=12,206.02,,0,0

Not terribly erroneous, although perhaps outdated, like finding an east/west US 1 or I-95 sign in Connecticut.

ETA:  The BGS on FL 29 NB for I-75 to Naples also says West instead of North (here (http://goo.gl/maps/gtA5H)), but the signs approaching the junction on either direction of FL 29 have North/South banners for I-75 (here (http://goo.gl/maps/Wtd43), here (http://goo.gl/maps/6PYJW)).
I saw the banners approaching, but cardinal ruling for interstates is they have to be signed North- South for odd numbered routes and East-West for even number routes.  This is not only a violation of that, but the rest of I-75 signs it N-S.  Even from I-595 and the Sawgrass Parkway it was corrected.  So, this is erroneous here.

Now when it comes to I-69 being signed E-W in Michigan, true it is in violation, but all the signs are consistent east of Lansing to confirm it as East and West.

With US 1, yes it was signed East- West statewide, but in this case I-75 was not signed as East and West state or region wide.  All the shields on I-75, including Rest Area signage shows I-75 as N-S. Here is a rare case, and it was not left over as I-75 was not officially an East - West route.

Apples and Oranges between the two.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on January 06, 2013, 07:19:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 06, 2013, 01:54:45 AM
With US 1, yes it was signed East- West statewide, but in this case I-75 was not signed as East and West state or region wide.  All the shields on I-75, including Rest Area signage shows I-75 as N-S. Here is a rare case, and it was not left over as I-75 was not officially an East - West route.

I'm pretty sure Alligator Alley was at one point officially signed East/West, and I'm pretty sure US 41 in the same area still is.

ETA: In fact, according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I-75_East-West.jpg), those north-south banners on FL 29 used to be east-west banners.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on January 06, 2013, 09:58:20 AM
I don't think it's correct to say that an odd-numbered Interstate has to be signed as N/S just because of its odd number.  When I-75 was given its number, that number is odd because the route generally runs N/S, yes.  That's part of AASHO's self-imposed "rules" on Interstate numbering.  But reversing the cause-effect relationship of direction and number would be a logical fallacy.  If Florida were to choose to sign the AA section of I-75 as E/W, that's not in violation of any federal rule. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on January 06, 2013, 11:54:40 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnh%2Fnh_1-a%2Fsblind.jpg&hash=22de9901ba6214e25af3b317b778b90e4f6c5c54)
Just noticed this after 3.5 years of being on my site. Who says old signs can't be erroneous?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 06, 2013, 12:53:59 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on January 06, 2013, 07:19:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 06, 2013, 01:54:45 AM
With US 1, yes it was signed East- West statewide, but in this case I-75 was not signed as East and West state or region wide.  All the shields on I-75, including Rest Area signage shows I-75 as N-S. Here is a rare case, and it was not left over as I-75 was not officially an East - West route.

I'm pretty sure Alligator Alley was at one point officially signed East/West, and I'm pretty sure US 41 in the same area still is.

ETA: In fact, according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I-75_East-West.jpg), those north-south banners on FL 29 used to be east-west banners.
could have been posted as East & West just like the Sawgrass, and I-595 were, but FDOT did eventually change them back.  There are also general rules that are not legislated nor in guidelines and for the most part road agencies try to keep interstates signed by cardinal direction.  Example I-94 between Milwaukee and Chicago is N-S, but still signed E-W.

US Routes are more local and do not stand out like the nation's interstates, so they can be more flexible.  Yes, US 41 in Miami-Dade is signed East & West. 

Anyway, I-75 was signed in error the whole thing, and was corrected, but as you say some signs are left and this is definetely the case of it here.  Even so it was only between a few interchanges.  For the record, the US 27 interchange always had I-75 as North & South when the others were East & West.  To my knowledge only two interchanges (I am not sure how Snake Road is or was signed) had the E-W banners.  To me, anyway, it was not official and most of all it was not consistent either.  I still say it is erroneous. 

Remember, this is only opinion and you may see it differently and have your own opinion.  Its just I lived in Florida for 23 years and I have seen many signs come and go, so to me I am going to see things differently.  Its just me, but to me I-75 was never an East- West highway. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on January 06, 2013, 07:34:34 PM
Quote from: Bud8Amp88 on January 05, 2013, 02:04:43 PM
2 - http://goo.gl/maps/AzpQm
Downtown New Glascow - where there's sine salad at every corner! Not only is there a [104] plate missing for the T.C.H. shields (may be on purpose though, with T.C.H. 106 a couple kms to the west), but Trunk 4 is signed East/West, not North/South like these shields indicate (in fact, I believe this is the ONLY set of shields that sign Trunk 4 that way). Add in the inconsistent [TO] plates, and this salad is (to quote Gordon Ramsay) "bloody dreadful".
Great, right when I finally convince myself that there's a gap in Trunk 4 here, Google has to go and update Street View! Before the Sept 2012 imagery update, I last took a thorough virtual drive thru there in late 2011, and everything was pretty much unsigned, save for this sign (http://maps.google.ca/?q=new+glasgow&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+Glasgow,+Pictou+County,+Nova+Scotia&ll=45.589357,-62.644536&spn=0.005,0.01929&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.589362,-62.644542&panoid=TTtz3OztSRkGbTP2l4T7vQ&cbp=11,126.03,,2,-4.35), and the same assembly you linked (http://maps.google.ca/?q=new+glasgow&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+Glasgow,+Pictou+County,+Nova+Scotia&ll=45.58549,-62.645234&spn=0.0025,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.58549,-62.64523&panoid=CKHXDj7qvDny0d6WH5oGZw&cbp=11,99.2,,0,2). Back then, IIRC, there was just a {4} shield, and no directional banners or arrows. Also, there had been a {6} trailblazer here (https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&t=m&layer=c&cbll=45.590243,-62.649897&panoid=pD1JO0uyULLgsdMIcklP3A&cbp=12,303.36,,0,-4.55&ie=UTF8&ll=45.590257,-62.649879&spn=0.010211,0.038581&z=15&vpsrc=6) along with one for the TCH and I think Route 289. As well as a few more out-of-place {6} markers along 289 coming north toward that point. Makes me wish I'd taken some screenshots! :-D

Also: Did you notice the sign for 374 instead of 347 in your link? Looks like NSDOT got a little dyslexic and mixed`em up! (https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&t=m&layer=c&cbll=45.585855,-62.652749&panoid=dQBKk0vj2KmPORr8QZx7Vw&cbp=11,124.28,,1,2.05&ie=UTF8&vpsrc=6&ll=45.584701,-62.652369&spn=0.010212,0.038581&z=15)

Edit: And 348 north and south are both to the left, eh? Crikey, this one is bloody dreadful!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bud8Amp88 on January 07, 2013, 01:54:21 PM
Quote from: yakra on January 06, 2013, 07:34:34 PM
Quote from: Bud8Amp88 on January 05, 2013, 02:04:43 PM
2 - http://goo.gl/maps/AzpQm
Downtown New Glascow - where there's sine salad at every corner! Not only is there a [104] plate missing for the T.C.H. shields (may be on purpose though, with T.C.H. 106 a couple kms to the west), but Trunk 4 is signed East/West, not North/South like these shields indicate (in fact, I believe this is the ONLY set of shields that sign Trunk 4 that way). Add in the inconsistent [TO] plates, and this salad is (to quote Gordon Ramsay) "bloody dreadful".
Great, right when I finally convince myself that there's a gap in Trunk 4 here, Google has to go and update Street View! Before the Sept 2012 imagery update, I last took a thorough virtual drive thru there in late 2011, and everything was pretty much unsigned, save for this sign (http://maps.google.ca/?q=new+glasgow&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+Glasgow,+Pictou+County,+Nova+Scotia&ll=45.589357,-62.644536&spn=0.005,0.01929&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.589362,-62.644542&panoid=TTtz3OztSRkGbTP2l4T7vQ&cbp=11,126.03,,2,-4.35), and the same assembly you linked (http://maps.google.ca/?q=new+glasgow&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+Glasgow,+Pictou+County,+Nova+Scotia&ll=45.58549,-62.645234&spn=0.0025,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.58549,-62.64523&panoid=CKHXDj7qvDny0d6WH5oGZw&cbp=11,99.2,,0,2). Back then, IIRC, there was just a {4} shield, and no directional banners or arrows. Also, there had been a {6} trailblazer here (https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&t=m&layer=c&cbll=45.590243,-62.649897&panoid=pD1JO0uyULLgsdMIcklP3A&cbp=12,303.36,,0,-4.55&ie=UTF8&ll=45.590257,-62.649879&spn=0.010211,0.038581&z=15&vpsrc=6) along with one for the TCH and I think Route 289. As well as a few more out-of-place {6} markers along 289 coming north toward that point. Makes me wish I'd taken some screenshots! :-D

Also: Did you notice the sign for 374 instead of 347 in your link? Looks like NSDOT got a little dyslexic and mixed`em up! (https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&t=m&layer=c&cbll=45.585855,-62.652749&panoid=dQBKk0vj2KmPORr8QZx7Vw&cbp=11,124.28,,1,2.05&ie=UTF8&vpsrc=6&ll=45.584701,-62.652369&spn=0.010212,0.038581&z=15)

Edit: And 348 north and south are both to the left, eh? Crikey, this one is bloody dreadful!
Holy smokes, I didn't even notice either of those! Further proof that it is possible to get irretrievably lost in New Glascow...

At least Trunk 4 is actually signed in New Glascow now. If only they'd close the freakin' gap in it between Debert (http://goo.gl/maps/jRY3B) (where the last proof of the 2/4 multiplex is) and Bible Hill (http://goo.gl/maps/exFrX) (where the next [4] [East] sign appears), we'd be all set!

Edit: Found another one, sort of:
http://goo.gl/maps/yUXJW
Trunk 2 at the NS-118/NS-102 split. While Route 213 does branch off of Trunk 2, it doesn't do so until much further south in Hammonds Plains. Route 318 is just south of this interchange however, and so this likely should have been the route mentioned.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Sanctimoniously on January 07, 2013, 04:17:28 PM
Quote from: Steve on January 06, 2013, 11:54:40 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnh%2Fnh_1-a%2Fsblind.jpg&hash=22de9901ba6214e25af3b317b778b90e4f6c5c54)
Just noticed this after 3.5 years of being on my site. Who says old signs can't be erroneous?

ERMAGERD CHILDERN?

(Sorry, had to do it.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2013, 10:56:11 PM
Westbound Va. 236 (Main Street) west of downtown Fairfax (but within the corporate limits of the City of  Fairfax):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Ferror236.jpg&hash=e9ca33913a7857bdef767b97882e71c615d1cc3f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 08, 2013, 12:20:30 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2013, 10:56:11 PM
Westbound Va. 236 (Main Street) west of downtown Fairfax (but within the corporate limits of the City of  Fairfax):


that looks to be an 18" shield.  am I correct?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 08, 2013, 12:36:27 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 08, 2013, 12:20:30 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2013, 10:56:11 PM
Westbound Va. 236 (Main Street) west of downtown Fairfax (but within the corporate limits of the City of  Fairfax):


that looks to be an 18" shield.  am I correct?

I think so.  What makes it an error is the circle, which in Virginia is for secondary highways only (route number greater than or equal to 600).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bud8Amp88 on January 08, 2013, 03:31:00 PM
Here we go again...

1 - http://goo.gl/maps/vysx5
T.C.H. 104, Exit 29A. NSDOT couldn't afford two Trans-Canada-Highway shields? Use [TCH] plates instead!

2 - http://goo.gl/maps/oUMUh
Trunk 4 WB, approaching access road for T.C.H. 104 Exit 30. Don't want to paint T.C.H. shields? Use provincial ones instead!

3 - http://goo.gl/maps/SN7C3
Trunk 4 WB at the western terminus of NS-104 on Cape Breton. The 104 travels east from here, not west.

4 - http://goo.gl/maps/j1U0s
NS-104, Exit 46. Black-on-white Trunk [East] plate used instead of white-on-blue provincial plate.

5 - http://goo.gl/maps/qRmzp
Trunk 4 WB near NS-104 Exit 47. Green T.C.H. plates used. (The 104 lost it's T.C.H. designation back at the Canso Causeway).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on January 08, 2013, 08:58:12 PM
This is one that was correct, then modified to fit the downgrade, but now wonderfully incorrect, since becoming "upgraded" to state road status once again. Either that, or it erroneously was patched. I'm fine with it as it is, however.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2FSR73sign-KeysCountyPatch69.jpg&hash=3ba39cab9be154f025370ce4c32d609cde8d97a8)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on January 09, 2013, 06:49:02 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on January 06, 2013, 07:19:03 AM
I'm pretty sure Alligator Alley was at one point officially signed East/West, and I'm pretty sure US 41 in the same area still is.

It had to, because it used to be State Road 84.

US 98 in Florida changes its "directions" which ever way the wind blows.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on January 09, 2013, 10:38:50 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 09, 2013, 06:49:02 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on January 06, 2013, 07:19:03 AM
I'm pretty sure Alligator Alley was at one point officially signed East/West, and I'm pretty sure US 41 in the same area still is.

It had to, because it used to be State Road 84.

US 98 in Florida changes its "directions" which ever way the wind blows.
I missed the original quote, but US 41 changes at the Dade County line.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on January 12, 2013, 09:40:51 AM
Did we read the instructions prior to installation?  There were four like this in the City of Crest Hill, IL.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3090.jpg&hash=9947c7e011a339f9655575b6042c5a38ad69d362)

I saw the new signs Thursday night, took the photos Friday morning, and by Friday evening, the errors (all four) had been fixed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on January 13, 2013, 07:18:20 AM
Pff Hahaha

It's not like it's even an especially uncommon sign. There's no way somebody can live and work in the midwest and not see signs like that literally every day!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on January 13, 2013, 10:57:37 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on April 14, 2012, 03:31:44 PM
Zzyzx Road is a sight not to be forgotten out on I-15 in the California desert. But on NB I-15, the people that made this sign might've forgotten the exit number.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7272%2F6931344028_eb41598d7e_c.jpg&hash=fc68d4f3c5fdc3afe4cc4f634e712b4ffde33f2a)
This sign is supposed to say "Exit 239", but they left out the nine. It does say the correct exit number (Exit 239, not Exit 23) for the "1 MILE" sign, image below.
So as of passing it by two weeks ago, the exit number has been corrected on this sign. Unfortunately, they did it very badly. Instead of greening out the "23," they hastily added a 9 squished to side. Trust me, it's UGLY. I don't have pictures though...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2013, 12:55:24 AM
All of these images are from public roads under maintenance of the U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture (USDA), in Beltsville, Prince George's County, Maryland.

This is the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), which occupies a huge swath of land in northern Prince George's County.  The federal Baltimore-Washington Parkway ("secret" Md. 295) runs through BARC reservation, as does U.S. 1 (Baltimore Avenue).

I think several of these (perhaps all of them) qualify as "crimes against the MUTCD:"

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01648.jpg&hash=e15ef4e29e09b3a92594fe3ad80e6f85c3524796)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01649.jpg&hash=87632952dab325bb1579b7320b1c1a62843bbecb)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01650.jpg&hash=8cc7048b3e3747c5b46094a9f76043e391b59604)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01651.jpg&hash=c9ec6a73535d5ff4099cb92c89360a308b5a769f)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01653.jpg&hash=dd969c525c8b24aac0cb384cb0f226176f6f09b7)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01656.jpg&hash=ef98aed29cc542f6db810851cb2118f58fcb5f1a)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01657.jpg&hash=a7a788ccd7b36983d7b456c4071b517c8e64b333)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01658.jpg&hash=6a243d02b918f4745fb708d9d06709613d3572ea)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01659.jpg&hash=0c1e5d5f4f635cd6ca684d978aa860eec2537a5d)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01661.jpg&hash=c5c0a6a1fdfa662fc75925b0f6576870262563d9)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01662.jpg&hash=4733bccbe30a5ed5fc918ef0bfa879fc27e546d2)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01663.jpg&hash=1d19a30edb6dd4d8cafe9fd0680c58fee739b9d0)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01664.jpg&hash=b09ccebfc8e9e349659b1df1ea3f30e577d8dd57)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on January 14, 2013, 11:38:02 AM
This morning I went through the intersection shown in the Street View image linked below. The image is quite outdated (it says June 2008 in the small print; the trees on the far side were torn down at least two years ago for commercial development), but the auxiliary plaque below the "No Turn on Red" sign at the far right side of the image in the foreground is still there and still contains the same error. Wasn't able to get a picture this morning because I had a green light and someone was coming up too fast behind me to allow me to slow enough to get a clear image.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.872538,-77.26337&spn=0.003274,0.008256&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.872442,-77.263331&panoid=79mvbc6UIhDwJ9YTQvKSsg&cbp=12,190.16,,0,2.16
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2013, 12:18:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2013, 11:38:02 AM
This morning I went through the intersection shown in the Street View image linked below. The image is quite outdated (it says June 2008 in the small print; the trees on the far side were torn down at least two years ago for commercial development), but the auxiliary plaque below the "No Turn on Red" sign at the far right side of the image in the foreground is still there and still contains the same error. Wasn't able to get a picture this morning because I had a green light and someone was coming up too fast behind me to allow me to slow enough to get a clear image.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.872538,-77.26337&spn=0.003274,0.008256&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.872442,-77.263331&panoid=79mvbc6UIhDwJ9YTQvKSsg&cbp=12,190.16,,0,2.16

Ah yes, Va. 243 (Nutley Street) and U.S. 29 (Lee Highway). 

That is (at times) one very busy intersection. Will look for that the next time I drive by there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: texaskdog on January 14, 2013, 01:36:59 PM
How do I post pictures again?  Promise I will print the instructions this time.  I have a few from our trip to post.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on January 14, 2013, 01:40:58 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 14, 2013, 01:36:59 PM
How do I post pictures again?  Promise I will print the instructions this time.  I have a few from our trip to post.

Upload them to some kind of hosting site that allows direct linking and embedding. Then take the URL for the image and wrap it in "IMG" tags here (meaning put "IMG" in square brackets before the URL and "/IMG" in square brackets after the URL).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on January 14, 2013, 02:26:02 PM
Imgur works well
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Road Hog on January 15, 2013, 11:02:20 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2013, 12:55:24 AM
All of these images are from public roads under maintenance of the U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture (USDA), in Beltsville, Prince George's County, Maryland.

This is the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), which occupies a huge swath of land in northern Prince George's County.  The federal Baltimore-Washington Parkway ("secret" Md. 295) runs through BARC reservation, as does U.S. 1 (Baltimore Avenue).

I think several of these (perhaps all of them) qualify as "crimes against the MUTCD:"

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01648.jpg&hash=e15ef4e29e09b3a92594fe3ad80e6f85c3524796)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01649.jpg&hash=87632952dab325bb1579b7320b1c1a62843bbecb)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01650.jpg&hash=8cc7048b3e3747c5b46094a9f76043e391b59604)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01651.jpg&hash=c9ec6a73535d5ff4099cb92c89360a308b5a769f)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01653.jpg&hash=dd969c525c8b24aac0cb384cb0f226176f6f09b7)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01656.jpg&hash=ef98aed29cc542f6db810851cb2118f58fcb5f1a)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01657.jpg&hash=a7a788ccd7b36983d7b456c4071b517c8e64b333)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01658.jpg&hash=6a243d02b918f4745fb708d9d06709613d3572ea)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01659.jpg&hash=0c1e5d5f4f635cd6ca684d978aa860eec2537a5d)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01661.jpg&hash=c5c0a6a1fdfa662fc75925b0f6576870262563d9)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01662.jpg&hash=4733bccbe30a5ed5fc918ef0bfa879fc27e546d2)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01663.jpg&hash=1d19a30edb6dd4d8cafe9fd0680c58fee739b9d0)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01664.jpg&hash=b09ccebfc8e9e349659b1df1ea3f30e577d8dd57)

Silly! Those signs are all in Obama font!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on January 15, 2013, 12:15:03 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2013, 12:55:24 AM
All of these images are from public roads under maintenance of the U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture (USDA), in Beltsville, Prince George's County, Maryland.

This is the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), which occupies a huge swath of land in northern Prince George's County.  The federal Baltimore-Washington Parkway ("secret" Md. 295) runs through BARC reservation, as does U.S. 1 (Baltimore Avenue).

I think several of these (perhaps all of them) qualify as "crimes against the MUTCD:"

[snip]

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01651.jpg&hash=c9ec6a73535d5ff4099cb92c89360a308b5a769f)

[snip]

Most of those are inexcusable, but I really like this one. What can I say? I'm a sucker for that old-fashioned lettering.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on January 15, 2013, 12:16:38 PM
Whats worse?  That teh government us taxpayers probably paid 5 to ten times more for these sub-standard signs than if they just went with MUTCD-approved signs.   :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 15, 2013, 12:34:51 PM
what's wrong with the "commercial vehicles not on official BARC business prohibited" sign?  looks like it has an embossed border, even.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: texaskdog on January 15, 2013, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2013, 01:40:58 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 14, 2013, 01:36:59 PM
How do I post pictures again?  Promise I will print the instructions this time.  I have a few from our trip to post.

Upload them to some kind of hosting site that allows direct linking and embedding. Then take the URL for the image and wrap it in "IMG" tags here (meaning put "IMG" in square brackets before the URL and "/IMG" in square brackets after the URL).
Quote from: texaskdog on January 14, 2013, 01:36:59 PM
How do I post pictures again?  Promise I will print the instructions this time.  I have a few from our trip to post.

Dang I can't figure it out.  Oh well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2013, 01:20:18 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 15, 2013, 12:34:51 PM
what's wrong with the "commercial vehicles not on official BARC business prohibited" sign?  looks like it has an embossed border, even.

Not exactly what the MUTCD specifies for truck bans, is it?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 15, 2013, 01:32:10 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2013, 01:20:18 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 15, 2013, 12:34:51 PM
what's wrong with the "commercial vehicles not on official BARC business prohibited" sign?  looks like it has an embossed border, even.

Not exactly what the MUTCD specifies for truck bans, is it?

how old is the current truck ban wording?  I'd bet that sign is at least 40 years old, if not 50.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2013, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on January 15, 2013, 12:15:03 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2013, 12:55:24 AM
All of these images are from public roads under maintenance of the U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture (USDA), in Beltsville, Prince George's County, Maryland.

This is the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), which occupies a huge swath of land in northern Prince George's County.  The federal Baltimore-Washington Parkway ("secret" Md. 295) runs through BARC reservation, as does U.S. 1 (Baltimore Avenue).

I think several of these (perhaps all of them) qualify as "crimes against the MUTCD:"

[snip]

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01651.jpg&hash=c9ec6a73535d5ff4099cb92c89360a308b5a769f)

[snip]

Most of those are inexcusable, but I really like this one. What can I say? I'm a sucker for that old-fashioned lettering.

Central, the lettering on that one is admittedly pretty cool. 

This is on Research Road, which connects Eleanor Roosevelt's City of Greenbelt (where more than a few BARC employees have traditionally lived) with the BARC reservation.  There is indeed a gate at the boundary between the federal property and the corporate limits of Greenbelt, and it is indeed closed during the hours shown on the sign.

But the dunderheads installed the sign in the wrong place (and obviously a long time ago)!  It is on a segment of Research Road north of Beaver Dam Road (another road through the BARC property that is open to the public) (here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=39.028727,-76.876998&hl=en&num=1&t=h&gl=us&z=18)).  Traffic on Beaver Dam Road that turns south onto Research  Road does not see that sign!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2013, 01:34:15 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on January 15, 2013, 11:02:20 AM
Silly! Those signs are all in Obama font!

Hog, I think all of those signs pre-date the election of President Obama in 2008.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2013, 01:43:26 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 15, 2013, 01:32:10 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2013, 01:20:18 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 15, 2013, 12:34:51 PM
what's wrong with the "commercial vehicles not on official BARC business prohibited" sign?  looks like it has an embossed border, even.

Not exactly what the MUTCD specifies for truck bans, is it?

how old is the current truck ban wording?  I'd bet that sign is at least 40 years old, if not 50.

Agreed that the sign is very old.  As far as I can tell, the truck ban on the BARC property is mostly never enforced. 

The USDA used to have its own federal police force (pretty common around the Washington area that federal agencies have their own in-house police forces), but  I am not sure that they (USDA/BARC) do any longer, in which case the only federal cops to be seen there are the United States Park Police, which patrol the federal section  of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, and some federal reservations which adjoin the Parkway.

In theory, I suppose the USDA could deploy rangers from the U.S. Forest Service to patrol the  BARC property (since both  are part of USDA), but there are no national forests anywhere in Maryland, and I have never seen a Forest Service ranger in Beltsville.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on January 15, 2013, 02:04:11 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2013, 01:34:15 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on January 15, 2013, 11:02:20 AM
Silly! Those signs are all in Obama font!

Hog, I think all of those signs pre-date the election of President Obama in 2008.

Nonsence, you always blame the current president, who should have at least chosen a planet with a binary star system, so we could potentially roadgeek all days long.

Slow down!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on January 15, 2013, 02:35:22 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 15, 2013, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2013, 01:40:58 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 14, 2013, 01:36:59 PM
How do I post pictures again?  Promise I will print the instructions this time.  I have a few from our trip to post.

Upload them to some kind of hosting site that allows direct linking and embedding. Then take the URL for the image and wrap it in "IMG" tags here (meaning put "IMG" in square brackets before the URL and "/IMG" in square brackets after the URL).
Quote from: texaskdog on January 14, 2013, 01:36:59 PM
How do I post pictures again?  Promise I will print the instructions this time.  I have a few from our trip to post.

Dang I can't figure it out.  Oh well.

The tags are: "[_IMG_]" and "[_/IMG_]".  Remove the spaces "_" for the actual tags.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2013, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on January 15, 2013, 12:16:38 PM
Whats worse?  That teh government us taxpayers probably paid 5 to ten times more for these sub-standard signs than if they just went with MUTCD-approved signs.   :pan:

I am actually thinking of sending these over to a friend at the Federal Highway  Administration, with the suggestion that it be forwarded to someone at FHWA's Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division. 

I think they have the authority (because these roads are owned by the federal government and open to the public) to get the USDA to straighten-out this mess.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2013, 02:54:16 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 15, 2013, 02:04:11 PM
Nonsence, you always blame the current president, who should have at least chosen a planet with a binary star system, so we could potentially roadgeek all days long.

Slow down!

<smile> 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on January 15, 2013, 02:55:18 PM
Tomorrow on AARoads: Does CP decide to fink on old signs?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 15, 2013, 03:01:35 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 15, 2013, 02:04:11 PM
a planet with a binary star system

please take all discussion of the Alanstar/Goatstar pair to the appropriate thread!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on January 15, 2013, 05:00:16 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 15, 2013, 02:35:22 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 15, 2013, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2013, 01:40:58 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 14, 2013, 01:36:59 PM
How do I post pictures again?  Promise I will print the instructions this time.  I have a few from our trip to post.

Upload them to some kind of hosting site that allows direct linking and embedding. Then take the URL for the image and wrap it in "IMG" tags here (meaning put "IMG" in square brackets before the URL and "/IMG" in square brackets after the URL).
Quote from: texaskdog on January 14, 2013, 01:36:59 PM
How do I post pictures again?  Promise I will print the instructions this time.  I have a few from our trip to post.

Dang I can't figure it out.  Oh well.

The tags are: "[_IMG_]" and "[_/IMG_]".  Remove the spaces "_" for the actual tags.

I suspect the problem might be finding a site to upload to, and getting the right URL to the image.

Seems like this is a topic that should be covered in public school computer skills classes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on January 15, 2013, 08:24:24 PM
Quote from: vtk on January 15, 2013, 05:00:16 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 15, 2013, 02:35:22 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 15, 2013, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2013, 01:40:58 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 14, 2013, 01:36:59 PM
How do I post pictures again?  Promise I will print the instructions this time.  I have a few from our trip to post.

Upload them to some kind of hosting site that allows direct linking and embedding. Then take the URL for the image and wrap it in "IMG" tags here (meaning put "IMG" in square brackets before the URL and "/IMG" in square brackets after the URL).
Quote from: texaskdog on January 14, 2013, 01:36:59 PM
How do I post pictures again?  Promise I will print the instructions this time.  I have a few from our trip to post.

Dang I can't figure it out.  Oh well.

The tags are: "[_IMG_]" and "[_/IMG_]".  Remove the spaces "_" for the actual tags.

I suspect the problem might be finding a site to upload to, and getting the right URL to the image.

Seems like this is a topic that should be covered in public school computer skills classes.

Some of us are old enough where computer classes were consisted of DOS programming on green screens & no such thing as the internet, URL, USB, IMG, LOL, OMG, etc.      :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2013, 09:03:45 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on January 15, 2013, 08:24:24 PM
Quote from: vtk on January 15, 2013, 05:00:16 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 15, 2013, 02:35:22 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 15, 2013, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2013, 01:40:58 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 14, 2013, 01:36:59 PM
How do I post pictures again?  Promise I will print the instructions this time.  I have a few from our trip to post.

Upload them to some kind of hosting site that allows direct linking and embedding. Then take the URL for the image and wrap it in "IMG" tags here (meaning put "IMG" in square brackets before the URL and "/IMG" in square brackets after the URL).
Quote from: texaskdog on January 14, 2013, 01:36:59 PM
How do I post pictures again?  Promise I will print the instructions this time.  I have a few from our trip to post.

Dang I can't figure it out.  Oh well.

The tags are: "[_IMG_]" and "[_/IMG_]".  Remove the spaces "_" for the actual tags.

I suspect the problem might be finding a site to upload to, and getting the right URL to the image.

Seems like this is a topic that should be covered in public school computer skills classes.

Some of us are old enough where computer classes were consisted of DOS programming on green screens & no such thing as the internet, URL, USB, IMG, LOL, OMG, etc.      :sombrero:

Some of us are old enough to remember when computer class meant learning how to use an IBM 029 (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/029.html) or 129 (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/129.html) keypunch machine, and the only DOS out there was IBM's Disk Operating System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS/360_and_successors), which ran on the System/360 and later System/370 mainframe computers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: texaskdog on January 15, 2013, 09:55:03 PM
It's so dumbed down now.  On Facebook you just click a button and it does it for you.  Of course I have the world's slowest computer at home :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on January 15, 2013, 10:07:50 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 15, 2013, 09:55:03 PM
It's so dumbed down now.  On Facebook you just click a button and it does it for you.  Of course I have the world's slowest computer at home :P

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.modernmechanix.com%2Fmags%2FInterfaceAge%2F5-1982%2Fsinclair_computers%2Fsinclair_computers_0.jpg&hash=8e078f66e456b8159d25d473876bb4691c73518a)

Timex Sinclair series?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on January 15, 2013, 11:02:02 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2013, 12:55:24 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01650.jpg&hash=8cc7048b3e3747c5b46094a9f76043e391b59604)
I didn't think this one was bad at all!

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2013, 12:55:24 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01651.jpg&hash=c9ec6a73535d5ff4099cb92c89360a308b5a769f)
I think the old font on this sign is kind of neat.

Also, those "Slow Down" signs are just pathetic.

P.S.: Thanks for lagging my browser with multiple 3000+ pixel images scaled to fit!  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2013, 11:16:20 PM
Quote from: Michael on January 15, 2013, 11:02:02 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2013, 12:55:24 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01650.jpg&hash=8cc7048b3e3747c5b46094a9f76043e391b59604)
I didn't think this one was bad at all!

Looks O.K., but I don't think it can be enforced. 

I don't think that such a sign can be found in the MUTCD.  The entrances to the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (not far from these signs - one of its overpasses can be seen in the background of the "27 Ton" sign) are posted with compliant signs.

Quote from: Michael on January 15, 2013, 11:02:02 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2013, 12:55:24 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01651.jpg&hash=c9ec6a73535d5ff4099cb92c89360a308b5a769f)
I think the old font on this sign is kind of neat.

Agreed.

Quote from: Michael on January 15, 2013, 11:02:02 PM
Also, those "Slow Down" signs are just pathetic.

They were what "inspired" me to take these photographs.

Quote from: Michael on January 15, 2013, 11:02:02 PM
P.S.: Thanks for lagging my browser with multiple 3000+ pixel images scaled to fit!  :pan:

I used Photoshop's "save for Web" to make them better for others to see.

I take it they were still too large for your browser? 

Having Verizon's FIOS, I cannot tell if an image is "slow to load" because of the network.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on January 15, 2013, 11:18:30 PM
I personally thought these signs should be in the Worst Of Road Signs and/or Signs With Design errors, but I agree with the consensus otherwise.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on January 15, 2013, 11:46:53 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2013, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on January 15, 2013, 12:15:03 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2013, 12:55:24 AM
All of these images are from public roads under maintenance of the U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture (USDA), in Beltsville, Prince George's County, Maryland.

This is the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), which occupies a huge swath of land in northern Prince George's County.  The federal Baltimore-Washington Parkway ("secret" Md. 295) runs through BARC reservation, as does U.S. 1 (Baltimore Avenue).

I think several of these (perhaps all of them) qualify as "crimes against the MUTCD:"

[snip]

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01651.jpg&hash=c9ec6a73535d5ff4099cb92c89360a308b5a769f)

[snip]

Most of those are inexcusable, but I really like this one. What can I say? I'm a sucker for that old-fashioned lettering.

Central, the lettering on that one is admittedly pretty cool. 

This is on Research Road, which connects Eleanor Roosevelt's City of Greenbelt (where more than a few BARC employees have traditionally lived) with the BARC reservation.  There is indeed a gate at the boundary between the federal property and the corporate limits of Greenbelt, and it is indeed closed during the hours shown on the sign.

But the dunderheads installed the sign in the wrong place (and obviously a long time ago)!  It is on a segment of Research Road north of Beaver Dam Road (another road through the BARC property that is open to the public) (here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=39.028727,-76.876998&hl=en&num=1&t=h&gl=us&z=18)).  Traffic on Beaver Dam Road that turns south onto Research  Road does not see that sign!

Fair enough. No point in installing a pretty sign if you can't put it in the right place.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on January 16, 2013, 08:37:18 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2013, 11:16:20 PM
Quote from: Michael on January 15, 2013, 11:02:02 PM
P.S.: Thanks for lagging my browser with multiple 3000+ pixel images scaled to fit!  :pan:

I used Photoshop's "save for Web" to make them better for others to see.

I take it they were still too large for your browser? 

Having Verizon's FIOS, I cannot tell if an image is "slow to load" because of the network.

I think the issue is probably the sheer number of pixels, not bytes.  After downloading the compressed data and decoding it, the browser must store the image uncompressed in memory and redraw a scaled-down version as the page scrolls, causing laggy response in user interaction, particularly scrolling.

PS – Having a super-fast Internet connection is no excuse for putting needlessly large image files online to share with others.  Some folks have DSL, a slow mobile data connection, or even dial-up.  I'm sure Save For Web tells you how big a file it's making; 100kB is where you start to push the patience of such unlucky souls.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 16, 2013, 09:08:07 AM
Quote from: vtk on January 16, 2013, 08:37:18 AM
I think the issue is probably the sheer number of pixels, not bytes.  After downloading the compressed data and decoding it, the browser must store the image uncompressed in memory and redraw a scaled-down version as the page scrolls, causing laggy response in user interaction, particularly scrolling.

I willl keep that in mind for future reference.

Quote from: vtk on January 16, 2013, 08:37:18 AM
PS – Having a super-fast Internet connection is no excuse for putting needlessly large image files online to share with others.  Some folks have DSL, a slow mobile data connection, or even dial-up.  I'm sure Save For Web tells you how big a file it's making; 100kB is where you start to push the patience of such unlucky souls.

I use mobile Internet myself sometimes, and yes, it is a lot slower than what I have at home.  I can tell the image sizes after doing "save for Web" - these ranged from 163 KB to 550 KB.  I will downsize them some more in a minute.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 16, 2013, 09:28:41 AM
yeah, there isn't much of a point in having images larger than about 600-800 pixels wide on discussion forums.  I must confess sometimes I post 1024 wide, but whenever I save an image myself, I'll make it 500 wide.  (that's what fits on the AARoads blog.  each 500-wide thumbnail may be clicked for the largest possible version, which ranges from 2000 to 4000 pixels, depending on how much I cropped from the camera.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 16, 2013, 09:31:38 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 16, 2013, 09:28:41 AM
yeah, there isn't much of a point in having images larger than about 600-800 pixels wide on discussion forums.  I must confess sometimes I post 1024 wide, but whenever I save an image myself, I'll make it 500 wide.  (that's what fits on the AARoads blog.  each 500-wide thumbnail may be clicked for the largest possible version, which ranges from 2000 to 4000 pixels, depending on how much I cropped from the camera.)

Just re-sized and reloaded all of the USDA images as 500 pixels wide. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: exit322 on January 16, 2013, 09:58:30 AM
Quote from: Big John on January 15, 2013, 10:07:50 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 15, 2013, 09:55:03 PM
It's so dumbed down now.  On Facebook you just click a button and it does it for you.  Of course I have the world's slowest computer at home :P

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.modernmechanix.com%2Fmags%2FInterfaceAge%2F5-1982%2Fsinclair_computers%2Fsinclair_computers_0.jpg&hash=8e078f66e456b8159d25d473876bb4691c73518a)

Timex Sinclair series?

I believe all Alanland laws are written on one of these.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 16, 2013, 11:14:09 AM
Quote from: Takumi on January 15, 2013, 11:18:30 PM
I personally thought these signs should be in the Worst Of Road Signs and/or Signs With Design errors, but I agree with the consensus otherwise.

I actually mulled over where to put them, and decided this the best "compromise" location. 

If the moderators disagree, they can certainly move it to one of the other forums.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on January 16, 2013, 09:12:58 PM
Internet connection discussion has been moved to Off-Topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=9.0).

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8507.0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on January 20, 2013, 09:09:54 PM
ZOMG Secondary Montana route shield posted as primary
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Ferror347.jpg&hash=65e638ca12baa55852f1afdea67d4e5c18cc1768)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on January 20, 2013, 11:30:46 PM
Quote from: corco on January 20, 2013, 09:09:54 PM
ZOMG Secondary Montana route shield posted as primary
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Ferror347.jpg&hash=65e638ca12baa55852f1afdea67d4e5c18cc1768)

Well. That's a first for me. Never seen a MT 347 shield before. Although, you never know. Someday, SR 347 could end up MT 347. Erroneous, yes, but, hey, not as bad as the MT 39 and 47 shields. Those were erroneously posted as "US 39" and "US 47", and those numbers don't exist in the AASHTO catalog of US highway digits in commission.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on January 21, 2013, 11:35:49 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7114%2F7601202890_96a002a0ec_c.jpg&hash=1a6e7df2e42f49c7ca3d403582a1c21db51de406)

Taken in Elko, NV by me on July 18, 2012
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on January 21, 2013, 04:07:20 PM
well it looks like they at least got a correct blue interstate shield on the green sign far back left
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on January 26, 2013, 05:35:31 PM
SOUTH US 70????    :crazy:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg651.imageshack.us%2Fimg651%2F9215%2F20130126153457118.jpg&hash=c91dba575b57f9328d19f6dc4a8e023919bd4537)

West Fifth St./Old US 64 offramp from I-85 Bus. northbound?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on January 28, 2013, 02:20:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2013, 11:16:20 PM
Quote from: Michael on January 15, 2013, 11:02:02 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2013, 12:55:24 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01650.jpg&hash=8cc7048b3e3747c5b46094a9f76043e391b59604)
I didn't think this one was bad at all!

Looks O.K., but I don't think it can be enforced. 

I don't think that such a sign can be found in the MUTCD.  The entrances to the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (not far from these signs - one of its overpasses can be seen in the background of the "27 Ton" sign) are posted with compliant signs.

MUTCD says you can basically "create your own" when it comes to all-text regulatory and warning signs. You just can't invent your own symbols.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on January 28, 2013, 06:49:23 PM
This sign wasn't always erroneous, but it is now. See the one below the blade. It directs people headed to the National Mall and downtown DC to make a left turn. But you can't do that because the federal government closed the street, purportedly in the name of security. The sign's never been removed.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F52f16d6087cb956a04468693757e437f_zps17356bc3.jpg&hash=0b3fe4db87a5e88fde4fc9fe68412420c17ac8fa)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 28, 2013, 09:07:25 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 28, 2013, 02:20:55 PM
MUTCD says you can basically "create your own" when it comes to all-text regulatory and warning signs. You just can't invent your own symbols.

But is it reasonable to assume that someone is going to know what BARC (http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=12-45-00-00) means if someone gets a ticket from a federal law enforcement officer on these USDA lands?  Such tickets, if challenged, lead to a trial before a U.S. magistrate judge, in a form of federal traffic court, but at least around the D.C. area, the tickets are often issued for violating a state law on federal land, as allowed under the Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 13).

I am not especially interested in finding out the answer, but I think a driver charged with violating that sign would have decent chance of getting  it tossed out in court.

One interesting exemption is drunk/impaired driving.  If someone gets stopped on a road or parkway that is under federal jurisdiction, then federal law applies (not state laws against DWI).  One aspect of those federal laws means that someone who gets locked up on a federal highway under suspicion of being under the influence cannot refuse to take a breath test (or maybe some other test for intoxication), since refusal to take the test is itself a separate federal charge.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 28, 2013, 09:10:37 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 28, 2013, 06:49:23 PM
This sign wasn't always erroneous, but it is now. See the one below the blade. It directs people headed to the National Mall and downtown DC to make a left turn. But you can't do that because the federal government closed the street, purportedly in the name of security. The sign's never been removed.

This sort of thing is especially irritating to me, for federal agencies (in this case the U.S. State Department) have simply "helped themselves" to streets that were once open to the public, and assigned armed rent-a-cops (I believe the State Department uses private security guards instead of real sworn federal law enforcement officers) to patrol those streets and deny the public access to them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on February 02, 2013, 10:49:57 PM
Lake County IL seems to be somewhat defiant on signing the directions on I-94 properly.  Here is one example at the Deerfield Road access to EB I-94:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.167523,-87.87569&spn=0.006719,0.016512&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=42.167524,-87.875958&panoid=DaGOB2NQIAhNPzmVz5Uplg&cbp=12,300.55,,0,-1.52 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.167523,-87.87569&spn=0.006719,0.016512&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=42.167524,-87.875958&panoid=DaGOB2NQIAhNPzmVz5Uplg&cbp=12,300.55,,0,-1.52)

Another on O'Plaine Road at IL 120:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.347158,-87.914529&spn=0.013464,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.347243,-87.91453&panoid=Cwf4K5c_cZsxG5FsSkJs5g&cbp=12,216.32,,0,14.97 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.347158,-87.914529&spn=0.013464,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.347243,-87.91453&panoid=Cwf4K5c_cZsxG5FsSkJs5g&cbp=12,216.32,,0,14.97)

And another on EB Washington Street at IL 21:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.363649,-87.930579&spn=0.013461,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.363681,-87.930824&panoid=kBt0CNnF8sEhBSh--X5jWg&cbp=12,125.79,,1,-0.67 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.363649,-87.930579&spn=0.013461,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.363681,-87.930824&panoid=kBt0CNnF8sEhBSh--X5jWg&cbp=12,125.79,,1,-0.67)

And one for I-94 north on EB Washington Street W/O IL 21; this one seems to have a white Toll banner:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.363808,-87.933047&spn=0.013461,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.363795,-87.93273&panoid=byXFVs67Z0z-DNOh4alsBA&cbp=12,114.21,,0,-0.29 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.363808,-87.933047&spn=0.013461,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.363795,-87.93273&panoid=byXFVs67Z0z-DNOh4alsBA&cbp=12,114.21,,0,-0.29)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: StogieGuy7 on February 04, 2013, 01:48:57 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 02, 2013, 10:49:57 PM
Lake County IL seems to be somewhat defiant on signing the directions on I-94 properly.  Here is one example at the Deerfield Road access to EB I-94:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.167523,-87.87569&spn=0.006719,0.016512&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=42.167524,-87.875958&panoid=DaGOB2NQIAhNPzmVz5Uplg&cbp=12,300.55,,0,-1.52 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.167523,-87.87569&spn=0.006719,0.016512&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=42.167524,-87.875958&panoid=DaGOB2NQIAhNPzmVz5Uplg&cbp=12,300.55,,0,-1.52)

Another on O'Plaine Road at IL 120:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.347158,-87.914529&spn=0.013464,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.347243,-87.91453&panoid=Cwf4K5c_cZsxG5FsSkJs5g&cbp=12,216.32,,0,14.97 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.347158,-87.914529&spn=0.013464,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.347243,-87.91453&panoid=Cwf4K5c_cZsxG5FsSkJs5g&cbp=12,216.32,,0,14.97)

And another on EB Washington Street at IL 21:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.363649,-87.930579&spn=0.013461,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.363681,-87.930824&panoid=kBt0CNnF8sEhBSh--X5jWg&cbp=12,125.79,,1,-0.67 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.363649,-87.930579&spn=0.013461,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.363681,-87.930824&panoid=kBt0CNnF8sEhBSh--X5jWg&cbp=12,125.79,,1,-0.67)

And one for I-94 north on EB Washington Street W/O IL 21; this one seems to have a white Toll banner:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.363808,-87.933047&spn=0.013461,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.363795,-87.93273&panoid=byXFVs67Z0z-DNOh4alsBA&cbp=12,114.21,,0,-0.29 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.363808,-87.933047&spn=0.013461,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.363795,-87.93273&panoid=byXFVs67Z0z-DNOh4alsBA&cbp=12,114.21,,0,-0.29)

I disagree.  The examples that you cite include a mix of ISTHA, IDOT and Lake County DOT signage.  For example, the example at Deerfield Rd and I-94 is an ISTHA-issued sign.  Furthermore, the construction related "to 94" signage was temporary and has already been replaced.   
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on February 04, 2013, 03:43:47 PM
"Cordell" is missing an "l"...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8355%2F8443188464_edfa03d3ca_c.jpg&hash=2475b0e865f0fbdde15a4eaeb7b76ada00045ee4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on February 04, 2013, 07:32:16 PM
^^^
Johnny Bench's hometown!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bud8Amp88 on February 05, 2013, 06:46:02 PM
This may be the worst one I've found yet:

WB T.C.H. 105, Exit 18: http://goo.gl/maps/Vga1x

This is supposed to be the western northern terminus of Route 305, yet the sign has a Route 303 plate on it. Route 303 is actually located in Digby, on the other side of the freaking province!

EDIT: Turns out 305 is also a north/south route, not east/west.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 05, 2013, 11:05:35 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=North+Brunswick,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.512062,-74.45632&spn=0.003956,0.010568&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=north+bru&t=h&hnear=North+Brunswick,+Middlesex,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.512059,-74.45618&panoid=zzg9pZS1z3zW0K4UxgLf4g&cbp=12,338.42,,0,0

There no longer is a Middlesex County Route 609 at this location.  Also, NJ 18 now runs both north and south from this junction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: webfil on February 05, 2013, 11:19:44 PM
East, west, north and south mixing up on the R-369 and R-358 multiplex in Québec city. R-369 is supposed to be north/south, R-358 east/west.

http://goo.gl/maps/tzrTx
http://goo.gl/maps/kgnK8
http://goo.gl/maps/rLsg5

Since the great download of 1993 (maintenance of 40,000 km of roads was transfered to local administrations), missing signage and sign error blossomed across the province in the last 20 years! Those are few among a bunch.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 06, 2013, 07:42:54 PM
Here is a really good one on Livingston Avenue in New Brunswick, NJ.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=New+Brunswick,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.489455,-74.448166&spn=0.003484,0.006899&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.300816,14.128418&oq=new+br&t=h&hnear=New+Brunswick,+Middlesex,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.489339,-74.447986&panoid=ypEWXOfYmJqhYyPF562Iug&cbp=12,39.73,,0,0

The NB NJ 26 shield behind the NJ Turnpike shield is totally erroneous as that part of Livingston Avenue (or any part of in New Brunswick proper) has not been NJ 26 for over 51 years.  It should be a NJ 171 shield as this is just after NJ 171 turns the corner from the road on the right in this photo.  NJ 26 was truncated back in 1962 to the North Brunswick/ New Brunswick border along Livingston Avenue.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 06, 2013, 07:58:22 PM
Steve could probably attest to this better than I could, since I think that shield is featured on this site, but it's certainly possible that it dates to a time when it was not erroneous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 06, 2013, 08:27:22 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 06, 2013, 07:58:22 PM
Steve could probably attest to this better than I could, since I think that shield is featured on this site, but it's certainly possible that it dates to a time when it was not erroneous.
Yeah, I caught his picture of it.  He claims that the date on the sign was indeed 1965.  Although, Wikipedia says that it was truncated in 1962.  Whether it was left from before or not, around 50 years is a little too long for a sign to be standing on a road that no longer exists in the location.  I will say this is erroneous.  If it was truncated within the past few decades, I would give some leeway and say that it is not.  However, this sign is as old as I am and I will be 48 years old this month.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on February 06, 2013, 08:31:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 06, 2013, 08:27:22 PM
Although, Wikipedia says that it was truncated in 1962.
???
"By the 1980s, Route 26 had been truncated back to Nassau Street."

The article is typical Mitchazenia, by the way. Don't trust it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 06, 2013, 08:42:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 06, 2013, 08:27:22 PM
Whether it was left from before or not, around 50 years is a little too long for a sign to be standing on a road that no longer exists in the location.  I will say this is erroneous.

I didn't mean to imply that it isn't erroneous this time.  Just adding to the discussion. :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 06, 2013, 08:58:47 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 06, 2013, 08:42:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 06, 2013, 08:27:22 PM
Whether it was left from before or not, around 50 years is a little too long for a sign to be standing on a road that no longer exists in the location.  I will say this is erroneous.

I didn't mean to imply that it isn't erroneous this time.  Just adding to the discussion. :)
No, I know what you meant.  However, you do bring up a really neat point.  Take a look at this sign assembly for instance.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Trenton,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.232282,-74.760482&spn=0.00706,0.013797&sll=27.741885,-83.803711&sspn=8.297864,14.128418&oq=tre&t=h&hnear=Trenton,+Mercer,+New+Jersey&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.232356,-74.760395&panoid=olletUPKmLvxRGca6XODQQ&cbp=12,50.53,,0,-0.53

It is is most definetly erroneous!  This is not US 206 North or US 1 Business at all!  It is on the SB alignment of US 206, though.  It was indeed US 1 Alternate at one time and also its parent before the Trenton Freeway was built.   If you look at it your way, all the signs except for the US 1 shield are in error. 



Then this next one here proves interesting.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Trenton,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.250364,-74.742415&spn=0.007059,0.013797&sll=27.741885,-83.803711&sspn=8.297864,14.128418&oq=tre&t=h&hnear=Trenton,+Mercer,+New+Jersey&layer=c&cbll=40.250177,-74.742438&panoid=ViJIzeKZRPIbU8MEmOPLjA&cbp=12,225,,0,0&z=16

This one for sure is as well.  CR 583 SB does not go to the right as this is its southern terminus.  It should say US 206 South as US 206 turns here onto Princeton Avenue to lead into Trenton.  Instead trailbazing for straight through US 206 takes you straight ahead into the Brunswick Circle, where you are directed back to Princeton Avenue via Strawberry Street.  The Brunswick Circle exit for US 206 south signed also for Princeton Avenue is erroneous for straight through US 206 traffic heading south, but for US 1 Business it would not be as that would be the connector to US 206 South.  Then US 1 Business shields with US 206 for Princeton Avenue within the Brunswick Circle are in error now because US 1 Business heads east on Strawberry Street to rejoin its parent.

You did indeed add to this discussion and I am not upset nor taken any offense.  I like what you brought up and it led me to post this.  You can actually look at things from two directions and things could be interpreted differently, but both each have their own valid merits.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 06, 2013, 10:36:21 PM
This "Left Turn Signal" sign is erroneous.  It should be a "Left Turn Yield on Green" sign just like all of the rest of the intersections along this recently reconstructed segment of US-19.  They had the correct sign (http://goo.gl/maps/0w24N) at this intersection before they widened the highway.  If I was an idiot and followed what that sign said because the light was green as wasn't looking at the oncoming traffic, crunch.  PennDOT should correct this sign (they also posted an incorrect "Left Turn Signal" sign going the other direction at this same intersection).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv645%2Frickmastfan67%2FInterstates%2FPA%2FUS-19%2FP1020596s.jpg&hash=1b347c450b431f528c698dd0952df7f433f5c0db)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 07, 2013, 06:32:49 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 06, 2013, 10:36:21 PM
This "Left Turn Signal" sign is erroneous.  It should be a "Left Turn Yield on Green" sign just like all of the rest of the intersections along this recently reconstructed segment of US-19.  They had the correct sign (http://goo.gl/maps/0w24N) at this intersection before they widened the highway.  If I was an idiot and followed what that sign said because the light was green as wasn't looking at the oncoming traffic, crunch.  PennDOT should correct this sign (they also posted an incorrect "Left Turn Signal" sign going the other direction at this same intersection).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv645%2Frickmastfan67%2FInterstates%2FPA%2FUS-19%2FP1020596s.jpg&hash=1b347c450b431f528c698dd0952df7f433f5c0db)
Amen to this.  People in Florida think that this is a left turn signal without a sign.  Hopefully the left turn yellow will be standard  nationwide soon to avoid this.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on February 07, 2013, 06:47:45 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 06, 2013, 10:36:21 PM
This "Left Turn Signal" sign is erroneous.  It should be a "Left Turn Yield on Green" sign just like all of the rest of the intersections along this recently reconstructed segment of US-19. If I was an idiot and followed what that sign said because the light was green as wasn't looking at the oncoming traffic, crunch.

It might be harder to tell in this pic alone, but the sign also probably looks more out of place because I assume (Assume cause I haven't been up there since the reconstruction/widening) with only 2 lights and 3 lanes (left - straight - straight/right), it's not over the left turn lane either, but between lanes.
Non idiots should realize no-arrow = yield, but that sign really should be replaced ASAP.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 07, 2013, 10:58:05 PM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on February 07, 2013, 06:47:45 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 06, 2013, 10:36:21 PM
This "Left Turn Signal" sign is erroneous.  It should be a "Left Turn Yield on Green" sign just like all of the rest of the intersections along this recently reconstructed segment of US-19. If I was an idiot and followed what that sign said because the light was green as wasn't looking at the oncoming traffic, crunch.

It might be harder to tell in this pic alone, but the sign also probably looks more out of place because I assume (Assume cause I haven't been up there since the reconstruction/widening) with only 2 lights and 3 lanes (left - straight - straight/right), it's not over the left turn lane either, but between lanes.

You would be correct on this.  All intersections with the traffic lights now have dedicated Left Turn lanes.  All of them also got a new doghouse traffic light for the left turn lane/left straight lane except at the Manor Rd/Chapel Drive intersection just North of the bridge over PA-910.  That intersection got dedicated left turn lights for both directions if I recall correctly (yes, you can now turn left going SB at that intersection).

EDIT: Posted about this on PennDOT's FB page (https://www.facebook.com/PennsylvaniaDepartmentofTransportation/posts/209099555881559).  We'll see if they respond.  If not, I'll get KDKA or WPXI to go "investigate" this. lol.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: akotchi on February 08, 2013, 12:09:08 AM
Interesting discussion above regarding the (erroneous) use of the LEFT TURN SIGNAL sign.  I was having a similar discussion the other day with a colleague about the RIGHT TURN SIGNAL sign.

I see many instances in my area (southeastern Pennsylvania) where a five-section head is mounted on a signal pole to be used for right-turn arrow overlapping phases.  Most of the time, the sign RIGHT TURN SIGNAL is posted near to that signal head. 

As long as there is a solid green indication on the signal head, whether there are arrows or not, these signs cannot be used.  The orignal use for the LEFT TURN SIGNAL sign, IIRC, was to distinguish a left turn signal head, with a green arrow but solid red and solid or arrow yellow, from a through head with all solid indications.

Not sure why the sign is used in the application I described above.  I have noticed that it can also give the impression of NTOR on that approach as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 08, 2013, 03:44:24 PM
This is extremely subtle, but I pass by it often enough, and it irks me enough, that I decided to finally post it. http://goo.gl/maps/7pi1U

There's nothing erroneous about the sign in the foreground.  There is a left HOV exit for 317th Street in approximately a mile.

There's also nothing erroneous about the sign in the background.  There is a right general-purpose exit for 320th Street in approximately a mile.

The problem is... the exit for 317th is after the one for 320th, so the 317th sign should be after the one for 320th.

(Incidentally, the one for 317th is newer, and is actually more correct.  I used Google Earth to measure the distance for each; for 317th it's 5200 feet from sign to gore, for 320th it's only about 4400 feet.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ilvny on February 09, 2013, 07:29:56 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on December 30, 2012, 11:45:06 PM
If this has been posted, my apologies.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8071%2F8327510624_25a716f6a6_c.jpg&hash=073eaa6083dce7a2ad1c4d2edad8e60e032e9c2f)

US 1 at SR 0073 in Philadelphia.

I remember seeing this as a kid when I lived in Philadelphia and even then I knew the 73 shield was wrong.  I also remember those signs with the route numbers not being there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on February 11, 2013, 06:32:24 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fncannex%2Fncscans%2Fold731_et.jpg&hash=2717b68e30572dac30894be4757dcfdebe839cdd)

Here's a good one...

Astute observers will note that bypassed 220 in the area of NC 73 is 220 Business and not 220 ALT.  But that is not what is wrong in this picture.

The 73 shield should be a 731 shield...this is just south of Candor.  Was there for at least 2 months up through Dec 7 when I took this picture.  No idea about right now.

I have seen one other error like this in NC before - at NC 94 SB approaching US 264 below Lake Mattamuskeet there was a NC 45 shield instead of a NC 94 one.  It looks like GMSV captured it (it has been since corrected) - http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lake+Mattamuskeet,+NC&hl=en&ll=35.443051,-76.210098&spn=0.000559,0.426407&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=53.001548,109.160156&oq=lake+mattam&t=h&hnear=Lake+Mattamuskeet&z=12&layer=c&cbll=35.443252,-76.210227&panoid=TbQoQCnikehp5d0jKFtAcw&cbp=12,199.75,,0,0 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lake+Mattamuskeet,+NC&hl=en&ll=35.443051,-76.210098&spn=0.000559,0.426407&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=53.001548,109.160156&oq=lake+mattam&t=h&hnear=Lake+Mattamuskeet&z=12&layer=c&cbll=35.443252,-76.210227&panoid=TbQoQCnikehp5d0jKFtAcw&cbp=12,199.75,,0,0)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on February 11, 2013, 07:23:24 AM
This sign seems to be in the wrong font

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedcam.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk%2Fdip.jpg&hash=4b7991d20960392a5aa059229fa2c0f8160cf9d5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 11, 2013, 09:57:42 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=East+Rutherford,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.798282,-74.077721&spn=0.013872,0.027595&sll=33.078296,-96.785914&sspn=0.015355,0.027595&oq=east+ruther&t=h&hnear=East+Rutherford,+Bergen,+New+Jersey&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.798565,-74.077414&panoid=SZd3ayvOkR9CueMM4d_DGQ&cbp=12,45,,0,0

The next exit here is not 1 1/2 miles as the sign suggests.  I even checked it out, and north of here at 1 1/2 mile point the exit is SB only.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on February 11, 2013, 10:21:11 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 11, 2013, 09:57:42 AM
The next exit here is not 1 1/2 miles as the sign suggests.
Check your link - you meant the signs before those. "Exit" 18W is in about 1.5 miles.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 12, 2013, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 11, 2013, 10:21:11 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 11, 2013, 09:57:42 AM
The next exit here is not 1 1/2 miles as the sign suggests.
Check your link - you meant the signs before those. "Exit" 18W is in about 1.5 miles.
It makes sense now that you bring that up  as Exit 18W is the toll plaza itself.   I would think that the signs would want to refer to actual ramps.  Now that I think about it, on a closed system, you are thinking as a user that all toll gates are exits in themselves over the ramp verses a coin drop system or "free" road.

The Three Lakes Plaza on the Florida Turnpike is assigned an exit number for fare and collection purposes, but I believe that at Yeehaw Junction the "Next Exit 52 Miles" still refers to the Exit 242 ramp to US 192 & 441 near St. Cloud. 

It is one of those things that can have two meanings.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bud8Amp88 on February 13, 2013, 05:13:16 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/uYDKz

Small error, but it still made me laugh - I mean, how do you misspell "to"?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 13, 2013, 05:16:02 PM
Quote from: Bud8Amp88 on February 13, 2013, 05:13:16 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/uYDKz

Small error, but it still made me laugh - I mean, how do you misspell "to"?
Maybe they were watching a football game that was tied at the time.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on February 18, 2013, 09:33:23 PM
Here's some...Canadian signage on I-15 southbound just after Sweetgrass customs on the border, firmly in US territory

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fmaximum15.jpg&hash=c1ec0ce95978953c64e1f120a8b0b88366e35719)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 22, 2013, 02:50:40 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8498795416/in/photostream

Here is one assembly in Orlando on I-4 Exit 81A where US 17 is EAST and US 92 is NORTH.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on February 23, 2013, 01:28:26 PM
I just love my out of jurisdiction speed limit signs, I guess.

Here's a nice Oregon style speed limit reduction sign on US-2 approaching Newport, Washington
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fnewportspeedlimit.jpg&hash=34baa62ab7a1af3bfdbe1277bd6b50008b22240a)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on February 23, 2013, 03:25:22 PM
The "BUSINESS" banner should only be above the U.S. 40 shield on this sign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8164%2F7618666774_9a53de034a_c.jpg&hash=20f075060e18e9807f8def9ae9b723c878fa1e68) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/7618666774/)
DSC03239 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/7618666774/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Some_Person on February 23, 2013, 10:27:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi45.tinypic.com%2F5ogwg9.jpg&hash=aae9ff9442f0db5e960565ce186fa16bfb6f28a8)
This sign should be PA 248, and is in front of a Wegmans just off both PA 248 and PA 33. It's a nice looking sign, they just messed up on which shield to use :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on February 24, 2013, 03:10:57 AM
^ And it's an erroneous placement... Stop signs and route shields are not supposed to be placed on the same post like this.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 24, 2013, 05:13:54 AM
Quote from: corco on February 23, 2013, 01:28:26 PM
I just love my out of jurisdiction speed limit signs, I guess.

Here's a nice Oregon style speed limit reduction sign on US-2 approaching Newport, Washington
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fnewportspeedlimit.jpg&hash=34baa62ab7a1af3bfdbe1277bd6b50008b22240a)

Washington has a lot of those near the Oregon border as well.  SR-4 and US-101 has a few in Pacific Co.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on February 24, 2013, 11:57:18 AM
I actually kind of like it- those signs seem too cluttered with the full "Speed Limit" text
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on February 24, 2013, 12:56:59 PM
I don't like that "speed" usage because it's grammatically incorrect. They're saying the speed limit ahead is 45 and to confirm your vehicle's speed to that rule. The actual "speed" is dependent on the individual driver.

Perhaps putting simply "45 mph" would de-clutter it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on February 24, 2013, 01:17:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 24, 2013, 12:56:59 PMI don't like that "speed" usage because it's grammatically incorrect. They're saying the speed limit ahead is 45 and to confirm your vehicle's speed to that rule. The actual "speed" is dependent on the individual driver.

Oregon speed limit signs say just "SPEED" (not "SPEED LIMIT") except on Interstates, and that sign merely indicates a "SPEED 45" condition ahead, so it would be perfectly correct if it were actually erected off-Interstate in Oregon (not in Washington state).  AIUI, the omission of "LIMIT" on off-Interstate speed limit signs in Oregon indicates that the basic speed law applies (in other words, a ticket for speeding in excess of the posted limit can be discharged without a fine if the defendant can meet an almost impossible burden of proof to show that the ticketed speed was not unsafe under the conditions then prevailing).  I believe "SPEED LIMIT" is now used on Interstates in Oregon because speeding is now a strict-liability offense on them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on February 24, 2013, 05:05:52 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 24, 2013, 12:56:59 PM
I don't like that "speed" usage because it's grammatically incorrect. They're saying the speed limit ahead is 45 and to confirm your vehicle's speed to that rule. The actual "speed" is dependent on the individual driver.

Perhaps putting simply "45 mph" would de-clutter it.

"Conform", not "confirm".

See, I can nitpick silly insignificant things too.

EDIT: Now that I've calmed down a bit, I guess I should elaborate.

Objecting to the sign on the basis that it's not 100% semantically unambiguous strikes me as somewhat silly. Part of designing clear and concise signage is knowing what superfluous elements can be left out without changing the meaning. Realistically, nobody's going to see a sign that says "SPEED 45" and think it literally means the speed of the vehicles on the road is exactly 45. I'm not sure I like that design, honestly, but it serves its intended purpose well enough.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on February 24, 2013, 05:16:24 PM
I think everyone gets the idea of the number on a sign which states speed. I enjoy the euro version (also used elsewhere,) which just shows the speed limit inside a red circle.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on February 24, 2013, 07:10:03 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 24, 2013, 12:56:59 PM
I don't like that "speed" usage because it's grammatically incorrect. They're saying the speed limit ahead is 45 and to confirm your vehicle's speed to that rule. The actual "speed" is dependent on the individual driver.

Perhaps putting simply "45 mph" would de-clutter it.

That used to be how they were with the "SPEED ZONE AHEAD" signage.  There'd be a smaller sign underneath stating "45 M.P.H.".  These new diamond signs look cluttered by comparison.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 24, 2013, 08:22:09 PM
Quote from: djsinco on February 24, 2013, 05:16:24 PM
I think everyone gets the idea of the number on a sign which states speed. I enjoy the euro version (also used elsewhere,) which just shows the speed limit inside a red circle.

Metric speed limit signs in the US are circumscribed with a black circle.  They still have SPEED LIMIT.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on February 24, 2013, 08:29:12 PM
Quote from: djsinco on February 24, 2013, 05:16:24 PM
I think everyone gets the idea of the number on a sign which states speed. I enjoy the euro version (also used elsewhere,) which just shows the speed limit inside a red circle.

And México's variant, which has a number in a red circle, but also includes "˜km/h'; actually, there's usually the word "˜MAXIMA' nearby, either on the sign itself or on a plaque.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on February 24, 2013, 08:56:18 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 24, 2013, 08:22:09 PM
Quote from: djsinco on February 24, 2013, 05:16:24 PM
I think everyone gets the idea of the number on a sign which states speed. I enjoy the euro version (also used elsewhere,) which just shows the speed limit inside a red circle.

Metric speed limit signs in the US are circumscribed with a black circle.  They still have SPEED LIMIT.
That was in the 2003 MUTCD.  The 2009 MUTCD removed all mentions of metric signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on February 24, 2013, 09:04:24 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on February 24, 2013, 05:05:52 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 24, 2013, 12:56:59 PM
I don't like that "speed" usage because it's grammatically incorrect. They're saying the speed limit ahead is 45 and to confirm your vehicle's speed to that rule. The actual "speed" is dependent on the individual driver.

Perhaps putting simply "45 mph" would de-clutter it.

"Conform", not "confirm".

....

Yup. I was typing on my iPad and autocorrect got me, but that's no excuse for failing to proofread. I blew it there!

With that said, the other comments are correct about its intent being clear, but I view it as similar to the improperly-phrased "REDUCED SPEED AHEAD" versus North Carolina's properly-worded "REDUCE SPEED AHEAD." The first is simply incorrect, regardless of whether its meaning is clear enough.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on February 24, 2013, 09:54:51 PM
Neither is quite correct. You don't have to reduce speed ahead if you're already going slower than the new limit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on February 24, 2013, 10:10:38 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 24, 2013, 09:54:51 PM
Neither is quite correct. You don't have to reduce speed ahead if you're already going slower than the new limit.

I guess the only 100% correct phrasing would be "REDUCED SPEED LIMIT AHEAD"

But then we get into the territory of adding superfluous words that don't do anything to help the driver understand the intended message. It'd be like insisting upon "DRIVERS TURNING LEFT MUST YIELD ON GREEN" instead of "LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on February 25, 2013, 02:36:07 AM
The speed limit signs that I think must be the dumbest are the ones that say "XX Speed Limit Ends." WTF? Tell us what the current speed limit is, which in the common use of  theses signs are almost always omitted. I do not see these signs (commonly) outside of NY, NJ, and PA.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on February 25, 2013, 03:29:20 AM
Ohio has an annoying tendency to post "RESUME LEGAL SPEED" signs at the end of work zones, which always annoyed me. It's not like freeway speed limits vary a lot within this state, would it be too much to ask to keep a couple "SPEED LIMIT 65" signs on hand to use instead?

(On the semantic side of things, it's also nonsensical if taken literally--during the work zone, the reduced speed limit was the legal speed!)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on February 25, 2013, 02:14:24 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on February 25, 2013, 03:29:20 AM
Ohio has an annoying tendency to post "RESUME LEGAL SPEED" signs at the end of work zones, which always annoyed me. It's not like freeway speed limits vary a lot within this state, would it be too much to ask to keep a couple "SPEED LIMIT 65" signs on hand to use instead?

(On the semantic side of things, it's also nonsensical if taken literally--during the work zone, the reduced speed limit was the legal speed!)

That probably largely is due to the split limits (which don't exist on 65mph Interstate sections but still do on non-Interstate routes and even on 60mph Interstates); they would have to place a temporary assembly of not just a 65 sign but a 55 truck limit sign.  Considering how spotty correct sign placement can be in construction zones, it isn't surprising that they may not trust contractors to place the two signs correctly.  (And only placing a 65 sign without the proper truck limit sign would have opened up issues for sure...I've actually seen a couple times where if the Truck limit sign is knocked down, the other sign is covered or removed until the whole assembly can be properly shown again--better to have no sign than an incorrect one that appears to show no truck limit.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on February 25, 2013, 07:42:48 PM
Quote from: djsinco on February 25, 2013, 02:36:07 AM
The speed limit signs that I think must be the dumbest are the ones that say "XX Speed Limit Ends." WTF? Tell us what the current speed limit is, which in the common use of  theses signs are almost always omitted. I do not see these signs (commonly) outside of NY, NJ, and PA.
Leave NJ out of it! We never use that tripe. (I've seen one or two on a county road, total, for the entire state.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on February 25, 2013, 09:44:57 PM
This sign is on NY 114:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg208.imageshack.us%2Fimg208%2F69%2Fimg0014me.jpg&hash=45fcc1a14e562310924a380aa7694ab05f01b3a1)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on February 26, 2013, 06:51:03 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on February 25, 2013, 02:14:24 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on February 25, 2013, 03:29:20 AM
Ohio has an annoying tendency to post "RESUME LEGAL SPEED" signs at the end of work zones, which always annoyed me. It's not like freeway speed limits vary a lot within this state, would it be too much to ask to keep a couple "SPEED LIMIT 65" signs on hand to use instead?

(On the semantic side of things, it's also nonsensical if taken literally--during the work zone, the reduced speed limit was the legal speed!)

That probably largely is due to the split limits (which don't exist on 65mph Interstate sections but still do on non-Interstate routes and even on 60mph Interstates); they would have to place a temporary assembly of not just a 65 sign but a 55 truck limit sign.  Considering how spotty correct sign placement can be in construction zones, it isn't surprising that they may not trust contractors to place the two signs correctly.  (And only placing a 65 sign without the proper truck limit sign would have opened up issues for sure...I've actually seen a couple times where if the Truck limit sign is knocked down, the other sign is covered or removed until the whole assembly can be properly shown again--better to have no sign than an incorrect one that appears to show no truck limit.)

I hadn't considered that before, but it does make sense.

It still seems like the sensible solution would be "then don't have split speed limits, dumbasses", but that would mean less revenue from ticketing people who are driving safely, and we can't have that now can we?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 26, 2013, 11:46:15 AM
How embarassing (http://goo.gl/maps/dMgYR).


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on February 26, 2013, 11:57:27 AM
That is terrible.. and potentially confusing. Do we know why they replaced this sign with that? I don't see much reason for overhead signage there...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2F395%2F14to82%2F4.JPG&hash=b1286b856ae3e10a3e3e2552f0744f2d5c3ceaa7)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 26, 2013, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: corco on February 26, 2013, 11:57:27 AM
That is terrible.. and potentially confusing. Do we know why they replaced this sign with that? I don't see much reason for overhead signage there...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2F395%2F14to82%2F4.JPG&hash=b1286b856ae3e10a3e3e2552f0744f2d5c3ceaa7)

That's still there.  The GSV link is actually eastbound (southbound), so quite honestly, it shouldn't even have 'to I-182'.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on February 26, 2013, 12:27:06 PM
Oh, well then why did they replace this perfectly good sign

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2F82%2F182to395%2F3.JPG&hash=d68a66d3a5b983ac25a00f872270eb4df17bca71)

But yeah, I can see where any trailblazer is pointless- you could do a TO US-12 I guess, but most of that traffic took US-730
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 26, 2013, 12:48:50 PM
er, they took I-182 to get to US-12 if they're coming from the West (North).  But yeah, I suppose it's pointless on both sides.

http://goo.gl/maps/dAoHa

Oregon doesn't like I-82 according to this sign.  The Interstate gets no respect for its 11 mile glory run through the Beaver state.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on February 26, 2013, 12:54:24 PM
There are (were?) precisely two standalone reassurance shields on 82 east in Oregon, one after 730 and one after Powerline

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2For%2F82%2F395to84%2F2.JPG&hash=54bc9f1490e037b8697ac3083ffb2e62baf58e6b)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2For%2F82%2F395to84%2F4.JPG&hash=e4417c2c7d8ac9c8bbd90c2a3911497e7d66f086)

But yeah, Oregon acts like I-82 is a joke- the Hermiston/Umatilla control cities say all that needs to be said abou tthat
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 26, 2013, 01:05:25 PM
anyone ever seen a state-named I-82?  either state.  I've got a photo of a WASHINGTON example from 1983 and that's the newest...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on February 26, 2013, 01:08:11 PM
hahahahahaha nope, and I pretty thoroughly combed it and approaches in 07/08.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on March 02, 2013, 03:13:32 PM
Since when have KFC & McDonald's been considered lodging? (On I-35 South near Wellington, KS)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8144%2F7625144128_747b20e244_c.jpg&hash=4c6f79d4dfd14be93dd5c3d1e9ae36922fb30166) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/7625144128/)
DSC03539 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/7625144128/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on March 02, 2013, 03:18:04 PM
Quote from: okroads on March 02, 2013, 03:13:32 PM
Since when have KFC & McDonald's been considered lodging? (On I-35 South near Wellington, KS)

Same for Penny's Diner, and KOA is probably "Camping" vs. Lodging.  Maybe "SERVICES NEXT EXIT" would be the easiest way to clean it up without making three separate signs or something.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on March 02, 2013, 04:32:31 PM
I have seen homeless people lodging at McDonalds. :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route56 on March 02, 2013, 10:26:00 PM
Quote from: okroads on March 02, 2013, 03:13:32 PM
Since when have KFC & McDonald's been considered lodging? (On I-35 South near Wellington, KS)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8144%2F7625144128_747b20e244_c.jpg&hash=4c6f79d4dfd14be93dd5c3d1e9ae36922fb30166) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/7625144128/)
DSC03539 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/7625144128/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr

Furthermore, the KTA doesn't post any specific service signs (save Lodging and Camping) at any other exit on the Turnpike inside the mainline barriers, presumably to encourage Turnpike travelers to use the Service Plazas instead.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: HTM Duke on March 06, 2013, 08:27:02 PM
Evergreen Ln at its intersection with VA-236:
http://goo.gl/maps/xu05E (http://goo.gl/maps/xu05E)

The arm mast signals in the picture are relatively new, being installed maybe about a year ago.  The right turn signal for traffic headed onto VA-236 west is new, and was not part of the previous signal installation.  However, the yield sign that used to control right turning traffic was left behind.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MDOTFanFB on March 06, 2013, 09:32:52 PM
As of August 2011, this was on U.S. 50 east barely into Ohio: http://goo.gl/maps/dKOST (http://goo.gl/maps/dKOST)

Quote404 Error: We were unable to find Ohio State Route 50.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: HTM Duke on March 07, 2013, 01:31:44 AM
^

Similar error, different state: this VA-50 sign popped up in Arlington, VA a few years ago:

http://goo.gl/maps/Wnokl (http://goo.gl/maps/Wnokl)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on March 07, 2013, 08:25:17 PM
Quote from: MDOTFanFB on March 06, 2013, 09:32:52 PM
As of August 2011, this was on U.S. 50 east barely into Ohio: http://goo.gl/maps/dKOST (http://goo.gl/maps/dKOST)

Quote404 Error: We were unable to find Ohio State Route 50.

It's a rather ugly Ohio shield, too!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on March 18, 2013, 11:37:38 PM
Here are a couple of error U.S. 195 shields in Yuma, AZ, that I took today:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8087%2F8569498403_858e05da2c_c.jpg&hash=12e3c0734975186f6340073c91afffe69ed1e871) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8569498403/)
DSC08445 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8569498403/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8525%2F8569499821_79f70e6833_c.jpg&hash=10d1b105eb600d2ddae96777e69ecb98c86114c3) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8569499821/)
DSC08447 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8569499821/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8104%2F8570601446_ea6ac832a3_c.jpg&hash=113d53de0d0a8ad26b55f53c9c8b2bb2f80e90df) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8570601446/)
DSC08455 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8570601446/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: sdmichael on March 19, 2013, 04:25:47 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 07:43:47 PM
where is that??  I don't know of any CA-11s left in the wild.  they switched over to I-110 and CA-110 in 1980.

I helped take this one down (with Caltrans) in 2001. It was at 7th/Gaffey St in San Pedro.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scvresources.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F11%2F7th_Street_at_Gaffey.jpg&hash=3ecdf38a5818f69376da913c175d0872ace46ae7)

I have other photos on my Los Angeles Area Highways page (http://www.scvresources.com/highways/la_highways/)... I've been busy posting a lot of old and new photos lately.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on March 19, 2013, 07:17:39 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on March 07, 2013, 08:25:17 PM
Quote from: MDOTFanFB on March 06, 2013, 09:32:52 PM
As of August 2011, this was on U.S. 50 east barely into Ohio: http://goo.gl/maps/dKOST (http://goo.gl/maps/dKOST)

Quote404 Error: We were unable to find Ohio State Route 50.

It's a rather ugly Ohio shield, too!

As ugly as this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Foh56.jpg&hash=3d7a5268b1a0534891be36c3c4eb0c56c76c4422)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on March 19, 2013, 10:44:23 PM
Interstate 52, anyone? Picture taken today in La Jolla, CA.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8111%2F8572791331_6475c7a3c6_c.jpg&hash=25bde92d5ea03b127a3b4c68d0f31d99adf3d162) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8572791331/)
DSC09156 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8572791331/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on March 20, 2013, 02:59:27 AM
Which lane for Ellis??
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on March 20, 2013, 02:28:35 PM
Quote from: djsinco on March 20, 2013, 02:59:27 AM
Which lane for Ellis??

Must be a middle-of-the-road Independent! 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kurumi on March 20, 2013, 07:51:30 PM
Quote from: okroads on March 19, 2013, 10:44:23 PM
Interstate 52, anyone? Picture taken today in La Jolla, CA.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8111%2F8572791331_6475c7a3c6_c.jpg&hash=25bde92d5ea03b127a3b4c68d0f31d99adf3d162) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8572791331/)
DSC09156 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8572791331/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr

That's obviously wrong; it's hundreds of miles away from Interstate 152:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fy8F2J73.jpg%3F1&hash=f45efde12bed36d80936b9ef9f4b001656abf44b)

(However, Caltrans fixed that sign some time ago.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on March 22, 2013, 05:14:30 PM
This is next to a commercial driveway in Fairfax City, Virginia, obviously near the courthouse. The courthouse garage charges $2.00 an hour, so a lot of people try to find alternatives.  I think this particular sign is new–I walked past the same place Wednesday and do not remember seeing it.

Either way, the landlord should get a refund.....

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F40ecda5f31967e607fa13d98c72383e6_zps065dc8a8.jpg&hash=dec9e8afc8caef1dd7c84b7120d2a0e259f2d7c0)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on March 22, 2013, 06:05:00 PM
"VOILATORS" typo aside, I'm just wondering how exactly a dump truck icon represents "courthouse vehicles".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on March 22, 2013, 06:06:57 PM
Yeah, it could just as easily go in the "worst of" thread.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on March 22, 2013, 06:42:43 PM
Here's one from Lehi, UT, at the US-89/UT-85 junction, filed under "US Routes signed as State Routes and Vice Versa":

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.panoramio.com%2Fphotos%2Fmedium%2F87719248.jpg&hash=b192b033454c77a0fade8bf062d2c2d93a8d9f32)

Suffice to say that I've sent it into UDOT and it appears that they are looking at it. They may also be looking into the whole "Ends US-89" sign at UT-85, as well:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmw2.google.com%2Fmw-panoramio%2Fphotos%2Fmedium%2F84468448.jpg&hash=bf2e9dfe9f08b64d6717c8b38b248670f495ec49)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on March 22, 2013, 07:24:05 PM
That harkens back to the day when I-15 was incomplete through that area, and we had to use "UT" 89 to connect back to the completed section of 15 to go over the hill...

Personally, I just like to use the word "harkens!" :love:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 23, 2013, 01:22:05 PM
FYI, the more proper wording would be "harks back", but "harkens back" is a widely accepted variant (technically an error but so widely used that it has become all but proper).  In neither case, however, should one say "harks/harkens me back".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on March 23, 2013, 09:25:16 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 23, 2013, 01:22:05 PM
FYI, the more proper wording would be "harks back", but "harkens back" is a widely accepted variant (technically an error but so widely used that it has become all but proper).  In neither case, however, should one say "harks/harkens me back".

If you say "harkens me back," you're a voilator.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on March 23, 2013, 11:45:27 PM
I elimitanted my voilation.  :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 707 on March 24, 2013, 02:58:20 AM
Quote from: djsinco on March 23, 2013, 11:45:27 PM
I elimitanted my voilation.  :ded:

Talk about coincidence, your spelling screwed up like incorrect signage. No offense. :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on March 24, 2013, 02:11:44 PM
Quote from: 707 on March 24, 2013, 02:58:20 AM
Quote from: djsinco on March 23, 2013, 11:45:27 PM
I elimitanted my voilation.  :ded:

Talk about coincidence, your spelling screwed up like incorrect signage. No offense. :)
Looks like the other (intentional) misspelling went right over someone's head. :poke:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on March 24, 2013, 03:21:34 PM
Huh? Wot are you guys blathering about? Every word in djsinco's post was spelled perfectly fine, using standard Alanland English spelling.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on March 24, 2013, 06:22:10 PM
Quote from: yakra on March 24, 2013, 03:21:34 PM
Huh? Wot are you guys blathering about? Every word in djsinco's post was spelled perfectly fine, using standard Alanland English spelling.
I study and use the Okie dialect of Alanland language.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on March 26, 2013, 09:58:58 AM
Those who attended the Monticello, NY meet last Saturday spotted a US 97 & US 17B shield assembly in Callicoon.  I'm surprised that those who took pics haven't posted them yet.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: dmuzika on March 26, 2013, 10:32:14 AM
This was recently replaced, but there was a McKnight Blvd NORTH sign in Calgary, AB, Canada that was incorrect.  McKnight Blvd is an east-west oriented street and since that Calgary has a quadrant system, it should have been signed as either "McKnight Blvd N" or simply "McKnight Blvd" (it now states the latter).  See http://goo.gl/maps/AGPuC.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on March 26, 2013, 11:21:44 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 26, 2013, 09:58:58 AM
Those who attended the Monticello, NY meet last Saturday spotted a US 97 & US 17B shield assembly in Callicoon.  I'm surprised that those who took pics haven't posted them yet.

Put mine on my Facebook page that night. Going to work on all my photos from that trip this week.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on March 26, 2013, 01:05:03 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 26, 2013, 09:58:58 AM
Those who attended the Monticello, NY meet last Saturday spotted a US 97 & US 17B shield assembly in Callicoon.  I'm surprised that those who took pics haven't posted them yet.
Hmmm... Is there some secret shortcut from Callicoon to Bend, OR?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on March 27, 2013, 09:58:45 AM
Hope a Facebook pic URL will work. Don't have my photos from the trip worked up and uploaded anywhere yet.

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/64778_10151535489110280_560188762_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 27, 2013, 10:04:44 AM
it worked; thank you.  interesting that they put "17B" in a 2dus shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on March 27, 2013, 10:58:05 AM
C.C. Slater said these erroneous markers replaced some ancient, but correct, New York state route markers. Don't know if there are any pics floating around of what these replaced or not.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on March 27, 2013, 12:57:14 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 27, 2013, 10:04:44 AM
it worked; thank you.  interesting that they put "17B" in a 2dus shield.
I guess the designer/fabricator figured that since one of the digits involved a 1; using a 2-digit shield seemed justified.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on March 27, 2013, 02:16:11 PM
Image displayed fine, and I do not have a Facebook account.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on March 28, 2013, 10:13:07 AM
Those wonderful error US 17B and US 97 signs were not the only goofs I encountered on my recent foray into New York.

Behold these...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8240%2F8595004835_e2aa7136bc.jpg&hash=804c01794e6bba628d11e1d184f780351aa69980)

Milford, Pa., and has been there for quite some time.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8110%2F8595005029_60b650be08.jpg&hash=6d73c5728e367ea7b4053afd8638f3ea5b9aa56e)

Just into New York on I-84, and has also been there for years. Should be a NJ 23 marker, not a NY 23.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8528%2F8595026763_16ed26ed6b.jpg&hash=df0ad2c09b94e98d6f2ac9666ae5fcf41cfbd7ac)

There are so many NY 209 errors that you sorta become numb to them after awhile.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8246%2F8595022965_f94ae0784f.jpg&hash=1be4d8774c1587abb70031950bad8bd73cabedb8)

Not quite as many NY 44 goofs, but there are more than a few in the Highland area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on March 29, 2013, 12:52:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 28, 2013, 10:13:07 AM
Those wonderful error US 17B and US 97 signs were not the only goofs I encountered on my recent foray into New York.

Behold these...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8240%2F8595004835_e2aa7136bc.jpg&hash=804c01794e6bba628d11e1d184f780351aa69980)

Milford, Pa., and has been there for quite some time.

And a recycled PA shield as well!  I wonder if that "former" 2d shield is that noticeable during the day as well?   I love how flash pictures can sometimes bring out the hidden or forgotten past. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on March 29, 2013, 01:55:47 PM
Quote from: djsinco on March 23, 2013, 11:45:27 PM
I elimitanted my voilation.  :ded:

I think most of the voilations are from truck trarffic that needs to be elimitanted
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on March 29, 2013, 04:29:46 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on March 29, 2013, 12:52:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 28, 2013, 10:13:07 AM
Those wonderful error US 17B and US 97 signs were not the only goofs I encountered on my recent foray into New York.

Behold these...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8240%2F8595004835_e2aa7136bc.jpg&hash=804c01794e6bba628d11e1d184f780351aa69980)

Milford, Pa., and has been there for quite some time.

And a recycled PA shield as well!  I wonder if that "former" 2d shield is that noticeable during the day as well?   I love how flash pictures can sometimes bring out the hidden or forgotten past.

This pic is from 2009 and is the best I could do in three or four attempts to get a drive-by photo.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Milford_PA_Day_3%2FImages%2F71.jpg&hash=dafe0e9910fdc0a69f74be794e1dfe1ed3e3be05)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on March 29, 2013, 06:45:52 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on March 29, 2013, 12:52:55 PM
And a recycled PA shield as well!  I wonder if that "former" 2d shield is that noticeable during the day as well?   I love how flash pictures can sometimes bring out the hidden or forgotten past. 
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fpa%2Fus_209%2Fpa.jpg&hash=34bf7920e909c41e988cbee2db9d9fcaebedfa16)
I would never have noticed it if you hadn't mentioned it. Barely.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on March 29, 2013, 07:02:21 PM
Hey Steve, when did you take your picture? Mine's from the 2009 Milford meet. Looks like they re-mounted the same signs vertically. So much for noticing and correcting the error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 30, 2013, 01:31:31 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 29, 2013, 01:55:47 PM
Quote from: djsinco on March 23, 2013, 11:45:27 PM
I elimitanted my voilation.  :ded:

I think most of the voilations are from truck trarffic that needs to be elimitanted

Violation and elimination can both be accomplished rectally.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on March 30, 2013, 02:47:25 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 29, 2013, 01:55:47 PM
Quote from: djsinco on March 23, 2013, 11:45:27 PM
I elimitanted my voilation.  :ded:

I think most of the voilations are from truck trarffic that needs to be elimitanted

Behold...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbishopdan.com%2Fimages%2Flol-mart.jpg&hash=1824d63ab1d80dd05f84b998a347f166881502fa)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on March 30, 2013, 06:51:15 PM
I love how they weren't even competent enough to get all the letters on the paper.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on March 30, 2013, 10:30:35 PM
Quote from: 6a on March 30, 2013, 02:47:25 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 29, 2013, 01:55:47 PM
Quote from: djsinco on March 23, 2013, 11:45:27 PM
I elimitanted my voilation.  :ded:

I think most of the voilations are from truck trarffic that needs to be elimitanted

Behold...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbishopdan.com%2Fimages%2Flol-mart.jpg&hash=1824d63ab1d80dd05f84b998a347f166881502fa)
From the hme ofiss in Bentonville, AR. :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on March 31, 2013, 06:07:16 PM
Who are you to qustion such a quality safty porduct!!Some sort of anttenion-seeking vednor?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on April 01, 2013, 03:27:05 AM
I'm confused as to how that sign happened. Most monstrosities of that type are made by some management drone in MS Word, which makes the fact that it somehow came out in Helvetica confusing (since Helvetica isn't installed on Windows by default, and most people that are of sufficient stupidity to make that sign can't change the font to anything other than Comic Sans).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on April 01, 2013, 03:56:16 AM
As to the font on the Walmart sign: I've seen many a sign in many a Walmart styled in this way, with all-caps and similar font. It may be some type of company standard.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on April 01, 2013, 05:29:56 AM
Many moons ago I worked for a discount department store and we had a sign making program where you just filled in the blanks (brand name, compare to price, our price) and it spit out signs in that same font.  There was also a freestyle option that would make one like the one above.

Now the good part.  My wife works for Wal-Mart's home office.  I told her about seeing that thing and she said "well, did you tell someone?"  Yeah, the entire internet :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tchafe1978 on April 02, 2013, 08:45:31 AM
I work at Walmart. There is a decades-old computer system that Walmrt uses to run its registers, the handhelds, etc. Signs like that are made on a function of that system, and that's how they come out of the printer. If your make the lines of wording too long, it will get cut off. You can make up to 7 lines of text, I believe. However, that is no excuse for the misspelled words and almost incomprehensible wording. Me and some of my co-workers got a good chuckle out of that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on April 02, 2013, 10:23:47 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 30, 2013, 10:30:35 PM
Quote from: 6a on March 30, 2013, 02:47:25 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 29, 2013, 01:55:47 PM
Quote from: djsinco on March 23, 2013, 11:45:27 PM
I elimitanted my voilation.  :ded:

I think most of the voilations are from truck trarffic that needs to be elimitanted

Behold...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbishopdan.com%2Fimages%2Flol-mart.jpg&hash=1824d63ab1d80dd05f84b998a347f166881502fa)
From the hme ofiss in Goat.  :)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kj3400 on April 02, 2013, 12:01:56 PM
That's actually excellent by Alanland sntadrads.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 02, 2013, 12:52:45 PM
they misspelled "Wam-Lart"; otherwise I see no problem with the sign.  gorgeous font, too, and the choice of adhesive couldn't be lovelier.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 02, 2013, 03:43:02 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 02, 2013, 12:52:45 PM
they misspelled "Wam-Lart"; otherwise I see no problem with the sign.  gorgeous font, too, and the choice of adhesive couldn't be lovelier.

It's actually Mal Wart.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on April 02, 2013, 06:01:27 PM
It's actually Pfangle. It's in Alanland, duh.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on April 02, 2013, 09:38:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 02, 2013, 03:43:02 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 02, 2013, 12:52:45 PM
they misspelled "Wam-Lart"; otherwise I see no problem with the sign.  gorgeous font, too, and the choice of adhesive couldn't be lovelier.

It's actually Mal Wart.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fb7QZfnb.jpg&hash=a163b40edb9875529dcf4ada834da78249a8e1d6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Some_Person on April 03, 2013, 10:40:11 PM
On US 22 S in Phillipsburg, NJ

This should say NJ 122
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2F107ud7q.jpg&hash=bea4ae82004c1a95ea66a90cbef00ddcd5625e68)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2Fso65bk.jpg&hash=376575b973ddd6f89b44a8562f338d04cc5783b4)

Same error, these should say NJ 173, as the sign in the background in the picture above shows
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2Ffapow4.jpg&hash=c000e3962c7ba6d3f10928f302468b8bc725b7fe)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 04, 2013, 01:10:44 PM
Quote from: Some_Person on April 03, 2013, 10:40:11 PM
On US 22 S in Phillipsburg, NJ

This should say NJ 122

is NJ-122 old US-122?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on April 04, 2013, 01:17:06 PM
Judging by this (http://www.usends.com/mapguy/MapPgs/mapx22.htm) and this (http://us-highways.com/us2.htm) that looks like a negative.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 05, 2013, 07:26:11 AM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8618015268/in/photostream

In this photo that is taken along the Texarkana Beltway that is AR 245 in the Natural State and TX 151 Loop in the Lone Star State  it seems to have the wrong route number at this location.  Here the pull through states the through route is SB AR 245, when in fact it is not.  At this interchange, AR 245 ends and then transitions into TX 151 Loop, so it should say TX 151 Loop (plus direction) to Dallas.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on April 05, 2013, 09:40:04 AM
Quote from: Some_Person on April 03, 2013, 10:40:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2Fso65bk.jpg&hash=376575b973ddd6f89b44a8562f338d04cc5783b4)

In some states, I swear, you need to bring binoculars while driving.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on April 05, 2013, 01:39:40 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 05, 2013, 09:40:04 AM
In some states, I swear, you need to bring binoculars while driving.

Quote from: Eth on June 10, 2012, 04:27:35 PM
Or you could always pull a Georgia and put the "banner" inside the shield.  Can't read 3" text at highway speed?  Sucks to be you!

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7342/27698213235_7febd848e1_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JcAzNB)


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2FUS84e-GA38e-US319n-GA35n-GA3altSouth-SignsCurve.jpg&hash=4f51572d04403e07c80a81e14aaeebdcb0fcf560)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 05, 2013, 01:42:16 PM
the ALT is barely, barely passable as a "because Georgia" laugher.

the "over XX,000 lbs" looks like a manufacturing flaw.  I can't even be sure of the first two digits from that photo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on April 05, 2013, 01:45:13 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 05, 2013, 01:42:16 PM
the ALT is barely, barely passable as a "because Georgia" laugher.

the "over XX,000 lbs" looks like a manufacturing flaw.  I can't even be sure of the first two digits from that photo.

I think it says "25,000", from the full-size pic I have (which still is a bit of a guess).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on April 05, 2013, 02:02:04 PM
It is likely 26,000 lbs., as that is the minimum gross vehicle weight rating requiring the drive to possess a Commercial Driver License. It is a commonly used cutoff point.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 06, 2013, 02:25:23 PM
I'm usually pretty ho-hum about the myriad wrong-shield-shape errors.  But.....what's the "most off" of that type of error?  For example, a county road being signed as an Interstate, or vice versa.  State routes and US routes are so similar that I don't find an error between the two all that surprising.  But what are the ones that are really wrong?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on April 06, 2013, 02:46:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2013, 02:25:23 PM
I'm usually pretty ho-hum about the myriad wrong-shield-shape errors.  But.....what's the "most off" of that type of error?  For example, a county road being signed as an Interstate, or vice versa.  State routes and US routes are so similar that I don't find an error between the two all that surprising.  But what are the ones that are really wrong?

These are gone now, but they're among the worst I've seen (photo from AARoads.com):

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/district_of_columbia/us-001_nb_at_madison_dr_nw.jpg)


There used to be a BGS on the E Street Expressway that had a full-color I-29 shield (should have been a US-29 shield).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on April 06, 2013, 05:11:59 PM
Although white rectangles are used for primary routes at intersections involving that primary route and a secondary route, here is a white rectangle for an interstate in Virginia, not at an interchange:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2F77inrectangle.jpg&hash=3c3793a837149f35752034ece16a04030458afa7)

There are several examples of errors by two levels in Virginia:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fphotos%2Fhamptonroads%2Fva564sign-error.jpg&hash=5dc44f96f7f5e9087a13b5e8aa93ea43155c1d64)

or if you like, interstate shield on a virginia state cutout shield (there are a few of these in Covington)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fva64error.jpg&hash=58679cc23c17ac65cbb7a0b1240460694fb207e3)

here is a 2-level error with SR 775:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fva-ends%2Fva100%2Fva148_wt_02.jpg&hash=135753fe734a0ea89a6b324de946d1bd5e8fc072)

There were several SR 220 shields in Rocky Mount for another 2-level area:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fsr40-122-220error2.jpg&hash=a62f52f73a582fe01ba6ad2bad6daf6b28e1082e)

Finally, an I-7 Bus shield

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fi7bus2.jpg&hash=17f27a1b2fb96264f978c4e6094212f44c998e2c)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 06, 2013, 11:00:57 PM
Along those same lines:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4087%2F4963027362_e81463c84f_z.jpg&hash=99d8c62a6890bfb29a1d836db8f55d9514db71cc) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4963027362/)

Also, this is actually not VA 407. VA 407 ends at VA 168 about half a mile before this assembly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on April 07, 2013, 02:22:30 AM
Would it be presumptuous to state that OH and VA seem to have a disproportionate number of sign errors?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hobsini2 on April 07, 2013, 05:03:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 06, 2013, 02:46:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2013, 02:25:23 PM
I'm usually pretty ho-hum about the myriad wrong-shield-shape errors.  But.....what's the "most off" of that type of error?  For example, a county road being signed as an Interstate, or vice versa.  State routes and US routes are so similar that I don't find an error between the two all that surprising.  But what are the ones that are really wrong?

These are gone now, but they're among the worst I've seen (photo from AARoads.com):

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/district_of_columbia/us-001_nb_at_madison_dr_nw.jpg)


There used to be a BGS on the E Street Expressway that had a full-color I-29 shield (should have been a US-29 shield).
I actually like that shield design for Incomplete/Proposed Interstate Corridors.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on April 08, 2013, 03:58:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 06, 2013, 05:11:59 PMFinally, an I-7 Bus shield

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fi7bus2.jpg&hash=17f27a1b2fb96264f978c4e6094212f44c998e2c)
Does VA even have any Business interstates in where somebody mistakenly selected the wrong shield (& color) at VDOT's garage? 

If the erroneous shield was the standard red/white/blue Interstate shield; I could see some plausibility for error; but this one's way off.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 08, 2013, 04:02:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2013, 02:25:23 PM
I'm usually pretty ho-hum about the myriad wrong-shield-shape errors.  But.....what's the "most off" of that type of error?  For example, a county road being signed as an Interstate, or vice versa.  State routes and US routes are so similar that I don't find an error between the two all that surprising.  But what are the ones that are really wrong?

similar to those I-1 and I-50 "DC-US" shields, here is a US-shaped red, white and blue I-55 in Litchfield IL.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/IL/IL20030551i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on April 08, 2013, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 08, 2013, 03:58:41 PM
Does VA even have any Business interstates in where somebody mistakenly selected the wrong shield (& color) at VDOT's garage? 

If the erroneous shield was the standard red/white/blue Interstate shield; I could see some plausibility for error; but this one's way off.

No. I grew up in Virginia and never saw a green Interstate shield (other than on maps) until the summer before I went off to college.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 08, 2013, 06:15:52 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 08, 2013, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 08, 2013, 03:58:41 PM
Does VA even have any Business interstates in where somebody mistakenly selected the wrong shield (& color) at VDOT's garage? 

If the erroneous shield was the standard red/white/blue Interstate shield; I could see some plausibility for error; but this one's way off.

No. I grew up in Virginia and never saw a green Interstate shield (other than on maps) until the summer before I went off to college.

I still don't think I've ever actually seen a single one in person. Nowhere in the notheast really uses business interstates.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 08, 2013, 06:33:24 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 08, 2013, 03:58:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 06, 2013, 05:11:59 PMFinally, an I-7 Bus shield

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fi7bus2.jpg&hash=17f27a1b2fb96264f978c4e6094212f44c998e2c)
Does VA even have any Business interstates in where somebody mistakenly selected the wrong shield (& color) at VDOT's garage? 

If the erroneous shield was the standard red/white/blue Interstate shield; I could see some plausibility for error; but this one's way off.

You have to go to North Carolina for the nearest green interstates (interstate business loops).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on April 08, 2013, 06:55:17 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2013, 02:25:23 PM
I'm usually pretty ho-hum about the myriad wrong-shield-shape errors.  But.....what's the "most off" of that type of error?  For example, a county road being signed as an Interstate, or vice versa.  State routes and US routes are so similar that I don't find an error between the two all that surprising.  But what are the ones that are really wrong?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fwv%2Fi-70%2Fwi.jpg&hash=a5305674e62d28e18768c191910bc4ea3b201328)
Interstate as a fractional route?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on April 08, 2013, 07:18:55 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 08, 2013, 06:33:24 PMYou have to go to North Carolina for the nearest green interstates (interstate business loops).
What about Business Loop(?) 83 in York, PA?

IIRC, many years ago, I did a Business Loop 95 shield on a BGS along I-95 near New London, CT.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on April 08, 2013, 08:02:28 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 08, 2013, 07:18:55 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 08, 2013, 06:33:24 PMYou have to go to North Carolina for the nearest green interstates (interstate business loops).
What about Business Loop(?) 83 in York, PA?
Should be a Spur because it ends at US 30 and becomes PA 181, but it's really just signed Business 83 with hideous oversized-numeral shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on April 08, 2013, 08:41:11 PM
Plus, NC is closer to VA than PA.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on April 08, 2013, 09:01:57 PM
It is 3 times closer from the I-7 Bus to York PA than to Greensboro, NC...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 09, 2013, 11:43:06 AM
Quote from: Steve on April 08, 2013, 06:55:17 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2013, 02:25:23 PM
I'm usually pretty ho-hum about the myriad wrong-shield-shape errors.  But.....what's the "most off" of that type of error?  For example, a county road being signed as an Interstate, or vice versa.  State routes and US routes are so similar that I don't find an error between the two all that surprising.  But what are the ones that are really wrong?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fwv%2Fi-70%2Fwi.jpg&hash=a5305674e62d28e18768c191910bc4ea3b201328)
Interstate as a fractional route?

What are the details on that one?  Because that's pretty egregious.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2013, 12:28:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 09, 2013, 11:43:06 AM

What are the details on that one?  Because that's pretty egregious.

I'll bet I-70 is inventoried internally by WVDOT as "70/1".  the contractor got a project to redo a segment of "state highway 70/1" and didn't think too carefully about it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on April 09, 2013, 05:35:03 PM
...or is it state highway 70/I?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2013, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 09, 2013, 05:35:03 PM
...or is it state highway 70/I?

kinda looks like it, doesn't it?  for some reason I seem to remember a 123/III fractional route somewhere in WV (for some route number, not necessarily 123) - am I imagining that?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 09, 2013, 07:35:58 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2013, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 09, 2013, 05:35:03 PM
…or is it state highway 70/I?

kinda looks like it, doesn't it?  for some reason I seem to remember a 123/III fractional route somewhere in WV (for some route number, not necessarily 123) - am I imagining that?

You have weird dreams.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on April 09, 2013, 10:59:07 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 09, 2013, 05:35:03 PM
...or is it state highway 70/I?
Correct, the contractor saw I-70 and somehow turned that into a fractional route, complete with "I" instead of "1".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on April 10, 2013, 12:42:57 AM
Quote from: Steve on April 09, 2013, 10:59:07 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 09, 2013, 05:35:03 PM
...or is it state highway 70/I?
Correct, the contractor saw I-70 and somehow turned that into a fractional route, complete with "I" instead of "1".

That's...actually kinda hilarious.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on April 10, 2013, 05:38:34 PM
I found this blade sign (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.022643,-76.359886&spn=0.000677,0.00142&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=43.022697,-76.359726&panoid=tbYnGDVug7x3mNb4oqlIYg&cbp=12,184.61,,3,1.6) for NY 321 on Forward Road in Camillus last night.  Forward Road used to be NY 321 until the late 1980s, so this sign may be left over from then.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 10, 2013, 09:58:27 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 08, 2013, 09:01:57 PM
It is 3 times closer from the I-7 Bus to York PA than to Greensboro, NC...

Mapmikey

I always forget about that I-83 BUS in York...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Some_Person on April 13, 2013, 10:49:56 PM
This sign in Easton, PA on PA 611 North has the wrong shield in place for US 22. Also, take note of the sign at the bottom left, those 'keep left' signs are pretty rare to see pretty much anywhere on a main road in the US.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F91beht.jpg&hash=3f2f4f3e221d3deda15947b4b1d09e213e7a21f1)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on April 14, 2013, 07:01:03 AM
Quote from: Some_Person on April 13, 2013, 10:49:56 PM
This sign in Easton, PA on PA 611 North has the wrong shield in place for US 22. Also, take note of the sign at the bottom left, those 'keep left' signs are pretty rare to see pretty much anywhere on a main road in the US.

[LARGE PHOTO]
So that's a brand-new condition; 611 up until at least last year was undivided through Easton. It's so new that while it shows up on Google aerial, it hasn't made it to the Street View.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 14, 2013, 11:42:30 AM
Va. 120 (North Glebe Road) northbound approaching Quebec Street.

A new bolt will probably fix this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2FCPZ%2FDSC01798Web.jpg&hash=ad2317a7359d7188b7b81387831c861e2508c9a1)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 14, 2013, 11:47:38 AM
Still Va. 120 (North Glebe Road) northbound at Va. 237 (Fairfax Drive).

Some very traditional Virginia shields, but a non-traditional shape (at least in North America) for the adjacent pedestrian crosswalk sign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC01801Web.jpg&hash=b24d06e4fed6039906ff483ea4c1d42130828c00)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on April 14, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
Forget the shields, look at that S2000!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JMoses24 on April 14, 2013, 01:21:30 PM
I'd argue that the second sign cpzillacus posted, while non-traditional, is not erroneous because it conveys that there is a crosswalk at that location.

The first is in a temporary erroneous state by nature of being upside down. After all, I don't think the world has turned upside down yet.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 14, 2013, 01:44:49 PM
A friend of mine in Bristol, CT (a.k.a. ESPN Land) was in and around Newark, NJ the other day and made these comments to me:

BTW, I have no idea why I just remembered this, but I was heading from Newark over to Jersey City via NJ 7 on Wednesday, and there was construction afoot. But the sign warning me of a possible detour was a shield for *US* 7, which doesn't even go into New Jersey. How'd they get one? Wasn't expecting it, so didn't have the camera ready, but maybe one of your Road Geeks can check it out. This was at the end of EB 280, but instead of getting on the Turnpike, you take the last exit onto EB 508 for like a mile before it meets up with 7.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theline on April 15, 2013, 04:39:31 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 14, 2013, 11:42:30 AM
Va. 120 (North Glebe Road) northbound approaching Quebec Street.

A new bolt will probably fix this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2FCPZ%2FDSC01798Web.jpg&hash=ad2317a7359d7188b7b81387831c861e2508c9a1)
Cirque du Soleil crossing?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 15, 2013, 12:54:39 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on April 14, 2013, 01:21:30 PM
The first is in a temporary erroneous state by nature of being upside down. After all, I don't think the world has turned upside down yet.

VDOT's maintenance forces will get around to correcting the sign at some point (I did report it to them).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on April 15, 2013, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 15, 2013, 12:54:39 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on April 14, 2013, 01:21:30 PM
The first is in a temporary erroneous state by nature of being upside down. After all, I don't think the world has turned upside down yet.

VDOT's maintenance forces will get around to correcting the sign at some point (I did report it to them).

Does VDOT maintain that sign? That location is in Arlington County, which is one of the counties that maintains its own roads, although I know VDOT still maintains Interstates and "major primary roads" there. I don't know how they determine what constitutes a "major primary road" (aside from Route 50 surely qualifying).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 15, 2013, 07:28:35 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2013, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 15, 2013, 12:54:39 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on April 14, 2013, 01:21:30 PM
The first is in a temporary erroneous state by nature of being upside down. After all, I don't think the world has turned upside down yet.

VDOT's maintenance forces will get around to correcting the sign at some point (I did report it to them).

Does VDOT maintain that sign? That location is in Arlington County, which is one of the counties that maintains its own roads, although I know VDOT still maintains Interstates and "major primary roads" there. I don't know how they determine what constitutes a "major primary road" (aside from Route 50 surely qualifying).

VDOT maintains primary routes in Arlington County, yes. "Major primary road" = a primary route. The same is true in Henrico County.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 15, 2013, 07:39:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2013, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 15, 2013, 12:54:39 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on April 14, 2013, 01:21:30 PM
The first is in a temporary erroneous state by nature of being upside down. After all, I don't think the world has turned upside down yet.

VDOT's maintenance forces will get around to correcting the sign at some point (I did report it to them).

Does VDOT maintain that sign? That location is in Arlington County, which is one of the counties that maintains its own roads, although I know VDOT still maintains Interstates and "major primary roads" there. I don't know how they determine what constitutes a "major primary road" (aside from Route 50 surely qualifying).

As Will said, VDOT maintains anything that is numbered in Arlington County, with the exception of "secret" Va. 90005, the George Washington Memorial Parkway, which is maintained by the National Park Services.

Only "funny" variation of that is Va. 244 (Columbia Pike), which I believe has been decommissioned in Arlington County in preparation for the Columbia Pike Streetcar (which was recently denied discretionary New Starts program funding by the Federal Transit Administration).  The 244 shields along the Pike in Arlington County have been removed, though there are several of them at crossing state roads (the 2011 VDOT traffic count book implies that it is no longer on the state primary network in Arlington County, though it still is in Fairfax County).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on April 16, 2013, 06:36:07 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 15, 2013, 07:39:15 PM
Only "funny" variation of that is Va. 244 (Columbia Pike), which I believe has been decommissioned in Arlington County in preparation for the Columbia Pike Streetcar (which was recently denied discretionary New Starts program funding by the Federal Transit Administration).  The 244 shields along the Pike in Arlington County have been removed, though there are several of them at crossing state roads (the 2011 VDOT traffic count book implies that it is no longer on the state primary network in Arlington County, though it still is in Fairfax County).

0.37 miles of VA 244 at VA 27 are still maintained by VDOT, according to the traffic log.

I wonder if this sign is still up:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Foldsigns%2Fwhite244.jpg&hash=6453330f7321f1220935936722916a9be8122759)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on April 16, 2013, 09:16:31 AM
Where was that sign? I have Caps tickets tonight and I drive to games (picking up my wife en route), so I could look for it if it isn't too far out of the way and if I hit the road early enough.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on April 16, 2013, 12:17:26 PM
GMSV has been updated in that neighborhood from 4 years ago and it is still shown as standing as of June 2012.

It is on S. Highland St just east of VA 120.  This was part of a neighborhood clover at some point.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 16, 2013, 01:00:35 PM
that VA 244 looks to be old as dust.  I'm not sure what the relative history is between cutouts and white squares, but I know the 1964 Virginia MUTCD specified cutouts, and I've seen 50s photos of white squares.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on April 16, 2013, 01:15:44 PM
I don't know a definitive answer to your question but I do know that there were numerous white VA 44 shields which would've all been placed in very late 60s.

Then of course there is Roanoke who replaced all their cutouts with mini white shields in the early 90s.  The Alexandra 400 series routes from early 80s started out as white shields.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 16, 2013, 01:22:22 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 16, 2013, 01:15:44 PM
I don't know a definitive answer to your question but I do know that there were numerous white VA 44 shields which would've all been placed in very late 60s.

Then of course there is Roanoke who replaced all their cutouts with mini white shields in the early 90s.  The Alexandra 400 series routes from early 80s started out as white shields.

Mapmikey

indeed.  I bet that VA played fast and loose with the standards - as they do now, placing 16" black squares where 24" shields would rightly belong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on April 16, 2013, 02:11:06 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 16, 2013, 12:17:26 PM
GMSV has been updated in that neighborhood from 4 years ago and it is still shown as standing as of June 2012.

It is on S. Highland St just east of VA 120.  This was part of a neighborhood clover at some point.

Mapmikey

Thanks. Just west of the Cinema 'n Drafthouse, then. That's not far out of the way at all if I leave 15 or 20 minutes earlier. I'll try to swing through there this afternoon to see if it's there unless Brown's Hardware in Falls Church says they have the part I'm trying to find when I call them in a few minutes (in which case I won't be going anywhere near Columbia Pike).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on April 16, 2013, 03:47:54 PM
While check GMSV to see status of other cutouts, I wandered out SR 610 to see if any other white 610 shields existed in Big Stone Gap.

I found this, from Aug 2009.  Looks like a circle imposed onto an upside down state shield...

http://goo.gl/maps/Y6dzQ

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on April 16, 2013, 05:21:45 PM
The Highland Street sign was still there about 20 minutes ago:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FB434EF5B-AD97-4262-A04A-A3EDEEB27D71-8960-0000082C153E4F9B_zpsc87f6800.jpg&hash=fc13760188efd289c2095d84d031a84e531527ed)

There are some fairly old black-background 244 shields on southbound Glebe Road just north of Columbia Pike (prior to the shopping center where Brenner's Bakery used to be). I knew those were there previously but did not get a picture today because I was driving northbound and confirmed their continued existence by checking my mirrors.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on April 16, 2013, 09:01:28 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 16, 2013, 03:47:54 PM
While check GMSV to see status of other cutouts, I wandered out SR 610 to see if any other white 610 shields existed in Big Stone Gap.

I found this, from Aug 2009.  Looks like a circle imposed onto an upside down state shield...

http://goo.gl/maps/Y6dzQ

Mapmikey

Looks like a big fried egg, or a UT shield with bee colony collapse disorder :no:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on April 27, 2013, 07:24:17 PM
A Palm Beach County special:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2F20130427%2520Martin%2FIMG_1049_zps6ba7f287.jpg&hash=c476eaa3151f85133c9f962b943f6d3955fa77d0)

First, it's supposed to be US 98.  Second, the fastest way to US 98 is actually straight ahead about 1500 feet.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xcellntbuy on April 27, 2013, 08:37:52 PM
Despite the "FL 98" sign being incorrect, it is actually a better depiction of the State's outline.  There are many Florida outlines that look sloppy or just plain sad.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on April 27, 2013, 09:49:31 PM
^^ Yeah, it's a nice looking shield, but it's placement and the route it is referring to is wrong.  A case of precision lacking accuracy.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on April 29, 2013, 10:36:40 PM
Ready for a bunch of Hudson Valley/Catskill fail? Okay, here goes...

One of MANY NY 209 shields on US 209 between Port Jervis and Ellenville:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg855.imageshack.us%2Fimg855%2F1168%2Fimg0357kd.jpg&hash=883aeec13641708869e0901073de22cb4a3be872)

State routes all promoted to US:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg11.imageshack.us%2Fimg11%2F3686%2Fimg0460pl.jpg&hash=4be7d9684d1e583f151f00de23291eb741c83754)

More state routes all promoted to US:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg28.imageshack.us%2Fimg28%2F9616%2Fimg0463nmi.jpg&hash=4bc5727d02fd975f005d3c0931d75d453b315f4d)

The opposite problem:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg832.imageshack.us%2Fimg832%2F2508%2Fimg1955d.jpg&hash=b741977ef32401765111b814a79ad57b0cd5bbb2)

and finally...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg7.imageshack.us%2Fimg7%2F1297%2Fimg1873sb.jpg&hash=9655b7494e5c6febcdf92a2df396ecf124cddd38)
AAAAAGH! :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on April 29, 2013, 11:59:43 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 29, 2013, 10:36:40 PM
State routes all promoted to US:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg11.imageshack.us%2Fimg11%2F3686%2Fimg0460pl.jpg&hash=4be7d9684d1e583f151f00de23291eb741c83754)

Send it to Cincinnati!!!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on April 30, 2013, 12:37:59 AM
Yeah, that particular assembly doesn't look wrong to me as I drive on US 42 and US 52 frequently – and US 42 is N/S in Ohio to boot!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ap70621 on April 30, 2013, 01:12:02 AM
Knowing New York, it's probably just another version of their state shield. They have like 40.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on April 30, 2013, 03:24:00 AM
I don't recall seeing all those trees along Central Parkway.  I'll have to check soon to see if Cincinnati has razed all those buildings that used to be there. :D

There are some specific regions in New York State that have become very , shall I say, crappy at signage in the last few years.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on April 30, 2013, 10:33:31 AM
Should be VA 170. I'm not sure why Norfolk even has secondary shield stock.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-h9MCWRtGBYw/UX_QrX6dswI/AAAAAAAAGJs/7F5HcbE44VM/s640/IMG_1357.JPG)

This VA 403 reassurance shield is actually north of where VA 403 ends.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-MoJJtDb6nZ0/UX_PMadl0EI/AAAAAAAAGC8/ogEFHPf9mS4/s640/IMG_1297.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on April 30, 2013, 10:53:49 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 29, 2013, 10:36:40 PM
Ready for a bunch of Hudson Valley/Catskill fail? Okay, here goes...

One of MANY NY 209 shields on US 209 between Port Jervis and Ellenville:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg855.imageshack.us%2Fimg855%2F1168%2Fimg0357kd.jpg&hash=883aeec13641708869e0901073de22cb4a3be872)

No joke. I drove most all of 209 while in the area for the Monticello meet and saw a zillion 209 goofs.

Quote
State routes all promoted to US:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg11.imageshack.us%2Fimg11%2F3686%2Fimg0460pl.jpg&hash=4be7d9684d1e583f151f00de23291eb741c83754)

Where is that? I drove on NY 52 and NY 42 from Ellenville to Monticello, but somehow missed those.

Quote
More state routes all promoted to US:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg28.imageshack.us%2Fimg28%2F9616%2Fimg0463nmi.jpg&hash=4bc5727d02fd975f005d3c0931d75d453b315f4d)

A great find from the meet tour!

Quote
and finally...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg7.imageshack.us%2Fimg7%2F1297%2Fimg1873sb.jpg&hash=9655b7494e5c6febcdf92a2df396ecf124cddd38)
AAAAAGH! :ded:

If they change the I-17 to I-86, they'd solve part of the problem.  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on April 30, 2013, 12:01:20 PM
Quote from: Takumi on April 30, 2013, 10:33:31 AM
Should be VA 170. I'm not sure why Norfolk even has secondary shield stock.
This VA 403 reassurance shield is actually north of where VA 403 ends.

The VA 403 shield has been there at least 22 years.

My guess is Norfolk borrowed the circles from Virginia Beach :)
Actually, since Norfolk has a bunch of shields that are not correct shields in any part of Virginia, I'm guessing they have a contractor come up with shields whenever they want some and there is no "stock"

Mapmikey

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kj3400 on April 30, 2013, 01:09:32 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/xBn2c

I'm not sure what to make of this now, but at first I was like, 'No shit, MdDOT.'
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on May 01, 2013, 12:13:40 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 30, 2013, 12:01:20 PM
Actually, since Norfolk has a bunch of shields that are not correct shields in any part of Virginia, I'm guessing they have a contractor come up with shields whenever they want some and there is no "stock"
True. They've been consistent with that bizarre half-circle style and compressed Clearview in the past few years. I saw a VA 460 shield in that style and a set of US 168 trailblazers with the same font, but didn't get s chance to photograph either. For how many miles I drove Saturday (about 300) I didn't take many pictures...I think I had 125 or so and about 20 of them didn't turn out well. I was enjoying the drive more than anything else.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on May 01, 2013, 09:43:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 30, 2013, 10:53:49 AM
Where is that? I drove on NY 52 and NY 42 from Ellenville to Monticello, but somehow missed those.

Driving that route those shields would have been to your left, facing the side road. This assembly is facing NY 42 southbound at the northern T-intersection with NY 52 (here) (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=41.760124,-74.599103&ll=41.760108,-74.599099&spn=0.008099,0.021136&num=1&t=m&z=16).

Quote from: hbelkins on April 30, 2013, 10:53:49 AM
Quotehttp://img28.imageshack.us/img28/9616/img0463nmi.jpg
A great find from the meet tour!

Did you guys end up over there? I peeled off from the tour before the end. This photo is from a different trip on a different day.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 01, 2013, 10:03:34 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 01, 2013, 09:43:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 30, 2013, 10:53:49 AM
Quotehttp://img28.imageshack.us/img28/9616/img0463nmi.jpg
A great find from the meet tour!

Did you guys end up over there? I peeled off from the tour before the end. This photo is from a different trip on a different day.

Yeah, we went into town (Callicoon?) to see the bridge across the Delaware River and we all saw the signs up at the top of the hill. Adam assured us we'd be going by there to get photos of the sign goofs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 02, 2013, 02:33:17 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8702844326/in/photostream
One near Universal Studios in Orlando.  The pull through sign states that FL 435 turns left into Universal Studios, but does not!  I even brought it to FDOTs attention and they said the sign says "The sign simply states that FL 435 is straight and Universal Studios is the next left."

I do not know about you all, but this sign is worded  to me that both the route and destination are the next left.

Also in the same location you have another error with this next one.
You have this safety issue about only the one lane exiting exclusively for I-4 EAST, but the two right lanes are both exclusively for the upcoming exit.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8701722683/in/photostream/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on May 02, 2013, 04:26:03 PM
If there were a line separating "435 NORTH" from the "Universal Studios" portion of the sign, I might believe it was intended as a combination pull-through and exit sign. Those are annoying, too, but I've at least seen them done before.

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-mVZU6DaII3c/UGhIexbdA4I/AAAAAAAAB7s/Xp-vr1Kqiqc/s640/DSCN4193.JPG)

As it is, though, yeah, it pretty clearly implies that FL 435 is the next left.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 02, 2013, 04:29:27 PM
that 670/23 sign to me is just confusing.  upon first glance I'd think that 670/23 are multiplexed together as the mainline, and Fourth Street is an exit.  but then I'd realize "wait, crossbar" and wonder why "670 west" is being used as an exit tab.  only after that would I potentially parse it correctly. 

I've heard that in certain highly advanced societies, they have the technological know-how to put that information on two separate signs.  it may involve lasers.  or elves.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kj3400 on May 02, 2013, 04:42:20 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 02, 2013, 04:29:27 PM
that 670/23 sign to me is just confusing.  upon first glance I'd think that 670/23 are multiplexed together as the mainline, and Fourth Street is an exit.  but then I'd realize "wait, crossbar" and wonder why "670 west" is being used as an exit tab.  only after that would I potentially parse it correctly. 

I've heard that in certain highly advanced societies, they have the technological know-how to put that information on two separate signs.  it may involve lasers.  or elves.
Or Alanland sorcery.

[relevant]
I've never seen that in my travels though.
[/relevant]
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on May 02, 2013, 04:48:04 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 02, 2013, 04:29:27 PM
that 670/23 sign to me is just confusing.  upon first glance I'd think that 670/23 are multiplexed together as the mainline, and Fourth Street is an exit.  but then I'd realize "wait, crossbar" and wonder why "670 west" is being used as an exit tab.  only after that would I potentially parse it correctly. 

I've heard that in certain highly advanced societies, they have the technological know-how to put that information on two separate signs.  it may involve lasers.  or elves.

I think the problem is that, at least with the way the lanes were laid out at the time, having them as two separate signs could be misleading. Fourth Street is a right-hand exit, so its sign would have to be placed to the right of the I-670 pull-through. But having the I-670 pull-through at the far left would imply that the leftmost lane is a through lane, which it's not--there's a left-hand exit coming up very shortly.

Not that that makes the combined sign any less confusing, but...honestly, I have no idea what the ideal way to sign something like this would be.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kj3400 on May 02, 2013, 04:54:19 PM
Put up a diagrammatic sign maybe?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on May 02, 2013, 04:59:22 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 29, 2013, 10:36:40 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg7.imageshack.us%2Fimg7%2F1297%2Fimg1873sb.jpg&hash=9655b7494e5c6febcdf92a2df396ecf124cddd38)
AAAAAGH! :ded:

Gee, I always had an inkling that I-17 would be extened...BUT TO NEW YORK STATE?!  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 02, 2013, 05:33:27 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on May 02, 2013, 04:48:04 PMhonestly, I have no idea what the ideal way to sign something like this would be.

omit the pull-through?  use an independent-mount reassurance marker and banner pair if needed?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on May 02, 2013, 06:10:45 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 02, 2013, 05:33:27 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on May 02, 2013, 04:48:04 PMhonestly, I have no idea what the ideal way to sign something like this would be.

omit the pull-through?  use an independent-mount reassurance marker and banner pair if needed?

Use four signs: advance signage for left exit, pull through, US 23, I-71.

An arrow per lane diagrammatic involving all four of those things might also work.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 02, 2013, 06:16:07 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on May 02, 2013, 06:10:45 PM
Use four signs: advance signage for left exit, pull through, US 23, I-71.

An arrow per lane diagrammatic involving all four of those things might also work.

four signs, I think, would be a bit too confusing.  how absolutely necessary is the pull-through?  it seems like I am undervaluing it, while the prevailing opinion here is that it is a good idea. 

I'd go with either two or three signs: a 71, a 23, and maybe one for the left exit.

as for the arrow-per-lane: I personally think they work well for two branches being depicted, but for three or four I feel like they attempt to impart too much information in too little time.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on May 02, 2013, 09:52:08 PM
The left exit US 23 SOUTH, Third St, Convention Center. It's a lane-drop-with-option-lane, and I'm surprised there isn't a sign for it here.

ODOT has a well-established pattern of using pull-throughs at major system interchanges, and omitting it at this particular location could certainly cause some confusion about which way to continue on I-670.  This on a freeway leading directly away from the airport, too.

Were I designing the signs, I'd be tempted to break I-71 onto two panels, for north and south, making a total of 5 panels.  (The ramp to I-71 south also provides access to Cleveland Ave, ostensibly I-670's exit 4C, via Jack Gibbs Blvd.  Seems there should at least be an auxilliary guide sign for this somewhere on the mainline.)   But then, to save space, I'd move Fourth St into a "tab" above the 670 pull-through.  Remembering it also needs a US 23 shield, I'd then make something like an upsidedown version of the pictured combo sign, adding down arrows to the pull-thru panel which is now on the bottom.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on May 02, 2013, 10:30:23 PM
On PA 419 NB, near Rehrersburg (rare-ers-burg), there are two of those little control city/town signs for local roads with the same typo: Rehersburg. I'm guessing someone at the sign shop misheard it without the second R and nobody double-checked it. I'd think it's just any old typo if it wasn't on two separate signs.

They're also Clearview.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on May 02, 2013, 10:35:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 02, 2013, 02:33:17 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8702844326/in/photostream
One near Universal Studios in Orlando.  The pull through sign states that FL 435 turns left into Universal Studios, but does not!  I even brought it to FDOTs attention and they said the sign says "The sign simply states that FL 435 is straight and Universal Studios is the next left."

Sure seems to be enough room on the gantry for correct signage. With all of the foreign drivers near the theme parks, it should be a high priority to have very clear signage.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kurumi on May 03, 2013, 12:24:14 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 02, 2013, 04:59:22 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 29, 2013, 10:36:40 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg7.imageshack.us%2Fimg7%2F1297%2Fimg1873sb.jpg&hash=9655b7494e5c6febcdf92a2df396ecf124cddd38)
AAAAAGH! :ded:

Gee, I always had an inkling that I-17 would be extened...BUT TO NEW YORK STATE?!  :pan:

Change the I-84 to NY 84 and you'd have a trifecta of wrongness. Has there existed a sign that has the state, US and Interstate marker wrong?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Molandfreak on May 03, 2013, 12:42:05 AM
Quote from: kurumi on May 03, 2013, 12:24:14 AM
Change the I-84 to NY 84 and you'd have a trifecta of wrongness. Has there existed a sign that has the state, US and Interstate marker wrong?
Add county and township to that, and you've got one heck of a problem!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 03, 2013, 06:32:52 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/QV0oF

This isn't nearly as cool as the US 99 shield downtown, so I have no qualms about showing off my analness and posting this once-correct sign here.  The road in question hasn't been SR 900 for 21 years.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on May 03, 2013, 09:19:13 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 03, 2013, 06:32:52 PM
I have no qualms about showing off my analness
The word is anality.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 03, 2013, 10:07:00 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 03, 2013, 09:19:13 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 03, 2013, 06:32:52 PM
I have no qualms about showing off my analness
The word is anality.
NE2 also has no qualms about showing off his anality.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on May 04, 2013, 12:23:54 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 03, 2013, 10:07:00 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 03, 2013, 09:19:13 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 03, 2013, 06:32:52 PM
I have no qualms about showing off my analness
The word is anality.
NE2 also has no qualms about showing off his anality.

Or any alanality.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Darkchylde on May 04, 2013, 07:28:01 PM
...I didn't know US 350 went to Kansas City!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCuazLkDl.jpg&hash=5ca94407a3b91c891987a45baed801b4423f350d) (http://imgur.com/CuazLkD)

Found along I-470 Eastbound today. It's supposed to lead to MO 350.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on May 05, 2013, 04:05:50 AM
Mama Mia, thats'a spicy detour!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 11, 2013, 05:42:30 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Florence,+Florence+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.101956,-74.786281&spn=0.003709,0.010267&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.70927,21.027832&oq=florence,+nj&t=h&hnear=Florence,+Florence+Township,+Burlington,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.101956,-74.786281&panoid=IUUf0yJAM8Lh612wiQ9Wlw&cbp=12,190.24,,0,-22.5

This is on the US 130 ramp to the NJ Turnpike Pearl Harbor Extension in Florence, NJ.  Even though the extension is E-W, the Turnpike is not and the sign for the left should read both Turnpike North and South and the sign on the right should be Pennsylvania Turnpike West or just plain Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 12, 2013, 01:28:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 11, 2013, 05:42:30 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Florence,+Florence+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.101956,-74.786281&spn=0.003709,0.010267&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.70927,21.027832&oq=florence,+nj&t=h&hnear=Florence,+Florence+Township,+Burlington,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.101956,-74.786281&panoid=IUUf0yJAM8Lh612wiQ9Wlw&cbp=12,190.24,,0,-22.5

This is on the US 130 ramp to the NJ Turnpike Pearl Harbor Extension in Florence, NJ.  Even though the extension is E-W, the Turnpike is not and the sign for the left should read both Turnpike North and South and the sign on the right should be Pennsylvania Turnpike West or just plain Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Won't that have to get re-signed as I-95 North (for the "East" direction) and I-95 South (for "West") in the relatively near future?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on May 12, 2013, 04:12:03 PM
Since there are no other exits on the PA Spur, it should just be signed "PA Turnpike" for westbound and "New Jersey Turnpike" for eastbound, of course with blank spots for I-95 shields (and maybe TO I-276 ones too for westbound).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on May 13, 2013, 08:32:23 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 11, 2013, 05:42:30 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Florence,+Florence+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.101956,-74.786281&spn=0.003709,0.010267&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.70927,21.027832&oq=florence,+nj&t=h&hnear=Florence,+Florence+Township,+Burlington,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.101956,-74.786281&panoid=IUUf0yJAM8Lh612wiQ9Wlw&cbp=12,190.24,,0,-22.5

This is on the US 130 ramp to the NJ Turnpike Pearl Harbor Extension in Florence, NJ.  Even though the extension is E-W, the Turnpike is not and the sign for the left should read both Turnpike North and South and the sign on the right should be Pennsylvania Turnpike West or just plain Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Given the fact that the extension is indeed part of the NJ Turnpike system itself; the E-W cardinals likely reflect such.  It's considered a branch-off/spur not unlike the Exit 14-14A-14B-14C Newark-Bayonne spur (I-78 East of the mainline NJTP/I-95) further north.

Quote from: Roadsguy on May 12, 2013, 04:12:03 PM
Since there are no other exits on the PA Spur, it should just be signed "PA Turnpike" for westbound and "New Jersey Turnpike" for eastbound, of course with blank spots for I-95 shields (and maybe TO I-276 ones too for westbound).
Agree 100%.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 13, 2013, 08:44:32 AM
I noticed as well that the sign states "Del. Mem. Bridge".  Are the signs on this ramp the only ones in the state that actually spell out "Bridge" rather than "Br." when the rest of name is abbrevated?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 13, 2013, 08:52:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 13, 2013, 08:44:32 AM
I noticed as well that the sign states "Del. Mem. Bridge".  Are the signs on this ramp the only ones in the state that actually spell out "Bridge" rather than "Br." when the rest of name is abbrevated?
I never noticed that when I was looking at it, but I was intrigued that it was mentioned at all considering that "Camden" was always used at the Exit 6 Interchange proper for the SB Turnpike mainline.

Interesting though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on May 13, 2013, 11:23:14 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 13, 2013, 08:52:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 13, 2013, 08:44:32 AM
I noticed as well that the sign states "Del. Mem. Bridge".  Are the signs on this ramp the only ones in the state that actually spell out "Bridge" rather than "Br." when the rest of name is abbrevated?
I never noticed that when I was looking at it, but I was intrigued that it was mentioned at all considering that "Camden" was always used at the Exit 6 Interchange proper for the SB Turnpike mainline.

Interesting though.
Guess on my part but the likely reason for not including Camden on that particular interchange BGS is due to US 130 also heads towards Camden as well.  Let's be honest, unless there's a serious traffic issue/road closure w/either US 130 or nearby I-295; nobody from the Bordentown/Florence area (where the interchange is located) is going to use the NJ Turnpike to head towards Camden.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on May 13, 2013, 09:20:21 PM
A couple of new sign errors near Henryetta, OK:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7283%2F8736184767_d0306066ef_c.jpg&hash=d9a191273d0e543f4afcbb169f09e17a1d86a641) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8736184767/)
DSC02183 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8736184767/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7288%2F8736211523_7b981a79b6_c.jpg&hash=4c83440338ee37e05c2d08813b24b26ed3a58dbb) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8736211523/)
DSC02257 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8736211523/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 16, 2013, 04:17:12 PM
Just as you cross into Ohio from Indiana on US 50, you're greeted with this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7281%2F8742403806_65347b9912.jpg&hash=14f38d281c82fadac9e04ad177a4398b3c72288f) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/8742403806/)
IMG_2791 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/8742403806/) by hbelkins (http://www.flickr.com/people/hbelkins/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on May 16, 2013, 04:27:59 PM
And it's the fugly variant too...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on May 16, 2013, 04:39:20 PM
That's just Ohio with bed head.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on May 16, 2013, 04:40:28 PM
However, it is a fairly accurate Ohio outline, unlike the typical Ohio state route shield which makes the northeast corner of the state as far south a Toledo.  The only problem is, this is US-50.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on May 17, 2013, 02:33:42 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 16, 2013, 04:40:28 PM
However, it is a fairly accurate Ohio outline, unlike the typical Ohio state route shield which makes the northeast corner of the state as far south a Toledo. 

No, not quite.  In the "standard"* outline, Toledo is about an inch south of Conneaut.  Plus, in this "bedhead" outline, the Ohio River looks like some cheap cartoonish lineart, with cusps in strange places, and then it melts seamlessly into the Pennsylvania border, which continues to curve all the way up to Lake Erie.  And in the northwest part of the state, it looks as if Michigan won the Toledo War.  I'll concede that the overall shape of the Ohio River is slightly better represented in the "bedhead" version, but that's not a good thing; it leaves less room for a number that way.

*It's debatable as to whether there is a "standard" shape for Ohio state route markers.  Of course there's the Sign Design Manual, which offers third-generation or worse Xerox copies of drawings against a grid, with no dimensions at all, but otherwise thorough, with separate drawings for 2- vs 3-digit and independent mount vs guide sign uses.  On the other hand, there's the Ohio MUTCD, which says somewhere "The correct design of an Ohio state route marker can be found on page XX"; turning to that page, there's a fairly small example of a 2-digit route marker that looks like it was drawn quickly without even trying to capture the details present in the SDM drawings or most existing signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 17, 2013, 03:55:31 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 17, 2013, 02:33:42 PMit looks as if Michigan won the Toledo War.

Some would argue that Michigan DID win that war!  :-D :-D :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on May 17, 2013, 04:03:09 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 17, 2013, 03:55:31 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 17, 2013, 02:33:42 PMit looks as if Michigan won the Toledo War.

Some would argue that Michigan DID win that war!  :-D :-D :-D

We lost Toledo and gained the Upper Peninsula.  The sole loser, I guess, was Wisconsin, and that depends upon how much of a prize you consider Toledo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on May 17, 2013, 04:58:02 PM
I just saw a construction sign at the exit from I-95 south to US 90 EAST just south of downtown Jacksonville.  Had a blue US 90 shield.. but it looked more like a Quebec Autoroute sign than a US highway sign

At least it was a colored correctly, I will try and get a pic sometime but real unsafe to stop... no shoulder due to construction
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on May 17, 2013, 08:32:13 PM
I have a relatively old digital camera that's been pretty good for roadgeek photos. Set it in "shutter priority" mode, set shutter speed to 1/500 (then aperture is chosen automatically), set focus at infinity, and I can snap clear photos of signs while whizzing by at freeway speed.  I'm not sure if this is a typical feature of contemporary point-and-shoot cameras...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on May 17, 2013, 11:32:08 PM
The exit tabs are switched here (Exit 151B is I-35 South, Exit 151C is I-235 North). Pic taken by me on 5-11-13:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7281%2F8737304320_bdbb539f29_c.jpg&hash=d8015e23dab8b548581dd19269a683e16402cc44) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8737304320/)
DSC02179 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8737304320/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr

What's even more baffling is that these exit tabs were correct back in December (pic taken by me on 12-13-12):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8486%2F8271207108_874032ab5b_c.jpg&hash=12ee03d58b3eeb8ac7e3a554931e6e2184748af3) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8271207108/)
DSC04943 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/8271207108/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on May 19, 2013, 02:05:55 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 17, 2013, 08:32:13 PM
I have a relatively old digital camera that's been pretty good for roadgeek photos. Set it in "shutter priority" mode, set shutter speed to 1/500 (then aperture is chosen automatically), set focus at infinity, and I can snap clear photos of signs while whizzing by at freeway speed.  I'm not sure if this is a typical feature of contemporary point-and-shoot cameras...
I've only had my camera for what, 2, 3 years now, and I never thought of just setting it up that way (variance for shutter speed depending on weather/lighting) and not having to worry about it focusing each time. Genius.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on May 19, 2013, 02:52:13 PM
Seems like most cameras that aren't too old should be able to pull off 1/500 even in twilight or under heavy clouds, by opening up the aperture and cranking the ISO way up.  (Mine only goes to 400, and it's kind of grainy at that, but it's at least 10 years old.)  But yeah, slowing the shutter is reasonable, especially if you're good at tracking the subject's motion.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on May 19, 2013, 05:18:24 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 17, 2013, 08:32:13 PM
I have a relatively old digital camera that's been pretty good for roadgeek photos. Set it in "shutter priority" mode, set shutter speed to 1/500 (then aperture is chosen automatically), set focus at infinity, and I can snap clear photos of signs while whizzing by at freeway speed.

That's good idea. I should try that.

Only problem is, my camera has this annoying habit of resetting the focus to default every time the camera is turned off/on. So unless I'm taking multiple pictures in rapid succession I have to change the focus back to infinity before each one. Fortunately my camera has a dial ring on the front that I can set to control the focus so this can be done quickly.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on May 19, 2013, 08:30:32 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 19, 2013, 02:52:13 PM
Seems like most cameras that aren't too old should be able to pull off 1/500 even in twilight or under heavy clouds, by opening up the aperture and cranking the ISO way up.  (Mine only goes to 400, and it's kind of grainy at that, but it's at least 10 years old.)  But yeah, slowing the shutter is reasonable, especially if you're good at tracking the subject's motion.
I feel pretty good down to about 1/60 with motion, though I'd prefer 1/100. In full sunlight, 1/1000 or even 1/1600 work just fine.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on May 20, 2013, 04:26:55 AM
I use 1/500 or even 1/640, if lighting permits. It depends how far away your subject matter is and how fast you are going. 1/250 or even as slow as 1/60 is fine for objects that are distant and far in front of you (skylines, distant scenery). There's not much to be gained from shooting at 1/1000, unless you're capturing something that is 90 degrees away from the side of the moving vehicle. At that point, you're usually trading sharpness for image grainyness.

I'll shoot 95-99% of the time with shutter priority; but this depends on:
- Which lens I'm using. For example, if I'm using the prime 50mm lens, then manual mode, because f/1.8-2.8 lends tricky-to-get results in a moving vehicle.
- If there's lots of contrast, the light meter may cause under/over-exposures. I try to force manual mode at that point, but something that balances.
- Looking for more bokeh when shooting from outdoors/up-close, then aperture priority.

Of course, this all depends on how much creative control your camera and/or equipment permits.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WichitaRoads on May 21, 2013, 12:39:04 AM
All of this seems rather off-topic... new thread perhaps?

ICTRds
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 29, 2013, 02:37:02 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8880906087/

Here is one in Lakeland, FL along FL 570 Eastbound with a regular FL 570 shield attached in error on the pull through sign here.  In Florida, the general rule is that Toll roads get a special FL Toll Route shield.  Once in a while you encounter these, but usually from old before the toll shields were adopted.  This was signed rather recently and, of course, the FL 570 was opened to traffic after the shields were put out in the field.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on May 29, 2013, 05:04:49 PM
I'd say that's pretty nitpicky.  I mean, they signed FL-570 as FL-570, after all.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on June 04, 2013, 04:28:39 PM
Another 3-digit US 36 shield has appeared in Petersburg.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/965997_10201198317581263_103001756_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 04, 2013, 04:49:25 PM
Is that not supposed to be US-36?  Or is it another case of highway XXX signed as highway XXX being "erroneous"?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 04, 2013, 05:02:57 PM
it's VA-36.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 04, 2013, 05:06:01 PM
Thanks for the info.  I didn't even know what state the sign was in.  :-|
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on June 11, 2013, 10:52:47 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2819%2F9022506886_e9d8e0389e_c.jpg&hash=d0ea5b1bc05db89f7d74cf1b6261edfc3d7ab653) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/9022506886/)
DSC02339 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/9022506886/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr

Photo taken by me just east of the U.S. 75/OK 117 interchange on 6-7-13
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: codyg1985 on June 12, 2013, 07:56:28 AM
^ Either this would be appropriate in a DDI interchange gone wrong, or in Britain.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: DSS5 on June 12, 2013, 03:22:39 PM
Quote from: okroads on June 11, 2013, 10:52:47 PMPhoto taken by me just east of the U.S. 75/OK 117 interchange on 6-7-13

Looks like it may have been hung upside down. Perhaps the guy who did it was from a country where they drive on the left.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on June 12, 2013, 07:04:13 PM
Quote from: DSS5 on June 12, 2013, 03:22:39 PM
Quote from: okroads on June 11, 2013, 10:52:47 PMPhoto taken by me just east of the U.S. 75/OK 117 interchange on 6-7-13

Looks like it may have been hung upside down. Perhaps the guy who did it was from a country where they drive on the left.
No, not upside down. It's printed backwards.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on June 12, 2013, 10:28:42 PM
A double example of that sign, not backwards but upside-down, can be found on southbound Plain City — Georgesville Road cum OH-142, just before and after the interchange with I-70 in Madison County, Ohio.  On the 2-lane road, the driver sees a W6-2 (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2c_05_longdesc.htm) or upside-down W6-1 (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2c_05_longdesc.htm) warning sign.  The 2-lane road becomes a divided 4-lane road.  After the I-70 junction, the driver sees a W6-1 (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2c_05_longdesc.htm) or upside-down W6-2 (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2c_05_longdesc.htm) warning sign.  Then the 4-lane divided highway becomes a 2-lane road again.

Google Street View imagery is too old to show the erroneous signs.  In fact, it's too old to show the improved 2-lane/4-lane transition on the south end.




Further north, there's a W2-7L (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2c_09_longdesc.htm) that looks more like a Tetris block than a pair of intersections.  Probably belongs in Signs With Design Errors, though I haven't got a picture and it's much too recent for GSV.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 12, 2013, 11:59:26 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2Fslippery.jpg&hash=d9514f7300b60554593a75a1e07d4d4297297c2f)

This has been up about four miles from where I live for at least 13 years.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 13, 2013, 09:23:23 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 12, 2013, 11:59:26 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2Fslippery.jpg&hash=d9514f7300b60554593a75a1e07d4d4297297c2f)

This has been up about four miles from where I live for at least 13 years.

No that is a new "Drivers-who-don't-wear-a-seat-belt-and-skid-out-of-control-may-be-thrown-from-their-vehicle-leaving-their-passenger-helpless" sign.  :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on June 13, 2013, 09:24:14 AM
Quote from: okroads on June 11, 2013, 10:52:47 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2819%2F9022506886_e9d8e0389e_c.jpg&hash=d0ea5b1bc05db89f7d74cf1b6261edfc3d7ab653) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/9022506886/)
DSC02339 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/9022506886/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr

Photo taken by me just east of the U.S. 75/OK 117 interchange on 6-7-13
Quote from: hbelkins on June 12, 2013, 11:59:26 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2Fslippery.jpg&hash=d9514f7300b60554593a75a1e07d4d4297297c2f)

This has been up about four miles from where I live for at least 13 years.

Where was this contractor from, the U.S. Virgin Islands?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 13, 2013, 12:40:44 PM
^^^^
Nope, done by state forces.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on June 13, 2013, 09:36:18 PM
I remember as a kid I thought those signs looked like a car bouncing on giant springs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on June 16, 2013, 09:05:46 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F0%2F0f%2FWrong_Way_Reversed_Colors_sign%2528Patchogue%252C_New_York%2529.JPG&hash=f85f791ed021934af69fd62add6cc619b39916c0)

Perkins Union red-on-white Wrong Way sign...in New York? :eyebrow: da fuq? I didn't think it'd make it in real life. I just happen to think red-on-white parking restriction signs, but a Wrong Way sign? Bizarre to say the least.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on June 16, 2013, 09:58:32 PM
But the message of the sign is correct. I think this goes in Signs with Design Errors.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: nyratk1 on June 17, 2013, 06:18:16 AM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on June 16, 2013, 09:05:46 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F0%2F0f%2FWrong_Way_Reversed_Colors_sign%2528Patchogue%252C_New_York%2529.JPG&hash=f85f791ed021934af69fd62add6cc619b39916c0)

Perkins Union red-on-white Wrong Way sign...in New York? :eyebrow: da fuq? I didn't think it'd make it in real life. I just happen to think red-on-white parking restriction signs, but a Wrong Way sign? Bizarre to say the least.

I knew I recognized the location - Church Street in Patchogue.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on June 17, 2013, 09:42:06 AM
We went out to one of the wineries in Virginia on Saturday and on the way home Ms1995hoo suggested we go up to Harpers Ferry since neither of us had been there in many years (this proved to be a mistake due to horrendous traffic). En route I noted the sign seen below on US-340 in West Virginia between Charles Town and Harpers Ferry; the sign is about a mile west of the turn for the national historic park and there's another similar sign visible up that hill in the distance. It's erroneous because the road is not a "freeway" at all except insofar as the road's memorial name is Something-or-Other Freeway. Note the at-grade intersection up ahead. The road has a bunch of traffic lights in the Charles Town area, but the businesses are all on frontage roads so I guess the term "expressway" would be appropriate. I suppose, though, that this is an example how in this part of the country the word "expressway" is usually understood to mean the type of road the MUTCD calls a "freeway."

After the "freeway" ends, it narrows down to a two-lane road to descend to the bridge over the Shenandoah River and continues as a two-lane road through a tiny piece of Virginia.

(Picture is from AARoads.com. I was driving my wife's car and so didn't want to mess with a camera because she doesn't like it when I do that.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/west_virginia200/us-340_nb_app_cr-027_03.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on June 17, 2013, 02:11:41 PM
So going around town yesterday and I stumbled upon this sign error on the US-101 onramp from Laurel Road here in Salinas. I don't have a picture of it, so I'll just describe it using two other pictures of mine.

It is basically this sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7386%2F9067669003_f0fb4da85a_c.jpg&hash=e86a064163bedfe4deb2878b6f49276a5b3cb67d)

Where this old gem once stood:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7360%2F9067659425_92f567176f_c.jpg&hash=2abcf8b3d7825277add65b1ce5d8b987574cf012)

Yes, I typed that correctly, a CA-1 directional sign on a US-101 onramp. Fail.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 17, 2013, 02:17:39 PM
does the freeway entrance gantry still have a US-101 shield?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on June 17, 2013, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 17, 2013, 02:17:39 PM
does the freeway entrance gantry still have a US-101 shield?

Yes. Yes it does.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on June 17, 2013, 02:33:39 PM
Er... that first photo is on Del Monte at SR 1 in (?) Monterey.
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=36.603557,-121.863055&spn=0.01571,0.033023&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=36.603606,-121.862963&panoid=_N1sAePg0h5OKP5weWCVjQ&cbp=12,52.28,,0,-0.06

Oops. I missed the part about it being a different location.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Thing 342 on June 17, 2013, 09:50:09 PM
This one has been wrong for at least ten years (It should say VA 171). First it was a circular secondary shield, but a few years ago, a car ran into it and they replaced it with this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iaza.com%2Fwork%2F130618C%2Fiaza11381076164300.png&hash=d37375da07b368366de0bb42343de5c459337d44)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on June 18, 2013, 03:43:22 AM
At least they followed the 70-spec US route design correctly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on June 18, 2013, 08:50:38 AM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on June 17, 2013, 02:11:41 PM
So going around town yesterday and I stumbled upon this sign error on the US-101 onramp from Laurel Road here in Salinas. I don't have a picture of it, so I'll just describe it using two other pictures of mine.

It is basically this sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7386%2F9067669003_f0fb4da85a_c.jpg&hash=e86a064163bedfe4deb2878b6f49276a5b3cb67d)

Where this old gem once stood:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7360%2F9067659425_92f567176f_c.jpg&hash=2abcf8b3d7825277add65b1ce5d8b987574cf012)

Yes, I typed that correctly, a CA-1 directional sign on a US-101 onramp. Fail.

The county must have been lazy.   Do you think it's a recycled sign?  Perhaps an accident caused the sign to need a quick replace, and the county or CalTrans didn't pay attention? 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: elsmere241 on June 18, 2013, 10:05:58 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2013, 09:42:06 AM
We went out to one of the wineries in Virginia on Saturday and on the way home Ms1995hoo suggested we go up to Harpers Ferry since neither of us had been there in many years (this proved to be a mistake due to horrendous traffic). En route I noted the sign seen below on US-340 in West Virginia between Charles Town and Harpers Ferry; the sign is about a mile west of the turn for the national historic park and there's another similar sign visible up that hill in the distance. It's erroneous because the road is not a "freeway" at all except insofar as the road's memorial name is Something-or-Other Freeway. Note the at-grade intersection up ahead. The road has a bunch of traffic lights in the Charles Town area, but the businesses are all on frontage roads so I guess the term "expressway" would be appropriate. I suppose, though, that this is an example how in this part of the country the word "expressway" is usually understood to mean the type of road the MUTCD calls a "freeway."

After the "freeway" ends, it narrows down to a two-lane road to descend to the bridge over the Shenandoah River and continues as a two-lane road through a tiny piece of Virginia.

(Picture is from AARoads.com. I was driving my wife's car and so didn't want to mess with a camera because she doesn't like it when I do that.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/west_virginia200/us-340_nb_app_cr-027_03.jpg)
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2013, 09:42:06 AM
We went out to one of the wineries in Virginia on Saturday and on the way home Ms1995hoo suggested we go up to Harpers Ferry since neither of us had been there in many years (this proved to be a mistake due to horrendous traffic). En route I noted the sign seen below on US-340 in West Virginia between Charles Town and Harpers Ferry; the sign is about a mile west of the turn for the national historic park and there's another similar sign visible up that hill in the distance. It's erroneous because the road is not a "freeway" at all except insofar as the road's memorial name is Something-or-Other Freeway. Note the at-grade intersection up ahead. The road has a bunch of traffic lights in the Charles Town area, but the businesses are all on frontage roads so I guess the term "expressway" would be appropriate. I suppose, though, that this is an example how in this part of the country the word "expressway" is usually understood to mean the type of road the MUTCD calls a "freeway."

After the "freeway" ends, it narrows down to a two-lane road to descend to the bridge over the Shenandoah River and continues as a two-lane road through a tiny piece of Virginia.

(Picture is from AARoads.com. I was driving my wife's car and so didn't want to mess with a camera because she doesn't like it when I do that.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/west_virginia200/us-340_nb_app_cr-027_03.jpg)

Going south on US 340 in that area I remember seeing several signs like that: "Freeway Ends 1 Mile" and a mile later there would be a light; right away, "Freeway Ends 2 Miles" and then there would be a light after two miles, etc.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on June 18, 2013, 01:20:17 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 17, 2013, 09:50:09 PM
This one has been wrong for at least ten years (It should say VA 171). First it was a circular secondary shield, but a few years ago, a car ran into it and they replaced it...

Downgraded, then upgraded, cosmic balance has been achieved.

It had better be a good sign in this iteration, or it will be humbled to Frontage road status. :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on June 18, 2013, 01:49:06 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on June 18, 2013, 08:50:38 AM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on June 17, 2013, 02:11:41 PM
So going around town yesterday and I stumbled upon this sign error on the US-101 onramp from Laurel Road here in Salinas. I don't have a picture of it, so I'll just describe it using two other pictures of mine.

It is basically this sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7386%2F9067669003_f0fb4da85a_c.jpg&hash=e86a064163bedfe4deb2878b6f49276a5b3cb67d)

Where this old gem once stood:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7360%2F9067659425_92f567176f_c.jpg&hash=2abcf8b3d7825277add65b1ce5d8b987574cf012)

Yes, I typed that correctly, a CA-1 directional sign on a US-101 onramp. Fail.

The county must have been lazy.   Do you think it's a recycled sign?  Perhaps an accident caused the sign to need a quick replace, and the county or CalTrans didn't pay attention? 

I am not entirely sure how the old sign disappeared. That thing's been gone for months and it was only recently (just this Sunday) that I was surprised to see the erroneous sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 22, 2013, 05:35:33 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Harriman,+NY&hl=en&ll=41.322138,-74.083192&spn=0.007848,0.021136&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.387783,21.643066&oq=harrim&t=h&hnear=Harriman,+Orange,+New+York&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.322117,-74.083059&panoid=_oAnK39nDGklUZidAaXEoQ&cbp=12,315,,0,0

Should be US 6 and not NY 6.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: sp_redelectric on June 23, 2013, 11:56:32 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2013, 09:42:06 AM(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/west_virginia200/us-340_nb_app_cr-027_03.jpg)

At least there is a sign.  At the western end of the "freeway" of U.S. 26 between North Plains and Banks, there is an exit for Dersham Road, then the road splits for Oregon 6 and U.S. 26 (both of which continue west as two-lane, undivided highways).  Just before the split is an at-grade intersection for Mountaindale Road (http://maps.google.com/?ll=45.614563,-123.060565&spn=0.00003,0.037808&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=45.614639,-123.060764&panoid=JjqRd_oC9A2m05eVsaeq_g&cbp=12,309.44,,0,-1.48).  At no point is there an "Freeway Ends" sign

On Oregon 217, there is a "Freeway Ends" sign northbound at the U.S. 26 split (http://maps.google.com/?ll=45.507745,-122.778815&spn=0.000015,0.018904&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=45.507931,-122.778651&panoid=JAJYKuP3mLfMXkMxvEC3LQ&cbp=12,22.69,,0,2.22), even though two of the four routes (the two main routes, mind you) both are freeway-to-freeway ramps from 217 to U.S. 26.  But at the southbound end, where the mainline goes to a traffic light for the I-5 southbound off-ramp (http://maps.google.com/?ll=45.422447,-122.747412&spn=0.00003,0.037808&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=45.422596,-122.747555&panoid=9ck-CgIzE5jMFIubNS9ebQ&cbp=12,134.17,,0,5.81), there is no "Freeway Ends" sign - the light is even located behind an overpass structure and is difficult to see, especially at 55 MPH to come to a complete stop.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: sp_redelectric on June 25, 2013, 04:00:25 PM
One of my favorite "error" signs... (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Portland,+OR&hl=en&ll=45.453527,-122.721738&spn=0.003896,0.0036&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=50.224048,58.974609&t=h&hnear=Portland,+Multnomah,+Oregon&z=18&layer=c&cbll=45.453529,-122.721849&panoid=33zle6cvc5CqBFkzWC-BuQ&cbp=12,215.35,,2,-24.36)

The sign is located on S.W. Barbur Boulevard/Oregon 99W...but it's well over a mile outside of Tigard city limits, and definitely more than a mile from Tigard city center.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on June 25, 2013, 04:06:53 PM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on June 25, 2013, 04:00:25 PM
One of my favorite "error" signs... (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Portland,+OR&hl=en&ll=45.453527,-122.721738&spn=0.003896,0.0036&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=50.224048,58.974609&t=h&hnear=Portland,+Multnomah,+Oregon&z=18&layer=c&cbll=45.453529,-122.721849&panoid=33zle6cvc5CqBFkzWC-BuQ&cbp=12,215.35,,2,-24.36)

The sign is located on S.W. Barbur Boulevard/Oregon 99W...but it's well over a mile outside of Tigard city limits, and definitely more than a mile from Tigard city center.
1.4 miles to the entering Tigard sign just past 65th.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 01, 2013, 10:01:30 PM
US Route 120? I guess if NY 120A and CT 120A are nearby...make something up.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VZsE1BJpmDf65EwCjWHFrlj5uAFQDpXbqMrzOrAma5j3bI6_Mpvva4IyH3DuxPBvawkPL2ygmzLgj6uRRgACEnPCqok2anhBiHwYZeHKvkeN85bP_crRwt5rFZj2bCBaq6ieWBjNCdln_Xca2aXA9SZRXAremwg280EzPBnUar8TSAnyv6SyYMAEUa_ITi2_DFVngayijsFWdxFtjpgdTo3dRMCfQclMlM6LCpz2yj5vg2rXmW9ZPXMTmRsnCvJEmKTN-7oqWCiUQD-QbQdwXQnYZ7DvxISYTiEm8Ns85sant7IV20muTMWATHtQ-ZRDIVs33_T_ieiOeOjl4fgfGU9z-4LFZ_bzo0-ozzbqinXT2B6nbBR2yE7PxQwJ8WPchIM3uc5wyFlmRij3QFi5-hYZ2r8uKU06iG-HnGTQZew6umy6b9fv5RwKshi7reHztRewuQ_-u2TOYP9MShfot7eTcPrOduPmOIU6I_M-ZPp0y-iWT_OF3wKIdBFok2yqDooJMPW-r1x7Q4QwaMj3VSOT5pWx5uRG_GmgOAZjfzo0IzwZq88oQxSCOq95qcoMpExBEG3A_rUraWfl9CWlOQ-2Yr15x7amHjskUkHFeqE19YV5Lcv5fIuPoEeUNjViIbgSpobYOMopTjp70Y2xQQxuUg=w1199-h799-no)

Hangard.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/eAvcpBubinYF29tNHP7fBnrCTANc9CpgG9ZHz2uxCnYI4Imp-CCR-hLdxqPIk7v0bfbASkFS2TVb-T7EBJPQ7AYoTJNkXMLD8Le0rogBxuRv_LZ5J4pKjE9R_Btsc09aoJ0BNVz_2XjPveDYS3vSkDbCW1eejH9w_DKWtkIdA3Sm1IIgDHByfzj1oqmhzW8mQOefePN88Ebwneq3Y7uo160vEd3AAY5MB4RJJT0guhJaqv2j_AS-KOXmGCn-08UAtj2Cc11jP-p6daWf2edAPULQF_J-gATFGdDwC7O1gh6DzDz0dkAsAgaamTga53-aEZMNPJpaGT2uni6KjbJKLSrLjlTMGtXFfcPz9nEXf9HXIYA6T87oKkvvN64bRz_jj3hv4Tz98Vvt5_Djwjsp-lnGVRzlHlD2Txzw9YdV_-x80dUoc1V1SZEZ8wkY05JieF_SV-zqzWpwhiKSbfCIM4yl-UnyUjIEkpQaUkvPsPvy9717STQXWWV5gN63zPOWu9VxB60hRdGvJ01MQkuGr3698XF7Blcc_12SbfG7pUQ1ZvlDuEdIsKcL5G3wKuI_lam-Mf7d-nTtpnQ5u90jZMyeaP_i-S_bvAYoe5fKjKP8CytZkQCqdHmLvYs8wnnIXqjnx006mwkMeCnmepMMLinX6w=w800-h533-no)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on July 01, 2013, 11:00:37 PM
Awful fonts on those first two, as well as horrible Interstate shields... "Worst of" candidates...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on July 02, 2013, 01:14:49 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 01, 2013, 11:00:37 PM
Awful fonts on those first two, as well as horrible Interstate shields... "Worst of" candidates...
The fonts aren't so bad; it's just that the letters are needlessly squeezed together.

I agree that the I-684 shields on the first two pics are horrid IMHO; the on on the 3rd pic. isn't too bad.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on July 02, 2013, 01:37:36 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 01, 2013, 10:01:30 PM
US Route 120? I guess if NY 120A and CT 120A are nearby...make something up.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2FUS120-Int684-HPN-KingStreetMerritt.jpg&hash=66d60ec70fba5215d18066bc9501ba685c089213)

How do Interstate shields get mutilated so bad...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ET21 on July 02, 2013, 03:09:29 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on July 02, 2013, 01:37:36 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 01, 2013, 10:01:30 PM
US Route 120? I guess if NY 120A and CT 120A are nearby...make something up.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2FUS120-Int684-HPN-KingStreetMerritt.jpg&hash=66d60ec70fba5215d18066bc9501ba685c089213)

How do Interstate shields get mutilated so bad...

'Honey, I shrunk the Interstate shield'
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Molandfreak on July 02, 2013, 10:09:48 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/92333578@N06/9197424410/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92333578@N06/9197424410/)

U.S. 87 in South Dakota. Taken on SD 87 at the south junction with U.S. 385.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 03, 2013, 05:03:33 AM
Also, note the horrible arrows and "Hangard", whatever that is.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on July 03, 2013, 10:12:56 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 03, 2013, 05:03:33 AM
Also, note the horrible arrows and "Hangard", whatever that is.

Go back to the first sign in that series, and you'll see what they did.  It was supposed to be "Hangar D."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on July 03, 2013, 02:10:15 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FEphartaSign_zps25be93ec.png&hash=4a34db91dc2f1a5ce2d12aecb410b70f8db43623)

I blame Clearview for this. While you're making the sign just seeing the font makes one lose their mind, and suddenly they forget how to spell.

Source: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/Oops_Road_sign_gaffe_is_a_laugher.html
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 03, 2013, 02:14:43 PM
the use of Clearview isn't nearly as bad as what appears to be an extra-bloated '70 spec shield.  WTF?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 03, 2013, 02:38:49 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on July 03, 2013, 02:10:15 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FEphartaSign_zps25be93ec.png&hash=4a34db91dc2f1a5ce2d12aecb410b70f8db43623)

I blame Clearview for this. While you're making the sign just seeing the font makes one lose their mind, and suddenly they forget how to spell.

Source: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/Oops_Road_sign_gaffe_is_a_laugher.html

Could be the sign maker's comment on Clearview.  :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on July 04, 2013, 06:59:28 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on July 03, 2013, 02:10:15 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FEphartaSign_zps25be93ec.png&hash=4a34db91dc2f1a5ce2d12aecb410b70f8db43623)

I blame Clearview for this. While you're making the sign just seeing the font makes one lose their mind, and suddenly they forget how to spell.

Source: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/Oops_Road_sign_gaffe_is_a_laugher.html

And PennDOT says it will cost $800-$1200 to replace--that's ridiculous. Apparently PennDOT hasn't heard of greenout...somebody give them the number to CalTrans!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on July 04, 2013, 08:40:18 AM
Actually, I think I've heard a ridiculously high figure for the price of diamond-grade retroreflective sheeting which, combined with how big those letters really are, would support a cost of several hundred just for a greenout to transpose two letters.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on July 04, 2013, 10:33:00 AM

Quote from: Zeffy on July 03, 2013, 02:10:15 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FEphartaSign_zps25be93ec.png&hash=4a34db91dc2f1a5ce2d12aecb410b70f8db43623)


And while they're at it, let's come up with a better US-322 shield -- that one looks kind of acorn-y.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on July 04, 2013, 11:14:34 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on July 04, 2013, 10:33:00 AM
And while they're at it, let's come up with a better US-322 shield -- that one looks kind of acorn-y.

And....just four posts before yours....

Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 03, 2013, 02:14:43 PM
the use of Clearview isn't nearly as bad as what appears to be an extra-bloated '70 spec shield.  WTF?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on July 04, 2013, 08:21:06 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on June 17, 2013, 02:11:41 PM
So going around town yesterday and I stumbled upon this sign error on the US-101 onramp from Laurel Road here in Salinas. I don't have a picture of it, so I'll just describe it using two other pictures of mine.

It is basically this sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7386%2F9067669003_f0fb4da85a_c.jpg&hash=e86a064163bedfe4deb2878b6f49276a5b3cb67d)

Where this old gem once stood:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7360%2F9067659425_92f567176f_c.jpg&hash=2abcf8b3d7825277add65b1ce5d8b987574cf012)

Yes, I typed that correctly, a CA-1 directional sign on a US-101 onramp. Fail.

Well, an update on the sign I described with those two pics. We drove past it today (still no pictures) and I saw that they covered up the erroneous CA-1 shield with what seems to be a standalone US-101 shield slapped on top of it (I saw a "US" at the top of the shield, like a standalone CA-style US shield).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 11:25:06 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 04, 2013, 06:59:28 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on July 03, 2013, 02:10:15 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FEphartaSign_zps25be93ec.png&hash=4a34db91dc2f1a5ce2d12aecb410b70f8db43623)

I blame Clearview for this. While you're making the sign just seeing the font makes one lose their mind, and suddenly they forget how to spell.

Source: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/Oops_Road_sign_gaffe_is_a_laugher.html

And PennDOT says it will cost $800-$1200 to replace--that's ridiculous. Apparently PennDOT hasn't heard of greenout...somebody give them the number to CalTrans!

If Pennsylvania used demountable copy like Kentucky does, it wouldn't cost anymore than the cost of a few rivets and the time for a couple of workers to uninstall two letters and then rivet them back in the correct place.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on July 05, 2013, 09:33:42 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 04, 2013, 11:25:06 PMIf Pennsylvania used demountable copy like Kentucky does, it wouldn't cost anymore than the cost of a few rivets and the time for a couple of workers to uninstall two letters and then rivet them back in the correct place.
Agree.  That said, I don't believe that PennDOT ever had demountable lettering post-button-copy.

One upon a time, Massachusetts used to have demountable copy letters as well; but ditched them over 20 years ago.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on July 16, 2013, 06:37:59 AM
How about a NH-9 shield embedded in a US shield cutout...

At least they have a US 202 cutout to go with it...

http://goo.gl/maps/keRFO

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on July 16, 2013, 09:50:06 AM
Technically, I'd put that in the "Design errors" category, rather than signs that are actually erroneous. Although, I might imagine that the sign was originally purely erroneous (a regular US 9 shield) and someone put the NH outline on it to "correct" it after the fact.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on July 16, 2013, 10:24:50 AM
OK, how about that NH103 shield? NH103 doesn't begin till Hopkinton.
Or maybe they meant TO NH13?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on July 16, 2013, 10:53:36 PM
Soooo....

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg32.imageshack.us%2Fimg32%2F8859%2Fvueq.jpg&hash=ab4241bde7ddee2e707cf5d48399e7987c154edb)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on July 17, 2013, 09:00:24 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 16, 2013, 10:53:36 PM
Soooo....

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg32.imageshack.us%2Fimg32%2F8859%2Fvueq.jpg&hash=ab4241bde7ddee2e707cf5d48399e7987c154edb)
Shouldn't that be in the below-thread (Odd companion to red light)? lol  :sombrero:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9910.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9910.0)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on July 17, 2013, 06:32:57 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2013, 09:00:24 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 16, 2013, 10:53:36 PM
Soooo....

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg32.imageshack.us%2Fimg32%2F8859%2Fvueq.jpg&hash=ab4241bde7ddee2e707cf5d48399e7987c154edb)
Shouldn't that be in the below-thread (Odd companion to red light)? lol  :sombrero:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9910.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9910.0)

So if that's a green light... do I still have to stop?  :hmmm: Seriously, who didn't take out the STOP sign when the light was placed?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on July 17, 2013, 09:39:42 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on July 17, 2013, 06:32:57 PM
So if that's a green light... do I still have to stop?  :hmmm: Seriously, who didn't take out the STOP sign when the light was placed?

The signal has been there since the shopping center that occupies this site opened ~2005. I'm guessing the stop sign has been there at least that long as well... possibly a holdover from the previous buildings that occupied the site, which had a driveway in exactly the same spot but no signal.

I suspect it's a question of what's on who's turf. The signal is NYCDOT installed and operated but the stop sign is on private property. NYCDOT therefore didn't remove it because they can't, it's not theirs. And the owners of the shopping center haven't cared enough to do anything about it, perhaps figuring something dumb like "having both makes it safer!"
To be fair, though, there is a lot of pedestrian traffic here, and the sight lines around the corners of the buildings to both sides are very poor...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on July 18, 2013, 03:08:18 AM
How about an even more confusing intersection, compliments of my home state of NJ, of course!


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHCFjagy.jpg&hash=afe7b8e879d5356633ad5c436c3f3140300935d0)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 18, 2013, 11:28:12 AM
On WA 504 near Mt St Helens:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2F050_zps1cb3086b.jpg&hash=81e6d888a6c02a402047c0ab8e7d9c6e8378fc42)

Hope you have good brakes!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on July 18, 2013, 11:33:48 AM
Falling trucks, next 2 miles?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on July 18, 2013, 03:32:30 PM
😄 Oh, shit! We're gonna fall off the cliff in 2 miles! No where to turn around and go back!  😄
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on July 19, 2013, 11:40:14 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on July 17, 2013, 06:32:57 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2013, 09:00:24 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 16, 2013, 10:53:36 PM
Soooo....

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg32.imageshack.us%2Fimg32%2F8859%2Fvueq.jpg&hash=ab4241bde7ddee2e707cf5d48399e7987c154edb)
Shouldn't that be in the below-thread (Odd companion to red light)? lol  :sombrero:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9910.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9910.0)

So if that's a green light... do I still have to stop?  :hmmm: Seriously, who didn't take out the STOP sign when the light was placed?

Every state has laws specifying the order in which traffic directions at intersections must be obeyed.  Usually it's police officer first, traffic signal second, sign third.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on July 19, 2013, 02:25:22 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 19, 2013, 11:40:14 AM
Every state has laws specifying the order in which traffic directions at intersections must be obeyed.  Usually it's police officer first, traffic signal second, sign third.

Really?  I've seen laws stating that speak to the first one, but I've never seen one stating signals should be obeyed over signs.  Can you provide, for example, the reference to that law on the Kansas books?  You said "every state", so I assume you can.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on July 19, 2013, 04:06:36 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 19, 2013, 11:40:14 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on July 17, 2013, 06:32:57 PM
So if that's a green light... do I still have to stop?  :hmmm: Seriously, who didn't take out the STOP sign when the light was placed?

Every state has laws specifying the order in which traffic directions at intersections must be obeyed.  Usually it's police officer first, traffic signal second, sign third.
I'd actually be inclined to assume the opposite. That is, if the light is green, you still have to stop at the sign and yield to pedestrians, but after stopping you'd have right of way over the cross traffic stopped at their red signal.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on July 19, 2013, 04:55:47 PM
Frankly, I'd be less concerned about state law than I would about how drivers would react when they'd see it. I'd expect reactions to be all over the place with some people stopping because of the sign, others going because of the green light, and the result being brake-slamming, horn-honking, middle-finger raising, and possible crashes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on July 19, 2013, 05:06:37 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 19, 2013, 11:40:14 AMEvery state has laws specifying the order in which traffic directions at intersections must be obeyed.  Usually it's police officer first, traffic signal second, sign third.
From the 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.04 (Bold emphasis added):

Standard:

10 Because the potential for conflicting commands could create driver confusion, YIELD or STOP signs
shall not be used in conjunction with any traffic control signal operation
, except in the following cases:

A. If the signal indication for an approach is a flashing red at all times;

B. If a minor street or driveway is located within or adjacent to the area controlled by the traffic control signal, but does not require separate traffic signal control because an extremely low potential for conflict exists;

or

C. If a channelized turn lane is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by an island and the channelized turn lane is not controlled by a traffic control signal.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on July 19, 2013, 11:25:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 19, 2013, 02:25:22 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 19, 2013, 11:40:14 AM
Every state has laws specifying the order in which traffic directions at intersections must be obeyed.  Usually it's police officer first, traffic signal second, sign third.

Really?  I've seen laws stating that speak to the first one, but I've never seen one stating signals should be obeyed over signs.  Can you provide, for example, the reference to that law on the Kansas books?  You said "every state", so I assume you can.

The rules of the road in Kansas are at http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/statute/008_000_0000_chapter/008_015_0000_article/ .  The copy I had, had such a rule in it, but it's apparently not in the current rules on that site.  It does provide for a police officer's direction to supersede all others.  I guess Kansas doesn't think they need such a rule.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on July 20, 2013, 02:26:29 PM
Check out what Kniwt dug up:

Introducing US highway 200:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6ElOjku.jpg&hash=09c99fb6a078977d4c06b2cea628cf4e9a11f944)

Erroneous I-90 shield. Supposed be the green BL-90 shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F67qaCID.jpg&hash=dc227c139924b5e0428ca32083f42c12773f38ca)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on July 23, 2013, 08:21:00 PM
How about this one.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedcam.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk%2Fbotchedsign.jpg&hash=745c951164bff3a563fb41763655635e06f5be39)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on July 23, 2013, 08:39:36 PM
Quote from: Truvelo on July 23, 2013, 08:21:00 PM
How about this one.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedcam.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk%2Fbotchedsign.jpg&hash=745c951164bff3a563fb41763655635e06f5be39)
That one is much easier to fix.  It was just installed upside-down.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on July 23, 2013, 08:52:31 PM
It makes you wonder how such simple mistakes can happen and whether it will be rectified.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on July 28, 2013, 04:35:45 PM
"State" Highway 101?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7351%2F9388045148_751012f5cf_c.jpg&hash=2eaee7188d25a8d904757b99c5b96930215fe3bd)
Found on Avila Beach Road in San Luis Obispo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on July 28, 2013, 05:24:27 PM
It's a state highway numbered US 101. Nothing to see here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on July 28, 2013, 05:37:39 PM
 Or a sign telling you to "state 'Highway 101' "  :spin:  :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on July 28, 2013, 06:57:55 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on July 28, 2013, 04:35:45 PM
"State" Highway 101?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7351%2F9388045148_751012f5cf_c.jpg&hash=2eaee7188d25a8d904757b99c5b96930215fe3bd)
Found on Avila Beach Road in San Luis Obispo.
That's not technically incorrect. California, and other states, technically maintain all numbered highways, regardless of class, as "State Routes." I-5 is State Route 5, for example, so saying "State Route 101" or "State Highway 101" is not wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on July 28, 2013, 07:38:09 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 28, 2013, 06:57:55 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on July 28, 2013, 04:35:45 PM
"State" Highway 101?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7351%2F9388045148_751012f5cf_c.jpg&hash=2eaee7188d25a8d904757b99c5b96930215fe3bd)
Found on Avila Beach Road in San Luis Obispo.
That's not technically incorrect. California, and other states, technically maintain all numbered highways, regardless of class, as "State Routes." I-5 is State Route 5, for example, so saying "State Route 101" or "State Highway 101" is not wrong.
I am aware of that, but I'm sure it'd be much less confusing to some if it were simply "TO HWY 101."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 28, 2013, 08:40:30 PM
Capitalization helps.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3436_zps6714a025.jpg&hash=601a452a82df3d571d069b864f1a783471648c76) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3436_zps6714a025.jpg.html)

Been trying to get this one for months.  Finally got a photo of it today.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on July 28, 2013, 08:45:59 PM
Watch out. Some cockbag will capitalize it KanKaKee.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 29, 2013, 01:27:01 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 28, 2013, 08:40:30 PM
Capitalization helps.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3436_zps6714a025.jpg&hash=601a452a82df3d571d069b864f1a783471648c76) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3436_zps6714a025.jpg.html)

Been trying to get this one for months.  Finally got a photo of it today.

If I'm not mistaken, that's new from when I was at Joliet last year, and it replaced button copy. Is that northbound or southbound?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 29, 2013, 02:48:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 29, 2013, 01:27:01 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 28, 2013, 08:40:30 PM
Capitalization helps.

{image}

Been trying to get this one for months.  Finally got a photo of it today.

If I'm not mistaken, that's new from when I was at Joliet last year, and it replaced button copy. Is that northbound or southbound?

Southbound.  All of the signs have been replaced with Clearview.  If that's the case, then IDOT District 1 has been letting this one sit there for over a year with the error.  All of the other signs have a capital "K".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on July 29, 2013, 08:56:28 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 28, 2013, 08:40:30 PM
Capitalization helps.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3436_zps6714a025.jpg&hash=601a452a82df3d571d069b864f1a783471648c76) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3436_zps6714a025.jpg.html)

Been trying to get this one for months.  Finally got a photo of it today.


Ahhhhh... So THAT'S where k.d. lang is from!!!  :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 30, 2013, 01:11:56 PM
^^^^

And e.e. cummings.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on July 30, 2013, 01:51:05 PM
And airline food.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on July 30, 2013, 07:49:05 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2013, 01:11:56 PM
^^^^

And e e cummings
FTFY. (I hate the number of FTFY posts I've done lately, but come on, this one's obvious)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route56 on July 30, 2013, 09:53:04 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/Lc4F3

Follow this sign to get to Olathe, and you'll wind up stuck on the railroad tracks.... or in the Kansas River.

EDIT: Got a pic of the sign.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7435%2F9414077802_97a7b92f2e_z.jpg&hash=6180ee130d1455096f0fe3040d28e26911f88816) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9414077802/)
47316 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9414077802/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 31, 2013, 11:51:48 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 30, 2013, 07:49:05 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2013, 01:11:56 PM
^^^^

And e e cummings
FTFY. (I hate the number of FTFY posts I've done lately, but come on, this one's obvious)

E.E. Cummings actually preferred his name to be written with standard capitalization and punctuation, and usually signed his name as such. It was publishers that wrote it as e e cummings on covers to echo his usual style.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on August 01, 2013, 04:30:26 PM
An ongoing annoyance for me is when a decimal point is combined with a cents symbol, such as what I saw all over the western part of the Indiana Toll Road earlier this summer.  One example:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20130623%2Fpaytoll.jpg&hash=98e23d8a486a6c2e5e7450fb5426ae3e9f71f7a2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 01, 2013, 04:37:22 PM
lemme get out my hacksaw and start whaling away on ol' Abe.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on August 01, 2013, 04:42:50 PM
Maybe they believe that people may perceive the decimals as something else and not the amount of the toll you pay as you pass by the toll gates. I mean, if they are less than $1, just do $0.30 for the IPass and EZPass lanes and $0.70 for the cash lanes. How hard is that? Maybe it's because InDOT, or whoever this is, is mathematically challenged? I mean, that could very well be the case here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on August 01, 2013, 04:45:21 PM
In my experience, it's almost always someone who's mathematically challenged.  But you'd think that somewhere along the way, someone would have told the people who run the Indiana Toll Road that this just isn't right.  I'll give them some credit, though: they were consistently incorrect in their usage on every sign I saw indicating a toll under $1.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 04:51:52 PM
At least somebody still knows what the cent sign is. The Route 417 partial beltway around Orlando has signs reading "PAY TOLL $.50" at various exit ramps on the southern portion (off the top of my head I don't remember whether that's OOCEA's or the Turnpike's bailiwick). Aside from the fact that "$0.50" is technically the correct form, I've always wondered why they couldn't just say "PAY TOLL 50¢." It's easier to read and, for the unobservant driver, it's clearer what it means because the decimal point isn't an issue. You'd have to be pretty darn stupid to think the ramp toll is a fifty-dollar toll, but I wouldn't put it past some of the people out there!

The sign in Jim's picture looks like it uses a Clearview cent sign, incidentally (not that I'd ever seen one before!).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TEG24601 on August 01, 2013, 06:18:26 PM
Quote from: Jim on August 01, 2013, 04:30:26 PM
An ongoing annoyance for me is when a decimal point is combined with a cents symbol, such as what I saw all over the western part of the Indiana Toll Road earlier this summer.

This reminds me of the story relating to data roaming with Verizon Wireless, where they quoted the rates at 0.002¢/KB, but charged $0.002/KB.  Apparently no one at Verizon Wireless could be made to understand that those two values are not equal.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 01, 2013, 06:23:39 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 01, 2013, 06:18:26 PM

This reminds me of the story relating to data roaming with Verizon Wireless, where they quoted the rates at 0.002¢/KB, but charged $0.002/KB.  Apparently no one at Verizon Wireless could be made to understand that those two values are not equal.

I'd love to exploit that loophole and pay 1/100th the intended rate.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theline on August 01, 2013, 08:18:05 PM
Quote from: Jim on August 01, 2013, 04:30:26 PM
An ongoing annoyance for me is when a decimal point is combined with a cents symbol, such as what I saw all over the western part of the Indiana Toll Road earlier this summer.  One example:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20130623%2Fpaytoll.jpg&hash=98e23d8a486a6c2e5e7450fb5426ae3e9f71f7a2)

I'm blaming the damn Spaniards that are running the road. They obvious fail to comprehend good ol' American money.

I'm surprised that the sign doesn't read:

                  E-Z Pass       € 0.23
                  Cash            € 0.53
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on August 02, 2013, 05:10:21 AM
It also annoys me when I see something like that. How I get a half-cent (or eurocent) coin?

I've read all this thread, and I literally LOLed at some signs. However, the traffic light+stop doesn't seem incorrect for me, as here a flashing yellow+stop combo is used instead of a flashing red.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on August 02, 2013, 09:05:58 AM
For a half-cent coin, go to a coin dealer or antique store and you might find one. It's likely worth more than half a cent, though. When I was a kid my mom had one dated 1823 that she got from one of her grandparents. It was kind of neat, but I liked her Series 1936 $2 bill better because it had Monticello on the back.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 09:20:47 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2013, 09:05:58 AMSeries 1936 $2 bill

do you mean 1963?  the three series of $2 with Monticello are '28, '53, and '63.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 02, 2013, 05:10:21 AM
It also annoys me when I see something like that. How I get a half-cent (or eurocent) coin?

I've read all this thread, and I literally LOLed at some signs. However, the traffic light+stop doesn't seem incorrect for me, as here a flashing yellow+stop combo is used instead of a flashing red.

do you guys have in Spain a setup with a full traffic signal (red, yellow, green, going through all its phases) and also a STOP sign on the same post?  they're in Italy and I wasn't quite sure what they meant.  I figured the sign was there in case the light was out, so on green I proceeded without stopping.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on August 02, 2013, 09:32:34 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 09:20:47 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2013, 09:05:58 AMSeries 1936 $2 bill

do you mean 1963?  the three series of $2 with Monticello are '28, '53, and '63.

I don't know because I haven't seen it in years. I thought it was 1936, but maybe my recollection is wrong. I'm sure it's older than 1963, though; she had it with some other very old stuff, including some worthless pre-WWII German banknotes. If I remember maybe I might ask tomorrow–we are meeting my parents for dinner.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 10:15:42 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2013, 09:32:34 AM
I don't know because I haven't seen it in years. I thought it was 1936, but maybe my recollection is wrong. I'm sure it's older than 1963, though; she had it with some other very old stuff, including some worthless pre-WWII German banknotes. If I remember maybe I might ask tomorrow–we are meeting my parents for dinner.

probably one of the '28 series then.  they had '28, then '28A-'28G. 

to this day I haven't quite figured out when the Treasury adds or increments a letter, and when they go to a new year.  recently, it seems like they don't much go for the letters anymore: the last B or higher series was 1969, which went up to D.  since then, we've had '77A, '81A, '85A, '88A, and '03A, and the rest have just been a plain year.

meanwhile, series of 1928 $2 bills were issued until 1953.  if yours is from before the war, then it is probably a 28 to a 28E.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: elsmere241 on August 02, 2013, 10:20:08 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 02, 2013, 05:10:21 AM
It also annoys me when I see something like that. How I get a half-cent (or eurocent) coin?

I've read all this thread, and I literally LOLed at some signs. However, the traffic light+stop doesn't seem incorrect for me, as here a flashing yellow+stop combo is used instead of a flashing red.

do you guys have in Spain a setup with a full traffic signal (red, yellow, green, going through all its phases) and also a STOP sign on the same post?  they're in Italy and I wasn't quite sure what they meant.  I figured the sign was there in case the light was out, so on green I proceeded without stopping.

Yes, that's exactly what it means.  There should have been a sign below it that says "A semaforo spento o lampeggiante", literally meaning "If signal out or flashing."  (Italy puts many signals on four-way flashing yellow at night.)  In NATO areas there's a supplemental sign that says "When traffic light off or yellow blinker on."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 10:29:03 AM
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 02, 2013, 10:20:08 AM
Yes, that's exactly what it means.  There should have been a sign below it that says "A semaforo spento o lampeggiante", literally meaning "If signal out or flashing."  (Italy puts many signals on four-way flashing yellow at night.)  In NATO areas there's a supplemental sign that says "When traffic light off or yellow blinker on."

I did not see any sign like that, in any language.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: elsmere241 on August 02, 2013, 11:25:33 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 10:29:03 AM
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 02, 2013, 10:20:08 AM
Yes, that's exactly what it means.  There should have been a sign below it that says "A semaforo spento o lampeggiante", literally meaning "If signal out or flashing."  (Italy puts many signals on four-way flashing yellow at night.)  In NATO areas there's a supplemental sign that says "When traffic light off or yellow blinker on."

I did not see any sign like that, in any language.

Maybe they forgot to put it up, or it fell down and wasn't replaced, or something.  But that's what that stop sign is supposed to mean.  Italian signage tends to vary by region, anyway.  For instance, some regions have "end speed limit" signs (gray circle with a slash), some have "start speed limit" signs (red circle) and some have both.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 11:33:36 AM
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 02, 2013, 11:25:33 AM

Maybe they forgot to put it up, or it fell down and wasn't replaced, or something.  But that's what that stop sign is supposed to mean.  Italian signage tends to vary by region, anyway.  For instance, some regions have "end speed limit" signs (gray circle with a slash), some have "start speed limit" signs (red circle) and some have both.

I mean as a general trend.  I saw many (at least 20 or 30) instances of "traffic light with stop sign" and none of them had the explanation. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: elsmere241 on August 02, 2013, 11:38:39 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 11:33:36 AM
Quote from: elsmere241 on August 02, 2013, 11:25:33 AM

Maybe they forgot to put it up, or it fell down and wasn't replaced, or something.  But that's what that stop sign is supposed to mean.  Italian signage tends to vary by region, anyway.  For instance, some regions have "end speed limit" signs (gray circle with a slash), some have "start speed limit" signs (red circle) and some have both.

I mean as a general trend.  I saw many (at least 20 or 30) instances of "traffic light with stop sign" and none of them had the explanation. 

Well, who knows.  I lived in Italy for a couple of years (in the north-central/northeast) and I don't remember the sign ever not being there.  I did notice the four-way (or two-way for a narrow alley or tunnel) flashing yellow at night, as opposed to one direction having flashing red.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 11:43:15 AM
yep, this was in the north of Italy.  we effectively did Milano-Venice-Bologna-Pisa-Genoa and then Monaco and Nice.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: elsmere241 on August 02, 2013, 11:53:13 AM
I lived mostly in medium-sized cities (a couple of weeks in Bologna was the exception) but I was close to and/or saw Pisa, Florence, Venice, Verona and Trieste.  One of these days I want to get back over there and see all the places in that part of Europe I heard about but didn't get to (particularly Rome).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 03, 2013, 01:57:38 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 10:15:42 AM
to this day I haven't quite figured out when the Treasury adds or increments a letter, and when they go to a new year.  recently, it seems like they don't much go for the letters anymore: the last B or higher series was 1969, which went up to D.  since then, we've had '77A, '81A, '85A, '88A, and '03A, and the rest have just been a plain year.

At the risk of going off topic here, it's like software version numbers–the year is for major changes and the letter is for minor changes. The reason why there are far fewer letters now than there were before the 70s is because before then signature changes were considered minor. I would imagine it was seen as undesirable for bills to bear dates decades before they were printed, and there was a general desire to keep the years unified on all denominations. In the 70s sometime, the policy was changed so that secretary of the treasury changes are major, which has the effect of forcing a major change at least once every 8 years. (Treasurers are still minor, which is why, e.g. 2003A exists.)

There are exceptions of course. Whoever was in charge of implementing the change whenever G. William Miller became secretary apparently forgot the new policy, thus Series 1977A. There's especially been some wonkiness as of late, since the Treasury appears to be abusing the letter to slip extra series in where they mistakenly expected to not have to issue a series–this explains 2006A $5s and 2009A $100s (which are of the design generation before the 2009 $100s!) With the more frequent total redesigns, it might be simpler for the treasury to go back to "signature changes are minor" and reserve the year increment for whenever we get a totally new design of bill, which would give us 1996 for the big-head bills (N-type) and 2004 for the colored bills (G-type).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on August 03, 2013, 11:40:16 PM
Found this today on eastbound KY 499 in Madison County. Didn't have my camera handy, so I grabbed my phone. Not the best shot in the world, but here it is.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3825%2F9433433534_d1070595bf.jpg&hash=6c0e182dac7b1a48d7fffe540676142638e4e704)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on August 04, 2013, 06:42:51 AM
I would consider that an acceptable oval variant.  Better than an ellipse, anyway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on August 04, 2013, 02:36:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2013, 11:40:16 PM
Found this today on eastbound KY 499 in Madison County. Didn't have my camera handy, so I grabbed my phone. Not the best shot in the world, but here it is.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3825%2F9433433534_d1070595bf.jpg&hash=6c0e182dac7b1a48d7fffe540676142638e4e704)
That's the creme filling of the Vermont shield sandwich.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on August 08, 2013, 01:28:30 PM
Pardon the low quality phone pic, but I stumbled across this on VA 36 today. The TO banner should be over the US 1 shield.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1146279_10201611586152719_1450076931_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on August 08, 2013, 04:10:27 PM
Belated upload I had prepared and then forgotten about. This is near the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC; the street name depends on whom you ask–it's either Ohio Drive (many maps), Rock Creek Parkway (many sat-navs), or Old Constitution Avenue (only according to some local officials). Regardless of the street name, it's very hard to obey that sign.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FDCnoU-turn_zps6370031a.jpg&hash=90b903221896c9802409c507fa0cd03f34ed6ebe)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on August 08, 2013, 04:48:54 PM
Upside-down "no U turn" signs always make me think of the defunct New Rome, Ohio, which had one for years at the start of their infamous speed trap:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1Synmai.jpg&hash=5d0190c423085def82cb25bd02e03f3de7e0d22a)

(Picture shamelessly swiped from here (http://www.newromesucks.com/signs.html), since the signs, like New Rome, no longer exist)

[Fixed link. -S.]
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TEG24601 on August 08, 2013, 07:26:39 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 01, 2013, 06:23:39 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 01, 2013, 06:18:26 PM

This reminds me of the story relating to data roaming with Verizon Wireless, where they quoted the rates at 0.002¢/KB, but charged $0.002/KB.  Apparently no one at Verizon Wireless could be made to understand that those two values are not equal.

I'd love to exploit that loophole and pay 1/100th the intended rate.

I finally found the story/blog - http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2007/08/original-recording-of-verizon-customer.html (http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2007/08/original-recording-of-verizon-customer.html)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route56 on August 08, 2013, 07:29:41 PM
Found one of those upside-down NO U TURN signs on the ramp from the SLT to eastbound I-70.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7374%2F9414113032_a93ed66fcf.jpg&hash=4aa852eb84be95dc9c1961f599b3ba14d25e4ea2) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9414113032/)
47310 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9414113032/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on August 08, 2013, 07:35:36 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on August 08, 2013, 04:48:54 PM
(Picture shamelessly swiped from here (http://"http://www.newromesucks.com/signs.html"), since the signs, like New Rome, no longer exist)

First of all, that website still exists?

Second, don't use quote marks around the URL in the link code on this forum.  It doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on August 09, 2013, 07:54:07 AM
Quote from: vtk on August 08, 2013, 07:35:36 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on August 08, 2013, 04:48:54 PM
(Picture shamelessly swiped from here (http://"http://www.newromesucks.com/signs.html"), since the signs, like New Rome, no longer exist)

First of all, that website still exists?

Second, don't use quote marks around the URL in the link code on this forum.  It doesn't work that way.

Whoops, my bad, I'm used to HTML. Thanks for the reminder. >_<

But yeah, I was surprised to see it exists too. I was totally gonna pull it up from the Wayback Machine but then I was like "wait, I wonder if it's actually still there" and it turned out it was.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on August 10, 2013, 07:26:07 PM
A fresh error DE 202 shield for US 202 in northern Delaware...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7385%2F9473797443_16976c6818_z.jpg&hash=658c82212cf05ab6ee49fe5df47ad5e56263245f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kniwt on August 10, 2013, 07:49:38 PM
Newly installed on Long Island:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkxvM4GO.jpg&hash=f6cbd0840000a93e99fed438eb2a51ece84ab262)

The story here:
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/jonse-beach-misspelled-li-parkway-sign-directs-motorists-1.5858839
QuoteLong Islanders heading to the beach for some summer fun are doing double takes. A new sign on the Robert Moses Causeway is directing them to iconic . . . Jonse Beach?
The goof has become a social media sensation -- and an embarrassment for the state Department of Transportation.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on August 11, 2013, 09:00:50 AM
I can't help but be amused at how news articles always try to make sign typos out to be some kind of huge high-profile blunder.

Especially seeing as how misspelled words tend to be one of the most inconsequential sign errors. (You can almost always tell what it was meant to say, so it's not actively misleading like a bad route number or lane arrow or something.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on August 11, 2013, 09:02:59 AM
They are pretty damn high-profile by definition. I think you're trying to say that they're low-effect. Unlike, say, a typo on a vertical clearance sign that causes trucks to hit an overpass.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on August 11, 2013, 09:14:27 AM
I guess we have a different definition of high-profile. Something that will only be seen by drivers in a specific area who happen to pass through a specific stretch of road doesn't really strike me as high-profile, especially seeing as how a good number of people would likely not even notice it if others didn't draw their attention to it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on August 13, 2013, 01:37:21 PM
Quote from: Ian on August 10, 2013, 07:26:07 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7385%2F9473797443_16976c6818_z.jpg&hash=658c82212cf05ab6ee49fe5df47ad5e56263245f)

I wonder if confusing DE 202 in Wilmington somehow contributed to this error?

Quote from: Kniwt on August 10, 2013, 07:49:38 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkxvM4GO.jpg&hash=f6cbd0840000a93e99fed438eb2a51ece84ab262)

Please tell me that Route 0 shield is an error...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: sammi on August 13, 2013, 01:42:24 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 13, 2013, 01:37:21 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on August 10, 2013, 07:49:38 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkxvM4GO.jpg&hash=f6cbd0840000a93e99fed438eb2a51ece84ab262)

Please tell me that Route 0 shield is an error...

You sure that's not an O for Ocean? :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 13, 2013, 01:54:10 PM
It is an O for Ocean.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on August 13, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 13, 2013, 01:37:21 PM
I wonder if confusing DE 202 in Wilmington somehow contributed to this error?

Not the first time US 202 was missigned as DE 202 along that stretch:

(https://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware200/us-202_nb_app_weldon_rd_02.jpg)

2004 photo
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on August 14, 2013, 12:13:14 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2851%2F9511420140_05f7420d66.jpg&hash=83bcb34a0deaa97cbcc4540e8d752de65aea7b1e) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/geojosh/9511420140/)


Been meaning to snag this one for a while. Should be East LA 28, not 1. This is downtown Alexandria, LA underneath the US 167 expressway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on August 16, 2013, 04:08:39 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 13, 2013, 01:37:21 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on August 10, 2013, 07:49:38 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkxvM4GO.jpg&hash=f6cbd0840000a93e99fed438eb2a51ece84ab262)

Please tell me that Route 0 shield is an error...

The standard shield for the Long Island parkways contains the first (and sometimes the second) letter of the parkway's name.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Diagrams_of_New_York_parkway_route_markers
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Signal on August 16, 2013, 07:32:05 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3791%2F9505621080_be3e5db37c_z.jpg&hash=aa50ef416ee363c46490802d00dd028384dd8006) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/94611454@N02/9505621080/)

The arrows need to be switched...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ET21 on August 17, 2013, 02:52:55 PM
^^^ South is straight and North is Left?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on August 17, 2013, 03:26:19 PM
I think that's the original layout of the trailblazer.

NORTH       SOUTH
[US 93]      [US 93]
[left arrow] [up arrow]
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Signal on August 17, 2013, 05:20:08 PM
No, sorry for not being clear. The arrows are with the correct shields, but I though it was odd that the left arrow was on the right.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on August 17, 2013, 05:40:11 PM
So it's more of a placement error, then? That would mean SB US 93 has to be left, NB US 93 on the right because as I read it, you appear to head northbound.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on August 20, 2013, 05:53:03 PM
Hey, Signal.  I like your I-64 "fisheye" avatar!  Excellent!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 20, 2013, 06:27:55 PM
Quote from: Signal on August 17, 2013, 05:20:08 PM
No, sorry for not being clear. The arrows are with the correct shields, but I though it was odd that the left arrow was on the right.

I see that a lot, and it irritates me, too.  Here's an example from near where I live:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOR223Wren1_zps1e4af57b.jpg%3Ft%3D1376951101&hash=8d2ffae44b7569a79469932bd4bc6a05ca79dcf0)

But that's just pickiness on my part -- there's nothing erroneous with the assembly, as it communicates correctly that you turn right to take OR 223, and go straight to remain on US 20.  It might even be that they deliberately put the 223 shield on the left and nearer the main road, as that's the primary information the sign needs to convey.  In fact, the US 20 shield is really unnecessary.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on August 20, 2013, 07:50:23 PM
Didn't take a picture, and can't find this on Google Maps, but:

NY 13/NY 34, very close to NY 79, going south, has a US 34 sign once instead of a NY 34 sign. This is in Ithaca, NY.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on August 20, 2013, 08:37:03 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 20, 2013, 07:50:23 PM
Didn't take a picture, and can't find this on Google Maps, but:

NY 13/NY 34, very close to NY 79, going south, has a US 34 sign once instead of a NY 34 sign. This is in Ithaca, NY.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fny_96%2Fsus.jpg&hash=c9bbf4f0fbf5269d18a4539056df4dbbbcb18432)Same shield, different multiplex, same town.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on August 20, 2013, 10:23:59 PM
Maybe it was on 96, actually.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on August 21, 2013, 12:25:28 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 20, 2013, 08:37:03 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 20, 2013, 07:50:23 PM
Didn't take a picture, and can't find this on Google Maps, but:

NY 13/NY 34, very close to NY 79, going south, has a US 34 sign once instead of a NY 34 sign. This is in Ithaca, NY.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fny_96%2Fsus.jpg&hash=c9bbf4f0fbf5269d18a4539056df4dbbbcb18432)Same shield, different multiplex, same town.
Same shield, different day...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on August 21, 2013, 02:12:03 AM
Man, that 96 looks fugly!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 21, 2013, 03:09:43 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Orient,+NY&hl=en&ll=41.155474,-72.242875&spn=0.014444,0.035791&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=17.343453,36.650391&oq=orient,+n&t=h&hnear=Orient,+Suffolk,+New+York&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.155553,-72.242657&panoid=oFbLKVF9DlDrqs9Xo79N9g&cbp=12,90,,0,0
NY 25 does not continue straight through after the road bends, but ends abruptly.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Orient,+NY&hl=en&ll=41.155199,-72.243583&spn=0.014444,0.035791&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=17.343453,36.650391&oq=orient,+n&t=h&hnear=Orient,+Suffolk,+New+York&layer=c&cbll=41.155276,-72.243382&panoid=gh6KFJ1o5jSzOSeR-lqjKA&cbp=12,80,,0,-0.08&z=16 Should be a yellow sign being of its nature.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on August 21, 2013, 07:29:48 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on August 21, 2013, 02:12:03 AM
Man, that 96 looks fugly!
You asked for it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fny%2Fny_96%2Fs34.jpg&hash=0bc72e94261f21cbe6bfb91035a1900eeefd0313)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on August 21, 2013, 07:55:29 PM
I took this photo last night. I should have went back today and got a better image, but I'll explain.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/p480x480/1173824_10153177848690331_37354487_n.jpg)

This is at Buck Run Community Center in Fort Scott. The one-way arrow is directing drivers to go toward that gate. The sign on the gate says "ROAD CLOSED TO THRU TRAFFIC."

So there are two problems:
1) They should have put of a No Left Turn sign instead of a One Way sign (Even though you can't go past that gate, the road is a two-way street).
2) The other sign should probably just say "ROAD CLOSED." The city pretty much doesn't want traffic to ever go through again. When the gate is open, it's only to allow staff working softball games to use the area behind one of the fields as a parking lot.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on August 21, 2013, 09:03:57 PM
^^ On point 2, yes it is supposed to just read "ROAD CLOSED".  The "ROAD CLOSED TO THRU TRAFFIC" sign is meant to warn drivers that access is closed some point ahead but can pass through where the sign is located.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 22, 2013, 09:11:55 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7429%2F9570460912_47bbef6bc1_c.jpg&hash=e11815ee7cf1e24ef5575c6aee7c63ee3bb3ba9a)
It is 4 miles to the junction proper so "TO" is not really the descriptor to use.  It should be "JCT" or leave out any descriptor and have an I-30 with 4 Miles.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kurumi on August 23, 2013, 01:35:04 AM
I don't have a photo, but on I-880 southbound past US 101 in San Jose is a sign panel for Exit 389, First Street. This is by far the highest exit number on 880, and is actually the exit number for First Street on 101.

Here's a street view of the former sign at this location: http://goo.gl/maps/9BCxk
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on August 23, 2013, 12:12:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2013, 09:11:55 AM
*pic*
It is 4 miles to the junction proper so "TO" is not really the descriptor to use.  It should be "JCT" or leave out any descriptor and have an I-30 with 4 Miles.

Isn't it also technically an error that I-30 is in a wide shield?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on August 23, 2013, 12:15:39 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 23, 2013, 12:12:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2013, 09:11:55 AM
*pic*
It is 4 miles to the junction proper so "TO" is not really the descriptor to use.  It should be "JCT" or leave out any descriptor and have an I-30 with 4 Miles.

Isn't it also technically an error that I-30 is in a wide shield?

Welcome to Texas...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on August 25, 2013, 08:59:22 PM
Here's an assembly on Russell Road at IL 131/WI 31 that should be using separate left and right arrows under the shields, but instead implies a multiplex exists between the two routes:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Pleasant+Prairie,+WI&hl=en&ll=42.493773,-87.887439&spn=0.00335,0.008256&sll=42.032432,-88.091192&sspn=0.215992,0.528374&oq=pleas&hnear=Pleasant+Prairie,+Kenosha,+Wisconsin&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.493768,-87.887216&panoid=UlD3WmXWe6pZQSSOqBkbKQ&cbp=12,144.11,,2,-0.42 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Pleasant+Prairie,+WI&hl=en&ll=42.493773,-87.887439&spn=0.00335,0.008256&sll=42.032432,-88.091192&sspn=0.215992,0.528374&oq=pleas&hnear=Pleasant+Prairie,+Kenosha,+Wisconsin&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.493768,-87.887216&panoid=UlD3WmXWe6pZQSSOqBkbKQ&cbp=12,144.11,,2,-0.42)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on August 25, 2013, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 25, 2013, 08:59:22 PM
Here's an assembly on Russell Road at IL 131/WI 31 that should be using separate left and right arrows under the shields, but instead implies a multiplex exists between the two routes:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Pleasant+Prairie,+WI&hl=en&ll=42.493773,-87.887439&spn=0.00335,0.008256&sll=42.032432,-88.091192&sspn=0.215992,0.528374&oq=pleas&hnear=Pleasant+Prairie,+Kenosha,+Wisconsin&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.493768,-87.887216&panoid=UlD3WmXWe6pZQSSOqBkbKQ&cbp=12,144.11,,2,-0.42 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Pleasant+Prairie,+WI&hl=en&ll=42.493773,-87.887439&spn=0.00335,0.008256&sll=42.032432,-88.091192&sspn=0.215992,0.528374&oq=pleas&hnear=Pleasant+Prairie,+Kenosha,+Wisconsin&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.493768,-87.887216&panoid=UlD3WmXWe6pZQSSOqBkbKQ&cbp=12,144.11,,2,-0.42)

I think they did that because there is a IL-131 reassurance shield directly after the turn, and they thought the dual-arrow could be work instead of having two separate ones. (as in WI-31 is the LEFT end of the arrow and IL-131 is the RIGHT end of it)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on August 25, 2013, 10:39:00 PM
Or, they figure drivers are smart enough to know that Illinois is to the right and Wisconsin is to the left.

Of course, it would be nifty if IDOT and WisDOT actually agreed to sign a short concurrency of each other's state routes between IL 173 and WI 165.  I think that kind of cooperation would be nifty across most state borders, actually.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on August 25, 2013, 10:46:38 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 25, 2013, 10:39:00 PM
Of course, it would be nifty if IDOT and WisDOT actually agreed to sign a short concurrency of each other's state routes between IL 173 and WI 165.  I think that kind of cooperation would be nifty across most state borders, actually.
It would make more sense to say IL 131 TO WIS 31.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 26, 2013, 04:45:57 AM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Secaucus,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.775074,-74.033153&spn=0.002154,0.003819&sll=39.431773,-74.579722&sspn=0.003108,0.007639&oq=seca&t=h&hnear=Secaucus,+Hudson,+New+Jersey&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.775019,-74.033271&panoid=R_znvxYJmW9UiGkM5cB-4Q&cbp=12,273.87,,0,0.1  Here is one of many erroneous I-495 shields on JFK Boulevard in Union City, NJ.  What is interesting is that these are not left over from when NJ 495 was indeed I-495, but brand new ones erected recently!  NJ 495 has been in commission since the mid 1980s.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on August 31, 2013, 01:30:29 AM
It runs through Maryland for all of about two miles, and they still manage to screw it up:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7284%2F9632588922_e344af54d9.jpg&hash=2a8e85c7851c8fd2d2e66c334508ee7309b8d7d6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on September 01, 2013, 04:25:15 AM
I know Knwit snapped it already, but this is my take on the "MT-200-turned-US-200" assembly. Taken as of last Friday. I pass by it thinking "These Missoula drivers are apparently oblivious to someone's bluff." Obviously, some contractor's bluff.

SB US 93/EB MT 200: Similar perspective like Knwit's:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi917.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fad16%2FBJFRacing01%2FCameraDownloads575_zpsc92bcc6c.jpg&hash=727cf5ba77c0e0a539ceb458dec2f5b49d912947)

Oh, and here's it's carbon copy.
NB US 93/WB MT 200:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi917.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fad16%2FBJFRacing01%2FCameraDownloads576_zps678dab13.jpg&hash=7f1d9731af4ce72e2d56ea0cb54aa78058b8caef)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on September 01, 2013, 04:58:23 AM
MSR 200 might as well be US 200.  Why not?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on September 02, 2013, 11:16:36 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on September 01, 2013, 04:58:23 AM
MSR 200 might as well be US 200.  Why not?
It actually does connect to US 2, which was originally proposed as US 0 (the eastern one was always to be 2), so it's justifiable. Many have asked this question. I think one argument against it being a US highway is that it really doesn't serve any major areas, unless multiplexed with something else. It tends to be between major corridors (US 2, I-90, I-94).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 02, 2013, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: Steve on September 02, 2013, 11:16:36 AM
one argument against it being a US highway is that it really doesn't serve any major areas, unless multiplexed with something else.

lots of US highways don't serve any major areas.  US-385 comes to mind.  south of the Black Hills... Odessa, TX and that's really it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 03, 2013, 09:29:49 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2857%2F9661608489_e55e0b7c2d_z.jpg&hash=df7401486dc9f1a91a83bf6552c1e3613f549dcb)http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2857/9661608489_e55e0b7c2d_c.jpg
Some of you feel that using two digit shields for three digit numbers is erroneous so here is the WB I-220 ramp  shield from NB US 71 & LA 1 near Shreveport. LA. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on September 03, 2013, 03:28:21 PM
Here's a new one for Maryland...(apologies if it turns out it is new to just me)

A MD 25 shield in a circle leaving MD 2 NB
http://goo.gl/maps/K6O05

This is on MD 25 at MD 2 SB
http://goo.gl/maps/mMWYi

There is a correct MD 25 shield at Charles Ave.  (Then no MD 25 postings at all for a while through unstriped narrow roads through mill areas and an unposted turn...)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on September 04, 2013, 02:27:38 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 02, 2013, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: Steve on September 02, 2013, 11:16:36 AM
one argument against it being a US highway is that it really doesn't serve any major areas, unless multiplexed with something else.

lots of US highways don't serve any major areas.  US-385 comes to mind.  south of the Black Hills... Odessa, TX and that's really it.
US 160 does a pretty good job of avoiding much of anything noteworthy, but I would hazard a guess that US 350 in CO is the clear winner, with nary a town in the way of it's bleak, dust-bowl like existence.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on September 04, 2013, 02:51:30 AM
Quote from: djsinco on September 04, 2013, 02:27:38 AM
I would hazard a guess that US 350 in CO is the clear winner, with nary a town in the way of it's bleak, dust-bowl like existence.
You'd be wrong: US 163.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 04, 2013, 03:09:58 AM
Quote from: djsinco on September 04, 2013, 02:27:38 AM
US 160 does a pretty good job of avoiding much of anything noteworthy.

It does serve the third-largest city in Missouri, y'know...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on September 05, 2013, 03:42:02 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2013, 03:09:58 AM
Quote from: djsinco on September 04, 2013, 02:27:38 AM
US 160 does a pretty good job of avoiding much of anything noteworthy.

It does serve the third-largest city in Missouri, y'know...
Having been to Springfield many times, I stand by my statement.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on September 05, 2013, 10:43:29 AM
Quote from: NE2 on September 04, 2013, 02:51:30 AM
Quote from: djsinco on September 04, 2013, 02:27:38 AMI would hazard a guess that US 350 in CO is the clear winner, with nary a town in the way of it's bleak, dust-bowl like existence.

You'd be wrong: US 163.

Having driven both, I would go with US 350.  US 163 is a convenient access route to Monument Valley (which attracts busloads of tourists) from the south.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 05, 2013, 06:22:10 PM
Quote from: djsinco on September 05, 2013, 03:42:02 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2013, 03:09:58 AM
Quote from: djsinco on September 04, 2013, 02:27:38 AM
US 160 does a pretty good job of avoiding much of anything noteworthy.

It does serve the third-largest city in Missouri, y'know...
Having been to Springfield many times, I stand by my statement.

Having lived there . . .
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: pj3970 on September 05, 2013, 06:39:51 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 05, 2013, 06:22:10 PM
Quote from: djsinco on September 05, 2013, 03:42:02 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2013, 03:09:58 AM
Quote from: djsinco on September 04, 2013, 02:27:38 AM
US 160 does a pretty good job of avoiding much of anything noteworthy.

It does serve the third-largest city in Missouri, y'know...
Having been to Springfield many times, I stand by my statement.

Having lived there . . .

Agreed...having lived there for years
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 05, 2013, 10:59:45 PM
Quote from: pj3970 on September 05, 2013, 06:39:51 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 05, 2013, 06:22:10 PM
Quote from: djsinco on September 05, 2013, 03:42:02 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2013, 03:09:58 AM
Quote from: djsinco on September 04, 2013, 02:27:38 AM
US 160 does a pretty good job of avoiding much of anything noteworthy.

It does serve the third-largest city in Missouri, y'know...
Having been to Springfield many times, I stand by my statement.

Having lived there . . .

Agreed...having lived there for years

When my vehicle was taking its ride on the back of a wrecker up US 65 and US 60 to the repair shop back in July, I was talking to the tow truck driver and he was commenting on how bad traffic gets in Springfield, especially on the James River Freeway (US 60). I expressed surprise that Springfield was big enough to have that kind of traffic issues. I think it qualifies as major.

And I didn't see any erroneous signs when I was in the area either.  :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 06, 2013, 12:31:02 AM
Springfield's problem is that all of the freeways are on the outer edges. If you are coming from, say, the MSU campus at National and Grand and are headed for the main retail area around Primrose and Glenstone, you have little choice but to slog through traffic-light infested arterials; any route involving a freeway is going to be impractical. One way of avoiding traffic is to use the minor collectors that parallel the arterials, like Jefferson and Fremont, though I'm sure there are people who would rather you didn't do that.

I don't remember James River Freeway being that bad; the only traffic snarl I got caught up in there was due to a train crossing on the unbelievably stupid at-grade rail crossing there, which is fortunately gone now.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on September 06, 2013, 03:49:50 PM
James River has never been too bad (below 45 mph, say) when I've been on it, and that's probably something like twenty times.  However, traffic has also never been light on it, either, so I imagine it can get snarly at rush hour.  It was also pretty interesting on Black Friday when I was in town that day several years ago.....
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on September 10, 2013, 09:12:29 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5459%2F9718100746_fd74ed4abc.jpg&hash=ab73cbf53526399dd493bded28d67cde36ea4b2f) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/41203461@N00/9718100746/)
Two heads are better than one? (http://www.flickr.com/photos/41203461@N00/9718100746/)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7367%2F9714868131_a4b7f1632c.jpg&hash=9277788bbc69c75078f0713447025a6df5780e3c) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/41203461@N00/9714868131/)
Hey you! Out of the bike lane! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/41203461@N00/9714868131/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: lordsutch on September 10, 2013, 11:04:58 PM
A couple:

Well, it was US 341 once-upon-a-time. Not since the Barnesville eastern bypass was opened, however. Also, wrong size shield. http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordsutch/9639470759/

At the terminal ramp of the Fall Line Freeway near Milledgeville, aka unsigned/speculated GA 540, aka not-GA 243 (GA 243 still follows the direct route to Milledgeville and the mileposts on not-GA 243 reset at zero): http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordsutch/9405631932/ US 29 ain't here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 12, 2013, 02:57:27 AM
Quote from: NE2 on September 10, 2013, 09:12:29 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7367%2F9714868131_a4b7f1632c.jpg&hash=9277788bbc69c75078f0713447025a6df5780e3c) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/41203461@N00/9714868131/)
Hey you! Out of the bike lane! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/41203461@N00/9714868131/)

What was even intended here?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on September 12, 2013, 03:06:40 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2013, 02:57:27 AM
What was even intended here?
They probably weren't supposed to put any sign there. Just behind is an intersection with a road being built that will have bike lanes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: spooky on September 12, 2013, 03:04:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2013, 02:57:27 AM
Quote from: NE2 on September 10, 2013, 09:12:29 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7367%2F9714868131_a4b7f1632c.jpg&hash=9277788bbc69c75078f0713447025a6df5780e3c) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/41203461@N00/9714868131/)
Hey you! Out of the bike lane! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/41203461@N00/9714868131/)

What was even intended here?

Only thing I could come up with is that they were telling bikes to only use the right lane.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on September 12, 2013, 03:14:29 PM
It looks newly (re-)paved. Maybe someone messed up the striping and omitted a bike lane?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on September 12, 2013, 05:17:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 12, 2013, 03:14:29 PM
It looks newly (re-)paved. Maybe someone messed up the striping and omitted a bike lane?
It's only repaved in the immediate area of the intersection behind. In the background of the photo you can see where the new pavement ends.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 12, 2013, 05:58:35 PM
Quote from: spooky on September 12, 2013, 03:04:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2013, 02:57:27 AM
Quote from: NE2 on September 10, 2013, 09:12:29 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7367%2F9714868131_a4b7f1632c.jpg&hash=9277788bbc69c75078f0713447025a6df5780e3c) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/41203461@N00/9714868131/)
Hey you! Out of the bike lane! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/41203461@N00/9714868131/)

What was even intended here?

Only thing I could come up with is that they were telling bikes to only use the right lane.

Then it should be reversed: {Bicycle symbol} USE RIGHT LANE ONLY.  What is used is for a designated bicycle lane, not what is striped above.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: DSS5 on September 12, 2013, 08:58:54 PM
In Boone, NC

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-prn1%2F535669_706963782664131_1887130965_n.jpg&hash=b68d3e3c5aceaa7a0ac43c374db4cb8f5aabe0a2)

Good place to get a field sobriety test, I guess.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2013, 09:05:39 PM
that is far too regular, and far too short a wavelength, to be a drunk driver.  I'd say the paint applicator half-dislodged from the truck, and started swinging back and forth.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: DSS5 on September 12, 2013, 09:12:48 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2013, 09:05:39 PM
that is far too regular, and far too short a wavelength, to be a drunk driver.  I'd say the paint applicator half-dislodged from the truck, and started swinging back and forth.

It does start at that little dip there. But I was making a joke about along the straight line in a field sobriety test.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on September 12, 2013, 10:02:09 PM
Damn Brits pushing their communist lines.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/04/zig-zag-lines-slow-virginia-drivers.html
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on September 12, 2013, 10:43:51 PM
Quote from: DSS5 on September 12, 2013, 08:58:54 PM
In Boone, NC

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-prn1%2F535669_706963782664131_1887130965_n.jpg&hash=b68d3e3c5aceaa7a0ac43c374db4cb8f5aabe0a2)

Good place to get a field sobriety test, I guess.

More like erroneous road sines, amirite
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on September 12, 2013, 11:13:37 PM
Damn you.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 12, 2013, 11:29:49 PM
Single solid yellow line is error, aside from wavyness.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 13, 2013, 07:22:38 AM
Mmmm...crinkle fries.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: DSS5 on September 13, 2013, 07:53:43 AM
Quote from: vtk on September 12, 2013, 11:29:49 PM
Single solid yellow line is error, aside from wavyness.

Quote from: vtk on September 12, 2013, 11:29:49 PM
Single solid yellow line is error, aside from wavyness.

They're pretty common around here, but usually it's for narrow mountain roads (http://goo.gl/maps/GUpoh). There's also this street (http://goo.gl/maps/8pOfh) where they painted a pedestrian pathway rather than paying to build a sidewalk.

I'm not sure why it's happening on the road in the image, however.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on September 13, 2013, 08:33:12 AM
Quote from: DSS5 on September 13, 2013, 07:53:43 AM
There's also this street (http://goo.gl/maps/8pOfh) where they painted a pedestrian pathway rather than paying to build a sidewalk.
Cape Coral has something similar (https://maps.google.com/?ll=26.588978,-81.928134&spn=0.000656,0.000886&t=k&layer=c&cbll=26.588978,-81.928134&panoid=ctM_XMtsJnYDzsUigfyhew&cbp=12,284.55,,1,7.38&z=21).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 13, 2013, 09:22:58 AM
Quote from: DSS5 on September 13, 2013, 07:53:43 AMThere's also this street (http://goo.gl/maps/8pOfh) where they painted a pedestrian pathway rather than paying to build a sidewalk.


seriously?  vehicle parking to the right of the pedestrian lane?

what's the advantage of that?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: DSS5 on September 13, 2013, 02:20:35 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 13, 2013, 09:22:58 AM
Quote from: DSS5 on September 13, 2013, 07:53:43 AMThere's also this street (http://goo.gl/maps/8pOfh) where they painted a pedestrian pathway rather than paying to build a sidewalk.


seriously?  vehicle parking to the right of the pedestrian lane?

what's the advantage of that?

The parking has always been there. The pedestrian lane was only added a couple years ago.

Quote from: NE2 on September 13, 2013, 08:33:12 AM
Quote from: DSS5 on September 13, 2013, 07:53:43 AM
There's also this street (http://goo.gl/maps/8pOfh) where they painted a pedestrian pathway rather than paying to build a sidewalk.
Cape Coral has something similar (https://maps.google.com/?ll=26.588978,-81.928134&spn=0.000656,0.000886&t=k&layer=c&cbll=26.588978,-81.928134&panoid=ctM_XMtsJnYDzsUigfyhew&cbp=12,284.55,,1,7.38&z=21).

That leaves very little space for vehicles.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 13, 2013, 02:59:08 PM
yes, but why not stripe the new pedestrian lane to the right, and thus implicitly move the parking in by a few feet.

honestly, the road utilization is gonna be the same.  so I'd rather have careless drivers hitting parked cars than pedestrians.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2013, 11:25:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7427%2F9737088455_6e61e9c449_z.jpg&hash=b5dc2e868075a4022f7adc9575f11b3b46e0e8aa)
Here is an erroneous JCT sign along the US 1 Business & FL A1A overlap in St. Augustine as this is the first reasurrence shield of the two route concurrency.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7368%2F9737087349_031c54d267_z.jpg&hash=2ea7e7f4c6215dfbf80887e61075f44dad8acd21)

A junction Business US 1 shield without the JCT tab (maybe the other one erroneous was the one that was supposed to be here) as this was on the temporary span of the Bridge of Lions during the actual structures overhaul and in the distance you can see the erroneous US 1 shields as well. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on September 14, 2013, 01:11:53 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on September 12, 2013, 10:43:51 PM

More like erroneous road sines, amirite
yesuar havanintarweb
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: DSS5 on September 14, 2013, 08:34:28 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 13, 2013, 02:59:08 PM
yes, but why not stripe the new pedestrian lane to the right, and thus implicitly move the parking in by a few feet.

honestly, the road utilization is gonna be the same.  so I'd rather have careless drivers hitting parked cars than pedestrians.

It's not that much of a safety problem. There's only ever one or two ASU maintenance trucks parked in front of that building. Anyone else will be towed so fast their head'll spin. But still, I see your point.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 15, 2013, 10:32:05 PM
Years ago, I spotted an error Virginia primary 607 route marker in Clintwood. I took a picture of it from a distance as I was traveling on VA 83.

I drove through there again today and got a picture.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5530%2F9766050695_8f3df65a18_c.jpg&hash=e150970861d99c915ac75dc41a82784009fba65e)

Something looked odd. Check out the closeup:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7358%2F9766037766_ae4367bcb9_c.jpg&hash=2a8219391f048da49779486fb85d1975fc161834)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on September 16, 2013, 09:41:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 15, 2013, 10:32:05 PM
Years ago, I spotted an error Virginia primary 607 route marker in Clintwood. I took a picture of it from a distance as I was traveling on VA 83.

I drove through there again today and got a picture.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5530%2F9766050695_8f3df65a18_c.jpg&hash=e150970861d99c915ac75dc41a82784009fba65e)

How much more would it have cost to make the 607 on a square and take the old sign off? Really.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 17, 2013, 11:22:50 AM
There's something similar in the same general area of the state on northbound US 23 near the VA 65 intersection. I have a photo somewhere, but no closeup.

http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2007_October/Pages/436.html

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2007_October%2FImages%2F436.jpg&hash=decadc5e902d6488291272ed2a0ac64bdf508fe4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 17, 2013, 12:04:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 17, 2013, 11:22:50 AM
There's something similar in the same general area of the state on northbound US 23 near the VA 65 intersection. I have a photo somewhere, but no closeup.

http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2007_October/Pages/436.html

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2007_October%2FImages%2F436.jpg&hash=decadc5e902d6488291272ed2a0ac64bdf508fe4)

Now that is a bizarre mutant.  It looks like a boring circle shield is trying to give birth to a US shield.  It almost deserves a new thread, "Mutant Signage".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 17, 2013, 01:18:45 PM
Looks like squared Mickey Mouse ears.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on September 17, 2013, 02:51:03 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2013, 10:56:11 PM
Westbound Va. 236 (Main Street) west of downtown Fairfax (but within the corporate limits of the City of  Fairfax):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Ferror236.jpg&hash=e9ca33913a7857bdef767b97882e71c615d1cc3f)

Passed this spot today while walking from a free parking garage to the courthouse and observed that it has been replaced with the proper shield. There's still another error 236 circle in Fairfax City on northbound Route 123 somewhat to the south of the courthouse, however.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 17, 2013, 03:13:25 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 17, 2013, 12:04:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 17, 2013, 11:22:50 AM
There's something similar in the same general area of the state on northbound US 23 near the VA 65 intersection. I have a photo somewhere, but no closeup.

http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2007_October/Pages/436.html

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2007_October%2FImages%2F436.jpg&hash=decadc5e902d6488291272ed2a0ac64bdf508fe4)

Now that is a bizarre mutant.  It looks like a boring circle shield is trying to give birth to a US shield.  It almost deserves a new thread, "Mutant Signage".

It looks like it's growing whiskers, too!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on September 17, 2013, 08:09:26 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 17, 2013, 11:22:50 AM
There's something similar in the same general area of the state on northbound US 23 near the VA 65 intersection. I have a photo somewhere, but no closeup.

http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2007_October/Pages/436.html

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2007_October%2FImages%2F436.jpg&hash=decadc5e902d6488291272ed2a0ac64bdf508fe4)
Y'all... this is a circle blank posted over a US highway shield... not a mutant.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 17, 2013, 08:13:02 PM
This one makes me think of one thing: Mickey Mouse.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on September 17, 2013, 11:17:50 PM
Seen last week on I-70 approaching OH 72:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FDSCF1912.JPG&hash=d0f07f9bda501dae15bf9ace5f998a8c677c72c6)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FDSCF1913.JPG&hash=4fbca375f2e0a41a06f404a7a4b0bfee710c2d24)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 20, 2013, 10:48:08 PM
What's wrong with this picture?

(https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/558907_568462666522819_647793817_n.png)

(Taken by a co-worker on a recent trip somewhere between western Kentucky and California).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on September 20, 2013, 10:51:44 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2013, 10:48:08 PM
What's wrong with this picture?

(https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/558907_568462666522819_647793817_n.png)

(Taken by a co-worker on a recent trip somewhere between western Kentucky and California).

It's not a duck.
It's not ducking.
It doesn't go well with duck, unlike duck sauce.
It doesn't rhyme with duck.
It's not a place named "Duck Crossing".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on September 20, 2013, 11:41:00 PM
^^ You have to duck while the horse is crossing?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 21, 2013, 06:51:28 PM
Will the real FL A1A please stand up!
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=St.+Augustine,+FL&hl=en&ll=29.861902,-81.281631&spn=0.004159,0.008948&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=17.343453,36.650391&oq=st&t=h&hnear=St+Augustine,+St+Johns,+Florida&z=18&layer=c&cbll=29.861902,-81.281631&panoid=IKq4_8qB-5xINBHcJlvMtQ&cbp=12,149.63,,0,-0.08

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Aerobird on September 23, 2013, 03:49:53 AM
Fresh from Florida, we bring you another installment of Fun With Contractors!

Today's category is: what happens when the contractor's contract says to repave "State Road 30", the maintiance designation for US-98? Why, they put up State Road 30 signs, of course.

Looking west from Franklin County Road 379 just west of Carabelle:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fed%2FFL-30_Carabelle_%2528W%2529.png&hash=874fc76692dab19b8e26e2e5fb75c74a3ce54d7c)

And yep, there's a matched pair, 'cause heerrrrrrrrrrrrrre's East.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F7%2F74%2FFL-30_Carabelle_%2528E%2529.png&hash=8c32c1513b019402c360fced049a25edec455d1d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on September 23, 2013, 10:41:54 AM
Even if they incorrectly thought that US-98 was FL-30, you still can't hate those signs they put up - at least they didn't come out looking like the rear-end of a goat. Contractors can make signs very nice looking... or they can make a sign that makes you want to tear your eyes out.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 23, 2013, 02:42:58 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Annapolis,+MD&hl=en&ll=38.984549,-76.53501&spn=0.007456,0.017896&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=60.826733,146.601563&oq=anna&t=h&hnear=Annapolis,+Anne+Arundel,+Maryland&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.98465,-76.534972&panoid=K0aqPMtYCphf7J2mn7L86w&cbp=12,25.17,,1,0

The TO MD 2 NORTH shield should not have the "TO" banner as the ramp leading to US 50 EB is also MD 2 North as well.  This  is where MD 2 joins US 50 (and US 301) for a brief concurrency around Annapolis at what once was a semi directional interchange before a local road was created north of this interchange.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on September 23, 2013, 11:17:45 PM
Quote from: Aerobird on September 23, 2013, 03:49:53 AM
Fresh from Florida, we bring you another installment of Fun With Contractors!

Today's category is: what happens when the contractor's contract says to repave "State Road 30", the maintiance designation for US-98? Why, they put up State Road 30 signs, of course.
Why is there not someone from FDOT designing or checking designs for signing plans? Why is a contractor ever putting up their own signs? Did they just decide to spend money for the sake of art?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 24, 2013, 06:49:16 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 23, 2013, 11:17:45 PM
Quote from: Aerobird on September 23, 2013, 03:49:53 AM
Fresh from Florida, we bring you another installment of Fun With Contractors!

Today's category is: what happens when the contractor's contract says to repave "State Road 30", the maintiance designation for US-98? Why, they put up State Road 30 signs, of course.
Why is there not someone from FDOT designing or checking designs for signing plans? Why is a contractor ever putting up their own signs? Did they just decide to spend money for the sake of art?

Because Florida.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2FSR30eastSign-Bridge.jpg&hash=ad4def0b39d633e06004d430d94c9d7ee249ef47)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 24, 2013, 07:53:01 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 23, 2013, 11:17:45 PMWhy is a contractor ever putting up their own signs? Did they just decide to spend money for the sake of art?

In Kentucky, sometimes the contractors are responsible for signage on a new road, sometimes they aren't. I don't know why they do it that way. A new portion of KY 15 opened in Breathitt County a couple of weeks ago and the state put up the signs. Three counties south, in Letcher County, contractors installed the signage when an intersection was reconfigured.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Aerobird on October 01, 2013, 09:55:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 23, 2013, 11:17:45 PM
Quote from: Aerobird on September 23, 2013, 03:49:53 AM
Fresh from Florida, we bring you another installment of Fun With Contractors!

Today's category is: what happens when the contractor's contract says to repave "State Road 30", the maintiance designation for US-98? Why, they put up State Road 30 signs, of course.
Why is there not someone from FDOT designing or checking designs for signing plans? Why is a contractor ever putting up their own signs? Did they just decide to spend money for the sake of art?

Apparently the signs are just lumped into the contract. And this sort of goof is downright common around the capitol whenever there's a resurfacing/resignage job; FL-30, FL-369 and FL-375 all make "cameo appearances" where somebody read the work order and decided the number on the contract needed to be the number on the signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on October 02, 2013, 10:26:19 PM
I was in beauti...hahahahahaha can't do it Twin Falls Idaho the other day and drove the new US 93 Twinkie Town bypass. They got the memo that all non-interstates need exit tabs at interchanges, but missed the part on those exit tabs needing to have numbers

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Ftwinfalls.jpg&hash=8053adbc466ca6d9addd97770e8f6b5e45af1a18)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2013, 11:22:15 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Keene,+NH&hl=en&ll=43.641867,-72.341859&spn=0.005978,0.015278&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.407541,15.644531&oq=keene+nh&t=h&hnear=Keene,+Cheshire,+New+Hampshire&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.641668,-72.341521&panoid=8GKUZCwqjFBdojOSDfD7xw&cbp=12,135,,0,-22.5

The error is in the VT 12A shield on the I-89 pull through as it is supposed to be NH 12A.  Also, the "White River" should be White River Junction on the I-91 exit.  Then again the latter could be argued as a sort of abbreviation tactic such as "Salt Lake" for Salt Lake City on some Utah highway signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JMoses24 on October 07, 2013, 01:42:48 PM
Ohio 127 shield where it should be US 127. Eastbound 3rd Street at the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge, Cincinnati, Ohio. Taken just this morning.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJrXsKVj.jpg&hash=72832f064425885ef77a8c72b1dd492c431650a4) (http://imgur.com/JrXsKVj)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 07, 2013, 01:58:59 PM
Yeah, I noticed that and got a picture back in the spring when I was there. There are a few more errors, and a bunch of older signage, along the designated 27/127 truck route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JMoses24 on October 07, 2013, 06:13:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 07, 2013, 01:58:59 PM
Yeah, I noticed that and got a picture back in the spring when I was there. There are a few more errors, and a bunch of older signage, along the designated 27/127 truck route.

This one's right in downtown. I rarely get a chance to get a photo of an error shield. I'm usually passing by in a vehicle -- by the time it registers there was a mistake, I can't go back. Not today... I was leisurely strolling down there and saw it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 08, 2013, 02:11:05 AM
A new fail in misspelling in FL:
Mathews Bridge construction signs misspelled (http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/mathews-bridge-construction-signs-misspelled/nbHMD/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on October 08, 2013, 02:33:14 AM
Much less of a failure than Flordia, since both are common ways of spelling the real-world name.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on October 08, 2013, 05:28:43 AM
What's more of a fail is that the website has all its articles in subdirectories of /news/news . They're not the only ones, though. I recently saw an article at palmbeachnews.com/news/news/breaking-news/full-article-headline-with-way-too-many-words-for-a-headline .
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 08, 2013, 12:32:34 PM
the real fail is patching a temporary sign that will be up for about a month.  honestly, who doesn't know that it's approximately correct?  just leave it be and save some money.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2013, 10:20:15 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on October 08, 2013, 02:11:05 AM
A new fail in misspelling in FL:
Mathews Bridge construction signs misspelled (http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/mathews-bridge-construction-signs-misspelled/nbHMD/)

QuoteWorkers along the Mathews Bridge were busy changing signs Saturday that were part of a massive mistake.

How massive is the misspelling?  OK, they used an extra T. It's not like the error is sending dozens of people on a one-way road to Cuba. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on October 09, 2013, 10:39:37 AM
PS: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-20/story/call-box-you-could-call-philips-highway-one-l-road (also, this can be added to the 'named after a living poolitician' list)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 09, 2013, 03:13:47 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5487%2F9874126574_ac00968a32.jpg&hash=9bdcc1b70e9f0d8dd46af0a9149890556fc39c7d)

US-8? I think not.  CT-8. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on October 09, 2013, 04:53:06 PM
Agoura Hills, spelled "Aquora" and "Aqoura"...misspelled in both directions on US 101.

Northbound:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/22388534860_31e9ded7cb_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/A7p6pJ)
Aqoura Hills (https://flic.kr/p/A7p6pJ) by formulanone (https://www.flickr.com/photos/formulanone/), on Flickr

Southbound:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/22389670839_24b7c93530_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/A7uV6z)
Aquora Hills (https://flic.kr/p/A7uV6z) by formulanone (https://www.flickr.com/photos/formulanone/), on Flickr

X-(
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 09, 2013, 05:49:00 PM
and in one case, the q is an upside down b.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on October 09, 2013, 07:33:39 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 09, 2013, 05:49:00 PM
and in one case, the q is an upside down b.

If it were, I'm not sure how you'd tell.  But one of those is either a backwards p or an inverted d.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on October 09, 2013, 07:38:16 PM
Maybe I'm really nitpicking, but the "H" in the word Hills looks slightly different from one sign to another; the crossbeam appears a stitch higher on the first image, and lower on the second one. It's almost as if the H was inverted on the bottom sign. Or perhaps it's the two slightly different weights of the same typeface.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 09, 2013, 07:39:30 PM
oops, I forgot which way the diagonals go.

in any case: the first photo (with "speed enforced by radar" secondary sign) shows a "q" but with the tail nonstandard short. 

the second shows a backwards "p" or an upside down "d".

the roadgeek implementation of EM has some very subtle differences between q and b, and between p and d.  on one half of each pair, the tail is just a tiny bit shorter.  I'd be prepared to ascribe that to rendering error more than any deliberate choice.

the first photo shows a "q" with the tail even shorter than the shorter of "q" and "b" (I forget which) in the roadgeek font.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 09, 2013, 07:40:21 PM
you are right; the H is upside down.

also, one sign has "next 4 exits" in E, the other in EM.

how the fuck hard is it to set "print: copies = 2"??
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on October 09, 2013, 09:19:05 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 09, 2013, 07:39:30 PM
the roadgeek implementation of EM has some very subtle differences between q and b, and between p and d.  on one half of each pair, the tail is just a tiny bit shorter.  I'd be prepared to ascribe that to rendering error more than any deliberate choice.


Are you sure this difference isn't present in the official specs?  b and d have "tails" that should only be ¼H beyond the loop height.  One would think that the p and q should then be limited to ¼H descenders, as well as g and y, but in practice, those letters seem to have tails that descend almost ½H below baseline.  Or maybe my mind is playing tricks on me when I look at those letters on actual signs...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 14, 2013, 01:32:10 PM
Oops!

http://www.whas11.com/news/Go-north-on-Bardstown-Rd-until-you-get-to-the-Gene-Sydner-Freeway-Wait-what--227677981.html
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Molandfreak on October 14, 2013, 01:40:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 14, 2013, 01:32:10 PM
Oops!

http://www.whas11.com/news/Go-north-on-Bardstown-Rd-until-you-get-to-the-Gene-Sydner-Freeway-Wait-what--227677981.html
Holy crap. How did the contractor not catch this?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on October 14, 2013, 03:33:04 PM
They misspelled it a third way in the URL.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on October 14, 2013, 11:18:12 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 14, 2013, 01:40:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 14, 2013, 01:32:10 PM
Oops!

http://www.whas11.com/news/Go-north-on-Bardstown-Rd-until-you-get-to-the-Gene-Sydner-Freeway-Wait-what--227677981.html
Holy crap. How did the contractor not catch this?

Same way an NC DOT contractor missed the INDEPEDNENCE BLVD sign for US 74 East off I-277.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on October 14, 2013, 11:26:07 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 14, 2013, 01:40:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 14, 2013, 01:32:10 PM
Oops!

http://www.whas11.com/news/Go-north-on-Bardstown-Rd-until-you-get-to-the-Gene-Sydner-Freeway-Wait-what--227677981.html
Holy crap. How did the contractor not catch this?
Or the sign in Wisconsin that had 4 words, 3 of which were misspelled and missing the arrow?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpigjockey.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F07%2Fbilde.jpeg&hash=6e5c70c2f19584e8e70beca03c73f9316d44b5e0)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TCN7JM on October 14, 2013, 11:39:09 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 14, 2013, 01:32:10 PM
Oops!

http://www.whas11.com/news/Go-north-on-Bardstown-Rd-until-you-get-to-the-Gene-Sydner-Freeway-Wait-what--227677981.html
At least they misspelled it consistently on both signs, unlike the Aguora Hills signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 15, 2013, 01:31:34 PM
Since Kentucky uses demountable copy, that's an easy fix for someone with a bucket truck.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on October 16, 2013, 10:13:26 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 15, 2013, 01:31:34 PMSince Kentucky uses demountable copy, that's an easy fix for someone with a bucket truck.

I think direct-applied copy can be overlaid over the error the same way, though field amendments are not generally recommended for signs.  With traffic management and (possibly) overtime taken into account, this "easy fix" will probably cost KyTC as much as a day's salary for the technician who developed the erroneous sign panel detail.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 16, 2013, 11:39:06 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 16, 2013, 10:13:26 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 15, 2013, 01:31:34 PMSince Kentucky uses demountable copy, that's an easy fix for someone with a bucket truck.

I think direct-applied copy can be overlaid over the error the same way, though field amendments are not generally recommended for signs.  With traffic management and (possibly) overtime taken into account, this "easy fix" will probably cost KyTC as much as a day's salary for the technician who developed the erroneous sign panel detail.

There are two contractors who do panel signs for Kentucky. For Districts 1 through 5 it is NWK. (That would include Louisville). For Districts 6 through 12 it is George B. Stone. This is for replacement of damaged signs. I don't know if the sign in question here was a replacement, or a new installation in conjunction with a construction project (in which case, the sign fabrication would have been subcontracted out). It's been awhile since Kentucky has done a large-scale sign replacement project along a significant section of highway. Last one I can remember was I-64 east of Lexington to the West Virginia state line. Those are contracted out to the lowest bidder.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Buck87 on October 16, 2013, 01:38:08 PM
When I was growing up there were two random US 20 reassurance signs in Bellevue, Ohio that incorrectly used the Ohio shield, and I always thought it was kinda quirky. Then in 2005 there was a rebuild of 20 and the sidewalks through downtown, and after the project was over they replaced every single US 20 shield in the whole town with OH 20 shields, even "TO 20" ones nearly a mile away on OH 269. So I emailed ODOT about it, and they were eventually changed. Then to my surprise there was a front page article in the Sandusky Register about it a week or two later, must have been a slow news day. I still get crap about that one from a few of my fiends.

On a similar note, a few years ago when the new Seneca East school complex opened on US 224 west of Attica, Ohio all of the 224 signage at and around the new traffic light for the school entrance used the Ohio shield. Though I noticed last month that it has been corrected.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on October 16, 2013, 08:22:44 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 16, 2013, 11:39:06 AMThere are two contractors who do panel signs for Kentucky. For Districts 1 through 5 it is NWK. (That would include Louisville). For Districts 6 through 12 it is George B. Stone. This is for replacement of damaged signs. I don't know if the sign in question here was a replacement, or a new installation in conjunction with a construction project (in which case, the sign fabrication would have been subcontracted out).

The article says the error was in the construction plans, which tends to imply the latter scenario (turnkey construction).  There are some state DOTs (such as Kansas DOT) which I suspect use the phrase "construction plans" to refer to the design documents they forward to companies that hold term contracts for signing, but it is more common for these to be called "work authorizations," "work orders," "sign installation orders," etc.

Assuming this sign was installed as part of a turnkey job, I am sure the contract advertisement is archived somewhere on the KyTC website, but finding it could be quite a task unless it was major enough to be one of KyTC's spotlight projects.

The construction plans themselves should be available through KyTC's Project Archive in due course, but even with recent additions it is still several years behind current contract lettings.  KyTC now makes construction letting plans available for viewing and download through a planroom contractor.  Unfortunately, the cache of projects is only one year deep, only viewable images (pixel count limited to 3400 x 2200) can be downloaded free of charge, and the site relies on login and URL obfuscation to discourage casual download of the viewing images.

QuoteIt's been awhile since Kentucky has done a large-scale sign replacement project along a significant section of highway. Last one I can remember was I-64 east of Lexington to the West Virginia state line. Those are contracted out to the lowest bidder.

I agree there has been a drought, but has it really been that deep?  As an example, were there major items of work other than signing in project number 02-2058.00 (conversion of the Pennyrile Parkway to I-69)?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 16, 2013, 08:47:57 PM
I drove the WK/I-69 going to the Wichita meet, and because of my car trouble in Springfield and my desire not to have to fight St. Louis rush hour traffic, on the way home as well, and yet I had completely forgotten about that one, although I am not sure if I would categorize that as a true sign replacement project even though that's in essence what it was.

There was also one on the Bluegrass Parkway, but I'm pretty sure it happened before the one on I-64 mentioned above.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Buck87 on October 22, 2013, 08:28:42 PM
I was on Google maps taking a look around at the I-480/I-271 triangle area in metro Cleveland and stumbled across this upside down OH 13 truck route sign. No idea why this sign would be upside down at the bottom of a pole on the wrong side of the road, or better yet, why it's in metro Cleveland, 50+ miles from the nearest stretch of OH 13.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&t=h&ie=UTF8&ll=41.424602,-81.520796&spn=0.001923,0.009238&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=41.424602,-81.520796&panoid=PPT_SoX4AZOQj_Vk3qOQVg&cbp=12,52.67,,0,19.53

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on October 23, 2013, 12:37:59 AM
Ew, and it's the fugly variant too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on October 23, 2013, 01:04:01 AM
Quote from: Buck87 on October 22, 2013, 08:28:42 PM
I was on Google maps taking a look around at the I-480/I-271 triangle area in metro Cleveland and stumbled across this upside down OH 13 truck route sign. No idea why this sign would be upside down at the bottom of a pole on the wrong side of the road, or better yet, why it's in metro Cleveland, 50+ miles from the nearest stretch of OH 13.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&t=h&ie=UTF8&ll=41.424602,-81.520796&spn=0.001923,0.009238&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=41.424602,-81.520796&panoid=PPT_SoX4AZOQj_Vk3qOQVg&cbp=12,52.67,,0,19.53

Look to the left and you have a RIDOT I-480 shield...  :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TCN7JM on October 23, 2013, 09:16:44 PM
Two in a row on Rice Street between Sioux Falls and Brandon.

This one (https://maps.google.com/?ll=43.592794,-96.655612&spn=0.018183,0.042272&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=43.592937,-96.655501&panoid=FM5Rd2YuhrtpAoVwuSmAsg&cbp=12,54.19,,0,4.75) should have a "TO" banner for I-90, as the road it turns onto isn't I-90, and this one (https://maps.google.com/?ll=43.594068,-96.654239&spn=0.018182,0.042272&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=43.594146,-96.654083&panoid=jaoAfEN1RNF7AJMkBz4d8g&cbp=12,64.24,,0,4.29) should read "CR 121; TO I-90" because the road it turns on is, in fact, CR 121, not to it.

I've driven by these hundreds of times and somehow not noticed the error until today.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on October 28, 2013, 01:40:39 PM
Passed this sign assembly in Louisa, Virginia (http://goo.gl/maps/ngAKC), on Saturday (I didn't have the dashcam running, so I've linked Street View instead). The error is the "22" shield, which should be a state primary route shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 28, 2013, 02:57:47 PM
I saw it last year and got a photo:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8057%2F8220449217_b38e1390ab.jpg&hash=1944294bbeefec523e452d7015dc96a34b792014)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on October 30, 2013, 08:24:56 PM
That US 22 shield has been there a while...back to at least 2006...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TCN7JM on November 03, 2013, 07:05:45 PM
Another one in the "how haven't I noticed this until now" category:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7424%2F10658525825_2f9efed50f_z.jpg&hash=9a770d1ddb711e828769017f11fccdc3126429ba)

This sign has certainly seen better days, and it seems the City of Sioux Falls has been too lazy to change it for at least eighteen years, as 11th Street hasn't been SD 38 since somewhere around 1995. The SD 38 designation now ends at I-29 in the northwestern corner of the city, and this is now SD 42.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on November 04, 2013, 08:51:29 AM
Quote from: TCN7JM on November 03, 2013, 07:05:45 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7424%2F10658525825_2f9efed50f_z.jpg&hash=9a770d1ddb711e828769017f11fccdc3126429ba)

This sign has certainly seen better days, and it seems the City of Sioux Falls has been too lazy to change it for at least eighteen years, as 11th Street hasn't been SD 38 since somewhere around 1995. The SD 38 designation now ends at I-29 in the northwestern corner of the city, and this is now SD 42.
Something tells me that BGS is way older than 1995; meaning that the info. was correct when it first erected but never updated when 11th St. lost its SD 38 designation & became SD 42.

It's not so much erroneous as much as it's obsolete in terms of route info.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TCN7JM on November 04, 2013, 08:14:12 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 04, 2013, 08:51:29 AM
Quote from: TCN7JM on November 03, 2013, 07:05:45 PM
Image snipped

This sign has certainly seen better days, and it seems the City of Sioux Falls has been too lazy to change it for at least eighteen years, as 11th Street hasn't been SD 38 since somewhere around 1995. The SD 38 designation now ends at I-29 in the northwestern corner of the city, and this is now SD 42.
Something tells me that BGS is way older than 1995; meaning that the info. was correct when it first erected but never updated when 11th St. lost its SD 38 designation & became SD 42.

It's not so much erroneous as much as it's obsolete in terms of route info.
Correct in the past or not, it's still erroneous. It's not like these are all over the place, all the trailblazers mark it as SD 42 as well as all other BGSs. They just plain forgot this one sign which, if nothing else, is erroneous on the city's part.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on November 05, 2013, 09:06:53 AM
Quote from: TCN7JM on November 04, 2013, 08:14:12 PMCorrect in the past or not, it's still erroneous. It's not like these are all over the place, all the trailblazers mark it as SD 42 as well as all other BGSs. They just plain forgot this one sign which, if nothing else, is erroneous on the city's part.

Not changing/updating a sign due to a route number change, thereby making it erroneous, has been done multiple times before.

Boston, Charlesgate approaching Storrow Drive from Kemnore Square (these BGS were erected about a year or two before US 1 was rerouted onto I-93).

http://goo.gl/maps/rEj75 (http://goo.gl/maps/rEj75)

Braintree, MA (this was discussed in the I-93 thread); one old remaining trailblazer sign that still refers to I-93 South as 128 North.  It was correct when it was first erected in the mid-80s but was rendered obsolete (& technically erroneous) by 1989-1990 when the DPW officially truncated 128 to I-95/93(US 1) in Canton.  The BGS' are obviously newer.

http://goo.gl/maps/FF1AJ (http://goo.gl/maps/FF1AJ)

Here's a real gem in Revere, MA along MA 16/Revere Beach Parkway at the MA 107 interchange.  Despite the fact that this road has not been part of MA 1A since 1971, the MDC/DCR still signs this road as such at this location.

http://goo.gl/maps/PpsA6 (http://goo.gl/maps/PpsA6)

Adding insult to injury, this is the second replacement for this BGS/LGS in over 20 years.  The first replacement also listed the old/obsolete route number (15-16 years after the change). 

Nonetheless to the above-examples, it is my understanding that the purpose of this thread was to post or comment on signs that were outright erroneous not because they contained former route numbers in them.  One could have a whole separate thread devoted to such.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TCN7JM on November 05, 2013, 09:20:18 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 05, 2013, 09:06:53 AM
Nonetheless to the above-examples, it is my understanding that the purpose of this thread was to post or comment on signs that were outright erroneous not because they contained former route numbers in them.  One could have a whole separate thread devoted to such.
Personally I don't see a difference (especially after you erect a new sign with the former number), but hey. Whatever floats your boat.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 06, 2013, 10:23:07 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2855%2F10174662225_1ae4677b4a.jpg&hash=aa6bca3754c18f7280454fba7c39a4860a7084e2)

Why? Because the route being intersected is actually KY 1460, not KY 3495, as shown below.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3766%2F10174731106_554f83e3e2.jpg&hash=665789813800a6ee86cbe9a5e18503cb77e26274)

This is on US 23/US 119 northbound and US 460/KY 80 westbound in Pikeville.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 06, 2013, 01:15:06 PM
At least the "4" was correct.  And the 0 is shaped like an alien's head.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on November 06, 2013, 01:19:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 06, 2013, 01:15:06 PMAnd the 0 is shaped like an alien's head.
Or the mouth of the Scream ghost.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on November 06, 2013, 02:32:11 PM
Ideally both routes should be signed there, since the first bit of 1460 is just a connecting link to a T intersection where 1460 goes left and 3495 begins to the right. I'd recommend extending 1460 over 3495, but that might confuse people heading southbound on US 23 and looking for 1460 into Pikeville. On the other hand it would take them a bit closer to a sweet looking suspension bridge.
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/SPRS%20Maps/Pikeville_city.pdf
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 06, 2013, 02:42:31 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 06, 2013, 02:32:11 PM
Ideally both routes should be signed there, since the first bit of 1460 is just a connecting link to a T intersection where 1460 goes left and 3495 begins to the right. I'd recommend extending 1460 over 3495, but that might confuse people heading southbound on US 23 and looking for 1460 into Pikeville. On the other hand it would take them a bit closer to a sweet looking suspension bridge.
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/SPRS%20Maps/Pikeville_city.pdf

Of course, 3495 and 1460 are the old routes of 23.

I've passed by that bridge a zillion times but don't know the history of it. There's a plaque there now; I guess I need to stop and look at it next time I'm in the area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on November 06, 2013, 02:52:51 PM
It's a socialist WPA project: http://bridgehunter.com/ky/pike/pauley/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2013, 04:57:17 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Garwood,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.647983,-74.352504&spn=0.002678,0.004463&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=6.319638,9.140625&oq=garw&t=h&hnear=Garwood,+Union,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.647983,-74.352504&panoid=10DcanAtpnupJ_bP6vGAEQ&cbp=12,102.52,,1,0
This one is totally incorrect.  CR 509 does not at all pass through this intersection.  In fact, more than 30 years ago it did, however this assembly is neither a carbon copy sign nor a left over from that era when it was.  Somebody, obviously used a very very old SLD when designing and planting of this.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on November 10, 2013, 05:29:14 PM
I seem to remember a lot of disagreement between state and county in Union County.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2013, 09:00:06 AM
I believe the same goes with CR 509 SPUR and CR 577.  Signs on US 22 and NJ 124 in Springfield show Miesel/ Springfield Avenues as CR 577 while Union County shows those two roads as CR 509 SPUR.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on November 12, 2013, 08:30:10 PM
I'm getting some mixed messages here...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freeimagehosting.net%2Fnewuploads%2Flp1th.jpg&hash=7d9f286a0276147a9a694b52b082c1a13a124bde)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on November 12, 2013, 08:52:03 PM
I recall an arrow for the 1 mile sign, too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 15, 2013, 11:52:09 AM
No photo, and the sign is missing on Google Street View, but mile marker 162.2 on eastbound I-64 in Virginia has an I-60 shield on it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 15, 2013, 12:17:37 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 15, 2013, 11:52:09 AM
No photo, and the sign is missing on Google Street View, but mile marker 162.2 on eastbound I-64 in Virginia has an I-60 shield on it.

I would absolutely love to see a photo of this.  is a close-up safely doable?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 15, 2013, 01:58:47 PM
Not quite what Will's referring to, but in the same vein:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2008_Richmond_trip_Day_3%2FImages%2F61.jpg&hash=9fc17aa99ab8e7fa85c816d73523f23b7c16321f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 15, 2013, 03:05:45 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 15, 2013, 01:58:47 PM
Not quite what Will's referring to, but in the same vein:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2008_Richmond_trip_Day_3%2FImages%2F61.jpg&hash=9fc17aa99ab8e7fa85c816d73523f23b7c16321f)

Yeah, what I'm referring to is actually a full-color shield. I could probably get someone to drive me so I can get a picture of it. I couldn't take a photo then because I was driving home from Charlottesville at midnight. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on November 17, 2013, 04:40:42 PM
I could do it. That'd give me another excuse to check out the progeess of the DDI at US 15.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on November 17, 2013, 05:36:22 PM
Someone brought up a Redundancy Department of Redundancy sign in another thread and reminded me of this story from Snopes (take it however way you want):

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?p=945900

Essentially, a sign said "NO STOPING," a guy stopped, got a ticket, but had it successfully thrown out because he gave the definition of stope: "Any excavation made in a mine, especially from a steeply inclined vein, to remove the ore that has been rendered accessible by the shafts and drifts."


On a similar front, someone I know got a ticket for disobeying a sign that said "10-MINUET PARKING." He would have gotten away with it but he hummed 11 Bach pieces in front of the officer.
OK, that last one might be a little stretched.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on November 17, 2013, 08:41:51 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 17, 2013, 05:36:22 PM
OK, that last one might be a little stretched.

I can read that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: sbeaver44 on November 22, 2013, 10:19:35 PM
This sign on PA 433 would have been correct if it were facing the other way.  (There were no paving markings for about a half mile before this.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3800%2F10344900824_14dc143b8f_c.jpg&hash=75b13f0700011d928f3b60aa49c04ddbcd1225a5) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/seetheroads/10344900824/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 28, 2013, 08:40:03 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=St.+Louis,+MO&hl=en&ll=38.751983,-89.913611&spn=0.003221,0.005686&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=6.319638,9.140625&oq=st+&t=h&hnear=St+Louis,+Missouri&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.751997,-89.913398&panoid=GPGoD1vAbsedtmRuCcv3CQ&cbp=12,137.55,,0,0  The sign for Exit 15A on I-270 in IL at its eastern terminus should also read I-70 WB as I-55 SB is concurrent with its parent I-70 WB.  Plus a sign is needed for Exit 15B for I-55 NB to Chicago in addition.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 30, 2013, 11:46:03 AM
No picture or street view (sorry), but while I was in Elmira for Thanksgiving, I saw an error US 17  (should be NY 17, obviously) shield on NY 352 West near NY 14.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 30, 2013, 01:35:25 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3213%2F2943867931_63e80bc6c0_z_d.jpg%3Fzz%3D1&hash=3b80a80a7b2278501f8a7616f27a6d17626fe8b8)
West of Lincoln, AR

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8135%2F8711698102_d6d45c4700_z_d.jpg&hash=c37c0d0a289017bc22ab3b585e4449034bf7b236)
Lockesburg, AR

Tennessee does it, too
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7123%2F7137240103_7955e613b4_z_d.jpg&hash=e2c7eeed51d1e4884924aa3c49ce961bcff3e620)

So does MoDOT
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2657%2F4223611965_c60592a692_z_d.jpg%3Fzz%3D1&hash=66040e076c939841d8b79f818ebdb2cd62aa541d)

Here's a major error near Perry, AR
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4112%2F4969417496_076fdd6de9_z_d.jpg&hash=d14074341f30ff18fe1a1eed77b4af38488f25bd)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 30, 2013, 02:27:49 PM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on November 30, 2013, 11:46:03 AM
No picture or street view (sorry)

It opened fine for me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on November 30, 2013, 02:36:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2013, 02:27:49 PM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on November 30, 2013, 11:46:03 AM
No picture or street view (sorry)

It opened fine for me.

You opened what? He meant he didn't have a picture or street view. There was nothing to open.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 30, 2013, 04:36:33 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 28, 2013, 08:40:03 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=St.+Louis,+MO&hl=en&ll=38.751983,-89.913611&spn=0.003221,0.005686&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=6.319638,9.140625&oq=st+&t=h&hnear=St+Louis,+Missouri&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.751997,-89.913398&panoid=GPGoD1vAbsedtmRuCcv3CQ&cbp=12,137.55,,0,0 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on November 30, 2013, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 30, 2013, 01:35:25 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3213%2F2943867931_63e80bc6c0_z_d.jpg%3Fzz%3D1&hash=3b80a80a7b2278501f8a7616f27a6d17626fe8b8)
West of Lincoln, AR

That looks like a '61 spec shield on the southbound 59.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 30, 2013, 07:25:48 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on November 30, 2013, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 30, 2013, 01:35:25 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3213%2F2943867931_63e80bc6c0_z_d.jpg%3Fzz%3D1&hash=3b80a80a7b2278501f8a7616f27a6d17626fe8b8)
West of Lincoln, AR

That looks like a '61 spec shield on the southbound 59.

That's pretty much Arkansas "Standard" for 2d US.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 30, 2013, 11:40:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8407%2F8699572201_0fac0b7a65_z.jpg&hash=e4054e76a0082709c617db327f267090c199b72b)

The FL SR 50 sign's arrow should be the same as the "TO I-95."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on December 01, 2013, 01:30:19 AM



US HIGHWAY 33 (http://tinyurl.com/px2ruma)
^ (http://tinyurl.com/px2ruma)
NJ TURNPIKE (http://tinyurl.com/px2ruma)|| (http://tinyurl.com/px2ruma)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on December 01, 2013, 01:58:30 PM
No idea what you're linking to because Bing Maps wants to pitch a fit about my OS. (Like that matters on the Web.) Good to see Microsoft will never change.

Quote from: US71 on November 30, 2013, 07:25:48 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on November 30, 2013, 04:59:42 PM
That looks like a '61 spec shield on the southbound 59.

That's pretty much Arkansas "Standard" for 2d US.

AR uses the '61 spec US and the '57 spec Interstate pretty extensively. They even have their own 3di US spec that looks like what you would get if you expanded the '61 spec shield to three digits.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on December 07, 2013, 12:16:10 AM
Route 2, eh? (https://maps.google.com/?cbp=11,296.6,,0,-0.45&cbll=50.892646,-114.049933&layer=c&ie=UTF8&ll=50.874228,-114.00753&spn=0.078426,0.308647&t=m&z=12&vpsrc=6&panoid=m-jT0yHXhpwg_93q1vygBw)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on December 08, 2013, 07:00:51 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2663%2F3902998310_80be0c9023_z_d.jpg&hash=2a59b472629ec6bc65663ba163db39a3b9f41dfa)

North of Stillwater, OK

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2550%2F4221113284_45149e8de1_z_d.jpg%3Fzz%3D1&hash=ed492fd7d2b53b5874f1767cf2ba81dba0057c7f)
McAlester , OK

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3033%2F2548848003_e1d40ffc01_z_d.jpg%3Fzz%3D1&hash=ab2fbbca65a9db5e002d059bc0f982279983194d)
Evansville, AR (Contractor error)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5317%2F5864706080_5a65719087_z_d.jpg&hash=a34a9604eddeb4ac35cfad9908e98a9ebbedf5d7)
Lees Summit, MO

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3070%2F2474259299_550392b8f3_d.jpg&hash=21edb699d4af1ab30509292685abf43d13333b08)
...and the short lived MO 71 near Jane, MO
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on December 08, 2013, 11:00:46 PM
Something is not right with this reference marker:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs29.postimg.org%2F9vz8u7uud%2FIMG_2949.jpg&hash=3fdb5a560727f3f857528c797dc8512cf673d85f)

I-490 in region 11? Yeah, that's I-495 there.


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on December 09, 2013, 12:11:49 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 08, 2013, 11:00:46 PM
Something is not right with this reference marker:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs29.postimg.org%2F9vz8u7uud%2FIMG_2949.jpg&hash=3fdb5a560727f3f857528c797dc8512cf673d85f)

I-490 in region 11? Yeah, that's I-495 there.



How'd you even spot that?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on December 09, 2013, 10:15:35 AM
Unfortunately, I have no photo of such nor has GoogleMaps been updated to show it yet, but a recent sign replacement along I-76 Westbound in Philly at the exit ramp to I-676 East shows a rectangular 30 shield that looks more appropriate for Maine or Massachusetts.  Note: the shield features a thin-black rectangular border that's offset from the sign's edges.

The link shows the location of where the new sign is but not the actual sign.  The old BGS was replaced with a smaller EXIT BGS w/an arrow with a rectangular 30 shield & I-676 shield placed below the BGS panel.
http://goo.gl/maps/l8Hvx (http://goo.gl/maps/l8Hvx)

Needless to say, it should be a US 30 shield.  While I've seen PA & US shields erroneously assigned, this was the first time I've seen a rectangular shield erected for a route in PA.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Thing 342 on December 15, 2013, 12:50:12 AM
US 301 in Port Royal, VA seems to have been downgraded...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezimba.com%2Fwork%2F131215C%2Fezimba12455829320600.jpg&hash=7d3fb7c15148f3972649e75c245424855357038b)
Taken December 1, 2013
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 15, 2013, 12:35:39 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5545%2F11386976885_127019ca7f_z.jpg&hash=2bea7e37e709f8706f7a4c1c8415a944b48dc167)

LA 42 is inside of a LA 3 digit shield instead of a 2 digit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on December 15, 2013, 01:03:10 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/XqDuF

It's techinically US RT 206, not NJ RT 206. But that depends if you classify US Highways as a State Route since they are maintained by the State DOT.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mass_citizen on December 15, 2013, 08:19:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 15, 2013, 12:35:39 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/11386981646/in/photostream/

LA 42 is inside of a LA 3 digit shield instead of a 2 digit.

lazy sign fabricators..
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 15, 2013, 10:41:06 PM
https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.972353,-75.132891&spn=0.001333,0.002232&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.972767,-75.133225&panoid=S-07_Bqd9h5Woq8Xec0Yaw&cbp=12,331.26,,0,-0.38

Here is one that features Stroudsburg, PA for Exit 310 on I-80 at the Delaware River Toll Bridge.  This is not the exit for Stroudsburg, though taking PA 611 NB from here will get you there, but the third, fourth, and fifth exits from this location are the technical exits for this forthcoming city.  The ones PennDOT assigned are for Broad Street (PA 191), Dreher Avenue, and Main Street (US 209 Business).

I am guessing that this guide sign was erected by the Delaware River Toll Joint Commission and not PennDOT or NJDOT (as the sign is in NJ). 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 18, 2013, 11:40:26 PM
My friend Doug in Bristol, CT was in Norfolk, VA today. He noticed at least three error signs of US Route 60 signed with a blank interstate shield cutout, similar to this here:

http://goo.gl/maps/rQc98
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 19, 2013, 03:03:46 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 18, 2013, 11:40:26 PM
My friend Doug in Bristol, CT was in Norfolk, VA today. He noticed at least three error signs of US Route 60 signed with a blank interstate shield cutout, similar to this here:

http://goo.gl/maps/rQc98
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=211+W+Ocean+View+Ave,+Norfolk+VA&hl=en&ll=36.959666,-76.26091&spn=0.007561,0.015278&sll=36.956190,-76.254298&layer=c&cbp=13,135,,0,0&cbll=36.959341,-76.260506&hnear=211+W+Ocean+View+Ave,+Norfolk,+Virginia+23503&t=m&panoid=H8_RjCV2_dVrztFCYT7_Gw&z=16 Another one in Norfolk near the location in your find.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on December 19, 2013, 11:47:19 AM
Oh no, not another case of US-Interstate again.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 19, 2013, 01:14:40 PM
The person who brought this to my attention joked that we now have an Interstate 60! :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on December 29, 2013, 06:59:00 PM
On Idaho 75 north of Stanley

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fid75speedlimit.jpg&hash=84072e85d18be4d55efc9e7fd38d7d52f29000b5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on December 29, 2013, 07:00:34 PM
Quote from: corco on December 29, 2013, 06:59:00 PM
On Idaho 75 north of Stanley

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fid75speedlimit.jpg&hash=84072e85d18be4d55efc9e7fd38d7d52f29000b5)

I see no error.

Is that a Golden Snitch on top of the speed limit sign?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on December 29, 2013, 07:31:39 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 29, 2013, 07:00:34 PM
I see no error.

Looking at the MUTCD, it says that all regulatory signs in construction zones shall be designed to the specifications of the regulatory signs for normal roads. In this case, even though it looks MUTCD compliant, it actually isn't (correct me if I'm wrong).

QuoteStandard:
TTC regulatory signs shall conform to the Standards for regulatory signs presented in Part 2 and in the FHWA's "Standard Highway Signs" book (see Section 1A.11).
Support:
Regulatory signs are generally rectangular with a black legend and border on a white background. Exceptions include the STOP, YIELD, DO NOT ENTER, WRONG WAY, and ONE WAY signs.

However, the sign could very well contain a 'TEMPORARY' or 'WORK ZONE' banner on top of it to differentiate between a normal sign and a sign meant for an active construction zone.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on December 29, 2013, 07:34:11 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 29, 2013, 07:00:34 PM
Quote from: corco on December 29, 2013, 06:59:00 PM
On Idaho 75 north of Stanley

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fid75speedlimit.jpg&hash=84072e85d18be4d55efc9e7fd38d7d52f29000b5)

I see no error.

Is that a Golden Snitch on top of the speed limit sign?

Construction orange for a speed limit sign technically wouldn't be (or at least shouldn't be) enforceable as a regulatory sign. Regulatory signs are not colored differently in construction zones, only warning signs are.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mass_citizen on December 29, 2013, 09:10:23 PM
even with the limited view in that picture, 10 still seems way too low for that construction zone. especially curious that they placed the sign right before a temporary stop light.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on December 29, 2013, 09:18:24 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on December 29, 2013, 09:10:23 PM
10 still seems way too low for that construction zone.

It should have been fairly low- the barrier does cross the center line in several places and there's not much of a shoulder once you get around that corner, but probably 25 would have been perfectly safe. Maybe a large truck would have needed to slow down more, but even then 10 is pretty slow. That construction zone is for a rockfall cleanup as opposed to any actual construction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on December 30, 2013, 04:55:26 PM
That, and the light doesn't seem to be working.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Thing 342 on December 30, 2013, 06:00:13 PM
Suffolk apparently has no idea how to sign this interchange between VA-10/32 and US-13/58/460.

US-13 is nowhere to be found here (It probably saw how ugly the other shields were, and skipped town): https://www.google.com/maps/preview?hl=en#!data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-76.585841!3d36.766883!2m2!1f229!2f86.05!4f38.57!2m9!1e1!2m4!1sw3VLvY_U5vQpNbcov5U55w!2e0!9m1!6sVirginia+32!5m2!1sw3VLvY_U5vQpNbcov5U55w!2e0&fid=5
This was correct before US-13 was rerouted along the bypass in 2003, however this is a recent install.

This unisign right after it (and most of the ground signage) shows US-13, but not US-460. (This has never been correct): https://www.google.com/maps/preview?hl=en#!data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-76.586683!3d36.763135!2m2!1f16.97!2f84.59!4f20.84!2m9!1e1!2m4!1sxSgJmoZ_QIA-lU39O_pgog!2e0!9m1!6sVirginia+32!5m2!1sxSgJmoZ_QIA-lU39O_pgog!2e0&fid=5

Probably the most correct of the signage, however, still no US-13 and the sign below it only indicates US-58. (And an odd distance on the BGS): https://www.google.com/maps/preview?hl=en#!data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-76.584927!3d36.769163!2m2!1f202.34!2f89.81!4f36.61!2m9!1e1!2m4!1sRKHvn7DJbXdBrgjO_eZutA!2e0!9m1!6sVirginia+32!5m2!1sRKHvn7DJbXdBrgjO_eZutA!2e0&fid=5



Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on January 01, 2014, 07:58:05 PM
That last one is much, much older than the first two (probably original), so it was correct when installed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on January 02, 2014, 07:06:18 AM
The BGS assembly does likely predate the US 13 addition but this is not the original BGS (green color on the background would be much duller and faded if it dated to the mid-70s).  It is a modern one done in the style of the BGSs Virginia used in the late 60s-70s.


Note that this wasn't posted correctly from the beginning when US 13 was first added to the bypass (2006 photo)...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fva-ends%2Fbannered%2Fbus032_nt.jpg&hash=58800acec9b75278c5132b97e554d09ebc32bd2b)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on January 04, 2014, 12:05:43 PM
The signs at the VA 10/32 interchange and at the US 460 interchange have pretty much been erroneous ever since the Suffolk Bypass was completed in 1974.  These all need to be updated with the correct information.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on January 09, 2014, 06:34:23 PM
South of the I-65 and AL 69 overlap, there must have been some confusion...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/3859/14937136940_c2eafdbb9e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oKWJpN)

Must be a rather new sign; StreetView is from September 2013 (https://www.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.058988,-86.866579&spn=0.044584,0.077162&sll=34.007704,-77.893066&sspn=0.178445,0.308647&oq=cullman&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=34.058451,-86.86655&panoid=_Xn54Bk3NHmnbZFIpaKL3g&cbp=12,181,,1,-1.2), and it has the right shield (and no Clearview).

(edited link)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theline on January 09, 2014, 10:10:34 PM
formulanone, were you following me? I just drove through there on Saturday on my way to Mobile, and that looks kinda like the Chevy Impala I was driving.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on January 09, 2014, 10:33:54 PM
One day later, in fact...I was going to leave Monday, but the threat of ice with no road salt didn't sit well with me.

It's a Cadillac CTS coupe that served as the "radar bait" until jumping off at Birmingham.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theline on January 09, 2014, 11:57:19 PM
No danger that it was me if that was a Caddy.  :bigass:

I was fearing ice on the return trip on Monday, but didn't see any despite the frigid temps until I got to Indiana. The Hoosier State was a mess.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on January 10, 2014, 09:14:06 AM
Quote from: theline on January 09, 2014, 10:10:34 PM
formulanone, were you following me? I just drove through there on Saturday on my way to Mobile, and that looks kinda like the Chevy Impala I was driving.
Quote from: formulanone on January 09, 2014, 10:33:54 PMIt's a Cadillac CTS coupe that served as the "radar bait" until jumping off at Birmingham.

FYI theline, no Chevy Impala to date ever featured single, long, vertical tail-lights and last Impala coupe was the '81 model. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 10, 2014, 09:29:46 AM
Quote from: formulanone on January 09, 2014, 06:34:23 PM
South of the I-65 and AL 69 overlap, there must have been some confusion...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2FInt65sRoad-Exit299-AL65sError.jpg&hash=da998730b7f5ded1bb98966dcbf5fbe5053a595e)

Must be a rather new sign; StreetView is from September 2013 (https://www.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.058988,-86.866579&spn=0.044584,0.077162&sll=34.007704,-77.893066&sspn=0.178445,0.308647&oq=cullman&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=34.058451,-86.86655&panoid=_Xn54Bk3NHmnbZFIpaKL3g&cbp=12,181,,1,-1.2), and it has the right shield (and no Clearview).

And yet another sign where the letter height in Clearview must be Taller than needed. Since they added Dodge City to that exit, they must have replaced all the other signs, including the barely old Clearview sign at one half mile out:

(https://www.aaroads.com/southeast/alabama065/i-065_sb_exit_299_05.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mass_citizen on January 11, 2014, 01:14:43 AM
https://twitter.com/Toucherandrich/status/421676454171381760/photo/1

if OLNY they knew how to spell!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on January 12, 2014, 08:17:09 PM
Just found this on Street View...

Southwestbound on Market St in Washington CH, Ohio:
[East]
[US 62]
[OH 3]

Should be:
[West]
[US 62]
[South]
[OH 3]
[OH 38]

https://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.543094,-83.431431&spn=0.004459,0.00707&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=39.543164,-83.43133&panoid=AAtHPMmjnWKzljhlc2NuWw&cbp=12,241.81,,1,3.35
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on January 12, 2014, 08:50:38 PM
Quote from: vtk on January 12, 2014, 08:17:09 PM
Just found this on Street View...

Southwestbound on Market St in Washington CH, Ohio:
[East]
[US 62]
[OH 3]

Should be:
[West]
[US 62]
[South]
[OH 3]
[OH 38]

https://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.543094,-83.431431&spn=0.004459,0.00707&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=39.543164,-83.43133&panoid=AAtHPMmjnWKzljhlc2NuWw&cbp=12,241.81,,1,3.35

Who thought it was EAST? It's more west than east!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on January 12, 2014, 09:31:24 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 12, 2014, 08:50:38 PM
Who thought it was EAST? It's more west than east!

US 62 in Ohio can't decide whether it is North-South or East-West.  It used to be N-East/S-West in places but that is long gone now.  Panning around and going down the street you can find another error with OH 3 posted as East-West (http://goo.gl/maps/znuEy) along with 62, but at least 62's directions are correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on January 12, 2014, 09:39:30 PM
It's the fact that they signed it 180° opposite. If it was a 90˚ mistake, it would not have been as much of an error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on January 12, 2014, 09:46:14 PM
Yes, if it were:
[South]
[US 62]
[OH 3]
[OH 38]

I would deem that as perfectly acceptable.  (I firmly believe US 62 should be signed N—S in Ohio; particularly south of Columbus, but might as well do the whole thing since PA and NY also sign it N—S.)  But if you're going technically west on one route and south on two others, putting an EAST banner over two of the routes and forgetting the third is just plain wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on January 12, 2014, 11:32:57 PM
Not disagreeing that EAST is wrong--just find it amusing that not only can't they decide on N-S or E-W for it, but they manage to get it wrong with 50-50 odds of randomly pulling a correct direction out of four.  EAST with OH 3 is even more unforgivable. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 15, 2014, 12:18:43 PM
Here is one that lacks good placement of an exit number tab that could make it look like LA 1 South has no official exit number.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3712%2F11967488036_776320a8dd_c.jpg&hash=475a030ee47b8cfe6d1c949a9d07ea903dd704e3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on January 15, 2014, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 15, 2014, 12:18:43 PM
Here is one that lacks good placement of an exit number tab that could make it look like LA 1 South has no official exit number.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3712%2F11967488036_776320a8dd_c.jpg&hash=475a030ee47b8cfe6d1c949a9d07ea903dd704e3)
Those BGS' right there are probably the most blatant examples of where not to use the Clearview font (route numbers, all-CAPs & dark-on-light background).  Something tells me that that exit tab (the only thing in Highway Gothic) was placed later on.  Is that true?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on January 15, 2014, 01:24:02 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=25.822704,-80.279653&spn=0.015664,0.028346&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=25.822691,-80.279871&panoid=h4kz2EjwMxBXQoKlg0B8zA&cbp=12,277.44,,0,9.39
You can't turn left on US 27, dunce. (Though it could be referring to continuing straight at a 45 degree angle to the left and looping back around, but I don't see any signage for that.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on January 15, 2014, 01:47:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 15, 2014, 12:18:43 PM
Here is one that lacks good placement of an exit number tab that could make it look like LA 1 South has no official exit number.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3712%2F11967488036_776320a8dd_c.jpg&hash=475a030ee47b8cfe6d1c949a9d07ea903dd704e3)

Obligatory redesign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FLA1_ClrvwShit_zpsa758f632.png&hash=53570f00cbf1228c99713457bdd24fc7b0d34ae0)

A few notes:

* I did not find a BGS-suitable Louisiana route shield anywhere on Wikipedia. Therefore, I used the standalone marker and expanded it's width slightly. I am well aware that this is probably not a good method at all (actually, it isn't), so if anyone would like to donate a Louisiana shield for guide sign use, that would be great.

* I renumbered the exits to 153A-B because I feel that exits that reference the same route should be considered the same - but differentiated with A or B (exceptions apply to this rule). I do not know anything about this area of the United States to know where this was taken, therefore I renumbered the exits for my redesign.

* I opted to keep the Clearview legend as that is what Clearview may be used for, but reverted everything else back into it's Highway Gothic equivalent because the other uses were incorrect (especially the shield digits and the 'EXIT ONLY' text).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on January 15, 2014, 02:48:33 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on January 15, 2014, 01:47:41 PMObligatory redesign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FLA1_ClrvwShit_zpsa758f632.png&hash=53570f00cbf1228c99713457bdd24fc7b0d34ae0)
Nice redesign; but I would have placed the exit tabs to the top-right of each message.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on January 15, 2014, 02:50:23 PM
I was chagrined when I saw this earlier this afternoon, as I've walked past it hundreds of times (it's in front of the Fairfax County courthouse) and I'd never noticed the error before. I guess that's just proof how you often ignore signs in familiar places.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FD1973CEF-8601-424D-993C-520EA452D64F_zpsxfmlur9y.jpg&hash=da62a03f998c94d327349d34c1a8f46a5b035a52)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: sammi on January 15, 2014, 02:54:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 15, 2014, 02:50:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FD1973CEF-8601-424D-993C-520EA452D64F_zpsxfmlur9y.jpg&hash=da62a03f998c94d327349d34c1a8f46a5b035a52)

They're supposed to be state routes, right? Because US 23 and 36 are nowhere close.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on January 15, 2014, 02:57:47 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 15, 2014, 02:48:33 PM
Nice redesign; but I would have placed the exit tabs to the top-right of each message.

Normally I would've as well. But, when I was designing the sign, I thought it looked better if they were both aligned in the center rather than the right edge. However, I'll let you be the judge of that:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FLA1_ClrvwShit_RA_zps495baf92.png&hash=df4c00db2900329b7281d8b46166c24a569fd6fc)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on January 15, 2014, 03:02:24 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on January 15, 2014, 02:57:47 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 15, 2014, 02:48:33 PM
Nice redesign; but I would have placed the exit tabs to the top-right of each message.

Normally I would've as well. But, when I was designing the sign, I thought it looked better if they were both aligned in the center rather than the right edge. However, I'll let you be the judge of that:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FLA1_ClrvwShit_RA_zps495baf92.png&hash=df4c00db2900329b7281d8b46166c24a569fd6fc)

And what's funny is this is generally how the sign looked before it was redone. Except without Clearview, and it had one exit number, 153. It was one sign with a line separating the cities and directions like you've done.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on January 15, 2014, 03:48:31 PM
Quote from: sammi on January 15, 2014, 02:54:11 PM
They're supposed to be state routes, right? Because US 23 and 36 are nowhere close.

Correct, Virginia state primary routes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on January 16, 2014, 01:24:58 PM
GA 135 signed as non-existent US 135 (I counted three of them along the route)...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/8672/16734982232_7733e13518_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ruPabq)

Edited link.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on January 22, 2014, 09:08:46 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 16, 2014, 01:24:58 PM
GA 135 signed as non-existent US 135 (I counted three of them along the route)...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2FUS221n-US135nError-GA107w.jpg&hash=7e4400f2c0198683b9428915560f977a44b47052)
Not to mention, those are pretty ugly shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on January 22, 2014, 11:04:01 PM
Georgia seems to commonly use 2dus shields for 3dus, but then shrinks them down a further 10% and keeps the bottoms extra pointy for no reason at all.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on January 23, 2014, 02:36:37 PM
Georgia has a lot of different shield shapes for both state and US routes. I should really post some of my limited number of Georgia photos in that "differences in US route markers" thread.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on January 23, 2014, 07:06:24 PM
That particular state shield design is the one that was most commonly used for signs erected in roughly the 2000-2008 time period. It is by far my least favorite of the common designs.

I don't really have a huge issue with those US shields, except that I'd probably reduce the inter-digit spacing a bit (and, of course, swap out the US 135 for a GA 135).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on January 25, 2014, 02:10:03 PM
Somehow U.S. 75 got transplanted to Florida:

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/fl-064_eb_app_i-075_01.jpg)

New signs have been going up as part of a forever-long widening project along SR 64 in east Bradenton. Not only do we have an abundance of SR 64 reassurance markers now after each road intersection, shopping center, and subdivision entrance, but now we have our own set of U.S. 75 shields. Every other shield assembly on the approach to I-75 has been correct, sans this new one that apparently went up last night. I will be curious to see how long this error stands, as I am not going to let FDOT or the sign company know of their mistake. I will just have to pretend that I am preparing to merge on the U.S. 75 freeway somewhere as I pass by it in the morning on my way to work! haha
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on January 25, 2014, 03:09:15 PM
Quote from: flaroads on January 25, 2014, 02:10:03 PM
Somehow U.S. 75 got transplanted to Florida:

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/fl-064_eb_app_i-075_01.jpg)


How do you confuse an Interstate route with a US Highway route? Especially in this case, where an I-75 SOUTH BGS is clearly visible in this instance.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on January 25, 2014, 04:03:13 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googleapis.com%2Fmaps%2Fapi%2Fstreetview%3Fsize%3D200x200%26amp%3Blocation%3D42.876987%2C-70.884676%26amp%3Bheading%3D55%26amp%3Bpitch%3D27%26amp%3Bsensor%3Dfalse%26amp%3Bfov%3D40&hash=609fd3d551873a549b09386e4d72aa540a19894c)

Sign in Massachusetts for NH 107. Not MA 107.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on January 26, 2014, 11:03:15 AM
Quote from: flaroads on January 25, 2014, 02:10:03 PM
Somehow U.S. 75 got transplanted to Florida:

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/fl-064_eb_app_i-075_01.jpg)

...now we have our own set of U.S. 75 shields.

That's the first time I've seen an Interstate-to-US shield goof in Florida. Although I've seen all sorts of other variants (CR -> SR, SR -> US, US -> SR).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on January 26, 2014, 07:40:53 PM
MA 114 on the Lawrence/North Andover border. A long time ago, this was the Essex Turnpike, not the Salem Turnpike (which is MA 107).

Google Street View does not have a good picture of this sign. It's the best I could get. It says "SALEM TRNPK".

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googleapis.com%2Fmaps%2Fapi%2Fstreetview%3Fsize%3D300x300%26amp%3Blocation%3D42.679141%2C-71.133412%26amp%3Bheading%3D220%26amp%3Bsensor%3Dfalse%26amp%3Bfov%3D20&hash=485676022d163abdc23a1ba8880cdc6987d7bf1d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on January 27, 2014, 09:38:45 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 25, 2014, 04:03:13 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googleapis.com%2Fmaps%2Fapi%2Fstreetview%3Fsize%3D200x200%26amp%3Blocation%3D42.876987%2C-70.884676%26amp%3Bheading%3D55%26amp%3Bpitch%3D27%26amp%3Bsensor%3Dfalse%26amp%3Bfov%3D40&hash=609fd3d551873a549b09386e4d72aa540a19894c)

Sign in Massachusetts for NH 107. Not MA 107.
That one's debatable.  Since the BGS is clearly a MassHighway-spec'd (vs. NHDOT) type due to its gantry location; they (MassHighway/DOT) are not necessarily under obligation to fashion a NH-style shield for a one-off neighboring NH-state route that doesn't cross the border.

Another thread exists elsewhere covering how states sign routes from adjacent states and I believe that this particular BGS was mentioned.

Quote from: 1 on January 26, 2014, 07:40:53 PM
MA 114 on the Lawrence/North Andover border. A long time ago, this was the Essex Turnpike, not the Salem Turnpike (which is MA 107).

Google Street View does not have a good picture of this sign. It's the best I could get. It says "SALEM TRNPK".

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googleapis.com%2Fmaps%2Fapi%2Fstreetview%3Fsize%3D300x300%26amp%3Blocation%3D42.679141%2C-71.133412%26amp%3Bheading%3D220%26amp%3Bsensor%3Dfalse%26amp%3Bfov%3D20&hash=485676022d163abdc23a1ba8880cdc6987d7bf1d)
It's actually erroneous because the current street name for that stretch of 114 in that area is Winthrop Ave. (northwest of Waverly Rd.) & Turnpike St. (southeast of Waverly Rd.) regardless of the street's historical names.

As far as having 2 different roads bearing the same Salem Turnpike name is concerned; if the 2 stretches of MA 107 & MA 114 named as such were not located in the same county, I don't believe there was any issue. 

Truth be told, while that stretch was originally named the Essex Turnpike when it was fiirst built; it was later renamed as the Salem Turnpike.  Not sure when it lost its Salem Turnpike name to its current Turnpike St. & Winthrop Ave.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 27, 2014, 12:29:07 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8546%2F8710937161_2a8a3ae044_z.jpg&hash=01866edf288a4d2a0670b5280485939fbd55b4f6) Being that US 9 is closed to the Beeslys Point Bridge, which incidentally SB from here, should not have the sign in the back round for US 9 South then.  So indeed it it is erroneous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: doogie1303 on January 31, 2014, 04:55:26 PM
And of course one of the biggest mistakes ever:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi263.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii139%2Fdoogie1303%2F161078_LG_zpse3b778a0.jpg&hash=6dcc06c6fea483c696b6c7e895aa85f4a4dd4ea6) (http://s263.photobucket.com/user/doogie1303/media/161078_LG_zpse3b778a0.jpg.html)

The road numbers are correct, but these sign were erected in Massachusetts, not Alabama.

Here is the whole story, it's about ten years old, but I still laugh at it.
http://www.wsfa.com/story/3642053/alabama-road-signs-in-massachusetts
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on January 31, 2014, 04:59:17 PM
Quote from: doogie1303 on January 31, 2014, 04:55:26 PM
And of course one of the biggest mistakes ever:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi263.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii139%2Fdoogie1303%2F161078_LG_zpse3b778a0.jpg&hash=6dcc06c6fea483c696b6c7e895aa85f4a4dd4ea6) (http://s263.photobucket.com/user/doogie1303/media/161078_LG_zpse3b778a0.jpg.html)

The road numbers are correct, but these sign were erected in Massachusetts, not Alabama.

Here is the whole story, it's about ten years old, but I still laugh at it.
http://www.wsfa.com/story/3642053/alabama-road-signs-in-massachusetts

Blaming the MUTCD? That's a first. Maybe they should've asked MassDOT before they assumed...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theline on January 31, 2014, 06:46:20 PM
I like my theory better: whoever was requesting the sign had to choose a state from a drop-down menu on his computer. The state defaulted to the first, which is AL. The operator either forgot to select a state or it got reset somehow.

This happened to me once when I was ordering merchandise from a Canadian company. I fumbled the state selection and the package was addressed to South Bend, AL. Since I got the zip code right, the package arrived in Indiana with no trouble.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on January 31, 2014, 11:13:38 PM
Quote from: theline on January 31, 2014, 06:46:20 PM
This happened to me once when I was ordering merchandise from a Canadian company. I fumbled the state selection and the package was addressed to South Bend, AL. Since I got the zip code right, the package arrived in Indiana with no trouble.

When I see a state dropdown I usually can just tap my O key and Ohio is selected, being the first O choice.  This is how I once accidentally gave my home address as being in Oaxaca on a hotel reservation form.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on February 01, 2014, 12:38:40 AM
Quote from: vtk on January 31, 2014, 11:13:38 PM
When I see a state dropdown I usually can just tap my O key and Ohio is selected, being the first O choice.  This is how I once accidentally gave my home address as being in Oaxaca on a hotel reservation form.

New Jersey doesn't have that advantage.  :-/ 
Quote from: theline on January 31, 2014, 06:46:20 PM
I like my theory better: whoever was requesting the sign had to choose a state from a drop-down menu on his computer. The state defaulted to the first, which is AL. The operator either forgot to select a state or it got reset somehow.

I like that theory too, it's just that I find it funny that someone thought the drawing in the MUTCD was what he was supposed to make, and didn't bother to read the section on trailblazers. Or maybe he could've double checked with MassDOT. A circle would've probably been better, considering it's not the outline of a state on the other side of the country.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 01, 2014, 02:21:36 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 01, 2014, 12:38:40 AM
considering it's not the outline of a state on the other side of the country.

Last I checked, Alabama and Massachusetts were very much on the same side of the country.  :spin:

(Sorry, I had to.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on February 01, 2014, 02:25:48 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 01, 2014, 02:21:36 PM
Last I checked, Alabama and Massachusetts were very much on the same side of the country.  :spin:
(Sorry, I had to.)

North/South-wise, not East-West-wise. That better?  :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 01, 2014, 03:09:27 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on January 31, 2014, 04:59:17 PM
Quote from: doogie1303 on January 31, 2014, 04:55:26 PM
And of course one of the biggest mistakes ever:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi263.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii139%2Fdoogie1303%2F161078_LG_zpse3b778a0.jpg&hash=6dcc06c6fea483c696b6c7e895aa85f4a4dd4ea6) (http://s263.photobucket.com/user/doogie1303/media/161078_LG_zpse3b778a0.jpg.html)

The road numbers are correct, but these sign were erected in Massachusetts, not Alabama.

Here is the whole story, it's about ten years old, but I still laugh at it.
http://www.wsfa.com/story/3642053/alabama-road-signs-in-massachusetts

Blaming the MUTCD? That's a first. Maybe they should've asked MassDOT before they assumed...
This one is as funny as the erroneous PA 183 shield on US 206 NB in Roxbury, NJ for NJ 183.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on February 01, 2014, 03:53:16 PM
It's actually much funnier.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on February 01, 2014, 05:00:29 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 01, 2014, 03:53:16 PM
It's actually much funnier.
The PA 183 shield was... odd, at least. Pointing it out to NJDOT crew members from the Mt. Arlington office as we drove under it... I was only 20 at the time, don't hit me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theline on February 01, 2014, 07:34:59 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 01, 2014, 02:25:48 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 01, 2014, 02:21:36 PM
Last I checked, Alabama and Massachusetts were very much on the same side of the country.  :spin:
(Sorry, I had to.)

North/South-wise, not East-West-wise. That better?  :-P
Liberal/conservative-wise too.  :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on February 02, 2014, 08:42:18 AM
Quote from: doogie1303 on January 31, 2014, 04:55:26 PM
And of course one of the biggest mistakes ever:

[pic erased]

The road numbers are correct, but these sign were erected in Massachusetts, not Alabama.

Here is the whole story, it's about ten years old, but I still laugh at it.
http://www.wsfa.com/story/3642053/alabama-road-signs-in-massachusetts


It reminds me of those Ohio shields which where in place of US ones... in Kansas!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 11, 2014, 02:23:23 AM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bound+Brook,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.577431,-74.572824&spn=0.003137,0.005686&sll=39.03662,-76.676846&sspn=0.00635,0.011373&oq=bound+&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Bound+Brook,+Somerset,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.577294,-74.572629&panoid=XuHyTVkdcb2S9RXFTqSjKw&cbp=12,130.67,,0,-22.5

The exit number tab is on the wrong side of the sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 11, 2014, 02:38:36 AM
God, we should start a thread for exit numbers on the wrong side.  I can list a ton.

Half of Cowlitz County signs in Washington qualify.  The split for CA-1 and I-280 in San Francisco.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 11, 2014, 01:17:29 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 11, 2014, 02:38:36 AM
Half of Cowlitz County signs in Washington qualify.

I had thought so too, but I think it's a case of the errors sticking in our minds and not noticing the ones they do tab correctly.  Sometime last year, I made a point to pay attention to the tabs while driving to Portland, and I only counted three errors.  (I believe it's Exit 46 that has one in each direction; I don't recall where the third error was.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on February 11, 2014, 02:06:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 11, 2014, 02:23:23 AM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bound+Brook,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.577431,-74.572824&spn=0.003137,0.005686&sll=39.03662,-76.676846&sspn=0.00635,0.011373&oq=bound+&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Bound+Brook,+Somerset,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.577294,-74.572629&panoid=XuHyTVkdcb2S9RXFTqSjKw&cbp=12,130.67,,0,-22.5

The exit number tab is on the wrong side of the sign.

I remember passing by that sign a few days ago and thinking that same thought. Here's what that sign will (eventually) probably be replaced with:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FI287Exit14-FutureSign_zps5162efd4.png&hash=0c67462559fa8ef48318d969ec4d8f0f2dd89d9e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on February 11, 2014, 10:25:52 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 01, 2014, 03:09:27 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on January 31, 2014, 04:59:17 PM
Quote from: doogie1303 on January 31, 2014, 04:55:26 PM
And of course one of the biggest mistakes ever:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi263.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii139%2Fdoogie1303%2F161078_LG_zpse3b778a0.jpg&hash=6dcc06c6fea483c696b6c7e895aa85f4a4dd4ea6) (http://s263.photobucket.com/user/doogie1303/media/161078_LG_zpse3b778a0.jpg.html)

The road numbers are correct, but these sign were erected in Massachusetts, not Alabama.

Here is the whole story, it's about ten years old, but I still laugh at it.
http://www.wsfa.com/story/3642053/alabama-road-signs-in-massachusetts

Blaming the MUTCD? That's a first. Maybe they should've asked MassDOT before they assumed...
This one is as funny as the erroneous PA 183 shield on US 206 NB in Roxbury, NJ for NJ 183.

A long while back, I had pics I took of Ohio 400 signs in Kansas on U.S. 400.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Katavia on February 12, 2014, 02:39:59 PM
Found a sign goof at the I-85 @ US 29/US 601. Sorry that I don't have a photo.

Once you're on the I-85 N Exit 58 collector-distributor lanes, the sign where US 29/601 South exits off has a sign goof on the top part of the sign "US 29 US 601 NORTH - Second Right", but US 601 doesn't exit onto US 29 NORTH. It actually continues onto I-85 N and merges. It's fixed on the second sign where only US 29 continues into Kannapolis.
I don't know if the sign goof is on the I-85 southbound C-D lanes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on February 12, 2014, 02:43:43 PM
Quote from: ncfriend on February 12, 2014, 02:39:59 PM
Found a sign goof at the I-85 @ US 29/US 601. Sorry that I don't have a photo.

Once you're on the I-85 N Exit 58 collector-distributor lanes, the sign where US 29/601 South exits off has a sign goof on the top part of the sign "US 29 US 601 NORTH - Second Right", but US 601 doesn't exit onto US 29 NORTH. It actually continues onto I-85 N and merges. It's fixed on the second sign where only US 29 continues into Kannapolis.
I don't know if the sign goof is on the I-85 southbound C-D lanes.

Are you referring to this panel?

(https://www.aaroads.com/southeast/north_carolina085/i-085_nb_exit_058_08.jpg)

If so, its still technically correct as US 601 north is reached by going straight. Considering the cloverleaf here is slated to be replaced with a diverging diamond interchange in the near future, the issue will not be around much longer.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on February 18, 2014, 04:10:15 PM
A funny one from alpsroads.net

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_85%2Fn40.jpg&hash=fa9d0946ca1ea591ffbada57778d185e2585a63d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on February 18, 2014, 07:09:26 PM
Only if you are heading exactly north must you go 40 MPH.  :-D

EDIT: Is it supposed to be US-40, State Route 40??
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on February 18, 2014, 07:12:40 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on February 18, 2014, 07:09:26 PM
Only if you are heading exactly north must you go 40 MPH.  :-D

EDIT: Is it supposed to be US-40, State Route 40??

MA 85.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mcdonaat on February 24, 2014, 03:00:59 AM
http://goo.gl/maps/XIKlo (http://goo.gl/maps/XIKlo)

The arrow designates you have to exit to the left to get onto I-49 North, to Shreveport. However, you have no choice but to go straight, and the left lane ends, so you actually have to merge right to go straight. Unless the DOTD is showing you where, physically, I-49 is in relation to the sign. Which would be above you and to the left. But, that's not I-49... it's the Monroe St. exit. So since that's not the case, the arrow is wrong, and you don't even need a BGS at this exit, because it isn't an exit at all.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hubcity on February 24, 2014, 10:45:39 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on February 18, 2014, 07:09:26 PM
Only if you are heading exactly north must you go 40 MPH.  :-D

Yes, the northward component of your speed can be no greater than 40 MPH, so if you're heading exactly west, your speed can be infinite.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on February 24, 2014, 11:12:15 AM
In all seriousness, I have seen situations where roads have had different speed limits in each direction. I spent the summer of 1997 working in Montgomery, Alabama, and I-65 heading north out of town had a 70-mph speed limit beginning at the bridge over the river just north of town, whereas the southbound side dropped to 65 mph some distance further to the north as you approached the city. But they didn't have a directional banner above the speed limit signs!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on February 24, 2014, 11:21:33 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 24, 2014, 11:12:15 AM
In all seriousness, I have seen situations where roads have had different speed limits in each direction. I spent the summer of 1997 working in Montgomery, Alabama, and I-65 heading north out of town had a 70-mph speed limit beginning at the bridge over the river just north of town, whereas the southbound side dropped to 65 mph some distance further to the north as you approached the city. But they didn't have a directional banner above the speed limit signs!

Does that section of I-79 between the West Virginia state line and I-70 still have a split speed limit, with 65 in one direction and 55 in the other?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on February 24, 2014, 01:27:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 24, 2014, 11:21:33 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 24, 2014, 11:12:15 AM
In all seriousness, I have seen situations where roads have had different speed limits in each direction. I spent the summer of 1997 working in Montgomery, Alabama, and I-65 heading north out of town had a 70-mph speed limit beginning at the bridge over the river just north of town, whereas the southbound side dropped to 65 mph some distance further to the north as you approached the city. But they didn't have a directional banner above the speed limit signs!

Does that section of I-79 between the West Virginia state line and I-70 still have a split speed limit, with 65 in one direction and 55 in the other?

I don't know, I've never used that segment southbound and I've only used it northbound once. Anyone else know?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route56 on February 24, 2014, 09:55:24 PM
Quote from: hubcity on February 24, 2014, 10:45:39 AM
Yes, the northward component of your speed can be no greater than 40 MPH, so if you're heading exactly west, your speed can be infinite.

299,792,458 meters / second: it's not just a good idea ....
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on March 01, 2014, 07:52:51 PM
Here are two erroneous signs from the same intersection in Kansas:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3810%2F10030955824_c2c42c95ca_c.jpg&hash=620448afe4b64d7e0083e1327e3dcc254bf0eff3) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/10030955824/)
DSC04573 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/10030955824/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr

U.S. 77 North at K-4 near Herington, KS. This sign indicates that you turn left to Interstate 35. Two problems with that: 1) K-4 never meets Interstate 35, and 2) Interstate 35 is to the right (east) of this sign. The sign should say "JCT I-135".

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5531%2F10030956514_6edbae4294_c.jpg&hash=df17deeb999555bf529c581e6482e35229dbe8fe) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/10030956514/)
DSC04574 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/10030956514/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr

K-4 actually goes both to the left & right from U.S. 77.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WichitaRoads on March 05, 2014, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: okroads on March 01, 2014, 07:52:51 PM
Here are two erroneous signs from the same intersection in Kansas:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3810%2F10030955824_c2c42c95ca_c.jpg&hash=620448afe4b64d7e0083e1327e3dcc254bf0eff3) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/10030955824/)
DSC04573 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/10030955824/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr

U.S. 77 North at K-4 near Herington, KS. This sign indicates that you turn left to Interstate 35. Two problems with that: 1) K-4 never meets Interstate 35, and 2) Interstate 35 is to the right (east) of this sign. The sign should say "JCT I-135".

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5531%2F10030956514_6edbae4294_c.jpg&hash=df17deeb999555bf529c581e6482e35229dbe8fe) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/10030956514/)
DSC04574 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/10030956514/) by okroads (http://www.flickr.com/people/okroads/), on Flickr

K-4 actually goes both to the left & right from U.S. 77.

Just noticed this last week on may way up to Jct City. Your last note about K-4 going left and right highlights a glaring error, as both NB and SB on 77 show K-4 signs that only point one direction, failing to denote the fact that the path of travel for K-4 is continuous through the junction.

ICTRds
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route56 on March 05, 2014, 02:48:03 PM
Quote from: WichitaRoads on March 05, 2014, 02:18:50 PM
Just noticed this last week on may way up to Jct City. Your last note about K-4 going left and right highlights a glaring error, as both NB and SB on 77 show K-4 signs that only point one direction, failing to denote the fact that the path of travel for K-4 is continuous through the junction.

ICTRds

Sounds like there was a major construction project of K-4, and the contractor forgot to change the signs back...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on March 05, 2014, 03:55:58 PM
Incorrect arrows under signs used to be pretty common in Kentucky.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on March 05, 2014, 08:24:16 PM
Blue is the correct color when an Interstate shield is involved. Unless it's a Business Loop/Spur Interstate, then green.

However, since the example signage (presumably) offers correct information, but presents it in a manner inconsistent with MUTCD, this would be better placed in the Signs With Design Errors thread.  Or possibly Worst Of, if you're really offended by the mismatched color or the non-cutout Interstate shield...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 05, 2014, 10:25:31 PM
Quote from: vtk on March 05, 2014, 08:24:16 PM
this would be better placed in the Signs With Design Errors thread

Dammit. Screwed it up again. Thank you.

***Post deleted***
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on March 06, 2014, 10:12:53 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 10, 2012, 09:24:27 PM
Ohio needs to learn to spell.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_1963.jpg&hash=3577f386e147ba70084c8fc10812a3e3d856b227)

Ohio Welcome Center, I-70 Eastbound near Indiana.  Bienvenue a l'Ohio.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 10, 2012, 11:45:56 PM
To be fair, it's more of a grammar error than a spelling error.  (Bienvenu is the correctly spelled masculine form, but in this context, it's supposed to be feminine.)

It's actually a correctly-spelled reference to my son, who lives in Ohio. Or perhaps to me (http://bienv.com).  :nod:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 07, 2014, 12:56:47 AM
Quote from: jbnv on March 06, 2014, 10:12:53 PM
Or perhaps to me (http://bienv.com).  :nod:

I've been wondering what "jbnv" stood for.  :cool:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on March 07, 2014, 08:50:26 PM
Read through the thread and didn't see this one posted. US 165 signed as "LA 165" on I-10. This sign has since been fixed, but Street View managed to capture it.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3799%2F13000776595_9e5f4962b1_o.png&hash=b50d0f40d075b5b955922b7d9b2766f4022b94a3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on March 07, 2014, 09:03:53 PM
East I-74/I-474 split.  It's a minor error, but an error nonetheless.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3800_zps88549775.jpg&hash=62efd87db214cf92c2feb8716b6f9efc4b873120) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3800_zps88549775.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route56 on March 07, 2014, 09:20:48 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 07, 2014, 09:03:53 PM
East I-74/I-474 split.  It's a minor error, but an error nonetheless.

Same assembly, different angle. December, 2012:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2854%2F9178680422_fa6f367a67_z.jpg&hash=8fa7aa86ffad4480fc85e9f832b24063a86fe434) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9178680422/)
45472 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9178680422/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on March 07, 2014, 10:07:36 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2010_NY_Day_3%2FImages%2F218.jpg&hash=dcacc3d2ecbf887f46d3fb664f11c41e550db52b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Molandfreak on March 07, 2014, 10:14:26 PM
^I'd take the PA 220 sign over either one of those I-99 signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on March 07, 2014, 10:16:54 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 24, 2014, 11:21:33 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 24, 2014, 11:12:15 AM
In all seriousness, I have seen situations where roads have had different speed limits in each direction. I spent the summer of 1997 working in Montgomery, Alabama, and I-65 heading north out of town had a 70-mph speed limit beginning at the bridge over the river just north of town, whereas the southbound side dropped to 65 mph some distance further to the north as you approached the city. But they didn't have a directional banner above the speed limit signs!

Does that section of I-79 between the West Virginia state line and I-70 still have a split speed limit, with 65 in one direction and 55 in the other?

I think so for a short segment still.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on March 08, 2014, 07:24:53 PM
At least one I-99 shield is in the PA font. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on March 10, 2014, 06:07:01 PM
Southern Delaware County, OH

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F03%2F11%2Fry8yhyhu.jpg&hash=f3cf92f82c3b3e11c741f735ccce82164df2576d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on March 10, 2014, 06:34:21 PM
Quote from: 6a on March 10, 2014, 06:07:01 PM
Southern Delaware County, OH

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F03%2F11%2Fry8yhyhu.jpg&hash=f3cf92f82c3b3e11c741f735ccce82164df2576d)

Which one is it? US Route 23, or State Route 23? (Not both.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on March 10, 2014, 06:45:34 PM
Ohio considers US Routes to be State Routes of the same number. In this case, they compromised... :hmmm:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on March 10, 2014, 09:16:50 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 10, 2014, 06:45:34 PM
Ohio considers US Routes to be State Routes of the same number.

They kind of do, but within that framework this sign should look more like State Route US23.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on March 10, 2014, 10:08:50 PM
Quote from: 6a on March 10, 2014, 06:07:01 PM
Southern Delaware County, OH

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F03%2F11%2Fry8yhyhu.jpg&hash=f3cf92f82c3b3e11c741f735ccce82164df2576d)

They misspelled "federal."  :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on March 20, 2014, 07:17:57 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.748159,-74.336781,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1svkIVu8440baE2nJXRroidg!2e0 A sign that should have an Interstate 280 shield on it.  The JFK Parkway, CR 510, and Eisenhower Parkway are through truck route for trucks traveling between NJ 24 and I-280.  Although, turning left at the next signal will eventually lead you to I-287, it is not the message that is to be displayed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on March 21, 2014, 01:13:00 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 20, 2014, 07:17:57 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.748159,-74.336781,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1svkIVu8440baE2nJXRroidg!2e0 A sign that should have an Interstate 280 shield on it.  The JFK Parkway, CR 510, and Eisenhower Parkway are through truck route for trucks traveling between NJ 24 and I-280.  Although, turning left at the next signal will eventually lead you to I-287, it is not the message that is to be displayed.
Original: (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fcr_649%2Fntruckw.jpg&hash=ffd56c65e89256b22cc5044cb69c1b189eeb2131)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 21, 2014, 09:23:17 AM
tax revolt!  populist party! 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on March 21, 2014, 09:48:55 AM
Just think all this would have never happened if they built the darn Triborough Road.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on March 22, 2014, 11:14:38 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.879309,-118.020184,3a,37.5y,121.84h,83.23t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sw37OzaieLGDWdw9iM3Kn4A!2e0  Here is one where improper spelling and grammar is used. 2 or more are to be plural and not singular.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Molandfreak on March 22, 2014, 11:25:06 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2014, 11:14:38 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.879309,-118.020184,3a,37.5y,121.84h,83.23t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sw37OzaieLGDWdw9iM3Kn4A!2e0  Here is one where improper spelling and grammar is used. 2 or more are to be plural and not singular.
Grammar nazi. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11735.0) :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on March 22, 2014, 03:10:09 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2014, 11:14:38 AM
Here is one where improper spelling and grammar are used. 2 or more are to be plural and not singular.

Fixed, because you made the same mistake that the exit did.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on March 22, 2014, 04:53:00 PM
You mean Caltran made the mistake.  Exits do not make mistakes LOL!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on March 22, 2014, 05:59:04 PM
Attention female drivers:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F67dd8db0d727dd55449a2b7eeb1d55ee_zps54757d06.jpg&hash=63e3fc6b7ddacecc80eabb4c7c63edcf31fce466)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on March 22, 2014, 07:31:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 22, 2014, 05:59:04 PM
Attention female drivers:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F67dd8db0d727dd55449a2b7eeb1d55ee_zps54757d06.jpg&hash=63e3fc6b7ddacecc80eabb4c7c63edcf31fce466)

That's hilarious. How'd they not notice the missing 'E' in HERE?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on March 22, 2014, 09:33:27 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 22, 2014, 07:31:46 PM
That's hilarious. How'd they not notice the missing 'E' in HERE?

What's funnier to me is that my brother works a block west of there. I sent him the picture and he said he'd never noticed it.

I guess it's like how you often miss typos in your own writing because you know what it was meant to say.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mass_citizen on March 24, 2014, 04:56:59 PM
either that or its a sign no one looks at or observes. usually those are the people that are halfway/completely in the crosswalk :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on March 24, 2014, 10:12:45 PM
Did anyone else who drove up US 13 from Hampton Roads to Salisbury Sunday morning notice a couple of VA 13 signs? I did...  :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 31, 2014, 12:51:07 AM
In Westminster, Mass., on 2 West just east of where 140 comes in and continues north on 2 West:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3769/13529066514_cd8a3b06bb.jpg)

A closer shot of the 140 sign:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3687/13528755735_44b89af442.jpg)

This isn't 140 North, nor is it 140 at all.  140 North joins 2 at the next exit west, conjoins for a bit going west, then departs at the following exit. 

And just for fun, a little ways east in Leominster, here's a look at the start of a 1,500-mile drive from the exit of the Target parking lot to US 190:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7309/13528757235_3d3189efea.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on March 31, 2014, 10:52:16 AM
That's a LOOOOONG way to get "to" US 190  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on April 03, 2014, 11:58:27 AM
Methinks US67 North should be signed straight-ahead along with I-30 East. (https://maps.google.com/?q=Sulphur+Springs&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Sulphur+Springs,+Hopkins+County,+Texas&ll=33.144271,-95.567021&spn=0.012433,0.038581&t=h&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=33.144266,-95.567017&panoid=vfZhqaPD2yDQyImmEhhKpw&cbp=11,143.83,,2,-1.18)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on April 03, 2014, 03:45:36 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googleapis.com%2Fmaps%2Fapi%2Fstreetview%3Fsize%3D640x640%26amp%3Blocation%3D33.772785%2C-84.287928%26amp%3Bheading%3D235%26amp%3Bsensor%3Dfalse&hash=50e68d3dddd6393766d9b4dca3dff50c99adb9b0)

Decatur, GA (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.772785,-84.287928,19z) - US 278 westbound. The two arrow plaques should be swapped here; 278/10 continue straight through the intersection, with southbound 155 joining from the right. (Not to mention the assembly being located after the relevant intersection; there is a JCT 155 before it, but that's insufficient IMO.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on April 04, 2014, 09:47:13 AM
Quote from: Eth on April 03, 2014, 03:45:36 PM(Not to mention the assembly being located after the relevant intersection; there is a JCT 155 before it, but that's insufficient IMO.)

That seems to be an annoying feature in random major intersections in Georgia; most use the "signs on a cable" method, but there's always a few that place the assembly on the other side of the intersection. That's great if you're the first car in line for a stop light, but it's terrible if you're not entirely sure whether you should have turned left/right or proceeded until you've already passed by it.

Leads to stupid last-second maneuvers, in my opinion (or maybe it's just my driving).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 04, 2014, 09:50:11 AM
Kansas has the shields post intersection as well at many of their state route junctions.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on April 04, 2014, 10:31:58 AM
Carter and I stumbled across this newly installed error yesterday where US 19 leaves I-275 south. It was correct just last week!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkVLKXiCEAEy2kV.jpg)

http://t.co/578GZhNAOC

And it should be noted this is the final southbound reassurance marker for U.S. 19. The next shield is the END sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: gpjedge on April 05, 2014, 04:58:01 PM
Ontario doesn't understand the difference between US routes and NY state routes:

https://www.google.ca/maps?ll=44.755857,-75.479679&spn=0.000008,0.005284&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=44.75586,-75.479651&panoid=tyBKZwbKeHK00NuDRkeqQQ&cbp=12,231.54,,2,2.19

US Route 37 did exist at one point, but ran in Kentucky and Tennessee.  And was replaced with US 31E in 1952.

Also, a minor quibble, but even if this was corrected to NY 37, it still wouldn't be 100% accurate.  Technically, upon crossing the border, you're on NY 812, and only run into NY 37 0.6 miles after the customs plaza.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: getemngo on April 05, 2014, 05:14:32 PM
US 37 loves to make its way into states where it never existed. (Is it... haunting them!?) Here it is in Michigan:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblcamp.com%2Fblcamp%2Fimages%2Fhighways%2Fphotos%2Fmi-tous37goof.jpg&hash=3f1e5d8d51ceecf14222cd66c44fc7bffd51559d)

(courtesy Barry Camp (http://blcamp.com/blcamp/content/highways.asp))
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on April 05, 2014, 05:31:42 PM
I'm pretty sure there have been US 37 markers in Ohio too
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on April 05, 2014, 08:19:50 PM
Quote from: gpjedge on April 05, 2014, 04:58:01 PM
Ontario doesn't understand the difference between US routes and NY state routes:

https://www.google.ca/maps?ll=44.755857,-75.479679&spn=0.000008,0.005284&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=44.75586,-75.479651&panoid=tyBKZwbKeHK00NuDRkeqQQ&cbp=12,231.54,,2,2.19

US Route 37 did exist at one point, but ran entirely within Kentucky.  And was replaced with US 31E in 1952.

Actually, it was in Tennessee as well, and ran along what is now KY 90 and US 127.

Unless it's been replaced, there's a US 37 sign on I-81 southbound where there should be a VA 37 marker. I've photographed it at least twice.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: gpjedge on April 05, 2014, 08:33:31 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 05, 2014, 08:19:50 PM
Quote from: gpjedge on April 05, 2014, 04:58:01 PM
Ontario doesn't understand the difference between US routes and NY state routes:

https://www.google.ca/maps?ll=44.755857,-75.479679&spn=0.000008,0.005284&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=44.75586,-75.479651&panoid=tyBKZwbKeHK00NuDRkeqQQ&cbp=12,231.54,,2,2.19

US Route 37 did exist at one point, but ran entirely within Kentucky.  And was replaced with US 31E in 1952.

Actually, it was in Tennessee as well, and ran along what is now KY 90 and US 127.

Unless it's been replaced, there's a US 37 sign on I-81 southbound where there should be a VA 37 marker. I've photographed it at least twice.

Fixed that.  Thanks.

Curious.  I suppose 37 is a common enough state route number, and replacing it with a currently nonexistent (and thus non-conflicting) US route is a fairly easy mistake for some contractors to make.

Or maybe getemngo is right, and US 37 is haunting various states, angry for being decommissioned to be replaced with a fairly minor suffixed highway (which it had been created to avoid in the first place)... :-o

EDIT: Found the offending sign in Virginia: http://goo.gl/maps/uHJfy
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on April 08, 2014, 11:24:39 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJqzrXC8mE4&t=3m26s
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JCinSummerfield on April 08, 2014, 01:22:20 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 05, 2014, 05:31:42 PM
I'm pretty sure there have been US 37 markers in Ohio too

Yes, travelling west on US-36/OH37 in Delaware, on that billboard-like structure just before the underpass.  There were others also, but it's been a few years, and may be corrected.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on April 13, 2014, 09:16:01 AM
This button copy sign [street view link] (https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=39.152337,-84.443919&spn=0.004551,0.007081&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=39.152337,-84.443919&panoid=l0I2fbWgd_EyC9YUSfJNzg&cbp=12,320.91,,2,1.6) has apparently been replaced recently.  The replacement has an OH 71 shield.  It can be seen from the freeway if you're looking at the right moment.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JMoses24 on April 14, 2014, 12:11:51 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 13, 2014, 09:16:01 AM
This button copy sign [street view link] (https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=39.152337,-84.443919&spn=0.004551,0.007081&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=39.152337,-84.443919&panoid=l0I2fbWgd_EyC9YUSfJNzg&cbp=12,320.91,,2,1.6) has apparently been replaced recently.  The replacement has an OH 71 shield.  It can be seen from the freeway if you're looking at the right moment.

This is right under my nose and I didn't know about it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on April 23, 2014, 10:49:15 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2slGpiq.jpg&hash=5f2f41444c96a3f9a1bf541fc2c3651f3643fc7a)
On US-77 in Guthrie, OK.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on April 23, 2014, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2014, 10:49:15 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2slGpiq.jpg&hash=5f2f41444c96a3f9a1bf541fc2c3651f3643fc7a)
On US-77 in Guthrie, OK.

It looks like they didn't even get Oklahoma's outline correct either! (Or is that a new design in Oklahoma?)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on April 24, 2014, 02:48:04 AM
Nah, that's pretty much a standard outline. The number 77 just obscures an unusually large percentage of the Red River. Good thing there's no actual SH-77...

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 24, 2014, 03:14:17 PM
ODOT has been playing around with that state shape design for years. They've been varying the thickness of the outline and how much detail goes into it (like all the bends and stuff along the Red River portion of the border). Honestly, the design just doesn't work very well. The Oklahoma state shape is not a very design friendly element.

That bold stroke on the state shape looks like their "version 2.0" design. The first markers of that kind had a thinner stroke. Now ODOT is on at least their 3rd or 4th variant of that design. I've seen OK-7 markers here in Lawton change at least 3 times, including that really bold version.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on April 24, 2014, 04:14:57 PM
I don't think there is a great deal of aesthetic or functional difference between Oklahoma's "meat cleaver" marker and Florida's. For both state markers, the numbers have to overlap part of the state outline.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 25, 2014, 01:10:45 AM
There is a big difference in how Florida does it versus Oklahoma. At least Florida is able to preserve the East coast and keys bend of the FL peninsula as well as the top edge of the FL panhandle. It's not difficult to make a 2 or 3 digit marker work within that. The state shape sill translates even when the numerals are eating into the Gulf Coast side of the state shape. Plus, the markers are consistent looking. All of the numerals eat out the Gulf Coast side of the shape.

The OK state shape on its route markers does not work nearly so well. IMHO, ODOT should have taken an approach as a combination of what Idaho and Tennessee use. The meat cleaver shape should have been a lot smaller. It still would have been legible. Throw the "Oklahoma" letters across it to use up negative space. Tennessee does something like that, even though they put it on the bottom of the marker.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on April 25, 2014, 03:58:13 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 25, 2014, 01:10:45 AM
IMHO, ODOT should have taken an approach as a combination of what Idaho and Tennessee use. The meat cleaver shape should have been a lot smaller. It still would have been legible. Throw the "Oklahoma" letters across it to use up negative space.

Perhaps something like this?

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2915/14001176051_9a6ef28175_m.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 25, 2014, 11:39:19 AM
I was thinking of something more along the lines of this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeJXcrRR.png&hash=510feebfb291417d626e54db9a5853974f9f98b3)

I think this approach looks more balanced than what ODOT is using with the OK state route markers. I designed this using a 24" guide marker approach. The border and state shape is .625" thick and set .375" from the edge, which is standard for a lot of other guide signs. The numerals are 10" Series D. The Oklahoma letters are 2.5" tall. The letters are there for decoration, so I don't think it's necessary for them to be set in Series C or D. I chose Eurostile Bold because the squared letter forms match the square nature of the route marker and their letter strokes look uniform with the border and state shape.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on April 25, 2014, 02:07:44 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 25, 2014, 11:39:19 AM
I was thinking of something more along the lines of this:

IMG
I think this approach looks more balanced than what ODOT is using with the OK state route markers. I designed this using a 24" guide marker approach. The border and state shape is .625" thick and set .375" from the edge, which is standard for a lot of other guide signs. The numerals are 10" Series D. The Oklahoma letters are 2.5" tall. The letters are there for decoration, so I don't think it's necessary for them to be set in Series C or D. I chose Eurostile Bold because the squared letter forms match the square nature of the route marker and their letter strokes look uniform with the border and state shape.

I'd put that in the Redesigning State Highway Shields (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9795.0) thread as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 25, 2014, 03:05:25 PM
Thanks. I didn't know about that thread. I'll read through it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on April 25, 2014, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 25, 2014, 03:05:25 PM
Thanks. I didn't know about that thread. I'll read through it.

No worries my friend. I'm still learning about threads I didn't know existed. And yeah, I've read that you're a graphic designer. You will like that thread A LOT.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 27, 2014, 12:33:03 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.969371,-74.914571,3a,15y,67.62h,86.9t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUcCQ9nPEev_vyXifgTTTMA!2e0
Not exactly erroneous, but worth posting.  Using all uppercase lettering, but the green out (actually green in lol) is mixed case is not your normal.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on April 27, 2014, 12:35:09 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2014, 12:33:03 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.969371,-74.914571,3a,15y,67.62h,86.9t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUcCQ9nPEev_vyXifgTTTMA!2e0
Not exactly erroneous, but worth posting.  Using all uppercase lettering, but the green out (actually green in lol) is mixed case is not your normal.

Looks like the sign designer forgot to turn bold off when making that sign. That actually makes it pretty hard to read...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 09, 2014, 10:11:25 PM
You go north on Passaic County Route 659, you see this:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7407/13961990517_b5395b9b94_c.jpg)

You turn right onto CR 654, you find this...

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2919/13961989777_76360e9580_c.jpg)

Nice job Passaic County, you might want to fix that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 09, 2014, 10:50:31 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on May 09, 2014, 10:11:25 PM
You go north on Passaic County Route 659, you see this:

Passaic County 654

You turn right onto CR 654, you find this...

Passaic County 659

Nice job Passaic County, you might want to fix that.

Must be a game to them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on May 10, 2014, 02:51:57 PM
And what is that no parking sign font???
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on May 10, 2014, 02:56:46 PM
Quote from: roadfro on May 10, 2014, 02:51:57 PM
And what is that no parking sign font???

And worse - the drug free school zone sign?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on May 10, 2014, 02:59:01 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 10, 2014, 02:56:46 PM
And worse - the drug free school zone sign?

That's a New Jersey standard in most towns and cities from what I can tell. My town has them. The NO PARKING sign looks to be off-font though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on May 10, 2014, 03:20:23 PM

Quote from: vtk on April 13, 2014, 09:16:01 AM
This button copy sign [street view link] (https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=39.152337,-84.443919&spn=0.004551,0.007081&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=39.152337,-84.443919&panoid=l0I2fbWgd_EyC9YUSfJNzg&cbp=12,320.91,,2,1.6) has apparently been replaced recently.  The replacement has an OH 71 shield.  It can be seen from the freeway if you're looking at the right moment.

On the subject of things guiding you to I-71,

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F05%2F11%2F6etyqy9a.jpg&hash=3b354ef9e58f1370b9707efb2e0eec709d597831)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on May 10, 2014, 04:21:35 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 10, 2014, 02:59:01 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 10, 2014, 02:56:46 PM
And worse - the drug free school zone sign?

That's a New Jersey standard in most towns and cities from what I can tell. My town has them.

As far as I'm aware it's a national standard. They're all over the place in Georgia and look exactly like that one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 11, 2014, 02:09:10 AM
Quote from: 6a on May 10, 2014, 03:20:23 PM

Quote from: vtk on April 13, 2014, 09:16:01 AM
This button copy sign [street view link] (https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=39.152337,-84.443919&spn=0.004551,0.007081&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=39.152337,-84.443919&panoid=l0I2fbWgd_EyC9YUSfJNzg&cbp=12,320.91,,2,1.6) has apparently been replaced recently.  The replacement has an OH 71 shield.  It can be seen from the freeway if you're looking at the right moment.

On the subject of things guiding you to I-71,

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F05%2F11%2F6etyqy9a.jpg&hash=3b354ef9e58f1370b9707efb2e0eec709d597831)

I see America has adopted the British Motorway color scheme. How considerate of us.

Edit: Okay so it's a guide sign so the color is appropriate, but I've found a new annoying thing about that sign...that appears to be the Roadgeek font arrow, or a really squished version of the MUTCD-compliant directional arrow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: doorknob60 on May 11, 2014, 02:16:47 AM
In Nampa, at the intersection of 16th Ave and 2nd St S, driving south on 16th, there is a One Way sign pointing right. East of 16th, 2nd is a two way street, and west of 16th, it's a 1 way street. So from that intersection, you can turn either right or left onto 2nd, so I would consider the one way sign erroneous, or at the very least, misleading. Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.575331,-116.556403,3a,60.9y,238.95h,89.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sI6AnTJWZipyaoVGGJT4nPw!2e0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 11, 2014, 02:22:44 AM
Quote from: doorknob60 on May 11, 2014, 02:16:47 AM
In Nampa, at the intersection of 16th Ave and 2nd St S, driving south on 16th, there is a One Way sign pointing right. East of 16th, 2nd is a two way street, and west of 16th, it's a 1 way street. So form that intersection, you can turn either right or left onto 2nd, so I would consider the one way sign erroneous, or at the very least, misleading. Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.575331,-116.556403,3a,60.9y,238.95h,89.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sI6AnTJWZipyaoVGGJT4nPw!2e0

Putting a one-way sign somewhere in the intersection would be required, but I'm not sure I love the current location.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on May 11, 2014, 01:13:05 PM
Quote from: jake on May 11, 2014, 02:22:44 AM
Quote from: doorknob60 on May 11, 2014, 02:16:47 AM
In Nampa, at the intersection of 16th Ave and 2nd St S, driving south on 16th, there is a One Way sign pointing right. East of 16th, 2nd is a two way street, and west of 16th, it's a 1 way street. So form that intersection, you can turn either right or left onto 2nd, so I would consider the one way sign erroneous, or at the very least, misleading. Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.575331,-116.556403,3a,60.9y,238.95h,89.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sI6AnTJWZipyaoVGGJT4nPw!2e0

Putting a one-way sign somewhere in the intersection would be required, but I'm not sure I love the current location.

MUTCD placement would say the one way sign should be on the near right and far left corners, so in this instance you wouldn't put one on the far left.

However, since it is one way away from the intersection, you could almost argue not installing a one way sign at all, instead using a "begin one way" sign just beyond the intersection.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on May 11, 2014, 02:23:06 PM
Quote from: Eth on May 10, 2014, 04:21:35 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 10, 2014, 02:59:01 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 10, 2014, 02:56:46 PM
And worse - the drug free school zone sign?

That's a New Jersey standard in most towns and cities from what I can tell. My town has them.

As far as I'm aware it's a national standard. They're all over the place in Georgia and look exactly like that one.

The ones we have here are black on yellow and in a more legible font.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: getemngo on May 11, 2014, 02:44:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 11, 2014, 02:23:06 PM
Quote from: Eth on May 10, 2014, 04:21:35 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 10, 2014, 02:59:01 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 10, 2014, 02:56:46 PM
And worse - the drug free school zone sign?

That's a New Jersey standard in most towns and cities from what I can tell. My town has them.

As far as I'm aware it's a national standard. They're all over the place in Georgia and look exactly like that one.

The ones we have here are black on yellow and in a more legible font.

In Michigan, I nearly always see this one:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mystatecollegelawyer.com%2Fblog%2Fimages%2FDrug-Free-School-Zone-Sign.gif&hash=58920895ebff36922f4ee867521c5d407d2f2814)

...except it's in Helvetica and has a blank line at the bottom to put the district's name. (My district had a 17 letter hyphenated name and kept it blank.)

But the blue and white sign is apparently widespread enough that you can buy it on a hat (http://www.zazzle.com/drug_free_school_zone_sign_tee_shirts-235341470173088450?pt=hat-148125494438384441), button, or shirt.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 11, 2014, 06:49:14 PM
Illinois had US-21 rolling by US-45 a while back. Since replaced.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on May 11, 2014, 09:08:58 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 10, 2014, 02:56:46 PM
And worse - the drug free school zone sign?

I have the 1980s on the phone, ready to apologize for those signs.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.safetysign.com%2Fimages%2Fcatlog%2Fproduct%2Flarge%2FF7480.png&hash=000418b25aedde6c7233d37bfb42271379506006)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 11, 2014, 11:26:52 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 11, 2014, 09:08:58 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 10, 2014, 02:56:46 PM
And worse - the drug free school zone sign?

I have the 1980s on the phone, ready to apologize for those signs.

^^Pic directly above^^

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmtlnSd4.gif&hash=4d23057e2ab75e68388164e186b868f9683404dc)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Thing 342 on May 19, 2014, 04:09:36 PM

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F05%2F20%2Fyzadyme3.jpg&hash=d119d3638a5867fb8c66861cdda20a430fab399a) VA 351 doesn't run through here, and AFAIK never has. Maybe it's to give some love to VA 351, as it is blown off by Westbound US 60 and I-64.

Also, the shields are just stretched versions of the 2 digit shield, as opposed to the standard wide shield (where the top corners would be perfectly circular)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 20, 2014, 05:53:32 PM
DOTs are really lazy sometimes...  :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: gilpdawg on May 20, 2014, 11:22:18 PM
Quote from: exit322 on January 24, 2009, 09:41:06 AM
I don't have pictures, but Ohio's been recently replacing a number of US signs (30 and 250 in particular, as that's where I'm at) with OH signs.  I know in Wilmot there's a US 250 intersection sign on 62 that's in an Ohio shield (it us US 30 and US 250), and the JCT 30/250 sign on OH 3 northbound near Wooster has both route in Ohio shields.
Same with US 50 at the Mehring Way intersection in downtown Cincinnati. But it may have been fixed, unless the GSV image is old.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on May 21, 2014, 07:40:54 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 19, 2014, 04:09:36 PM

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F05%2F20%2Fyzadyme3.jpg&hash=d119d3638a5867fb8c66861cdda20a430fab399a) VA 351 doesn't run through here, and AFAIK never has. Maybe it's to give some love to VA 351, as it is blown off by Westbound US 60 and I-64.

Also, the shields are just stretched versions of the 2 digit shield, as opposed to the standard wide shield (where the top corners would be perfectly circular)

This error was a new one on me.  Hampton has a history of wrong route signs...

Here is one in Phoebus from 2007 (this is actually VA 143)
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.020048,-76.32272,3a,75y,246h,87.15t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sI0dNBTQeWGpzaa5TUfzsbQ!2e0

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on May 21, 2014, 05:36:03 PM
I was working in western NY the past few days, ran across this on NY 60

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F05%2F22%2Fuvu3ejeq.jpg&hash=ea9a82b89b98a3ec5dbd30d542e7b9e290975d9d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on May 22, 2014, 09:23:59 PM
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7325/13222542443_42c8c6e8b4_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/m9qZcH)DSC01657 (https://flic.kr/p/m9qZcH) by okroads (https://www.flickr.com/people/12472136@N05/), on Flickr

Interstate 275 East? Picture taken by me on 3-17-14.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on May 23, 2014, 09:28:12 AM
New street sign... and looks like they reversed the 'D' and the 'R'... it's Amwell Rd!  :pan:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FIMG_1557_zps452701fc.jpg&hash=7fb9eef6db1aa996a2c3a33f4c87719921d17db4)

There is also one on the opposite side heading south with the same mistake. These signs are a new install because I just used this road a week ago and did not see these.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on May 23, 2014, 11:11:31 AM
U.S. 93 apparently has been extended east from Phoenix to Texarkana!

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-south/i-369_us-059_sb_at_westlawn_dr.jpg)
Not only is the U.S. 93 shield wrong (suppose to be Texas 93) but the mileage is incorrect for the split of U.S. 59 and Texas 151 to U.S. 71. It really should be four miles, not two.

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-south/i-369_us-059_sb_app_tx-093.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on May 23, 2014, 12:15:28 PM
Quote from: flaroads on May 23, 2014, 11:11:31 AM
U.S. 93 apparently has been extended east from Phoenix to Texarkana!

EXIT 2 MILE ??? Either drop the LE or add an S.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Road Hog on May 23, 2014, 06:21:55 PM
That US 93 error has been there for at least four years. I know that's a recent photo because of the I-369 added patch.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on May 23, 2014, 10:03:37 PM
Quote from: flaroads on May 23, 2014, 11:11:31 AM
U.S. 93 apparently has been extended east from Phoenix to Texarkana!

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-south/i-369_us-059_sb_at_westlawn_dr.jpg)
Not only is the U.S. 93 shield wrong (suppose to be Texas 93) but the mileage is incorrect for the split of U.S. 59 and Texas 151 to U.S. 71. It really should be four miles, not two.


The right-hand sign could use an arrow, too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 23, 2014, 10:14:58 PM
It can't be EXIT ONLY without an arrow, correct? Cause that sign is stupid.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on May 23, 2014, 10:22:32 PM
Another (business) US route downgrade...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FIMG_2580_zps87f38456.jpg&hash=53e69aeaf691ab066c211b1a6da0db88705fae24)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on May 24, 2014, 11:28:06 AM
Where is that? If that's actually Business US 1, I'd expect a state route to be posted with it. A standalone Business GA 1 is entirely plausible, though, as many Georgia cities bypassed by US routes have only a business state route without the corresponding US route (which would be US 27 in this case).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on May 24, 2014, 09:48:54 PM
Quote from: Eth on May 24, 2014, 11:28:06 AM
Where is that? If that's actually Business US 1, I'd expect a state route to be posted with it. A standalone Business GA 1 is entirely plausible, though, as many Georgia cities bypassed by US routes have only a business state route without the corresponding US route (which would be US 27 in this case).
Waycross GA, a bit north of US 84.  Definitely supposed to be a US 1.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: New to Seattle on May 25, 2014, 04:01:26 AM
I'm sure someone has already mentioned this, but I don't have the patience to find it in 113 pages: I had the good fortune to be driving through Easthampton, MA, in 2005 when I saw these signs (http://www.wsfa.com/story/3642053/alabama-road-signs-in-massachusetts):


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.boston.com%2Fbonzai-fba%2FGlobe_Photo%2F2005%2F07%2F26%2F1122355586_3568.jpg&hash=e957ff2a1ed400d3d0dc0ed655fa79327e443228)

(Photo: Boston Globe)

Astute readers may note that these signs do not actually conform to the standard MA shield design. I did quite a double-take when I saw a map of my home state on the signage there.

Apparently the contractors looked at some manual that just had a sample of a state sign, and because Alabama is first alphabetically, that's the one they used. And for some reason, the contractors didn't think anything was odd about it. I mean, it's not like they used Kansas or Oregon or New York or even Michigan with its block "M"; it's hard to associate that shield with anything else but a map of Alabama.

Alas, they fixed it after about a week.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on May 25, 2014, 06:43:52 AM
Quote from: getemngo on May 11, 2014, 02:44:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 11, 2014, 02:23:06 PM
Quote from: Eth on May 10, 2014, 04:21:35 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 10, 2014, 02:59:01 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 10, 2014, 02:56:46 PM
And worse - the drug free school zone sign?

That's a New Jersey standard in most towns and cities from what I can tell. My town has them.

As far as I'm aware it's a national standard. They're all over the place in Georgia and look exactly like that one.

The ones we have here are black on yellow and in a more legible font.

In Michigan, I nearly always see this one:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mystatecollegelawyer.com%2Fblog%2Fimages%2FDrug-Free-School-Zone-Sign.gif&hash=58920895ebff36922f4ee867521c5d407d2f2814)

...except it's in Helvetica and has a blank line at the bottom to put the district's name. (My district had a 17 letter hyphenated name and kept it blank.)

But the blue and white sign is apparently widespread enough that you can buy it on a hat (http://www.zazzle.com/drug_free_school_zone_sign_tee_shirts-235341470173088450?pt=hat-148125494438384441), button, or shirt.


I don't like this sign.  What safety related purpose does it have?  Every road sign should have a purpose of informing a driver or other road user of a hazard or a destination or some kind of traffic condition.  Any extraneous sign only serves to divert the driver's attention from the road.

Drugs are (generally) illegal everywhere.  Why should there be a sign saying that you're entering a drug free school zone.  The simple pentagon shaped school zone signs are the only signs that are needed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on May 25, 2014, 11:24:48 AM
I think in Virginia there is a steeper penalty if you are caught with drugs in a school zone. I've never really paid close attention, though, because it's not something that affects me!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 25, 2014, 05:01:48 PM
Kentucky doesn't use the drug-free school zone signs, but it does enhance penalties for trafficking within 1,000 yards of a school.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: signalman on May 26, 2014, 04:31:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 25, 2014, 11:24:48 AM
I think in Virginia there is a steeper penalty if you are caught with drugs in a school zone. I've never really paid close attention, though, because it's not something that affects me!
Aren't you an attorney though?  Couldn't you have a client whom this would have an effect on, or do you not do criminal defense?

NJ has stiffer penalties for both posession and sale of drugs in a school zone.  The blue on white with ugly font signs are also used to mark the boundaries of said zone.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 26, 2014, 04:38:13 PM
I thought WashDOT was better than this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fa24Yzm9.png&hash=7796c37f12fc3ff473a64a3678c62817fa3b429b)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: txstateends on May 26, 2014, 05:03:47 PM
How about a yellow speed limit sign I just found, but it's not the advisory style with a diamond, it's a speed limit that should be white, oh and, warning, for those not into arialyadayadaesk--you've been warned.

http://goo.gl/maps/zWEUD

from Cherokee Co., in east TX.  Most speed limits they're putting up are white, but have the arialyadayadaesk font on them.  And they're too small.  And most are tooooooo low to the ground.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on May 26, 2014, 05:18:01 PM
Quote from: signalman on May 26, 2014, 04:31:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 25, 2014, 11:24:48 AM
I think in Virginia there is a steeper penalty if you are caught with drugs in a school zone. I've never really paid close attention, though, because it's not something that affects me!
Aren't you an attorney though?  Couldn't you have a client whom this would have an effect on, or do you not do criminal defense?

....

The latter. I don't do any criminal work.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on May 26, 2014, 06:06:35 PM
Quote from: jake on May 26, 2014, 04:38:13 PM
I thought WashDOT was better than this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fa24Yzm9.png&hash=7796c37f12fc3ff473a64a3678c62817fa3b429b)


I actually wouldn't mind that style of ordinal superscript if it were done that way consistently.  Less appealing is the white border on the yellow panel, and the arrangement of elements (particularly the arrow) in the green area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on May 26, 2014, 09:00:02 PM
These are scattered all over Port Clinton OH.  Though I like the red, they lead the way to OH 53, not US 53.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FIMG_2745_zps26a87ad7.jpg&hash=8a0fde9fe8df0f20c65f4fef87e76c01aa655a9e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on May 26, 2014, 09:51:57 PM
Picking on construction signs always feels like cheating, but...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5LFUpx4.jpg&hash=676a253b28d3cdf614382d54db59293265e3d9e2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 26, 2014, 10:31:38 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 26, 2014, 06:06:35 PM
Quote from: jake on May 26, 2014, 04:38:13 PM
I thought WashDOT was better than this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fa24Yzm9.png&hash=7796c37f12fc3ff473a64a3678c62817fa3b429b)


I actually wouldn't mind that style of ordinal superscript if it were done that way consistently.  Less appealing is the white border on the yellow panel, and the arrangement of elements (particularly the arrow) in the green area.

1) I didn't notice the superscript. Interesting though.
2) The white border around the exit only tab was the erroneous part that I was going after. I was hoping someone would spot it. I've driven past the sign hundreds of times w/o noticing.
3) At the point where an exit only begins to gore away from the mainlines, WSDOT's standard is to place a free-flowing arrow in the green area, and leave the exit tab with just "exit only", and I find it incredibly annoying. And they don't seem to be interested in doing away with it, either; many of the new signs around the I-5/WA-16 interchange were just replaced and they follow this style.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on May 27, 2014, 01:59:48 AM
Quote from: jake on May 26, 2014, 10:31:38 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 26, 2014, 06:06:35 PM
Quote from: jake on May 26, 2014, 04:38:13 PM
I thought WashDOT was better than this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fa24Yzm9.png&hash=7796c37f12fc3ff473a64a3678c62817fa3b429b)


I actually wouldn't mind that style of ordinal superscript if it were done that way consistently.  Less appealing is the white border on the yellow panel, and the arrangement of elements (particularly the arrow) in the green area.

1) I didn't notice the superscript. Interesting though.
2) The white border around the exit only tab was the erroneous part that I was going after. I was hoping someone would spot it. I've driven past the sign hundreds of times w/o noticing.
3) At the point where an exit only begins to gore away from the mainlines, WSDOT's standard is to place a free-flowing arrow in the green area, and leave the exit tab with just "exit only", and I find it incredibly annoying. And they don't seem to be interested in doing away with it, either; many of the new signs around the I-5/WA-16 interchange were just replaced and they follow this style.

This sign seems to have more design issues than actual errors.

The white border around the yellow exit only field is an issue. It violates the rule of tincture, as it's light next to light–it should be black.

The other issue, at least according to the 2009 MUTCD, is that exit arrow. I understand putting the arrow in random place as a potential way to save on sign panel area, but it makes more sense to me to have the arrow position somewhat consistent. And by the new standard, the exit arrow on an exit direction sign has to be black on yellow in the exit only field at the bottom of the sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 27, 2014, 04:30:17 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.109595,-108.657022,3a,75y,180h,85.42t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sIa5t65gb2c_3UK4gE_yOtQ!2e0
Should be a "EAST" header instead of "SOUTH" for US 50.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on May 28, 2014, 09:52:09 AM
The mileage sign on I-10 just past exit 48 indicates "Lafayette 58." That would put Lafayette about 6 miles past the actual city limit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on May 28, 2014, 11:07:56 AM
While it's not uncommon for state agencies/DOTs to use their own shields or standards when signing for routes (mainly interchange signage) in adjacent states (near the borders); if one state uses their name (or even initials) as part of their state route shield spec, such application can be erroneous.

BGS for CT Exit 93 along I-95 South located in RI, note the R.I. initials on the state shields representing Connecticut routes 216 & 184 (http://goo.gl/maps/QzK3y)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 28, 2014, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 28, 2014, 11:07:56 AM
BGS for CT Exit 93 along I-95 South located in RI, note the R.I. initials on the state shields representing Connecticut routes 216 & 184 (http://goo.gl/maps/QzK3y)

:-D It never crossed their mind that some people might be confused by this? Maybe just this time they could modify the shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on May 28, 2014, 11:19:15 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 28, 2014, 11:07:56 AM
While it's not uncommon for state agencies/DOTs to use their own shields or standards when signing for routes (mainly interchange signage) in adjacent states (near the borders); if one state uses their name (or even initials) as part of their state route shield spec, such application can be erroneous.

BGS for CT Exit 93 along I-95 South located in RI, note the R.I. initials on the state shields representing Connecticut routes 216 & 184 (http://goo.gl/maps/QzK3y)

Luckily, that sort of thing could be fixed with two small slivers of white reflective material.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on May 28, 2014, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 28, 2014, 11:19:15 AMLuckily, that sort of thing could be fixed with two small slivers of white reflective material.
Agreed, but will they (RIDOT)?  :hmmm:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kurumi on May 28, 2014, 12:08:47 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 28, 2014, 11:07:56 AM
While it's not uncommon for state agencies/DOTs to use their own shields or standards when signing for routes (mainly interchange signage) in adjacent states (near the borders); if one state uses their name (or even initials) as part of their state route shield spec, such application can be erroneous.

BGS for CT Exit 93 along I-95 South located in RI, note the R.I. initials on the state shields representing Connecticut routes 216 & 184 (http://goo.gl/maps/QzK3y)

Looks better than the "Phase III" sign across the state line in CT.

If CT were still making signs that way, I would advocate having RIDOT take over. Fortunately, things have improved, as in this example from Norwalk: https://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/7769280264/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: gilpdawg on June 01, 2014, 07:55:10 PM
US and IN shields are switched, besides the fact the sign looks jacked up anyway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F06%2F02%2F6u7ara2e.jpg&hash=e20f2ae2c2abd582b097e27c9db19ccf89a314ed)

LG-D800

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on June 02, 2014, 12:04:48 AM
Quote from: gilpdawg on June 01, 2014, 07:55:10 PM
US and IN shields are switched, besides the fact the sign looks jacked up anyway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F06%2F02%2F6u7ara2e.jpg&hash=e20f2ae2c2abd582b097e27c9db19ccf89a314ed)

LG-D800



What IN shield?  :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Buck87 on June 02, 2014, 08:08:56 AM
Quote from: mefailenglish on May 26, 2014, 09:00:02 PM
These are scattered all over Port Clinton OH.  Though I like the red, they lead the way to OH 53, not US 53.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FIMG_2745_zps26a87ad7.jpg&hash=8a0fde9fe8df0f20c65f4fef87e76c01aa655a9e)

Ah yes, nice pic. I've always thought those were interesting.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on June 02, 2014, 03:00:09 PM
Quote from: mefailenglish on May 26, 2014, 09:00:02 PM
These are scattered all over Port Clinton OH.  Though I like the red, they lead the way to OH 53, not US 53.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FIMG_2745_zps26a87ad7.jpg&hash=8a0fde9fe8df0f20c65f4fef87e76c01aa655a9e)

Partying like it's 1993...Sort of.

Quote from: gilpdawg on June 01, 2014, 07:55:10 PM
US and IN shields are switched, besides the fact the sign looks jacked up anyway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F06%2F02%2F6u7ara2e.jpg&hash=e20f2ae2c2abd582b097e27c9db19ccf89a314ed)

Double oops.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on June 02, 2014, 04:04:43 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 02, 2014, 03:00:09 PM
Quote from: gilpdawg on June 01, 2014, 07:55:10 PM
US and IN shields are switched, besides the fact the sign looks jacked up anyway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F06%2F02%2F6u7ara2e.jpg&hash=e20f2ae2c2abd582b097e27c9db19ccf89a314ed)

Double oops.

For a minute, it looked like Iowa brought back US-38.  Then I saw it's in Indiana, and the sign is completely fucked.  Switched US and SR numbers and wrong SR shield (should be a square).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: gilpdawg on June 02, 2014, 07:17:34 PM
Haha...I didn't even notice that it was the wrong state shield because I was so focused on the wrong 38 one.

LG-D800

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on June 03, 2014, 12:10:33 AM
Technically erroneous, since the route has been decommissioned west of Dallas TX, but it's nice to see US 80 in Deming NM:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FIMG_3380_zps6255111f.jpg&hash=dae86a14936db9acf3eeec5168f44a2b56224172)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on June 03, 2014, 07:21:33 AM
Just slap a Historic banner, then it should be right again :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on June 07, 2014, 06:29:45 PM
Quote from: mefailenglish on June 03, 2014, 12:10:33 AM
Technically erroneous, since the route has been decommissioned west of Dallas TX, but it's nice to see US 80 in Deming NM:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FIMG_3380_zps6255111f.jpg&hash=dae86a14936db9acf3eeec5168f44a2b56224172)

I love it!!  :love:  Bring old 80 back to San Diego!!   :clap:   :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on June 07, 2014, 09:52:15 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on June 07, 2014, 06:29:45 PM
Quote from: mefailenglish on June 03, 2014, 12:10:33 AM
Technically erroneous, since the route has been decommissioned west of Dallas TX, but it's nice to see US 80 in Deming NM:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FIMG_3380_zps6255111f.jpg&hash=dae86a14936db9acf3eeec5168f44a2b56224172)

I love it!!  :love:  Bring old 80 back to San Diego!!   :clap:   :bigass:

Unfortunately, bringing US 80 back to San Diego is impossible because route number duplication is not allowed in California.  :-(
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on June 09, 2014, 12:22:53 AM
ALDOT accidentally left off some words on the signs for the roads along I-565 in Huntsville, AL. They are both at the same exit.
The first one is at the Old Madison Pike overpass where they left off the word "Old". Just as a reference, Madison Pike begins one you reach the Madison city limit a little bit to the west.
Here it is on streetview. (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.713628,-86.648171&spn=0.000699,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.713628,-86.648171&panoid=jUaRNneXPgItYCQeglHkaw&cbp=12,112.15,,3,-7.79)
The next one is over at the Bob Wallace Avenue/Sparkman Drive overpass. ALDOT managed to leave off the word "Bob" so they ended up giving the street the wrong name. This could be potentially confusing for anyone who doesn't live in the Huntsville area. Fortunately, the exit signs have the proper name. I also have a photo of this sign laying around on my external hard drive somewhere. I'll see if I can find it and post it.
Here it is on streetview. (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.714616,-86.644122&spn=0.000702,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.714616,-86.644122&panoid=wtzEkfz3zb6o22qV4KjhXQ&cbp=12,104.5,,3,-9.48)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on June 09, 2014, 01:53:33 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on June 09, 2014, 12:22:53 AM
The next one is over at the Bob Wallace Avenue/Sparkman Drive overpass. ALDOT managed to leave off the word "Bob" so they ended up giving the street the wrong name. This could be potentially confusing for anyone who doesn't live in the Huntsville area. Fortunately, the exit signs have the proper name. I also have a photo of this sign laying around on my external hard drive somewhere. I'll see if I can find it and post it.
Here it is on streetview. (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.714616,-86.644122&spn=0.000702,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.714616,-86.644122&panoid=wtzEkfz3zb6o22qV4KjhXQ&cbp=12,104.5,,3,-9.48)
Found my photo of it:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2937/14197575398_a860fce81f.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nCAhwJ)
Sparkman Drive/Bob Wallace Drive (https://flic.kr/p/nCAhwJ) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SR669 on June 09, 2014, 02:13:42 PM
Here's a pair of beauties I found in a shopping center on the north side of Winchester, VA. I'm not sure if they're VDOT's fault or not. Either way, this should be US 11, not SR 11.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1038.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa466%2FVirginiaSirens%2FResizes%2Feea33397-62bb-4b81-9fa9-1d5127c60c8d_zpsfc29b78a.jpg&hash=6607a1a024f18c024ea2cc410ad46cc490995239)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on June 09, 2014, 03:44:13 PM
Quote from: SR669 on June 09, 2014, 02:13:42 PM
Here's a pair of beauties I found in a shopping center on the north side of Winchester, VA. I'm not sure if they're VDOT's fault or not. Either way, this should be US 11, not SR 11.

^^^^

If those are in a parking lot, they are by far the best private directional signs I have ever seen (barring the US-SR mix-up).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on June 10, 2014, 03:11:35 AM
Those circle 11 signs look 100% better than the ones in Kentucky for our SR 11.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 10, 2014, 11:42:36 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 10, 2014, 03:11:35 AM
Those circle 11 signs look 100% better than the ones in Kentucky for our SR 11.

You must have gotten hold of a bad batch of KY 11 markers, because they look nearly identical to most I'm familiar with.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on June 11, 2014, 04:19:35 PM
Some KY 11 markers have the 1's closer together than the one in the photo above.  I just like the look of that sign along with how it is mounted.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on June 12, 2014, 10:37:02 PM
Several of these in Fort Myers Beach. Did somebody simply sound out a mispronunciation?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Ffdacd27b9fa07037e3ae86127104c852_zps43eec789.jpg&hash=1d70d271e9b608e5eea79e4f0024b79a39c9c96b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 13, 2014, 09:16:11 AM
I heard in Florida at some parking lot, there was a sign that said

ALL VIOLATORS
WILL BE
PROSTITUTED.

A security guard was there, and my friend told him about it. He said the guard laughed his head off. Then said he would replace it.  :clap:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 19, 2014, 12:30:33 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.827442,-73.846577,3a,75y,83.26h,101.26t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sc2n0CtTekZPrMp79f-JRdA!2e0
Even though the Hutchinson River Parkway is for Passenger Cars Only, the roadway as suggested by the sign is not directly going there.  This is the EB I-278 ramp to both Zeraga Avenue and the Hutch where the roadway splits under the massive Bruckner Interchange.  The road to the left actually leads to Bruckner Boulevard which allows trucks and all vehicles.

It is actually premature to have that sign and up until some time ago it never was there.  In addition NYCDOT left out the word "River" for Hutchinson Parkway.  The proper name is Hutchinson River Parkway and out of the years I lived in the NYC area, never heard it called what is on the sign.  For short it was always "The Hutch" or its proper name.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on June 19, 2014, 02:27:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 19, 2014, 12:30:33 AM
NYCDOT left out the word "River" for Hutchinson Parkway.  The proper name is Hutchinson River Parkway and out of the years I lived in the NYC area, never heard it called what is on the sign.  For short it was always "The Hutch" or its proper name.

NYCDOT and NYSDOT seem to be prone lately to leaving out words like "river" or "state" in a road's name.  There are already many signs around NY with names like "Saw Mill Parkway," "Southern Parkway," "Bronx Parkway" or "Taconic Parkway," when decades of common usage would seem to dictate otherwise.  I guess this latest sign just conforms to the pattern.

IIRC exit B2 on the Thruway is signed as "Taconic State Parkway," but then the reassurance markers for the Long Island parkways all leave out the word "state."  Different agencies, yes, but no consistency.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on June 22, 2014, 11:16:16 PM
Seen two weeks ago and still there today on US 30 EB.  Replacement of a 2007 original-to-expressway sign that was knocked down. 

(https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/10368802_10103787774561348_92276705879390038_o.jpg)

How does something like that get manufactured, delivered, and posted?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on June 23, 2014, 12:19:20 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 22, 2014, 11:16:16 PM
Seen two weeks ago and still there today on US 30 EB.  Replacement of a 2007 original-to-expressway sign that was knocked down. 

^^^

How does something like that get manufactured, delivered, and posted?

Damn. That could have been a great sign. But seriously, that might be top ten worst fuck-ups.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on June 23, 2014, 12:25:03 AM
"I'm 37!"
"Wot?"
"I'm 37, I'm not blank!"
"Well I can't just call you route!"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 23, 2014, 12:26:24 AM
Quote from: jake on June 23, 2014, 12:19:20 AM

Damn. That could have been a great sign. But seriously, that might be top ten worst fuck-ups.

I think at best it would have turned out a pretty standard sign.  but yes, the absence of a number is a problem.

regarding the red US53s: Arialveticverstesk, anyone!?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on June 23, 2014, 09:51:47 AM
Saw a temporary detour sign on I-71 in Ohio with no numbers, as well. I think I posted in this thread, too. I guess they meant "this goes to  the state road instead".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 23, 2014, 02:53:01 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2FWV_Eastern_Panhandle_June_2004_Day_2%2FWV_Eastern_Panhandle_June_2004_Day_2-Images%2F164.jpg&hash=fb3dc1c0268e5bd4636b76f6b5f3b96d524b7f06)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 24, 2014, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 23, 2014, 02:53:01 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2FWV_Eastern_Panhandle_June_2004_Day_2%2FWV_Eastern_Panhandle_June_2004_Day_2-Images%2F164.jpg&hash=fb3dc1c0268e5bd4636b76f6b5f3b96d524b7f06)

Well, there's obviously a secondary route that can be reached by going that direction... :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 24, 2014, 08:29:38 PM
I think that's doubly erroneous. Best I can remember, VA 114 ends there at US 460. I took that picture 10 years ago, it may look different now.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on June 24, 2014, 09:16:42 PM
This signage is still the same in July 2012 GMSV, but the road that frontages along US 460 WB from VA 114 to SR 642 is finally posted in the field as SR 845.

Mapmikey

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on June 25, 2014, 12:30:30 PM
We have a new US Highway out there.

Say hello to US-228 (http://goo.gl/maps/kB8Il) in PA.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 02, 2014, 09:50:12 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.322249,-74.80337,3a,75y,90h,88.29t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUFDE4nB10iEkQxpGonXvqg!2e0  US 209 in Milford, PA has been demoted to PA 209.  I am guessing that if NYSDOT could do it and sign it as NY 209 in some places so can PennDOT, however its funny as they did get US 6 right.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on July 03, 2014, 10:24:18 AM
Street View won't show it, and I didn't get a picture, but in the recent reconstruction of this segment of US 22, the signage at this intersection (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.443663,-76.420303&spn=0.001827,0.003484&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.443688,-76.420702&panoid=YU41h7b-77qid-5xzZpPhw&cbp=12,76.78,,0,2.06) was changed. It doesn't say East US 22 anymore, assuming you turn left. Now it has two signs saying East 22 Left, West 22 Right. The error, though, is that both are PA 22 signs, just like this one here (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.393435,-77.878067&spn=0.003657,0.006968&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.39353,-77.879113&panoid=D9zIuVt4ORxY0_CpfXIN9Q&cbp=12,27.95,,0,4.06) that apparently still existed as recently as 2009. (Is it still there?)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 03, 2014, 10:43:28 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 02, 2014, 09:50:12 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.322249,-74.80337,3a,75y,90h,88.29t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUFDE4nB10iEkQxpGonXvqg!2e0  US 209 in Milford, PA has been demoted to PA 209.  I am guessing that if NYSDOT could do it and sign it as NY 209 in some places so can PennDOT, however its funny as they did get US 6 right.

That's been there a good long while.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex4897 on July 04, 2014, 11:22:41 PM
DE 1 South approaching US 9 /  BUS US 9 / DE 404 / DE 23 / DE 1D / ALT DE 24
(how many routes can we cram into one set of intersections)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FtuwQqOq.png&hash=2088b0aa4ba5a00941b2a259fb0c693092a211c9)

Nice try DE 9, we don't need you or your non-existant business routes adding more signed routes here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 08, 2014, 05:06:16 PM
Not sure if they're still up, but I found these south of Montgomery about a year ago...should be To US 31.

Three times a charm!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2FToAL31error1-Int65s-July2013.jpg&hash=6326c891ec8002df99629a0238d83cdf8108de36)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2FToAL31error2-Int65s-July2013.jpg&hash=092be83479392d57bd9ccce7c793518a0f51ec66)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2FToAL31error3-Int65s-July2013.jpg&hash=57210318bfad1808974b221e74ed0394f694b0bf)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 09, 2014, 12:25:13 PM
Two questions:

1.) What's wrong with the signs being replaced? They look fine to me.

2.) Why the need for a new set of posts? Why not mount the new sign on the existing posts?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 09, 2014, 02:07:28 PM
I couldn't figure out why, either...it didn't seem as if there were plans to modify the exit ramps, repave the surface, or anything like that. Only the last one appears to have fallen/knocked down at some point, but appears okay. What's rather funny is that they made the same mistake three times, with the extant sign in the middle showing the correct shield.

Also, the "AL 65" shield (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg270274#msg270274) I posted about six months ago has been modified with a tiny AL 69 shield with a huge black border. It was too dark to get a good photo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2014, 02:35:43 PM
How are the posts mounted to/into the ground?  If they aren't the proper 'breakaway' posts, then that could explain the reasoning behind the new assemblies.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 09, 2014, 03:07:40 PM
A lot of times replacements when there's nothing obviously wrong with the sign are due to the sign not meeting reflectivity requirements, or from a policy of replacing signs every X years because the design life of the sheeting indicates that the sign most likely does not meet reflectivity requirements.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on July 09, 2014, 04:23:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2014, 02:35:43 PM
How are the posts mounted to/into the ground?  If they aren't the proper 'breakaway' posts, then that could explain the reasoning behind the new assemblies.

It also looks like the old one at the exit itself is a bit shorter than the new one in front of it.

Also, minus the error shield, I really like the new signs. They look to be laid out very well and clean.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 09, 2014, 05:34:18 PM
We actually have people go out and check reflectivity of signs, and signs that don't meet standards are replaced.. Seems that would be more economical than a wholesale replacement every X years whether the signs need to be replaced or not.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 09, 2014, 10:08:08 PM
Hey Speed Racer, ready..... GO!

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/weird/1-Minute-Parking-Sign-Sends-LA-into-a-Tizzy-264045231.html
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on July 10, 2014, 12:20:09 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 09, 2014, 10:08:08 PM
Hey Speed Racer, ready..... GO!

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/weird/1-Minute-Parking-Sign-Sends-LA-into-a-Tizzy-264045231.html
Maybe that sign should be posted at a street mailbox lol.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mapman1071 on July 10, 2014, 01:55:46 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 10, 2014, 12:20:09 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 09, 2014, 10:08:08 PM
Hey Speed Racer, ready..... GO!

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/weird/1-Minute-Parking-Sign-Sends-LA-into-a-Tizzy-264045231.html
Maybe that sign should be posted at a street mailbox lol.

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/566103/calgarys-one-minute-parking-zones-confuse-and-amuse/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 10, 2014, 10:42:40 PM
Now, that is just funny.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on July 12, 2014, 05:15:10 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 23, 2014, 09:28:12 AM
New street sign... and looks like they reversed the 'D' and the 'R'... it's Amwell Rd!  :pan:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FIMG_1557_zps452701fc.jpg&hash=7fb9eef6db1aa996a2c3a33f4c87719921d17db4)

There is also one on the opposite side heading south with the same mistake. These signs are a new install because I just used this road a week ago and did not see these.

This has since been fixed:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNt2MnJpl.jpg&hash=a941045712a57a9f6180f42db4fc859afb26dbb6) (http://i.imgur.com/Nt2MnJp.jpg)
(color enhanced for clarity)

Unless of course it was correct on the northern side and still incorrect on the southern side...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on July 13, 2014, 10:36:13 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/Ei0HH

Should be NY 225 South, not East.

EDIT: Signage on other direction of NY 352 has the same problem: http://goo.gl/maps/Gv0Ep
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 14, 2014, 01:07:12 PM
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5497/14673738073_29a48a6723_c.jpg)
Both attractions are at Exit 75A, yet this message has been there longer than I have lived in Florida.  It has been copied a few times over and still it keeps informing motorists with each new sign that the popular water park is at the Sand Lake Road exit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on July 14, 2014, 01:32:37 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 14, 2014, 01:07:12 PM
Both attractions are at Exit 75A, yet this message has been there longer than I have lived in Florida.  It has been copied a few times over and still it keeps informing motorists with each new sign that the popular water park is at the Sand Lake Road exit.

I know absolutely nothing about the geographic features of Orlando, but I do know that sometimes, to prevent large amounts of traffic going down one exit, sometimes DOT will have drivers use another exit to help equal out the traffic to prevent backups, even if it's significantly longer.

Would you support this theory?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 14, 2014, 02:07:53 PM
It would make sense if it were not for the fact that using Exit 74A will put you on International Drive which already has more than its share of traffic.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on July 14, 2014, 02:41:27 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 12, 2014, 05:15:10 PM
This has since been fixed:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNt2MnJpl.jpg&hash=a941045712a57a9f6180f42db4fc859afb26dbb6) (http://i.imgur.com/Nt2MnJp.jpg)
(color enhanced for clarity)

Unless of course it was correct on the northern side and still incorrect on the southern side...

From what I can remember yesterday, it is indeed fixed on both sides. I wonder who informed them? (I meant to, but like many other things, it slipped my mind.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on July 14, 2014, 06:50:02 PM
I can't take a picture, and Google Street View does not display it, but New Braddock Road (VA 7783) approaching Centreville Road (VA 28) has a sign posting directions to go on 28 on a US Route shield. It replaced a faded correct sign which can be seen on GSV (the incorrect one was put in sometime in fall 2012).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 19, 2014, 04:45:32 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 14, 2014, 01:07:12 PM
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5497/14673738073_29a48a6723_c.jpg)
Both attractions are at Exit 75A, yet this message has been there longer than I have lived in Florida.  It has been copied a few times over and still it keeps informing motorists with each new sign that the popular water park is at the Sand Lake Road exit.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3835/14505203620_7f1e84fa81_c.jpg)
I do not think that the first photo was done deliberately, as this second one did get it right.  If it were that FDOT wanted two exits on purpose the first sign would show the both exit numbers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 19, 2014, 06:02:21 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on June 09, 2014, 12:22:53 AM
ALDOT accidentally left off some words on the signs for the roads along I-565 in Huntsville, AL. They are both at the same exit.
The first one is at the Old Madison Pike overpass where they left off the word "Old". Just as a reference, Madison Pike begins one you reach the Madison city limit a little bit to the west.
Here it is on streetview. (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.713628,-86.648171&spn=0.000699,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.713628,-86.648171&panoid=jUaRNneXPgItYCQeglHkaw&cbp=12,112.15,,3,-7.79)
The next one is over at the Bob Wallace Avenue/Sparkman Drive overpass. ALDOT managed to leave off the word "Bob" so they ended up giving the street the wrong name. This could be potentially confusing for anyone who doesn't live in the Huntsville area. Fortunately, the exit signs have the proper name. I also have a photo of this sign laying around on my external hard drive somewhere. I'll see if I can find it and post it.
Here it is on streetview. (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.714616,-86.644122&spn=0.000702,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.714616,-86.644122&panoid=wtzEkfz3zb6o22qV4KjhXQ&cbp=12,104.5,,3,-9.48)
Here are some photos of both of them that I got today:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3845/14507326818_7ed28e2926.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/o6XQQs)
Old Madison Pike (https://flic.kr/p/o6XQQs) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5555/14690798531_3232cc3ed7.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oobbzR)
Sparkman Drive/Bob Wallace Drive (https://flic.kr/p/oobbzR) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 19, 2014, 07:08:37 PM
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5500/11610204276_f468229f82_z.jpg)
The left arrow for Essen Lane should also be EXIT ONLY as it branches from another lane that is exclusive for the next following exit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on July 19, 2014, 09:52:06 PM
Here's a sign in Huntley, IL, giving directions to "RT 62":  Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps?q=huntlley,+il&hl=en&ll=42.168318,-88.413227&spn=0.013836,0.033023&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=59.597077,135.263672&hnear=Huntley,+McHenry+County,+Illinois&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.168319,-88.413483&panoid=TN97sUw7lNHc4LAzbmsksg&cbp=12,137.94,,2,2.44)

Problem is IL 62 ends several miles to the east at IL 31 in Algonquin, while unnumbered Algonquin Road continues west as McHenry County A48.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on July 19, 2014, 10:59:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2014, 07:08:37 PM
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5500/11610204276_f468229f82_z.jpg)
The left arrow for Essen Lane should also be EXIT ONLY as it branches from another lane that is exclusive for the next following exit.

That one seems to be tricky--if the gantry were further along, at the gore, two EXIT ONLY arrows would be OK.  Where the sign is, after striping has separated that lane from the rightmost thru lane, both ramp lanes could be EXIT ONLY but I thought that treatment belonged at the gore point more than this far ahead of it.  Seems like having the sign bridge closer to the gore would have solved that issue.  Then both arrows could have been black on yellow as they should be.

I'm kinda shocked that they put regular numerals in the shields, considering the other disastrous Clearview that Louisiana has become famous for.  the EXIT ONLY legends could lose it for one thing...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on July 21, 2014, 12:43:42 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 19, 2014, 10:59:38 PM
I'm kinda shocked that they put regular numerals in the shields, considering the other disastrous Clearview that Louisiana has become famous for.

Proper numerals are the rule in newer signs in Louisiana; the Clearview numbers are the exception. Looks like someone notified DOTD about the error, and they fixed it. Why is that shocking?

(Also, as someone who actually lives in Louisiana and drives under these signs often, I'm generally pleased with our use of Clearview.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bing101 on July 21, 2014, 12:57:00 PM
How About I-80 in Vallejo the CA-37 exit is still signed Marine World Parkway even though that parkway has not existed since 2005.
Better yet CA-37 Parkway was renamed James Capoot Memorial Highway in 2014.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on July 21, 2014, 01:00:35 PM
Quote from: jbnv on July 21, 2014, 12:43:42 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 19, 2014, 10:59:38 PM
I'm kinda shocked that they put regular numerals in the shields, considering the other disastrous Clearview that Louisiana has become famous for.

Proper numerals are the rule in newer signs in Louisiana; the Clearview numbers are the exception. Looks like someone notified DOTD about the error, and they fixed it. Why is that shocking?

(Also, as someone who actually lives in Louisiana and drives under these signs often, I'm generally pleased with our use of Clearview.)

Living in Ohio where I know misapplied Clearview has been pointed out and ignored on even new signage, it's pleasantly shocking to see someone out there correct such an error.  I've become completely used to seeing it done wrong and it's quite a change to see something changed for the better!  :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on July 21, 2014, 01:18:46 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 21, 2014, 12:57:00 PM
How About I-80 in Vallejo the CA-37 exit is still signed Marine World Parkway even though that parkway has not existed since 2005.
Better yet CA-37 Parkway was renamed James Capoot Memorial Highway in 2014.

It hasn't been signed as Marine World Parkway from I-80 as of the last few years:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Vallejo&hl=en&ll=38.132484,-122.224178&spn=0.000012,0.005552&sll=37.7577,-122.4376&sspn=0.208461,0.355339&t=h&hnear=Vallejo,+Solano+County,+California&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.132484,-122.224178&panoid=T91wLmLDYF0Y4Xeg-L5ZMQ&cbp=12,33.66,,1,-2.04

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Vallejo&hl=en&ll=38.14671,-122.216826&spn=0.000012,0.005552&sll=37.7577,-122.4376&sspn=0.208461,0.355339&t=h&hnear=Vallejo,+Solano+County,+California&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.14671,-122.216826&panoid=8_K7mssp5WSFf18u8s8GPQ&cbp=12,179.96,,2,-5.75

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on July 21, 2014, 05:59:44 PM
Near an intersection with Chapel Road (which leads to VA 123), Wolf Run Shoals Road has an erroneous 123 sign where that route is inside a secondary-route circle.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on July 21, 2014, 07:55:16 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on July 21, 2014, 05:59:44 PM
Near an intersection with Chapel Road (which leads to VA 123), Wolf Run Shoals Road has an erroneous 123 sign where that route is inside a secondary-route circle.

This one goes back about 15 years...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fsr123error.jpg&hash=b9f19c8a0d88fc65440b330ffa4caa1a327a2669)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Lancaster6 on July 21, 2014, 09:29:32 PM
Hmm....something seems awry here. This is up in Branchville, NJ.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1234.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fff414%2FConnorSouchek%2FFlatbrook_zps8fec3ea6.jpg&hash=ac5dcd602912fc956210b2e105e6cd41308dc189)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on July 23, 2014, 01:30:26 PM
A couple more from the MA 16/107 interchange at the Revere/Chelsea border:

While this one (http://goo.gl/maps/xCBPk) looks old in style & appearance, it's very well newer than 1971 (when MA 1A became MA 16); likely a match-in-kind replacement.

This one (http://goo.gl/maps/TYHMi) is definitely a recent replacement of an older MDC-spec'd LGS that simply read 107 CHELSEA NEXT RIGHT

For those that don't know, MA 107's southern terminus is at the MA 16 interchange while the road itself continues southward as Broadway.  Whether the current and previous MDC postings of southbound Broadway as MA 107 South were flat out erroneous or obsolete (did the route extend south at one time?) is not fully known.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on July 26, 2014, 06:00:03 PM
Here's one from Klamath Falls, Oregon. These are supposed to be state highways instead.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3871/14752078635_d73fe9c60e_c.jpg)

(I have also noticed several in the downtown area and, after some searching on this forum, around the rest of the city)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on July 27, 2014, 12:12:40 AM
I saw some VA 106 and 156 ovals on a posted detour for them on VA 10 a few nights ago.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 27, 2014, 01:06:20 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 27, 2014, 12:12:40 AM
I saw some VA 106 and 156 ovals on a posted detour for them on VA 10 a few nights ago.

Yeah I have been meaning to take a photo of those atrocious shields.  I drive that way every day now.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 28, 2014, 12:37:19 AM
Cranberry Twp put up some new street blades back in 2012 along PA-228.  Problem is, they think it's a US route....  Maybe that's how the US-228 shield got installed last year.... (mentioned several post back by me as well)
http://goo.gl/maps/uWqCO
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 29, 2014, 06:00:23 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 27, 2014, 01:06:20 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 27, 2014, 12:12:40 AM
I saw some VA 106 and 156 ovals on a posted detour for them on VA 10 a few nights ago.

Yeah I have been meaning to take a photo of those atrocious shields.  I drive that way every day now.

I'm going to have to wait until next week though.  The shields were covered up at some point after the Benjamin Harrison Bridge was reopened.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 29, 2014, 10:56:26 PM
Variable Message Signs announcing New Jersey's Mover (???) Over for Emergency Vehicles (The message was a broadcast message over most of the state's VMS signs.  Of the 4 or so I passed by, they all had this error)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FMoverOver.jpg&hash=88210fca0867da6a0d45f2156437e3091cd3d9bf) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/MoverOver.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 30, 2014, 11:32:35 AM
"Her" (or "'er") for "it" is common usage in these parts.

Instead of "move it to the shoulder" people will say, "move her" or "move'er."

Maybe it was intentionally incorrect, like the Boston slang that got so much attention.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on July 30, 2014, 01:54:02 PM
Certainly back in the days of full-service gas (which still annoyingly persists in New Jersey) people routinely said "fill 'er up."

This looks more like a simple typo, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 30, 2014, 04:29:19 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 30, 2014, 01:54:02 PM
Certainly back in the days of full-service gas (which still annoyingly persists in New Jersey)

There's no shortage of it in Mass., and it's fine with me, since those that stick to it include all the very cheapest of stations around me. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: pctech on July 31, 2014, 02:44:11 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 19, 2014, 10:59:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2014, 07:08:37 PM
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5500/11610204276_f468229f82_z.jpg)
The left arrow for Essen Lane should also be EXIT ONLY as it branches from another lane that is exclusive for the next following exit.

That one seems to be tricky--if the gantry were further along, at the gore, two EXIT ONLY arrows would be OK.  Where the sign is, after striping has separated that lane from the rightmost thru lane, both ramp lanes could be EXIT ONLY but I thought that treatment belonged at the gore point more than this far ahead of it.  Seems like having the sign bridge closer to the gore would have solved that issue.  Then both arrows could have been black on yellow as they should be.

I'm kinda shocked that they put regular numerals in the shields, considering the other disastrous Clearview that Louisiana has become famous for.  the EXIT ONLY legends could lose it for one thing...
I live a short distance from here. After striping, the 2nd lane from the shoulder is an option lane. (Exit 160 or I-12 East) It looked at little weird the first time that I saw it too. I think that DODT wanted ample warning that the lane would became an exit only for east I-12.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on July 31, 2014, 03:27:23 PM
(I also mentioned this sign in the "Massachusetts" thread)

I'm not sure if it's still here, but there is a VMS on I-93 southbound in Massachusetts, about 30 feet past the "Exit 42 ➚" sign. It has duplicated letters in the top row!

(probably not exact, but it's close)

NIGHHT
WORK
AHEAD

MILLLED
SURFACE

M'CYCCLE
USE
CAUTION

If it's still there, can anyone get a picture?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 06, 2014, 11:44:42 AM
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5571/14641720162_7ddd9eee1a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oiQDi5)
DSC02172 (https://flic.kr/p/oiQDi5) by okroads (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

Photo taken by me in Washington, PA on 7-12-14
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on August 06, 2014, 11:56:25 AM
^ Did they not notice the US 19 shield and say "Hmm, ours look different, maybe we did something wrong?"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 06, 2014, 02:47:59 PM
I noticed this today, while driving I-278 West onto US 1-9:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.641161,-74.229147&spn=0.000008,0.005322&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.641127,-74.230237&panoid=JgOXH4TOGB_8jW7ujQ-2NA&cbp=12,213.18,,0,1.11 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.641161,-74.229147&spn=0.000008,0.005322&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.641127,-74.230237&panoid=JgOXH4TOGB_8jW7ujQ-2NA&cbp=12,213.18,,0,1.11)


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on August 07, 2014, 04:14:51 PM
Greensburg, PA: "US 130" for PA 130...looks like this has been here for a while.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FUS130WestOverhead-ErrorShieldGreensburgPA.jpg&hash=d886d2c5d127609b17570a5cc0bc6dd728fd158a)

Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Should be a US shield...saw a few of these along this route.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2FSawMillRiverPkwy%2BNY9ErrorSign-HastingsHudson_1200.jpg&hash=8a318b5e0aa07feb6fa012d024ba5481beb12888)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 08, 2014, 02:19:14 AM
Not a sign, but a white center line. Throwback to the 50s, eh WSDOT? I took this a few days ago travelling from Yakima to Seattle over Snoqualmie Pass.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FY8efO5L.jpg&hash=ceb9016acb48aaf22c9585568c6e70e64abc1127)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 08, 2014, 04:18:55 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 31, 2014, 03:27:23 PM
(I also mentioned this sign in the "Massachusetts" thread)

I'm not sure if it's still here, but there is a VMS on I-93 southbound in Massachusetts, about 30 feet past the "Exit 42 ➚" sign. It has duplicated letters in the top row!

(probably not exact, but it's close)

NIGHHT
WORK
AHEAD

MILLLED
SURFACE

M'CYCCLE
USE
CAUTION

If it's still there, can anyone get a picture?

On this note, some portable VMSes have appeared on I-64 and I-295 in Henrico County, Virginia proudly proclaiming "ROD WORK AHEAD".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on August 08, 2014, 05:15:04 PM
Quote from: jake on August 08, 2014, 02:19:14 AM
Not a sign, but a white center line. Throwback to the 50s, eh WSDOT? I took this a few days ago travelling from Yakima to Seattle over Snoqualmie Pass.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FY8efO5L.jpg&hash=ceb9016acb48aaf22c9585568c6e70e64abc1127)

What's your estimated guess of the length of those center lines?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 08, 2014, 05:20:51 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on August 08, 2014, 05:15:04 PM
Quote from: jake on August 08, 2014, 02:19:14 AM
Not a sign, but a white center line. Throwback to the 50s, eh WSDOT? I took this a few days ago travelling from Yakima to Seattle over Snoqualmie Pass.

What's your estimated guess of the length of those center lines?

It lasted for about 1.5 miles.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TEG24601 on August 08, 2014, 05:41:06 PM
They are in the process of rebuilding the Eastern Approach to Snoqualmie, so there may have been a contraflow in that area, and the line was just left over.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 08, 2014, 05:54:17 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 08, 2014, 05:41:06 PM
They are in the process of rebuilding the Eastern Approach to Snoqualmie, so there may have been a contraflow in that area, and the line was just left over.

Not to mention that most contractors have their own standards for pavement markings. The biggest change I see in construction zones is the dotted lines at the merge points (for slip lanes) go all the way to the point where the lane ends (i.e. you have to cross a white dotted line in order to merge). Of course, WSDOT does not use this type of pavement marking but the contractors don't seem to care.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 10, 2014, 10:26:38 AM
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3914/14689846518_580844cd49_c.jpg)
This sign, with its EXIT ONLY covered is now erroneous as without a descriptor now the sign is basically saying nothing other than the Exit 205 is being for the two designations of FL 528 leading to Port Canveral and Orlando. It once served as an at exit (though 1000 feet before) guide displaying a lane drop and now should really be amended as a quarter mile or NEXT RIGHT type of sign.

Also the exit tab uses improper grammar as there are two exits and the A and B need to be hyphenated.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on August 10, 2014, 03:29:17 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2014, 10:26:38 AM
This sign, with its EXIT ONLY covered is now erroneous as without a descriptor now the sign is basically saying nothing other than the Exit 205 is being for the two designations of FL 528 leading to Port Canveral and Orlando....

....which is not in any way erroneous, just incomplete.

I don't really think we should start posting every temporarily altered sign in this thread just because they haven't gotten around to fully updating it. (Even if you think it's lasted longer than it should, I don't really think they plan on leaving a blue tarp on the sign permanently.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 10, 2014, 09:00:42 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 10, 2014, 03:29:17 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2014, 10:26:38 AM
This sign, with its EXIT ONLY covered is now erroneous as without a descriptor now the sign is basically saying nothing other than the Exit 205 is being for the two designations of FL 528 leading to Port Canveral and Orlando....

....which is not in any way erroneous, just incomplete.

I don't really think we should start posting every temporarily altered sign in this thread just because they haven't gotten around to fully updating it. (Even if you think it's lasted longer than it should, I don't really think they plan on leaving a blue tarp on the sign permanently.)
Actually not.  Wait till you see tomorrow's update on my flickr as I photographed the same assembly one week later.  The tarp is removed for sure by then, but not much else done to the sign.

As far as the exit numbers go, they did in error spell them out.  That cannot be argued as two exits are plural and the singular EXIT is being used for it.  Also the A and B need to be hyphened or split up as one user already pointed out in my update page.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 10, 2014, 09:52:44 PM
Quote from: okroads on August 06, 2014, 11:44:42 AM
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5571/14641720162_7ddd9eee1a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oiQDi5)
DSC02172 (https://flic.kr/p/oiQDi5) by okroads (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

Photo taken by me in Washington, PA on 7-12-14

That error has been around for 10+ years.  Was one of the first major road related pictures I took when I got my first ever digital camera.

The crazy thing about that is that there is a PennDOT shed right past the traffic light in the picture.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on August 11, 2014, 11:52:53 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2014, 09:00:42 PMActually not.  Wait till you see tomorrow's update on my flickr as I photographed the same assembly one week later.  The tarp is removed for sure by then, but not much else done to the sign.

Actually yes.  After they take the tarp down without changing the sign*, then it's erroneous.  But the only thing erroneous (in the sense of providing motorists with incorrect information) on the sign is the "exit only", so when they're making a (really crappy) effort to "patch" that part, it's not erroneous.

Wait to post the unpatched sign and tell the story behind it, and you've got yourself a quality post for this thread.  Your original post... meh.

*I'd be more inclined the tarp was removed by gravity, wind, or aliens than someone going up there and purposely taking it down without correcting the sign.  But I guess since we're dealing with a DOT that thinks it's okay to patch signs with hardware store tarps, it's certainly possible.

Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2014, 09:00:42 PMAs far as the exit numbers go, they did in error spell them out.  That cannot be argued as two exits are plural and the singular EXIT is being used for it.  Also the A and B need to be hyphened or split up as one user already pointed out in my update page.

I know there've been plenty of signs posted in this thread that merely have incorrect spelling (like the first post on this page), but "erroneous" to me implies that the actual information being conveyed is incorrect.  Neither the missing S nor the missing hyphen really does that, so I'd think that makes it a better candidate for the design errors thread, rather than calling it straight-up erroneous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on August 11, 2014, 09:53:55 PM
Just spotted last night, I think: I-270 NB at exit 37 guide sign (OH 317 / Hamilton Rd / Gahanna) has a US 317 shield.  I did a double-take on such a delayed reaction I'm not completely sure that's what I saw.  But an M1-H4-3 doesn't belong in central Ohio...
Title: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on August 13, 2014, 08:38:25 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 11, 2014, 09:53:55 PM
But an M1-H4-3 doesn't belong in central Ohio...

Had to look that one up, haha.

Anyway, this has been brought to my attention, can anyone in Atlanta confirm this is still there?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F08%2F14%2Fy2y7a9ah.jpg&hash=7baeb8d24f243026363d332449495dba818c141c)

Edit: also, dumb question but when did GA go away from the skinny font they used to have?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 13, 2014, 11:31:23 PM
Quote from: 6a on August 13, 2014, 08:38:25 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 11, 2014, 09:53:55 PM
But an M1-H4-3 doesn't belong in central Ohio...

Had to look that one up, haha.

Anyway, this has been brought to my attention, can anyone in Atlanta confirm this is still there?

Edit: also, dumb question but when did GA go away from the skinny font they used to have?

Not sure when that photo was taken, but the sign on Google Street View is present in every shot between 2007 and October 2013. That means either A) this photo is older than 7 years, or B) this photo is very recent. I'm tempted to say that this is a recent shot, given the use of Series E, but I'm not sure on the history of the FHWA fonts within the state of Georgia, so I couldn't be completely certain.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on August 14, 2014, 06:22:29 AM

Quote from: vtk on August 11, 2014, 09:53:55 PM
Just spotted last night, I think: I-270 NB at exit 37 guide sign (OH 317 / Hamilton Rd / Gahanna) has a US 317 shield.  I did a double-take on such a delayed reaction I'm not completely sure that's what I saw.  But an M1-H4-3 doesn't belong in central Ohio...

Yep, drove past that this morning. It's weird because the two advance signs are correct but the one right at the exit is not. Too dark for a picture, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on August 14, 2014, 09:57:58 AM
Quote from: 6a on August 13, 2014, 08:38:25 PM
Anyway, this has been brought to my attention, can anyone in Atlanta confirm this is still there?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F08%2F14%2Fy2y7a9ah.jpg&hash=7baeb8d24f243026363d332449495dba818c141c)

According to my local news station (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/aquairium-sign-i-7585-replaced/ng2wS/), that spelling error was fixed overnight last night.

Quote
Edit: also, dumb question but when did GA go away from the skinny font they used to have?

Approximately 2008. Many of the old Series D signs are still in place (they're probably still a majority, even), but all new freeway signage since then has been of this variety.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on August 14, 2014, 10:18:49 AM
Quote from: Eth on August 14, 2014, 09:57:58 AM
Quote from: 6a on August 13, 2014, 08:38:25 PM
Anyway, this has been brought to my attention, can anyone in Atlanta confirm this is still there?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F08%2F14%2Fy2y7a9ah.jpg&hash=7baeb8d24f243026363d332449495dba818c141c)

According to my local news station (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/aquairium-sign-i-7585-replaced/ng2wS/), that spelling error was fixed overnight last night.

Quote
Edit: also, dumb question but when did GA go away from the skinny font they used to have?

Approximately 2008. Many of the old Series D signs are still in place (they're probably still a majority, even), but all new freeway signage since then has been of this variety.

'Tis a pity, because I found the Series D signs to be much more legible than Series E(m) or Clearview and to me they were more aesthetically pleasing.  I still think Series E at Series E(m) spacing beats them all, but that's just me and not the intent of this thread.  I really liked what Ga. did up until 2008 though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on August 14, 2014, 11:39:40 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on August 14, 2014, 10:18:49 AM
'Tis a pity, because I found the Series D signs to be much more legible than Series E(m) or Clearview and to me they were more aesthetically pleasing.  I still think Series E at Series E(m) spacing beats them all, but that's just me and not the intent of this thread.  I really liked what Ga. did up until 2008 though.

Remember though, that GA uses 20"/15" UC/LC legend height instead of the standard 16"/12" UC/LC legend height. I'm not sure it's the font weight so much as the size that Georgia tends to use.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on August 22, 2014, 09:13:28 PM
OK, so it's just an upside down construction sign, but this was on Massachusetts 2 eastbound at the hairpin turn above North Adams in April.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Ftoprovidence-20140424%2FDSCF0279-800.jpg&hash=f6001d4c7979b6af49b375641cf01f6ad9877ace)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on August 23, 2014, 12:13:17 AM
So what's the meaning of an orange traffic light?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on August 23, 2014, 11:04:25 AM
Quote from: vtk on August 23, 2014, 12:13:17 AM
So what's the meaning of an orange traffic light?

It usually means there is a temporary traffic signal in use in the construction zone.  Many times when both directions of traffic have to share a one-lane stretch of road, the traffic light alternates the flow direction instead of a flagging crew.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on August 23, 2014, 01:34:48 PM
I think the question refers to the fact that the signal shown in the sign has an "orange phase" instead of a yellow one.  I'd venture a guess that the manufacturer has a template for signs with a signal pictured that doesn't fill in the yellow circle since most signs start with a yellow background.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on August 23, 2014, 02:22:39 PM
I didn't even think to notice that the "middle lens" could be orange.  I still think it's a dull yellow lens, but compared to the hairpin sign and the orange background on the construction sign, it looks more orange than yellow.  I just took the error as an upside-down sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 23, 2014, 02:51:04 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 23, 2014, 02:22:39 PM
I didn't even think to notice that the "middle lens" could be orange...I just took the error as an upside-down sign.

Don't worry, that's the both of us, and 99.99% of drivers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on August 23, 2014, 09:08:21 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 23, 2014, 02:22:39 PM
I didn't even think to notice that the "middle lens" could be orange.  I still think it's a dull yellow lens, but compared to the hairpin sign and the orange background on the construction sign, it looks more orange than yellow.  I just took the error as an upside-down sign.

And I didn't notice it was upside down until I was organizing my pictures, now 4 months later...  I was just going for the "Hair Pin Turn" sign that was new since my last ride through there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 25, 2014, 03:58:39 PM
I spotted this sign goof yesterday while driving in SE Nebraska along U.S. 73:

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5575/15026183462_f660579cdf_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oTP7QE)DSC03008 (https://flic.kr/p/oTP7QE) by okroads (https://www.flickr.com/people/12472136@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 27, 2014, 12:31:12 PM
Here's another sign goof from my travels in Nebraska this past weekend, where NE 83 is signed instead of U.S. 83:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3904/14829289230_1f7eb0fa39_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oApZ3w)DSC02633 (https://flic.kr/p/oApZ3w) by okroads (https://www.flickr.com/people/12472136@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on August 27, 2014, 01:14:24 PM
Quote from: okroads on August 27, 2014, 12:31:12 PM
One has to wonder whether those two signs you posted were from the same contractor/fabricator/designer?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 29, 2014, 05:54:16 PM
A few in Manteno, Illinois.

Wrong Illinois route shield, someone thought he was in Iowa:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_4542_zps8d10b47f.jpg&hash=fb1f9dd31b58053213dfd6f1661c68922a726c48) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_4542_zps8d10b47f.jpg.html)

Wrong color banners for interstate:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_4543_zps63605385.jpg&hash=119f298eee15f6fc65d06b66c61861858d6255b2) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_4543_zps63605385.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on August 31, 2014, 07:43:57 PM
Saw this today in Woodbridge, Virginia, at the Ospreys Golf Club. I'm sure someone will say it's not MUTCD-compliant. I don't care about that because it's on private property. What struck me is how it's in the wrong place. This sign is on the cart path next to the fifth green and there is no sign on the street warning of the crossing. It seems to me it'd be a lot more important to post these signs on the street to warn drivers of the crossing than it is to post them on the cart path.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F5B37D06B-1DA4-4211-A91F-2FBB50BD9F54_zpsrrsggf9v.jpg&hash=f9ab1f6ee4342f98ea5a15b7769c86fb8c15da57)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 02, 2014, 10:33:02 PM
Located just south of Thomasville, this should be US 43:

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5593/15100795926_6952899999_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on September 04, 2014, 03:20:46 PM
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5554/14702919693_c72c07ab69_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/opfiMp)DSC06555 (https://flic.kr/p/opfiMp) by okroads (https://www.flickr.com/people/12472136@N05/), on Flickr

RI 44 instead of U.S. 44. Photo taken by me in Providence, RI on 7-17-14
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 05, 2014, 08:57:28 PM
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5589/14965394657_c01aa8cf32_c.jpg)
Here is an assembly on NB US 27 Alternate in Chiefland, FL at the junction of US 19 & 98 where US 27 A joins NB US 19 & 98 for a 68 mile concurrency.  Yet this sign cluster manages to get in a US 27 NORTH shield in with the overlap despite US 27 being yet 68 miles away.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on September 06, 2014, 10:27:48 AM
Don't forget the "North US 98" on that set-up!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on September 06, 2014, 01:37:03 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2014, 01:14:24 PMOne has to wonder whether those two signs you posted were from the same contractor/fabricator/designer?

They are.  NDOR does nearly all of its small signs work in-house.  The traffic engineering unit keeps a book of junction layouts at the central office in Lincoln.  Every so often a junction layout is revised and updated, new signs are ordered if necessary, sign panel details are confected for them, and the signs themselves are fabricated by the NDOR sign shop and installed by NDOR maintenance forces.

The junction layout book was probably originally a looseleaf binder with actual paper diagrams, but I suspect "book" is now used entirely figuratively since the junction layouts now exist as PDFs, with one PDF file per layout.  Older layouts are scans of paper originals that either have the signs sketched in or drawn separately (frequently pattern-accurately), cut out, and affixed to the layout with rubber cement.  Over time these drawings have been remastered in CAD, with SignCAD used to produce the sign sketches.

Randy Hersh obtained a complete copy of the junction layout book from NDOR in 2007 through a request under the Nebraska open records statute, and passed on a copy to me.  What I have in my files now is therefore a snapshot of the book as it existed at the time of Randy's request.  It is hard to tell from OKRoads' photos whether the error signs have microprismatic sheeting and are therefore brand-new, but I suspect they result from recent re-drawings of the relevant junction layouts.  I also think the confusion between US and Nebraska shields occurred in the sign shop, not the design office, since whoever re-drew the junction layouts would have had the old ones in front of him or her, and the sign sketches would almost certainly have been copied and pasted to the sign orders.

As an aside, the fact that NDOR does nearly all of its small signs and a fair number of its large signs in-house helps explain both their statewide consistency and their oddness.  NDOR does not even publish a sign drawings book--the alleged Nebraska "Standard Highway Signs" (included with the Nebraska MUTCD supplement) is actually a sign catalogue.  The sign drawings themselves have to be obtained through an open records request, which I filed in 2003, receiving in response a thick sheaf of 11" x 14" drawings.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 06, 2014, 03:50:46 PM
<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8712018142/in/set-72157639413090453/player/" width="75" height="75" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
Could be considered erroneous depending on who cares about the use of 3 digit numbers inside two digit shields unless you live in WI or LA where they are the norm. 

This here is New Jersey and they converted to three digit shields back in the early 80's, but this is a recent assembly (recent I mean within the past twenty years or so) long after NJ abandoned that practice.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on September 06, 2014, 05:15:26 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 11, 2014, 09:53:55 PM
Just spotted last night, I think: I-270 NB at exit 37 guide sign (OH 317 / Hamilton Rd / Gahanna) has a US 317 shield.  I did a double-take on such a delayed reaction I'm not completely sure that's what I saw.  But an M1-H4-3 doesn't belong in central Ohio...

It's since been fixed, but you indeed saw what you think you saw:

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5554/14702032280_121988b500_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on September 06, 2014, 11:09:35 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on September 06, 2014, 10:27:48 AM
Don't forget the "North US 98" on that set-up!

Isn't US 98 north-south for much of its time in Florida? 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on September 06, 2014, 11:14:36 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on September 06, 2014, 11:09:35 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on September 06, 2014, 10:27:48 AM
Don't forget the "North US 98" on that set-up!

Isn't US 98 north-south for much of its time in Florida?

For the most part it is. It starts going more E/W south of Tallahassee or near Panama City.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on September 07, 2014, 10:21:57 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 06, 2014, 11:14:36 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on September 06, 2014, 11:09:35 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on September 06, 2014, 10:27:48 AM
Don't forget the "North US 98" on that set-up!

Isn't US 98 north-south for much of its time in Florida?

For the most part it is. It starts going more E/W south of Tallahassee or near Panama City.

U.S. 98 switches cardinal directions from "East-West" to "North-South" and vice-versa twice: once at the U.S. 19-27 & U.S. 27 Alternate intersection in Perry and again between Okeechobee and Florida 76 (Port Mayaca Locks). The 293-mile Perry to Alabama state line run is signed as East-West with nearly 300 miles signed as "North-South". It returns to being signed "East-West" south of Florida 76 through to Pahokee and east into the West Palm Beach/Palm Beach areas, nearly a 60-mile stretch. Some GSV images dated May 2014 still show U.S. 98 as East and West through West Palm Beach, including its first westbound shield near its terminus at Florida A1A.

It used to be that all of U.S. 98 in Florida was designated as East-West, but it was decided (and approved) to change the section that ran northwest to southeast as "North-South" so as to avoid any confusion for drivers about which direction they were traveling. I tried to look to see when this change took place but had no luck in my research.

Personally I saw no problem with the East-West designation, as I grew up with it signed as such. And it does run east-west in some spots down in south central Florida (between Fort Meade and Frostproof and between Pahokee and WPB/PB). Hell, it even has more of an east-west component between Sebring and Okeechobee, but its still bannered as "North-South", just for consistency purposes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on September 08, 2014, 03:03:07 PM
While going through more of my pictures from my summer trip, I discovered this sign goof in New Jersey along U.S. 46 East. The exit ahead is for CR 639, but CR 646 is signed instead. CR 646 actually crosses U.S. 46 on the overpass just behind these signs.

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3865/14687557635_5662885b82_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/onTzbk)DSC07231 (https://flic.kr/p/onTzbk) by okroads (https://www.flickr.com/people/12472136@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 11, 2014, 10:37:23 AM
https://flic.kr/p/oJYC5U This one taken in Colorado of Green River, Utah being misspelled as one whole word.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on September 11, 2014, 10:39:51 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 11, 2014, 10:37:23 AM
https://flic.kr/p/oJYC5U This one taken in Colorado of Green River, Utah being misspelled as one whole word.

Um...? This is what I get attempting to view that:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0ytY9U1.png&hash=f060c6c82d433f9bdb0f3560617d4321a978e20e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 11, 2014, 11:50:53 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 11, 2014, 10:39:51 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 11, 2014, 10:37:23 AM
https://flic.kr/p/oJYC5U This one taken in Colorado of Green River, Utah being misspelled as one whole word.
Um...? This is what I get attempting to view that:
Maybe it was misspelled as a four letter word.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 11, 2014, 12:04:45 PM
Interesting on that one!  It does not come up that way to me.  It is from one user on here's flickr page and perhaps he has a filter on it of some sort, but why does it say that?  Since when is a common road sign considered xxx and not suitable for minors?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on September 11, 2014, 12:13:56 PM
I got the same result as Zeffy, and I have no username or password to use to sign into that site.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 11, 2014, 12:25:07 PM
I guess this is a dud then, as unless you are a member of then its a completely useless.

Too bad it was a great find.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 11, 2014, 02:05:16 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 11, 2014, 12:04:45 PM
Interesting on that one!  It does not come up that way to me.  It is from one user on here's flickr page and perhaps he has a filter on it of some sort, but why does it say that?  Since when is a common road sign considered xxx and not suitable for minors?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F91%2FFucking%252C_Austria%252C_street_sign_cropped.jpg%2F250px-Fucking%252C_Austria%252C_street_sign_cropped.jpg&hash=d1377ec0b0cfeefe25c31e652bea1a5968e418dd)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: algorerhythms on September 11, 2014, 02:28:18 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on September 11, 2014, 11:50:53 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 11, 2014, 10:39:51 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 11, 2014, 10:37:23 AM
https://flic.kr/p/oJYC5U This one taken in Colorado of Green River, Utah being misspelled as one whole word.
Um...? This is what I get attempting to view that:
Maybe it was misspelled as a four letter word.


Utah is a four-letter word.
Title: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 11, 2014, 04:06:14 PM
It's possible the user accidentally set the photo to Restricted in "Photo Safety Level". Flickr users can choose their own levels, and it will filter the Restricted photos with a warning message or a blank gray image (which looks like static on an old TV set).

Nothing questionable appeared.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on September 11, 2014, 04:16:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 11, 2014, 02:05:16 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 11, 2014, 12:04:45 PM
Interesting on that one!  It does not come up that way to me.  It is from one user on here's flickr page and perhaps he has a filter on it of some sort, but why does it say that?  Since when is a common road sign considered xxx and not suitable for minors?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F91%2FFucking%252C_Austria%252C_street_sign_cropped.jpg%2F250px-Fucking%252C_Austria%252C_street_sign_cropped.jpg&hash=d1377ec0b0cfeefe25c31e652bea1a5968e418dd)

Only if you don't speak the native language.  In German, the town's name means "place of the people of Focko," a 6th-century Bavarian nobleman who settled there...a perfectly benign, non-offensive, child-friendly name.  The "u" vowel is pronounced in German as "oo" in "book."  However, the town's PTB had to weld the signs to steel posts set in concrete to prevent their repeated theft by English-speaking (mostly British) tourists, and a few years back had to install video cameras to deter tourists from taking selfies while having sex in front of the signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on September 11, 2014, 08:36:20 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 11, 2014, 10:39:51 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 11, 2014, 10:37:23 AM
https://flic.kr/p/oJYC5U This one taken in Colorado of Green River, Utah being misspelled as one whole word.

Um...? This is what I get attempting to view that:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0ytY9U1.png&hash=f060c6c82d433f9bdb0f3560617d4321a978e20e)

Good Gravy Marie!  That is my Flickr photo site!  I don't know why my sight would give that message either.

Anyhoo, I have changed all photos on the Freeway Fan sign to SAFE status and the link -- https://flic.kr/p/oJYC5U -- should work fine now.

Thanks for the heads up!!!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 18, 2014, 07:10:36 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9106297,-75.1730659,3a,75y,270h,73.93t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sD_20B8LY9qPI0hKT8zUXGw!2e0 A green DO NOT ENTER sign?  This one really takes the cake.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on September 18, 2014, 10:12:16 AM
^^ then further down the ramp, there are green "WRONG WAY" signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on September 18, 2014, 10:30:10 AM
Quote from: Big John on September 18, 2014, 10:12:16 AM
^^ then further down the ramp, there are green "WRONG WAY" signs.

My question is, what's the random lavender-colored trees and grass?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on September 18, 2014, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: Big John on September 18, 2014, 10:12:16 AM
^^ then further down the ramp, there are green "WRONG WAY" signs.

Something's weird with the image, because the color of those signs varies as I move it around to different viewpoints.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2014, 11:03:47 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 18, 2014, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: Big John on September 18, 2014, 10:12:16 AM
^^ then further down the ramp, there are green "WRONG WAY" signs.

Something's weird with the image, because the color of those signs varies as I move it around to different viewpoints.

It looks like GSVs taken at different points in time.  I noticed in the Green Do Not Enter shot, the crosswalk's lines are missing/faded.  In other shots with the proper Red sign, the lines are fully there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 18, 2014, 11:07:05 AM
If you go to the GSV link and pull back away from the signs, you'll see everything is fine.  No need to call DRPA to complain.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 18, 2014, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2014, 11:03:47 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 18, 2014, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: Big John on September 18, 2014, 10:12:16 AM
^^ then further down the ramp, there are green "WRONG WAY" signs.

Something's weird with the image, because the color of those signs varies as I move it around to different viewpoints.

It looks like GSVs taken at different points in time.  I noticed in the Green Do Not Enter shot, the crosswalk's lines are missing/faded.  In other shots with the proper Red sign, the lines are fully there.
That is exactly why the image changes when you pan about.  It happens a lot with GSV as you go down any road the image date changes at one location.  In fact in Rahway, NJ along US 1 & 9 you have (or had) near CR 514 the imagery going from when the road was under construction to when the construction was completed.

It might of been green at one point in time, but PennDOT or whoever maintains those ramp signs could have quickly changed it.  However, the picture or the image could also be distorted as nothing and I mean nothing surprises me anymore.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 18, 2014, 12:39:00 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 11, 2014, 10:39:51 AM
Um...? This is what I get attempting to view that:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0ytY9U1.png&hash=f060c6c82d433f9bdb0f3560617d4321a978e20e)

That lends new meaning to the term road p*rn ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: spooky on September 18, 2014, 01:08:19 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 18, 2014, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2014, 11:03:47 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 18, 2014, 10:37:22 AM
Quote from: Big John on September 18, 2014, 10:12:16 AM
^^ then further down the ramp, there are green "WRONG WAY" signs.

Something's weird with the image, because the color of those signs varies as I move it around to different viewpoints.

It looks like GSVs taken at different points in time.  I noticed in the Green Do Not Enter shot, the crosswalk's lines are missing/faded.  In other shots with the proper Red sign, the lines are fully there.
That is exactly why the image changes when you pan about.  It happens a lot with GSV as you go down any road the image date changes at one location.  In fact in Rahway, NJ along US 1 & 9 you have (or had) near CR 514 the imagery going from when the road was under construction to when the construction was completed.

It might of been green at one point in time, but PennDOT or whoever maintains those ramp signs could have quickly changed it.  However, the picture or the image could also be distorted as nothing and I mean nothing surprises me anymore.

and the trees might have been purple at some time? it's obviously a color issue with the photo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 18, 2014, 03:24:30 PM
Quote from: spooky on September 18, 2014, 01:08:19 PM
and the trees might have been purple at some time? it's obviously a color issue with the photo.

This.  I concluded quickly myself that the imagery has some kind of color issue.  Most likely, mismatched color channels: the correct red channel data is displayed as green channel data, while the correct green channel data is displayed as red and blue channel data, and the correct blue channel data is lost; or, maybe it's RGB data interpreted as YUV or vice versa.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on September 20, 2014, 09:26:15 PM
US 20A is an E/W route, not N/S: http://goo.gl/maps/TBwsl

(The goof is likely due to it multiplexing with NY 64 here, which IS signed N/S)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 12:06:23 AM
Should be CA 99
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F09%2F21%2Fe4ymynyv.jpg&hash=9228ee01f939d8f5554770f75e92ec062f6d02f3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 21, 2014, 12:37:56 AM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 12:06:23 AM
Should be CA 99
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F09%2F21%2Fe4ymynyv.jpg&hash=9228ee01f939d8f5554770f75e92ec062f6d02f3)

Bud Shuster got REALLY ambitious with that I-99 legislation.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 12:52:13 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 21, 2014, 12:37:56 AM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 12:06:23 AM
Should be CA 99
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F09%2F21%2Fe4ymynyv.jpg&hash=9228ee01f939d8f5554770f75e92ec062f6d02f3)

Bud Shuster got REALLY ambitious with that I-99 legislation.
I thought it being west of I-81 was enough already, but Bud wants it west of I-15.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 21, 2014, 01:04:11 AM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 12:52:13 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 21, 2014, 12:37:56 AM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 12:06:23 AM
Should be CA 99
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F09%2F21%2Fe4ymynyv.jpg&hash=9228ee01f939d8f5554770f75e92ec062f6d02f3)

Bud Shuster got REALLY ambitious with that I-99 legislation.
I thought it being west of I-81 was enough already, but Bud wants it west of I-15.

I hear that there's some hidden language in the bill that designates I-99 as a north/south road that begins in New York City and terminates in Los Angeles. He just wanted to ensure that Altoona got on a really important highway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on September 21, 2014, 07:19:12 PM
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3862/15128068610_b774c1e101.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/p3PiK9)
US 231/AL 53 (https://flic.kr/p/p3PiK9) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
US 431 and US 72 are signed at the intersection of Drake Avenue and Memorial Parkway (US 231/AL 53) despite the fact that they meet with Memorial Parkway further north of this location. Maybe it needs some "To" signs instead of the cardinal directions above the US 431/US 72 shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on September 21, 2014, 09:27:50 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 12:06:23 AM
Should be CA 99
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F09%2F21%2Fe4ymynyv.jpg&hash=9228ee01f939d8f5554770f75e92ec062f6d02f3)

I assume this is an old photo based on the grain and (what looks like) button copy, but weren't old California interstates signed with state-named shields? And that is an honest question...I keep contradicting myself, one moment thinking they did and other moments thinking they didn't.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 09:55:20 PM
Quote from: jake on September 21, 2014, 09:27:50 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 12:06:23 AM
Should be CA 99
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F09%2F21%2Fe4ymynyv.jpg&hash=9228ee01f939d8f5554770f75e92ec062f6d02f3)

I assume this is an old photo based on the grain and (what looks like) button copy, but weren't old California interstates signed with state-named shields? And that is an honest question...I keep contradicting myself, one moment thinking they did and other moments thinking they didn't.
Yeah it's pretty old but no I'm sure this was a mistake or something. I don't think California ever signed its highways with interstate shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on September 21, 2014, 10:10:56 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 09:55:20 PM
Quote from: jake on September 21, 2014, 09:27:50 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 12:06:23 AM
Should be CA 99

I assume this is an old photo based on the grain and (what looks like) button copy, but weren't old California interstates signed with state-named shields? And that is an honest question...I keep contradicting myself, one moment thinking they did and other moments thinking they didn't.

Yeah it's pretty old but no I'm sure this was a mistake or something. I don't think California ever signed its highways with interstate shields.

Well of course, no doubt. But I'm wondering if the use of I-99 was intentional (based on reading above) or not. I'm not familiar with the original I-99 plans (if there were any) but perhaps the signage was placed in preparation for an eventual implementation. Then again, it would still be erroneous because I-99 never truly existed in that place and at that time (nor now even).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 10:13:11 PM
Quote from: jake on September 21, 2014, 10:10:56 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 09:55:20 PM
Quote from: jake on September 21, 2014, 09:27:50 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 12:06:23 AM
Should be CA 99

I assume this is an old photo based on the grain and (what looks like) button copy, but weren't old California interstates signed with state-named shields? And that is an honest question...I keep contradicting myself, one moment thinking they did and other moments thinking they didn't.

Yeah it's pretty old but no I'm sure this was a mistake or something. I don't think California ever signed its highways with interstate shields.

Well of course, no doubt. But I'm wondering if the use of I-99 was intentional (based on reading above) or not. I'm not familiar with the original I-99 plans (if there were any) but perhaps the signage was placed in preparation for an eventual implementation. Then again, it would still be erroneous because I-99 never truly existed in that place and at that time (nor now even).
Oh no we were just messing around. Yet I wouldn't be surprised if they tried intentionally because I-238 exists here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on September 21, 2014, 10:14:05 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 10:13:11 PM
Quote from: jake on September 21, 2014, 10:10:56 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 09:55:20 PM
Quote from: jake on September 21, 2014, 09:27:50 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 12:06:23 AM
Should be CA 99

I assume this is an old photo based on the grain and (what looks like) button copy, but weren't old California interstates signed with state-named shields? And that is an honest question...I keep contradicting myself, one moment thinking they did and other moments thinking they didn't.

Yeah it's pretty old but no I'm sure this was a mistake or something. I don't think California ever signed its highways with interstate shields.

Well of course, no doubt. But I'm wondering if the use of I-99 was intentional (based on reading above) or not. I'm not familiar with the original I-99 plans (if there were any) but perhaps the signage was placed in preparation for an eventual implementation. Then again, it would still be erroneous because I-99 never truly existed in that place and at that time (nor now even).

Oh no we were just messing around. Yet I wouldn't be surprised if they tried intentionally because I-238 exists here.

Dammit. Though CalTrans can be ambitious sometimes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MarkF on September 22, 2014, 12:21:03 AM
Here's another Caltrans route promotion, should be CA 241:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2FIMG_1618m-US241_zpsc0294b0d.jpg&hash=14ea3ab70036521cb0dc38a4146900c921aad332)

This was taken in 2006, I think the sign was up for a few years, but it was on a then uncompleted stretch of Alton Pkwy, so not much exposure at the time.

BTW, a new sign with a CA 5 shield went up on southbound Sand Canyon in Irvine just north of I-5. Don't know if this is Caltrans' work or Irvine's.  I'll try to get a photo the next time I go by it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 23, 2014, 07:06:45 AM
https://flic.kr/p/p4h6Nt
https://flic.kr/p/pjswnL
This is how most of the US 19, 98, and 27 Alternate concurrency is signed.  ALT US 27 is on top always, with one directional header for all three routes with the ALT banner in between the direction and all three routes too giving it the impression that US 19 & 98 are also alternate routes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 24, 2014, 08:47:42 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 23, 2014, 07:06:45 AM
https://flic.kr/p/p4h6Nt
https://flic.kr/p/pjswnL
This is how most of the US 19, 98, and 27 Alternate concurrency is signed.  ALT US 27 is on top always, with one directional header for all three routes with the ALT banner in between the direction and all three routes too giving it the impression that US 19 & 98 are also alternate routes.

Which is why we either need to deprecate Alternate 27 (and call the non-multiplexed section FL 500).

Or just go back to colored Kodachrome unishields (not going to happen, though they had the directional banners on them).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on September 26, 2014, 03:16:18 PM
Ping Kurumi... ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on September 27, 2014, 01:42:47 AM
Shot about ten hours ago at Fore River Parkway (US1A) and I-295:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10624832_10203821813840604_6122809939160380629_n.jpg?oh=60331c36e949a6ae568276243086140f&oe=548B305D&__gda__=1422839864_431ec4839d6880c09a80089fd59c620c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on September 27, 2014, 03:06:14 AM

Quote from: yakra on September 27, 2014, 01:42:47 AM
Shot about ten hours ago at Fore River Parkway (US1A) and I-295:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10624832_10203821813840604_6122809939160380629_n.jpg?oh=60331c36e949a6ae568276243086140f&oe=548B305D&__gda__=1422839864_431ec4839d6880c09a80089fd59c620c)

Gonna have to expand there, mate.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 27, 2014, 03:18:47 AM
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2946/15363328671_767286c4eb_c.jpg) The arrow in this assembly for US 221 is totally incorrect.  It should be a doubleheader with the other end of the arrow pointing straight ahead.

US 221 joins US 41 for a brief period along Perimeter Road in Valdosta after leaving a longer concurrency with US 84 between Valdosta and Quittman here.
Title: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 27, 2014, 02:14:30 PM
Quote from: jake on September 27, 2014, 03:06:14 AM

Quote from: yakra on September 27, 2014, 01:42:47 AM
Shot about ten hours ago at Fore River Parkway (US1A) and I-295:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10624832_10203821813840604_6122809939160380629_n.jpg?oh=60331c36e949a6ae568276243086140f&oe=548B305D&__gda__=1422839864_431ec4839d6880c09a80089fd59c620c)

Gonna have to expand there, mate.

I'm going to guess the diamond sign with the left and right angled arrows is improperly used. It's to signify that both lanes are for the same direction of travel, but with an obstruction such as a median, pillar, or construction zone.

Using it to denote a gore point for an on-ramp is weird.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on September 27, 2014, 02:37:41 PM
Quote from: formulanone on September 27, 2014, 02:14:30 PM
Quote from: jake on September 27, 2014, 03:06:14 AM

Quote from: yakra on September 27, 2014, 01:42:47 AM
Shot about ten hours ago at Fore River Parkway (US1A) and I-295:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10624832_10203821813840604_6122809939160380629_n.jpg?oh=60331c36e949a6ae568276243086140f&oe=548B305D&__gda__=1422839864_431ec4839d6880c09a80089fd59c620c)

Gonna have to expand there, mate.

I'm going to guess the diamond sign with the left and right angled arrows is improperly used. It's to signify that both lanes are for the same direction of travel, but with an obstruction such as a median, pillar, or construction zone.

Using it to denote a gore point for an on-ramp is weird.
i figured it was because the interchange is with I-295.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on September 27, 2014, 04:04:26 PM
Quote from: formulanone on September 27, 2014, 02:14:30 PM
Quote from: jake on September 27, 2014, 03:06:14 AM

Quote from: yakra on September 27, 2014, 01:42:47 AM
Shot about ten hours ago at Fore River Parkway (US1A) and I-295:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10624832_10203821813840604_6122809939160380629_n.jpg?oh=60331c36e949a6ae568276243086140f&oe=548B305D&__gda__=1422839864_431ec4839d6880c09a80089fd59c620c)

Gonna have to expand there, mate.

I'm going to guess the diamond sign with the left and right angled arrows is improperly used. It's to signify that both lanes are for the same direction of travel, but with an obstruction such as a median, pillar, or construction zone.

Using it to denote a gore point for an on-ramp is weird.

That is an acceptable use of the double-arrow sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on September 27, 2014, 06:31:17 PM
No offense guys, but I think they did spell it out pretty well. It's at the intersection of Fore River Parkway and I-295. That's an I-95 shield.

Must predate the renumbering to keep I-95 on the turnpike.
Title: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 27, 2014, 07:13:03 PM
My brain is in debt with stupid, so I didn't notice the "295" in the post.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 27, 2014, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: formulanone on September 27, 2014, 07:13:03 PM
My brain is in debt with stupid, so I didn't notice the "295" in the post.
At least you did not have our resident bipolar troll in this thread to tell you this LOL!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on September 27, 2014, 08:05:31 PM
Fuck you. I'm tripolar. I jump between awesome, awesomer, and awesomest.

You, on the other hand, are classic passive-aggressive.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on September 27, 2014, 10:04:42 PM
Semi erroneous sequence on eastbound County A26 at the McHenry County border with Lake County in NE Illinois:

Streetview of End/McHenry County A26/Bay Road (http://[url=https://www.google.com/maps?q=lake+county,+il&hl=en&ll=42.36498,-88.198926&spn=0.093097,0.349846&sll=42.364981,-88.200195&sspn=0.012905,0.030041&hnear=Lake+County,+Illinois&t=m&z=12&layer=c&cbll=42.36498,-88.198926&panoid=1FXwC2S9BcbaE5RvnjqkGQ&cbp=12,124.38,,2,2.52)

Streetview of East/Lake County A26/Big Hollow Road (https://www.google.com/maps?q=lake+county,+il&hl=en&ll=42.36498,-88.198926&spn=0.093097,0.349846&sll=42.364981,-88.200195&sspn=0.012905,0.030041&hnear=Lake+County,+Illinois&t=m&z=12&layer=c&cbll=42.36498,-88.198926&panoid=1FXwC2S9BcbaE5RvnjqkGQ&cbp=12,124.38,,2,2.52) a few hundred feet east of the end assembly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 27, 2014, 10:37:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 27, 2014, 08:05:31 PM
You, on the other hand, are classic passive-aggressive.

Hey, don't knock being passive-aggressive. It can be a pretty handy trait to have sometimes.

Quote from: roadman65 on September 27, 2014, 03:18:47 AMThe arrow in this assembly for US 221 is totally incorrect.  It should be a doubleheader with the other end of the arrow pointing straight ahead.

Arrow errors are pretty common in Kentucky.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on September 27, 2014, 10:44:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 27, 2014, 08:05:31 PM
Fuck you. I'm tripolar. I jump between awesome, awesomer, and awesomest.

You, on the other hand, are classic passive-aggressive.

Yawn  :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on September 27, 2014, 10:47:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 27, 2014, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: formulanone on September 27, 2014, 07:13:03 PM
My brain is in debt with stupid, so I didn't notice the "295" in the post.
At least you did not have our resident bipolar troll in this thread to tell you this LOL!
Quote from: NE2 on September 27, 2014, 08:05:31 PM
Fuck you. I'm tripolar. I jump between awesome, awesomer, and awesomest.

You, on the other hand, are classic passive-aggressive.

Wait, I thought I was the bipolar troll?  Though I guess I still can be if NE2 claims to have an additional pole.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 28, 2014, 12:06:06 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 27, 2014, 10:47:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 27, 2014, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: formulanone on September 27, 2014, 07:13:03 PM
My brain is in debt with stupid, so I didn't notice the "295" in the post.
At least you did not have our resident bipolar troll in this thread to tell you this LOL!
Quote from: NE2 on September 27, 2014, 08:05:31 PM
Fuck you. I'm tripolar. I jump between awesome, awesomer, and awesomest.

You, on the other hand, are classic passive-aggressive.

Wait, I thought I was the bipolar troll?  Though I guess I still can be if NE2 claims to have an additional pole.

I'd guess he has an additional leg as well.  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on September 28, 2014, 04:59:29 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 27, 2014, 06:31:17 PM
No offense guys, but I think they did spell it out pretty well. It's at the intersection of Fore River Parkway and I-295. That's an I-95 shield.

Must predate the renumbering to keep I-95 on the turnpike.

I must have used this same meme at least three times, but it has many uses:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPKwyw.gif&hash=47a264dad734e3d840bd84ed1c8f7f78409f7173)




Quote from: roadfro on September 27, 2014, 04:04:26 PM
Quote from: formulanone on September 27, 2014, 02:14:30 PM
Quote from: jake on September 27, 2014, 03:06:14 AM

Quote from: yakra on September 27, 2014, 01:42:47 AM
Shot about ten hours ago at Fore River Parkway (US1A) and I-295:

Gonna have to expand there, mate.

I'm going to guess the diamond sign with the left and right angled arrows is improperly used. It's to signify that both lanes are for the same direction of travel, but with an obstruction such as a median, pillar, or construction zone.

Using it to denote a gore point for an on-ramp is weird.

That is an acceptable use of the double-arrow sign.

MUTCD Section 2C.25: The Double Arrow (W12-1) sign...may be used to advise road users that...traffic separated by this sign may either rejoin or change directions.

I see this double-arrow sign most everyday now, and it's interesting because it also has two flashing yellow arrows above the sign pointing in the same direction as the two black arrows. The road itself splits at this location:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVlgodAg.png&hash=0cb93e24c7d0e6b5d3fb1bd5799711d8422d250a)

I see the double-arrow sign used a lot in New Zealand at slip lane splits:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FW9XPkfP.png&hash=5f484e422fa7c528e41086a77579e4bedf4c13cf)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TEG24601 on September 28, 2014, 05:21:40 PM
Thanks in large part to a post over in Sine Salad, I found an Erroneous road sign in Yarmouth, NS.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSqeqlui.png&hash=5f1cd86019ce39f72501cf0c5ffe84b100d57826)


The sign is at the Western Terminus of NS 103.  It indicates that this road is NS 101, which it is not, it is simply a local road.  NS 101 is about 2500' straight ahead.  The "To" portion is correct, and the whole sign would be correct if the two and the 101 shield were swapped.


NS 101 and NS 103 were original supposed to be continuations of each other (forming a loop from Halifax to Yarmouth on both the North and South shores), but it appears now that that may never happen, with this, Breezewood style gap.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on September 30, 2014, 01:00:19 AM
Quote from: odditude on September 27, 2014, 02:37:41 PMi figured it was because the interchange is with I-295.
Ding ding ding!

Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 27, 2014, 06:31:17 PM
No offense guys, but I think they did spell it out pretty well. It's at the intersection of Fore River Parkway and I-295. That's an I-95 shield.

Must predate the renumbering to keep I-95 on the turnpike.
I travel thru here fairly regularly, and it's only shown up in the last couple weeks. July 2011 StreetView (https://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=43.652573,-70.286622&spn=0.002965,0.004823&t=m&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=43.652544,-70.286448&panoid=YPemvWhPpGgTvzUJWxSM4g&cbp=12,122.22,,0,7.16) looks right. I wonder what happened, if the sine got jüted or something...
This is at part of what I call "Classic" I-295, which was never intended to be part of I-95.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on September 30, 2014, 01:58:17 AM
Quote from: yakra on September 30, 2014, 01:00:19 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 27, 2014, 06:31:17 PM
No offense guys, but I think they did spell it out pretty well. It's at the intersection of Fore River Parkway and I-295. That's an I-95 shield.

Must predate the renumbering to keep I-95 on the turnpike.

I travel thru here fairly regularly, and it's only shown up in the last couple weeks. July 2011 StreetView (https://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=43.652573,-70.286622&spn=0.002965,0.004823&t=m&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=43.652544,-70.286448&panoid=YPemvWhPpGgTvzUJWxSM4g&cbp=12,122.22,,0,7.16) looks right. I wonder what happened, if the sine got jüted or something...
This is at part of what I call "Classic" I-295, which was never intended to be part of I-95.

The old 295 shield was state-named, so it was probably old and someone decided it needed replacing. Some silly DOT worker obviously was paying no attention to the fact that the road is 295, and put up 95.

Just a classic fuck-up, is my guess.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on September 30, 2014, 11:00:54 PM
It may be pronounced "Innis Road" but it's spelled "Innes Road." It is on private property, definitely non-highway gothic or clearview (the R is definitely Arial), but at least they can spell the street name right.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fifq6p6X.jpg&hash=09f43c7b0af8394fb83e30718a7684dac0ac2810)

GMSV: http://goo.gl/maps/Pbfj5
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on October 01, 2014, 11:56:34 AM
Quote from: jake on September 30, 2014, 01:58:17 AMThe old 295 shield was state-named, so it was probably old and someone decided it needed replacing. Some silly DOT worker obviously was paying no attention to the fact that the road is 295, and put up 95.

Just a classic fuck-up, is my guess.
Maine briefly stopped using state-name shields, but now is back at it. If you copy the image URL and view it full-size, you'll see the I-95 shield is state-name. The old sign wasn't particularly old; the Fore River Parkway only opened to traffic in 2005 or 2006. Hence methinks it got jüted.
But yes, in any case it's a classic cock-up.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bigboi00069 on October 02, 2014, 10:13:50 AM
Forgive me if this is posted somewhere already, but i do not see it anywhere.

On FL 736 EB approaching US 441 there is a FL 441 sign posted.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.postimg.org%2Fsnrvnxogp%2F441.jpg&hash=9ca66d0fe19e07d992c150daed92003093522a0d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on October 02, 2014, 08:59:05 PM
Business Loop shield with standard Interstate shield colors...caught this today in Kalamazoo.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F10%2FUS131s-BizLoop94wWrongColors-Kalamazoo_1200cr.jpg&hash=a5185545112e15961004abbedd71fc467893dafe)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on October 02, 2014, 09:41:09 PM
Quote from: formulanone on October 02, 2014, 08:59:05 PM
Business Loop shield with standard Interstate shield colors...caught this today in Kalamazoo.

What a strange design error... I've seen the other way around (Interstate shield with business color scheme), but not this.
Title: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 02, 2014, 10:49:06 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 02, 2014, 09:41:09 PM
Quote from: formulanone on October 02, 2014, 08:59:05 PM
Business Loop shield with standard Interstate shield colors...caught this today in Kalamazoo.

What a strange design error... I've seen the other way around (Interstate shield with business color scheme), but not this.

I'm surprised temporary contractor construction signs are allowed to be posted in this thread...I see very few without errors! :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on October 03, 2014, 05:54:04 PM
Also, that US 131 shield uses the 2dUS shape stretched to 5:4 proportion.  Both are design errors, rather than erroneous information, so this belongs in "Signs With Design Errors".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 04, 2014, 09:55:27 PM
VA 62 gets downgraded:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3928/15412970501_110ea8502b_z.jpg)

...and US 58 gets upgraded (although we can't blame VDOT for this one):

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3928/15416164415_6a62a9eb82_z.jpg)

US 15/US 360 doesn't get the BUSINESS like it should:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3927/15229384129_039191dcae_z.jpg)

The signage at the actual intersection with the Keysville, VA US 15/US 360 BUSINESS is correct:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3931/15416141135_8e3aa6daf2_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 05, 2014, 09:52:40 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 04, 2014, 09:55:27 PM
VA 62 gets downgraded:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3928/15412970501_110ea8502b_z.jpg)

That happens quite often on those blue Virginia attractions signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on October 06, 2014, 02:10:39 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on October 05, 2014, 09:52:40 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 04, 2014, 09:55:27 PM
VA 62 gets downgraded:


(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3928/15412970501_110ea8502b_z.jpg)

That happens quite often on those blue Virginia attractions signs.
Also note the all-caps series B Clearview
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on October 06, 2014, 11:13:47 AM
I'm actually impressed by this error. How did they get our state route shields up there anyways? :hmmm:
http://www.wsfa.com/story/3642053/alabama-road-signs-in-massachusetts

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwsfa.images.worldnow.com%2Fimages%2F161078_LG.jpg&hash=f0e081b98629d3b5114b01c0f40c593edcf46d11)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on October 06, 2014, 01:53:54 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on October 06, 2014, 11:13:47 AM
I'm actually impressed by this error. How did they get our state route shields up there anyways? :hmmm:
http://www.wsfa.com/story/3642053/alabama-road-signs-in-massachusetts

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwsfa.images.worldnow.com%2Fimages%2F161078_LG.jpg&hash=f0e081b98629d3b5114b01c0f40c593edcf46d11)

The default MUTCD state marker shows an Alabama route shield. If whoever is assembling the sign doesn't read the MUTCD, they might assume that they are supposed to use the design provided instead of what the actual state uses.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 07, 2014, 02:11:07 AM
I have seen this sign so many times and never thought twice about it...anyone else spot the issue?

EDIT: All the nearby roundabout guide signs also have this error. I'm starting to wonder whether or not it was intentional.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4u1nKMq.png&hash=9c76fbca32e97e1e19d48e3c37513e35c9f09bca)

EDIT 2:

Not sure this is a grammatical error or not...shouldn't it be miles, since it's more than 1? Or are fragments up to two allowed to say "mile"? I thought I was good at English, but I can't decide what it should be. Both sound right/wrong.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUAqYsxD.png&hash=7d493d1103f9d67186f991135c4f46e3d8e7207d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on October 07, 2014, 07:36:21 AM
I assume the error is that there shouldn't be an arrow on the bottom of the roundabout diagram (the part representing where you already are).

I suppose if New Jersey were to start using roundabouts, they might have a need for that arrow given the greater need for U-turns there compared to many other jurisdictions!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on October 07, 2014, 08:38:27 AM
Quote from: Hoss6884 on October 07, 2014, 08:19:28 AM
The first advance guide sign for Exit 19 on I-79 North in PA incorrectly states "US 19 TO PA 221" when the opposite is true (http://goo.gl/IKD00a (http://goo.gl/IKD00a)).  The sign after that shows the correct information (http://goo.gl/mxVK4V (http://goo.gl/mxVK4V)).

I didn't get pictures because I didn't realize until after the fact, but luckily Google captures the error.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Sywaf6KbGEg/VDPZBGCraGI/AAAAAAAAFRw/u5enJ_uj7Lk/w517-h415-no/19-221.png)
Even more interesting is that the listed destinations are in a different order as well. 

The 2-mile BGS looks like it's a more recent (but pre-Clearview) installation.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on October 07, 2014, 08:03:33 PM
Quote from: jake on October 07, 2014, 02:11:07 AMNot sure this is a grammatical error or not...shouldn't it be miles, since it's more than 1? Or are fragments up to two allowed to say "mile"? I thought I was good at English, but I can't decide what it should be. Both sound right/wrong.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUAqYsxD.png&hash=7d493d1103f9d67186f991135c4f46e3d8e7207d)

If I'm speaking, I always say the plural, but I have no idea what/if the MUTCD says.

If that's the sign I'm thinking of (I feel like overhead Lane Ends 1 1/4 Mile signs are far and few between), there's another error, perhaps more of a design error, not with the sign itself, but with the gantry.  On the same gantry, there's a 1 mile exit advance hung to the left of the lane ends sign.  I feel like many motorists looking for that exit will parse the "important" information on the signs but gloss over the distances, and assume from the placement that the right lane will end first and they should be in the second lane to exit.

ETA: Street view (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2480545,-122.3338453,3a,75y,170.09h,83.85t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1slhEa-EbBPkAbec4hJPI-OQ!2e0), since I'm not quite as lazy as I thought.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on October 07, 2014, 08:20:56 PM
Quote from: Hoss6884 on October 07, 2014, 08:19:28 AM
The first advance guide sign for Exit 19 on I-79 North in PA incorrectly states "US 19 TO PA 221" when the opposite is true (http://goo.gl/IKD00a (http://goo.gl/IKD00a)).  The sign after that shows the correct information (http://goo.gl/mxVK4V (http://goo.gl/mxVK4V)).

There's a similar issue on I-75 in Marietta, GA at exit 267B. TO GA-5 / SOUTH US-41 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9801666,-84.5375941,3a,75y,320.18h,91.52t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_KWOomA76p8LREOFyiJHzg!2e0) (wrong), followed by TO US-41 / SOUTH GA-5 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9841513,-84.5415822,3a,75y,326.78h,86.58t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1skskFTxfkM2KHkfMTAgDtuA!2e0) (right).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2014, 08:54:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 07, 2014, 07:36:21 AM

I suppose if New Jersey were to start using roundabouts, they might have a need for that arrow given the greater need for U-turns there compared to many other jurisdictions!

There's a few dozen roundabouts in NJ already. They are signed normally.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kniwt on October 07, 2014, 09:17:05 PM
US 101 north, just south of San Jose, taken today:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fl0VtzfL.jpg&hash=0d7e65e4dc7b938645d2cf984c5952912f4445b3)

The exit number is wrong and appears to be the exit number for the north 101/85 junction way up in Mountain View. In fact, here's the correct exit number just half a mile up the road:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMMUUtO3.jpg&hash=16f4840c2d26003b5eb67b2838ad84ed2844ceee)

I reported it to Caltrans a while back, but nothing happened.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on October 07, 2014, 09:53:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2014, 08:54:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 07, 2014, 07:36:21 AM

I suppose if New Jersey were to start using roundabouts, they might have a need for that arrow given the greater need for U-turns there compared to many other jurisdictions!

There's a few dozen roundabouts in NJ already. They are signed normally.

I assumed it would be clear I meant that as a joke. Guess I was wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on October 07, 2014, 10:07:21 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on October 07, 2014, 09:17:05 PM
US 101 north, just south of San Jose, taken today:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fl0VtzfL.jpg&hash=0d7e65e4dc7b938645d2cf984c5952912f4445b3)

That sign is oddly designed as well. Destination legend appears to have compressed spacing, the shield is rather small, and the north banner is rather large. The space was there to design everything with the usual parameters.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Thing 342 on October 07, 2014, 10:16:42 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 04, 2014, 09:55:27 PM
VA 62 gets downgraded:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3928/15412970501_110ea8502b_z.jpg)

I've noticed that a good number of these blue signs in VA contains goofs. Usually, it's the numbers being in Clearview or some sort of design flaw, but there was one for VA-6 off of US-29 that was circular and inexplicably had two leading zeros, so it read "006". Really wish I had a picture of it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on October 07, 2014, 10:28:28 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on October 07, 2014, 10:16:42 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 04, 2014, 09:55:27 PM
VA 62 gets downgraded:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3928/15412970501_110ea8502b_z.jpg)

I've noticed that a good number of these blue signs in VA contains goofs. Usually, it's the numbers being in Clearview or some sort of design flaw, but there was one for VA-6 off of US-29 that was circular and inexplicably had two leading zeros, so it read "006". Really wish I had a picture of it.

Then in the opposite vein, I can think of one on eastbound Route 55 in Linden that upgrades Route 638 (Freezeland Road) to primary status.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 08, 2014, 05:55:39 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 07, 2014, 07:36:21 AM
I assume the error is that there shouldn't be an arrow on the bottom of the roundabout diagram (the part representing where you already are).

Exactly. Didn't think the experts here at AARoads would take too much time to spot the error. I was right.

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 07, 2014, 07:36:21 AM
I suppose if New Jersey were to start using roundabouts, they might have a need for that arrow given the greater need for U-turns there compared to many other jurisdictions!

I've only been to NJ once, but from what I've been told by Zeffy and from personal flyovers (using Google Earth), it appears that New Jersey roads are a complete cluster-fuck, and therefore u-turns are a highly-desirable feature, no? Roundabouts might help!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on October 08, 2014, 11:26:11 AM
Quote from: roadfro on October 07, 2014, 10:07:21 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on October 07, 2014, 09:17:05 PM
US 101 north, just south of San Jose, taken today:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fl0VtzfL.jpg&hash=0d7e65e4dc7b938645d2cf984c5952912f4445b3)

That sign is oddly designed as well. Destination legend appears to have compressed spacing, the shield is rather small, and the north banner is rather large. The space was there to design everything with the usual parameters.

Is the sign on the left saying that the CA 85 exit, being described by the sign on the right, a left lane exit...but the exit tab being on the right side of the sign indicating a right-hand exit?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: spooky on October 08, 2014, 11:37:51 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on October 08, 2014, 11:26:11 AM
Is the sign on the left saying that the CA 85 exit, being described by the sign on the right, a left lane exit...but the exit tab being on the right side of the sign indicating a right-hand exit?

I assume it's an HOV-only exit on the left and a separate general purpose exit on the right?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kniwt on October 08, 2014, 11:59:32 AM
Quote from: spooky on October 08, 2014, 11:37:51 AM
I assume it's an HOV-only exit on the left and a separate general purpose exit on the right?

That's correct. And it's also correct about the crappy sign design. These are fairly new installations (as seen by the fairly-recent-in-California shift to "HOV 2+" instead of "CARPOOLS").
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 08, 2014, 03:43:26 PM
There is no RI-152 in this area. There was supposed to be but this expressway was supposed to be the US-44 expressway as well.  RIDOT never changed the sign.

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3849/15139442901_77971f3576_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on October 08, 2014, 09:22:45 PM
Apparently US 48 got extended northeastward to Oswego (and US 104 got revived, though those shields look old enough to be remnants from when NY 104 actually was US 104): http://goo.gl/maps/H3Ztu
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on October 09, 2014, 03:39:53 AM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on October 08, 2014, 09:22:45 PM
Apparently US 48 got extended northeastward to Oswego (and US 104 got revived, though those shields look old enough to be remnants from when NY 104 actually was US 104): http://goo.gl/maps/H3Ztu
The END US 48 sign looks like a new installation.  There used to be an END NY 48 sign at that location before.  The US 104 signs have been there forever.  Those signs were never changed when US 104 became NY 104.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on October 09, 2014, 12:07:53 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on October 07, 2014, 09:17:05 PM
The exit number is wrong and appears to be the exit number for the north 101/85 junction way up in Mountain View.

It's not the first time Caltrans did this.  The 1st Street advance guide sign on southbound I-880 is signed as exit 389 (http://goo.gl/maps/1uqCJ) which is the exit number for the 1st Street exit on US 101.  The correct exit number should be 4A.

Quote from: Kniwt on October 07, 2014, 09:17:05 PM
US 101 north, just south of San Jose, taken today:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fl0VtzfL.jpg&hash=0d7e65e4dc7b938645d2cf984c5952912f4445b3)

Ugh, what a horribly laid out pair of signs... especially the use of a small shield on the main sign and large shield on the HOV sign.  I might take this to the Redesign This thread in the Road-Related Illustrations board.

FWIW, here's what those signs originally looked like...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_nb_exit_377a_09.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: pctech on October 10, 2014, 02:51:35 PM
CA. sure sets the bar for ugly freeway signs! Maybe one large sign would have worked better there?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on October 11, 2014, 03:12:43 AM
^ No, you can't use one sign there, as a separate HOV sign is needed for the separate HOV exit. (Also noticing that the HOV sign doesn't have a yellow "LEFT" plaque...)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J Route Z on October 11, 2014, 08:41:55 PM
I really liked the old signs better on this one. I mostly like newer signs, but this here's an exception.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on October 11, 2014, 09:49:55 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 09, 2014, 12:07:53 PM
FWIW, here's what those signs originally looked like...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_nb_exit_377a_09.jpg)
Couldn't've Caltrans installed the exit number in the right hand sign in the space above 'Cupertino'? How hard can it be? :hmmm:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 11, 2014, 10:58:18 PM
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2906/14322798923_c51d7d4d1a_z.jpg)

The ramp to Tuckahoe Rd from NY-100 hasn't been 2-lanes in years.  but you'd never know it by the sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route17fan on October 11, 2014, 11:10:22 PM
Edit: also, dumb question but when did GA go away from the skinny font they used to have?

vtk: The Feds got after them (either fully or partially) due to a fatal bus crash involving a sports team from Ohio where the driver got in the wrong lane and ended up on a offramp near I want to say Northside Dr in N Atlanta off I-75 southbound. I lived in west Atlanta near Douglasville when this happened; I just don't remember the team.

After that event, the exit tabs began springing up in earnest - ironically after almost a statewide replacement of the old button copy signs with the upper and lower case C and D fonts. If memory serves, the area around Albany GA had exit tabs existing. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route17fan on October 11, 2014, 11:13:25 PM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on October 08, 2014, 09:22:45 PM
Apparently US 48 got extended northeastward to Oswego (and US 104 got revived, though those shields look old enough to be remnants from when NY 104 actually was US 104): http://goo.gl/maps/H3Ztu

I lived in Rotterdam NY up until this past April and when the upside down NY 337 shields were popping up, I went to NYSDOT to point out the error and was petrified that NY 337 would become US 337 given the track record.

Then an upside down NY 990V shield appeared - can you imagine US 990V? AIEEEEEEEE!!!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on October 12, 2014, 04:53:42 AM
Quote from: route17fan on October 11, 2014, 11:10:22 PM
Edit: also, dumb question but when did GA go away from the skinny font they used to have?

vtk: The Feds got after them (either fully or partially) due to a fatal bus crash involving a sports team from Ohio where the driver got in the wrong lane and ended up on a offramp near I want to say Northside Dr in N Atlanta off I-75 southbound. I lived in west Atlanta near Douglasville when this happened; I just don't remember the team.

After that event, the exit tabs began springing up in earnest - ironically after almost a statewide replacement of the old button copy signs with the upper and lower case C and D fonts. If memory serves, the area around Albany GA had exit tabs existing. Please correct me if I am wrong.
That team was from Bluffton University from Bluffton, OH, located about 60 miles south of Toledo along I-75.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route17fan on October 12, 2014, 06:21:20 AM
Ah that's right - thank you.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 12, 2014, 11:48:29 AM
The skinny font didn't have anything to do with that bus wreck, did it?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on October 12, 2014, 12:37:46 PM
Why was i mentioned in the post with the bus crash story?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on October 12, 2014, 04:42:28 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on October 11, 2014, 10:58:18 PM
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2906/14322798923_c51d7d4d1a_z.jpg)

The ramp to Tuckahoe Rd from NY-100 hasn't been 2-lanes in years.  but you'd never know it by the sign.
With a name like that, they're lucky that the sign hasn't been stolen.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route17fan on October 12, 2014, 07:46:34 PM
Quote from: vtk on October 12, 2014, 12:37:46 PM
Why was i mentioned in the post with the bus crash story?

It was a pull quote of asking when the GA typeface was changed from uppercase C and D to E(M) and I was told that the bus crash had something to do with it. I may be wrong but that was what I was told. If I am wrong, I apologize. I also apologize if I misread or misquoted.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on October 13, 2014, 12:59:39 PM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on October 08, 2014, 09:22:45 PM
Apparently US 48 got extended northeastward to Oswego (and US 104 got revived, though those shields look old enough to be remnants from when NY 104 actually was US 104): http://goo.gl/maps/H3Ztu

The city of Oswego put up a bunch of US 48, US 481 and US 104 signs around the city about 10 years ago, but that US 48 sign is a lot newer than the others. The other post is correct, those US 104 markers date back to when the road really was US 104.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on October 13, 2014, 03:16:05 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on October 11, 2014, 09:49:55 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 09, 2014, 12:07:53 PM
FWIW, here's what those signs originally looked like...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_nb_exit_377a_09.jpg)
Couldn't've Caltrans installed the exit number in the right hand sign in the space above 'Cupertino'? How hard can it be? :hmmm:

While they have added reflective exit tabs to button-copy signs, it isn't a common practice.  Besides, a 24-inch exit tab wouldn't fit.  It would cover up the top part of the 't' and the dot on the 'i'.

I noticed this sign doesn't have any type of lighting fixtures on the catwalk so it's entirely possible Caltrans replaced it so it would meet the new reflectivity standards in the '09 MUTCD.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bzakharin on October 13, 2014, 04:10:50 PM
This on the Atlantic City Expressway:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4234786,-74.5742654,3a,75y,114.86h,76.31t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s0ucby2G16O_9ACC8NLWkXA!2e0

It appears to imply that the right two lanes exit and only the left lane is through. In fact, none of the lanes exit, there are two added lanes at the location of the exit.

Edit: The original exit BGSs on the NJ Turnpike suffer from this, but in reverse, with two downward errors on the "Thru Traffic" signs implying that the right lane exits. Those arrows are going away, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 13, 2014, 04:19:57 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/SjqWh

70th St/Lake Murray exit off I-8 eastbound.  technically this isn't erroneous, but it sure is misleading.

left sign says: "Alvarado Rd./Lake Murray Rd./70th st" - use left lane.  right sign says: "Lake Murray Rd." - use right lane.

there is no further signage.

downstream, the left lane splits into two.  one of the lanes turns left, and one turns right (to go with the right lane, which also turns right).

Alvarado is the T-junction you come to.  all three lanes take you to Alvarado.  left lane is Alvarado eastbound; middle and right lanes are Alvarado westbound.  then, to get to 70th/Lake Murray (the road changes name at Alvarado), you must go right, taking Alvarado for a very brief distance to get to that intersection.

so technically the sign is correct, but there definitely needs to be a clarification that, just downstream of the sign, you will need to make a decision at the lane split - and Lake Murray and 70th can only be accessed from one lane, so choose wisely.  a second gantry would be extremely helpful.

(it doesn't help that the interchange itself is one of those 50s remnant ad-hoc "designs" that someone threw together because it connected everything, and that's sufficient, isn't it?)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 14, 2014, 12:35:48 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5355629,-77.4319594,3a,37.5y,32.32h,91.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shGio_X_bMfERE12bSNryaA!2e0?hl=en
The US 60 shields are totally wrong and also facing the wrong way.  US 60 East is the same direction as US 360 East here and west is to the left on Main.

Furthermore, pan around to the direct opposite corner and another assembly is there also erroneous.

I guess this is what happens when the state turns over all highways inside independent cities over to the city for maintenance.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on October 15, 2014, 09:25:17 PM
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3879/14738256332_ee34b17215_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/osnq8N)DSC01746 (https://flic.kr/p/osnq8N) by okroads (https://www.flickr.com/people/12472136@N05/), on Flickr

This should have a "WEST" tab and not an "EAST" tab. Photo taken by me on 7-24-14.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 15, 2014, 11:33:17 PM
I bet that one confuses some motorists LOL!

Anyway, VDOT has plenty of erroneous signs along I-95 in Richmond, VA at the Broad Street exit still showing US 33 interchanging there when in fact US 33 has not been there in 33 years.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on October 20, 2014, 12:22:14 PM
Vermont 207 and 235 shield assembly mistakenly manufactured as U.S. highways:

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/vt-078_eb_at_vt_207_nb.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 21, 2014, 03:51:13 PM
Norfolk, you had only one job.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8889441,-76.239758,3a,37.5y,85.17h,86.96t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjEMmZYwzhFI5Pxa1Oiwt6A!2e0

It's no better on the other side:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8903094,-76.2381768,3a,75y,231.98h,86.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSs2yJA253m2NubWSnsa8QA!2e0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on October 21, 2014, 11:37:40 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 21, 2014, 03:51:13 PM
Norfolk, you had only one job.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8889441,-76.239758,3a,37.5y,85.17h,86.96t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjEMmZYwzhFI5Pxa1Oiwt6A!2e0

I think I'd rather take the VA/I-247 shield instead of the Clearview'd VA/US 194 shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on October 21, 2014, 11:41:59 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 21, 2014, 11:37:40 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 21, 2014, 03:51:13 PM
Norfolk, you had only one job.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8889441,-76.239758,3a,37.5y,85.17h,86.96t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjEMmZYwzhFI5Pxa1Oiwt6A!2e0

I think I'd rather take the VA/I-247 shield instead of the Clearview'd VA/US 194 shields.

When I clicked the link, it took me awhile to see the problem with VA 247. I saw the Clearview signs as the problem first. I guess technically it is erroneous, as it's the wrong font for that use. But I agree, the VA 247 shield is still better off than the clearview shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 22, 2014, 07:47:03 AM
https://flic.kr/p/pu3NHF  Take I-95 North to I-95 North.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on October 22, 2014, 08:17:11 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 22, 2014, 07:47:03 AM
https://flic.kr/p/pu3NHF  Take I-95 North to I-95 North.
it's not erroneous. a little silly, perhaps, but 100% correct.

the intent is to show the two through routes that will return you to I-95 North on the other side of the harbor.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KG909 on October 22, 2014, 08:47:55 AM
Suppose to be Amtrak not Amtrack
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F10%2F22%2Fqeteqa9y.jpg&hash=24008d09ea9de5bcfd6ac2b065fd8330869ab4b5)
   
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 22, 2014, 02:00:17 PM
I have a photo from northeastern Kentucky from about 15 years ago with it spelled "AMTRAC."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 22, 2014, 02:05:11 PM
Quote from: odditude on October 22, 2014, 08:17:11 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 22, 2014, 07:47:03 AM
https://flic.kr/p/pu3NHF  Take I-95 North to I-95 North.
it's not erroneous. a little silly, perhaps, but 100% correct.

the intent is to show the two through routes that will return you to I-95 North on the other side of the harbor.
Oh yeah its intent is clear, but to take I-95 to reach I-95 north is not the best way to describe it in words.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on October 23, 2014, 05:54:18 PM
Erroneous Street Blade along US 130 in Cranbury, NJ (http://goo.gl/maps/fxlBy)  (Cranbury) Half Acre Road east of US 130 is not CR 535 Northbound.

CR 535 Northbound off US 130 is actually at the next intersection, Cranbury South River Road (http://goo.gl/maps/w42S5).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on October 23, 2014, 06:31:22 PM
Not a terribly blatant one unless you know downtown OKC:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=35.462121,-97.513361&spn=0.008057,0.029933&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=35.462129,-97.513462&panoid=HfwGqr3eQ_04f13QA79Vpw&cbp=12,103.68,,1,1.88

Turning right won't put you on East I-44. Heck, it won't even get you there in any particularly direct form or fashion. This was probably supposed to be an I-40 shield, and could also use a TO banner.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on October 24, 2014, 05:44:07 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 21, 2014, 03:51:13 PM
Norfolk, you had only one job.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8889441,-76.239758,3a,37.5y,85.17h,86.96t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjEMmZYwzhFI5Pxa1Oiwt6A!2e0

It's no better on the other side:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8903094,-76.2381768,3a,75y,231.98h,86.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSs2yJA253m2NubWSnsa8QA!2e0
Norfolk, VA--continuing the tradition of Derp signage for over 20 years!  This should also be under the Worst of Signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on October 25, 2014, 12:21:18 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 23, 2014, 06:31:22 PM
Not a terribly blatant one unless you know downtown OKC:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=35.462121,-97.513361&spn=0.008057,0.029933&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=35.462129,-97.513462&panoid=HfwGqr3eQ_04f13QA79Vpw&cbp=12,103.68,,1,1.88

Turning right won't put you on East I-44. Heck, it won't even get you there in any particularly direct form or fashion. This was probably supposed to be an I-40 shield, and could also use a TO banner.

I just drove by there today and it's still there. It should be an I-40 shield.

I always thought that the I-44 shield there should be swapped with the I-40 shield on this "TO I-40" trailblazer on eastbound N.W. 50th Street near Lake Hefner Parkway. Turning right will take you to I-40 in 4 miles, but will take you to I-44 in 1 mile.

http://goo.gl/maps/PKm4J (http://goo.gl/maps/PKm4J)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JMoses24 on October 25, 2014, 07:48:09 AM
Quote from: route17fan on October 12, 2014, 07:46:34 PM
Quote from: vtk on October 12, 2014, 12:37:46 PM
Why was i mentioned in the post with the bus crash story?

It was a pull quote of asking when the GA typeface was changed from uppercase C and D to E(M) and I was told that the bus crash had something to do with it. I may be wrong but that was what I was told. If I am wrong, I apologize. I also apologize if I misread or misquoted.



It had nothing to do with the font type. The problem the Feds saw was that there was no clear way to distinguish the left hand, HOV-only exit from the continuation of the HOV lane. The driver thought that the exit WAS the continuation of the HOV lane and took it. Consequently, he hit the top of the ramp, realized his error too late and lost control trying to correct his mistake, causing the crash.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route17fan on October 25, 2014, 09:02:14 AM
Oh - that makes more sense. Thank you.
My apologies to all for my misunderstanding (after all these years  :-D)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 27, 2014, 03:14:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkzGzZ8s.jpg&hash=f9996f2c8adec7145f08096b816a0b256fe4f9c9)

Just south of Lebanon, Ky.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on October 27, 2014, 03:17:15 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 27, 2014, 03:14:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%5Bimg%5Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkzGzZ8s.jpg&hash=40d36abb62ee03a5b26dd8367aea3e8ef3466b5d)[/img]

Just south of Lebanon, Ky.

[/img]

There's no image there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 27, 2014, 03:22:14 PM
There is now. Had duplicate IMG tags.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on October 27, 2014, 03:39:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 27, 2014, 03:14:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkzGzZ8s.jpg&hash=f9996f2c8adec7145f08096b816a0b256fe4f9c9)

Just south of Lebanon, Ky.

Good lord that thing is absolutely ugly! That should go in Worst of Road Signs, too. Not only is it erroneous, but very ugly looking.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on October 27, 2014, 06:04:22 PM
In Gloucester, MA at the MA 128/127A intersection; the D8 LGS for MA 127A South (http://goo.gl/maps/ShVLA) (listing EASTERN POINT & ROCKY NECK) should not have an upright arrow for a right turn movement.  An older supplemental ALT 127 STATE PARK LGS posted off to the side shows the correct direction (for 127A).

OTOH, from MA 127A North, theres a D8 LGS with a right-turn arrow for Rocky Neck (& E. Main St.) (http://goo.gl/maps/ClGHr) at the same intersection.

Upshoot: from 128 North, Rocky Neck is a right-turn onto MA 127A South (E. Main St. southwest of the 128 intersection); but from MA 127A North, Rocky Neck is a right-turn onto E. Main St. southeast of the 128/127A intersection (127A northbound becomes Bass Ave.).  Such could really screw-up someone not familiar with the area.

The D8 LGS facing 128 needs to have the 127A shield & SOUTH notation removed to make the EASTERN POINT-ROCKY NECK signage with the upright-arrow correct; though the upright-arrow should also be moved to the left side of the sign for better clarity.  A newer-spec'd D8 LGS for the right-turn onto MA 127A South should be provided and replace the older ALT 127 D8 LGS.

Side bar: 127A seems to be inconsistently signed here.  Some places have it signed as 127A; other places have it signed as ALT 127.  MassDOT, can you make up your mind here?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on October 27, 2014, 06:25:28 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on October 27, 2014, 03:39:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 27, 2014, 03:14:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkzGzZ8s.jpg&hash=f9996f2c8adec7145f08096b816a0b256fe4f9c9)

Just south of Lebanon, Ky.

Good lord that thing is absolutely ugly! That should go in Worst of Road Signs, too. Not only is it erroneous, but very ugly looking.

Assuming it is in fact at a junction with US 68, I don't see how it's erroneous.  Just worst of.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 27, 2014, 06:27:22 PM
It's erroneous because it's in the wrong-sized blank.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on October 27, 2014, 06:28:34 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 27, 2014, 06:27:22 PM
It's erroneous because it's in the wrong-sized blank.

I also noted that the "8" was tilted ever so slightly compared to the "6".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 27, 2014, 06:43:27 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 27, 2014, 06:28:34 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 27, 2014, 06:27:22 PM
It's erroneous because it's in the wrong-sized blank.

I also noted that the "8" was tilted ever so slightly compared to the "6".

Aren't these just design errors (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.msg318145#new)?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on October 27, 2014, 08:31:08 PM
Quote from: jake on October 27, 2014, 06:43:27 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 27, 2014, 06:28:34 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 27, 2014, 06:27:22 PM
It's erroneous because it's in the wrong-sized blank.

I also noted that the "8" was tilted ever so slightly compared to the "6".

Aren't these just design errors (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.msg318145#new)?

Exactly.  There's a reason we have separate threads for "Worst Of" (pure unadulterated shite), "design errors" (self-explanatory, I hope?), and "the good, the bad, and the ugly" (not worst of, just kinda weird).  This thread is a little vague, but I always figured "erroneous" meant "errors in information", otherwise if it's open to all kinds of errors, the entire thread would be overlapped with the others.  Obviously there's going to be some overlap, but... like I said, isn't there a reason we have separate threads for different kinds of errors?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: busman_49 on October 28, 2014, 09:53:27 AM
OH 89 and OH 66 both got a status upgrade in the early 2000s; both of these have long since been fixed:

OH 89: https://www.flickr.com/photos/busman_49/15650465185/
OH 66: https://www.flickr.com/photos/busman_49/15626657996/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on November 03, 2014, 10:57:27 PM
Now that ME 24 has been rerouted onto US 1 and ME 196, a NORTH 24 sign has been added next to the END 196 at the US 1 interchange. It should be a SOUTH 24.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on November 05, 2014, 10:02:02 PM
Here's one that I just noticed today in Baltimore:

http://goo.gl/maps/VQIe3

This is on Monroe Street, just south of North Avenue.  This is the place where US 1 takes a left turn, but they inappropriately labeled US 1 as MD-1.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on November 07, 2014, 04:39:03 AM
Erroenous pavement markings in Seattle (1st at Thomas (http://goo.gl/mvxp5F)):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4rHfE6d.jpg&hash=559e0347316a0f47d1a4969d658cef71bc3af8f6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on November 07, 2014, 10:28:41 AM
Quote from: mrsman on November 05, 2014, 10:02:02 PM
Here's one that I just noticed today in Baltimore:

http://goo.gl/maps/VQIe3

This is on Monroe Street, just south of North Avenue.  This is the place where US 1 takes a left turn, but they inappropriately labeled US 1 as MD-1.

Don't think I've seen this error MD 129 shield on this thread.  This is leaving US 40:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2948812,-76.6226409,3a,75y,349.56h,90.88t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSij9DGB9HtLFrsRBj6-uxA!2e0?hl=en

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on November 07, 2014, 12:48:00 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 07, 2014, 10:28:41 AM
Quote from: mrsman on November 05, 2014, 10:02:02 PM
Here's one that I just noticed today in Baltimore:

http://goo.gl/maps/VQIe3

This is on Monroe Street, just south of North Avenue.  This is the place where US 1 takes a left turn, but they inappropriately labeled US 1 as MD-1.

Don't think I've seen this error MD 129 shield on this thread.  This is leaving US 40:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2948812,-76.6226409,3a,75y,349.56h,90.88t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSij9DGB9HtLFrsRBj6-uxA!2e0?hl=en

Mapmikey

Had it posted on the main site since 2011 at least:

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland125/md-129_nb_begin.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: doorknob60 on November 08, 2014, 03:58:59 AM
I discovered this weird monster browsing around on Street View. This is approaching OR-58 from Lowell, OR.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfOcV1Xy.png&hash=c3fc4d08f7b5cdcc1c5e2b9576d4f1e0f9cf488a)

I mean, I guess they realized something was wrong with a US-58 shield and this was their solution. Points for effort I guess.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on November 08, 2014, 06:21:14 PM
Finally working on pictures from my trip to the Wichita Meet last July, I forgot about this particularly egregious error:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fok%2F11%2F77to177%2F4.jpg&hash=d998f2a1a30cec31649fc059b7a2dcaa7530e317)

The Oklahoma 11 shields are on a permanent fixture 90 degrees offset from where they should be. This is on Oklahoma 11 west in Blackwell, Oklahoma at the US 177 junction. You can even see the 11 west reassurance shield in the background.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on November 10, 2014, 10:24:39 AM
I saw this one (http://goo.gl/maps/kq8K7) when I was in North Brookfield, MA this past weekend.

While one could argue the extent of the error; the reasoning for such is that this particular JCT 148 trailblazer is located along the stretch of S. Main Street where MA 67 & 148 multiplex w/each other.

Either a M3-3 (SOUTH) trailblazer sign should be placed between the JCT sign and 148 shield or both the M3-3 along with the M5-1 (advance left arrow) signs should be used instead of the JCT sign to make it more technically accurate. 

Note: since there's already an advance LGS stating NEXT LEFT for MA 148 South located not too far back along MA 67/148; this JCT 148 trailblazer assembly's really not needed at this location.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 12, 2014, 01:15:16 PM
Similar to the US 68 example I posted recently, this one is on KY 977 at Waco (Madison County), Ky.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1028.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy348%2Fhbelkins%2FwideKY52_zps43fab371.jpg&hash=9957cf70b07b85576bad3872bf7edcb52faa5e0b) (http://s1028.photobucket.com/user/hbelkins/media/wideKY52_zps43fab371.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on November 12, 2014, 03:23:54 PM
Still not at all erroneous in my book.  Slightly ugly in a way I can't quite put my finger on (granted the extra whitespace doesn't help), but not as bad as the wonky US 68 one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on November 12, 2014, 03:38:28 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 12, 2014, 03:23:54 PM
Still not at all erroneous in my book.  Slightly ugly in a way I can't quite put my finger on (granted the extra whitespace doesn't help), but not as bad as the wonky US 68 one.
it's vertically off-center, and is that series F? ugh.

regardless, once again this would fall under "design errors" instead of "erroneous." for the purposes of this thread, erroneous means the information conveyed is wrong.[/soapbox]
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on November 12, 2014, 03:51:12 PM
Quote from: odditude on November 12, 2014, 03:38:28 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 12, 2014, 03:23:54 PM
Still not at all erroneous in my book.  Slightly ugly in a way I can't quite put my finger on (granted the extra whitespace doesn't help), but not as bad as the wonky US 68 one.
it's vertically off-center, and is that series F? ugh.

regardless, once again this would fall under "design errors" instead of "erroneous." for the purposes of this thread, erroneous means the information conveyed is wrong.[/soapbox]

I believe that's Series E. The shield doesn't look too bad IMO.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on November 12, 2014, 09:55:21 PM
At first I thought maybe it was supposed to be US 52, but a quick consultation of Google Maps tells me that while US 52 does indeed parallel the Kentucky border for quite a long distance, it enters the state only very, very briefly, and not near Waco. That is indeed KY 52, which is exactly what it says.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 12, 2014, 10:32:31 PM
Quote from: odditude on November 12, 2014, 03:38:28 PM
regardless, once again this would fall under "design errors" instead of "erroneous." for the purposes of this thread, erroneous means the information conveyed is wrong.[/soapbox]

You say "tomayto," I say "tomahto." To me, it's an error because it's in the wrong shield shape.

Quote from: Eth on November 12, 2014, 09:55:21 PM
At first I thought maybe it was supposed to be US 52, but a quick consultation of Google Maps tells me that while US 52 does indeed parallel the Kentucky border for quite a long distance, it enters the state only very, very briefly, and not near Waco. That is indeed KY 52, which is exactly what it says.

Yep. I took that picture about a month ago. I've passed that intersection many times but happened to notice the wide sign on that trip and turned around, and sure enough, saw the wide sign. I forgot about having the photo until I passed it again yesterday.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on November 13, 2014, 12:50:35 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2014, 10:32:31 PM
Quote from: odditude on November 12, 2014, 03:38:28 PM
regardless, once again this would fall under "design errors" instead of "erroneous." for the purposes of this thread, erroneous means the information conveyed is wrong.[/soapbox]

You say "tomayto," I say "tomahto." To me, it's an error because it's in the wrong shield shape.

You say "tomahto", I say "there's a separate thread for this kind of error".

(Obviously, my issue isn't that there's no error, it's that (a) it's not a particularly remarkable one and isn't at all confusing to motorists, and (b) it belongs in that thread over there instead.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Darkchylde on November 13, 2014, 03:52:20 PM
I'm not about to sift through 124 pages of thread to see if this is already here. Fair warning.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-AizWeW4RTm8/VGFYfEhsHdI/AAAAAAAAKHo/df5wfm4e0mA/s800/10-DSCF0594.JPG)

Should be Exit 15A, not 15.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on November 13, 2014, 07:54:40 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 13, 2014, 12:50:35 PM
You say "tomahto", I say "there's a separate thread for this kind of error".

This. It's not rocket science.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 13, 2014, 08:44:51 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 13, 2014, 12:50:35 PM
(Obviously, my issue isn't that there's no error, it's that (a) it's not a particularly remarkable one and isn't at all confusing to motorists, and (b) it belongs in that thread over there instead.)

A US route marker for a state route would be posted here, and it's not confusing to motorists unless you have one of those situations where two different classifications of route intersect. This isn't a design error, this is a production error, like a misspelling:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2Fpaintsvillle.jpg&hash=85834a6dce6c48218fca2f21343dc4d87b1f1969)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2Fcentr.jpg&hash=b2df7b5d967e65766da8aae25359d1da1edb83af)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2Fglencarin.jpg&hash=004f6683ec3769f15840d7954d7d489e9ddf3694)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2Fburksville.jpg&hash=758e9f019f3c4750d7c2ff6cacd31c39b3940470)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2Fbayou.jpg&hash=ce62d13f43f8898317d035399ea10a973aea1476)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2Ffurnance.jpg&hash=c70b0d394c3ebc8910d1f389fc2009cdfe9a1893)

Quote from: jbnv on November 13, 2014, 07:54:40 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 13, 2014, 12:50:35 PM
You say "tomahto", I say "there's a separate thread for this kind of error".

This. It's not rocket science.

Whatever.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Finterestingsigns%2Fky%2FovalKY74.jpg&hash=9c56151a7a5c1a85ee6add62086fd78ca674b3e7)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Finterestingsigns%2Fky%2Fwide60-259.jpg&hash=95a96bf4484f38faa7444f9d590b8a139ef1becd)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Finterestingsigns%2Fky%2FWide60-144.jpg&hash=e0142ffa6a977cadc8c1be197fe7e6a2ce7f8646)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmillenniumhwy.net%2Finterestingsigns%2Fky%2Fwide60-79.jpg&hash=78308a8b21fb1fc93c9f29e4f10d9d2c1ff435d5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on November 13, 2014, 08:49:57 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fc9%2FOld_style_Florida_SR_471_shield.jpg&hash=04fec870c02a888534a3496b09389b54c203eb4b)
State road signs aren't supposed to have the Keys. Nobody would get confused, but it's an error since the sign doesn't meet standards.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on November 13, 2014, 11:09:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 13, 2014, 08:49:57 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fc9%2FOld_style_Florida_SR_471_shield.jpg&hash=04fec870c02a888534a3496b09389b54c203eb4b)
State road signs aren't supposed to have the Keys. Nobody would get confused, but it's an error since the sign doesn't meet standards.
It is an old standard. In the 1970s keys were included
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on November 13, 2014, 11:14:03 PM
Then it should have been replaced. Since it wasn't it's an error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on November 14, 2014, 10:12:47 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 13, 2014, 11:14:03 PM
Then it should have been replaced. Since it wasn't it's an error.

There is no reason whatsoever to replace a sign, in good condition and imparting correct information, just because its graphic design is out of date.  If you want to replace it, be my guest, but be prepared to pay for it yourself and don't tell me the state has to spend my tax dollars to replace it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 14, 2014, 11:01:47 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.71853,-94.9213659,3a,75y,335.66h,85.25t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sMJd_NMqwnmCdy-sG2wdFmw!2e0  Here is one that shows that the exit to the right for NB US 59 & 69 NB is the LAST FREE EXIT before the I-44 Will Rogers Turnpike ahead, but it is not!  There is one more exit for the SB US 59 & 69 and straight through US 60 WB ahead.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on November 14, 2014, 11:39:20 AM
I bet this is one of those cases where the word "exit" could be changed to "interchange" to make it correct. On I-49 southbound before approaching Opelousas, LA, a sign says "Opelousas next 4 exits" which is for exits 19, 18, 17 and 15. Going northbound, the sign says "Opelousas next 4 interchanges." I never understood why the wording was different until this past weekend. Going northbound, those exits are 15, 17, 18, 19A, and 19B. Technically the 4th exit sends you to US 190 east, Baton Rouge. The 5th exit is US 190 west, Opelousas. So interchange, meaning the set of exits at interchange 19. It's probably one of those things that all of you knew, but my roadgeek self just now put together.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on November 14, 2014, 12:36:53 PM
there are enough things flying over people's heads in this thread that the FAA is about to file a complaint.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 14, 2014, 01:24:33 PM
Quote from: odditude on November 14, 2014, 12:36:53 PM
there are enough things flying over people's heads in this thread that the FAA is about to file a complaint.
Welcome to the world of roading! 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on November 14, 2014, 02:07:18 PM
Quote from: corco on November 08, 2014, 06:21:14 PM
Finally working on pictures from my trip to the Wichita Meet last July, I forgot about this particularly egregious error:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fok%2F11%2F77to177%2F4.jpg&hash=d998f2a1a30cec31649fc059b7a2dcaa7530e317)

The Oklahoma 11 shields are on a permanent fixture 90 degrees offset from where they should be. This is on Oklahoma 11 west in Blackwell, Oklahoma at the US 177 junction. You can even see the 11 west reassurance shield in the background.

I don't think this is necessarily erroneous. It looks to me like the sign was intended to be mounted correctly but strong north winds turned the sign assembly to be out of alignment. As much as I hate to defend ODOT, this seems like a minor maintenance problem rather than an actual error.

This intersection is somewhat unusual by Oklahoma standards because the signage with cardinal directions is typically posted upstream of the junction. At the junction itself, where these sign assemblies are, ODOT normally posts a simple shield with double-headed arrow and no cardinal directions.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on November 28, 2014, 04:25:25 PM
This set-up is at the intersection of Drake Avenue and Memorial Parkway in Huntsville, AL. It is erroneous because US 431 and US 72 join further north. The signs above the respective shields should be "TO" signs.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7516/15874788886_b4b9747431.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qbNrEE)
US 231/AL 53 (https://flic.kr/p/qbNrEE) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on November 29, 2014, 01:34:21 AM
This is what overreliance on symbols gets you:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3bbqWFX.jpg&hash=5017644d579f1769fd051b4c11998e807eb68e90) (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.717706,-94.937689&spn=0.012872,0.024784&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.717753,-94.941852&panoid=eFd3j0NerkkqaZBtXMXw1g&cbp=12,341.62,,1,-5.27)

It's unambiguously legal to turn on red here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on November 29, 2014, 06:52:19 AM
I don't care about most shield type errors, but this one got me. (It's State Highway Loop 344, but acts as a sort of business route.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FObyFChM.jpg&hash=9ad79e1538d1d413365aa428d34921e7aeb96482)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 02, 2014, 10:55:56 AM
I went looking around the Atlanta Metro Area on street view and I found a rather blatant disregard for the MUTCD:
http://www.instantstreetview.com/2cd9h3z1spjo1z7oznxz2u
http://www.instantstreetview.com/2cd9rbz1spjt2z1v0zoaz2u
The crossbucks before the crossing should be (RXR) signs and not crossbucks.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Buck87 on December 05, 2014, 05:31:51 PM
Noticed this in downtown Norwalk, Ohio Wednesday night:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7567/15769151487_1037db7d16_n.jpg)

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7538/15767469588_1187226d36_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on December 05, 2014, 06:16:34 PM
Which piece is facing the right way?

I've seen in northern Ohio where temporary detour signs have been attached to the back of the U-channel when not in effect.  That's not what's going on here, is it?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Buck87 on December 05, 2014, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: vtk on December 05, 2014, 06:16:34 PM
Which piece is facing the right way?

I've seen in northern Ohio where temporary detour signs have been attached to the back of the U-channel when not in effect.  That's not what's going on here, is it?

The "South" tab is facing the right way. This is a permanent sign location just beyond 61's intersection with US 250/OH 13.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Stratuscaster on December 06, 2014, 12:09:03 AM
Is that U-channel or a round post?

When they widened IL-56 through DuPage County, IL - the city of Warrenville kicked in some money so they could have black stoplight poles and black round posts for ground-mounted signage. On any given day, some sign is spun around at some angle - they can't seem to figure out how to mount them so they don't move.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SR669 on December 08, 2014, 04:29:23 AM
Spotted this while passing through Hancock, MD in October.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1038.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa466%2FVirginiaSirens%2FResizes%2Ff2a8bcc5-e643-47ca-bb15-dc2e96a3c334_zps4b860d57.jpg&hash=02baf66599081c68641e141deafb4e514f508006)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on December 08, 2014, 05:35:14 AM
Quote from: SR669 on December 08, 2014, 04:29:23 AM
Spotted this while passing through Hancock, MD in October.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1038.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa466%2FVirginiaSirens%2FResizes%2Ff2a8bcc5-e643-47ca-bb15-dc2e96a3c334_zps4b860d57.jpg&hash=02baf66599081c68641e141deafb4e514f508006)

I'm not familiar with the area, but I still don't see any errors.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on December 08, 2014, 06:06:27 AM
My gut, confirmed by Google Maps, says it should be US 522.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: adventurernumber1 on December 08, 2014, 06:12:01 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 08, 2014, 05:35:14 AM
Quote from: SR669 on December 08, 2014, 04:29:23 AM
Spotted this while passing through Hancock, MD in October.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1038.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa466%2FVirginiaSirens%2FResizes%2Ff2a8bcc5-e643-47ca-bb15-dc2e96a3c334_zps4b860d57.jpg&hash=02baf66599081c68641e141deafb4e514f508006)

I'm not familiar with the area, but I still don't see any errors.

Looks like they signed US 522 as MD SR 522.

:rofl:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 08, 2014, 11:27:52 AM
I saw that last August. I'd only passed by/through Hancock on the interstate and on 522, but never on 144. Spotted this and doubled back to get my own photo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on December 14, 2014, 09:58:49 PM
Both of these photos are a few months old.

This is heading north on I-95 near Walthall, VA. The overhead belongs on southbound I-95, as northbound has only one exit here (exit 58, SRs 620 and 746, both noted on the correct sign...their intersection is located east of I-95 near the exit) while the one that was installed here is for southbound's exit 58B (620 westbound; 58A is for 746 and eastbound 620).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi42.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe343%2Fagenthydra%2FMobile%2520Uploads%2FIMG_20141214_214011.jpg&hash=8ee1d49a65a3961b761688df3987c41be92f94f4)

This second one is a pair of oval shields for VA 106 & via 156. These were posted along westbound VA 10 between 106/156 and I-295 as a detour when their bridge over the James River was being worked on. They'd be covered up when the bridge was open and uncovered when it was closed. This was the only time I got to photograph a set uncovered in the daytime.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi42.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe343%2Fagenthydra%2FMobile%2520Uploads%2FIMG_20141214_214116.jpg&hash=991303632c7460b2b49a9d273d1cf66bc6b176dc)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on December 31, 2014, 06:49:00 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 15, 2013, 12:17:37 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 15, 2013, 11:52:09 AM
No photo, and the sign is missing on Google Street View, but mile marker 162.2 on eastbound I-64 in Virginia has an I-60 shield on it.

I would absolutely love to see a photo of this.  is a close-up safely doable?

GMSV has been back by there and got it...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fi60milepost.jpg&hash=bd6fb1be13d5fd0c222633c512dd4d66870ccebc)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: andy3175 on December 31, 2014, 11:06:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 21, 2014, 10:10:56 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 09:55:20 PM
Quote from: jake on September 21, 2014, 09:27:50 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 21, 2014, 12:06:23 AM
Should be CA 99

I assume this is an old photo based on the grain and (what looks like) button copy, but weren't old California interstates signed with state-named shields? And that is an honest question...I keep contradicting myself, one moment thinking they did and other moments thinking they didn't.

Yeah it's pretty old but no I'm sure this was a mistake or something. I don't think California ever signed its highways with interstate shields.

Well of course, no doubt. But I'm wondering if the use of I-99 was intentional (based on reading above) or not. I'm not familiar with the original I-99 plans (if there were any) but perhaps the signage was placed in preparation for an eventual implementation. Then again, it would still be erroneous because I-99 never truly existed in that place and at that time (nor now even).

This happens from time to time, usually just as a mistake. Although I have no picture showing the original, this sign on I-5 south in the Central Valley at one time had an I-152 shield, and it was corrected to SR 152: https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_sb_exit_407_07.jpg from https://www.aaroads.com/california/i-005sk_ca.html.

Here in Southern California, we have an I-52 error that was fixed in 2013: https://www.aaroads.com/california/images052/ca-052_eb_la_jolla_pkwy_02.jpg from https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-052ea.html.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: andy3175 on December 31, 2014, 11:11:48 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 02, 2014, 09:41:09 PM
Quote from: formulanone on October 02, 2014, 08:59:05 PM
Business Loop shield with standard Interstate shield colors...caught this today in Kalamazoo.

What a strange design error... I've seen the other way around (Interstate shield with business color scheme), but not this.

This sort of thing happens from time to time in New Mexico and Wyoming. While I've seen most errors of a tri-color business loop shield fixed in Wyoming relatively quickly (I saw one of these incorrectly shown on I-80 at Rock Springs and I-25 at Chugwater in years past, but those have been corrected), some of those in New Mexico remained in place quite a bit longer (such as I-25 at Springer). Nevada had the reverse issue where on Las Vegas Blvd southbound there is/was a Business Loop 215 sign where it should have said I-215. NDOT, for whatever reason, does not like to place business loop route markers on its green advance guide signs, so the chance of NDOT making an error on placing a tri-color BL vs. green BL sign is minimized. I did find one tri-color Business Loop 80 sign in West Sacramento, but I think it has been replaced/corrected.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadrunner75 on January 01, 2015, 12:54:58 PM
In a short stretch of US 22 EB outside of Phillipsburg, NJ, US 173 is born and US 122 is born again. 
GSV is crummy here, but here goes for 173:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.675189,-75.139921&spn=0.000004,0.00327&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.675115,-75.140357&panoid=v_wVjOGdWxZDma2IeqFOuw&cbp=12,150.89,,0,6.19 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.675189,-75.139921&spn=0.000004,0.00327&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.675115,-75.140357&panoid=v_wVjOGdWxZDma2IeqFOuw&cbp=12,150.89,,0,6.19)
A short distance from these signs, US 122 popped up as well.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on January 02, 2015, 09:20:44 AM
Another sign error due to obsolescence or change in conditions, this Stop Ahead sign (http://goo.gl/maps/0mnhl) along Stafford St. should've been removed after the traffic signals at the US 20 intersection were recently erected.  Prior to the signals being erected, there was indeed a STOP for traffic entering US 20.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on January 03, 2015, 10:04:32 PM
Oops.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2FErroneousUS9N_zps05ed567e.jpg&hash=0d0ed277e668fb94fb10f3a46865ecd52b0836be)

Apparently there is a US 9N now. Should be NY 9N. Also should be NY 22.

Vermont probably didn't have the NY state shields on them, so they improvised.

http://goo.gl/maps/9mM59
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on January 03, 2015, 10:33:29 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on January 03, 2015, 10:04:32 PM
Vermont probably didn't have the NY state shields on them, so they improvised.

It's not as if they had to.  The NY supplement to the MUTCD is at https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/B-2011Supplement-adopted.pdf, and page 256 shows the NY state highway shields quite clearly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on January 07, 2015, 05:13:34 PM
A few nights ago I noticed, at the junction of US 62 / OH 3 and OH 238 near Bloomingburg, all the signs I could see as I passed through on 62 SB referred to OH 38, instead of 238.  IMO it would be logical if ODOT rerouted 38 to take over 238, downgrading existing 38 south of Bloomingburg to the county, but the District 6 website doesn't indicate they've done that.  Subsequently I crossed OH 38 just southwest of Bloomingburg and there was an OH 38 marker there.  Either the signs in one of those locations is wrong, or OH 38 now exists in a highly improbable short or three-legged route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MarkF on January 08, 2015, 01:33:59 AM
I'm guessing the city of Irvine is responsible for this sign on southbound Sand Canyon, the one at the onramp shows the Interstate correctly.  It has been there for a few months now.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2FCA5Irvine_zps90a81973.jpg&hash=04fc5ebab6ce46e05e69a9a4b4954b06ab66c8b5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: andy3175 on January 08, 2015, 11:33:41 PM
Quote from: MarkF on January 08, 2015, 01:33:59 AM
I'm guessing the city of Irvine is responsible for this sign on southbound Sand Canyon, the one at the onramp shows the Interstate correctly.  It has been there for a few months now.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2FCA5Irvine_zps90a81973.jpg&hash=04fc5ebab6ce46e05e69a9a4b4954b06ab66c8b5)

Well at least it is a state-named shield!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KG909 on January 08, 2015, 11:34:57 PM
The "u" in Muñoz is backwards
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F01%2F08%2Fa7fa530fd538f523fc4b18c3769ca472.jpg&hash=c3bc7552d17d9502d503f5867efd977624334b22)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on January 09, 2015, 12:55:19 AM
Quote from: KG909 on January 08, 2015, 11:34:57 PM
The "u" in Muñoz is backwards

Does New Mexico normally use full-width exit tabs in the same manner as Washington State (not like Illinois since they right-align theirs)?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KG909 on January 09, 2015, 01:07:07 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 09, 2015, 12:55:19 AM
Quote from: KG909 on January 08, 2015, 11:34:57 PM
The "u" in Muñoz is backwards

Does New Mexico normally use full-width exit tabs in the same manner as Washington State (not like Illinois since they right-align theirs)?
I don't think so, I looked at other signs and they were only on the right and on tabs.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F01%2F08%2F131021effae357e816ac70974aacca24.jpg&hash=01255f70e9fd6a077d046e82e6d26befdd6ee683)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F01%2F08%2F2f3f6ade70e640e2c6288ad37e20827d.jpg&hash=00e3ededf4f9ca87092f8bbe1020ecc98f44f3a3)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F01%2F08%2F87de195209a22e042325d66fbc2ecfc3.jpg&hash=878abab7d45b50f61ed56dc17f3e12bc9b04bd47)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F01%2F08%2F3f7b3cbf6050000c98432fa9bb5021c4.jpg&hash=575eceaf1f0680659f59c695f59b1647d3abad3b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on January 09, 2015, 04:40:01 AM
I would guess the full-width exit tab is because the Muños sign is so narrow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on January 09, 2015, 09:15:54 AM
Quote from: KG909 on January 09, 2015, 01:07:07 AM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F01%2F08%2F131021effae357e816ac70974aacca24.jpg&hash=01255f70e9fd6a077d046e82e6d26befdd6ee683)
I know it's being used as a street name; but seeing Route 66 as destination/street just seems weird.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on January 09, 2015, 10:49:08 AM
Quote from: vtk on January 09, 2015, 04:40:01 AM
I would guess the full-width exit tab is because the Muños sign is so narrow.

Colorado does the same thing (the "uni-tab") when a sign is narrow in width, so like in NM, it's not on all their signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on January 09, 2015, 11:16:48 AM
Quote from: vtk on January 07, 2015, 05:13:34 PM
A few nights ago I noticed, at the junction of US 62 / OH 3 and OH 238 near Bloomingburg, all the signs I could see as I passed through on 62 SB referred to OH 38, instead of 238.  IMO it would be logical if ODOT rerouted 38 to take over 238, downgrading existing 38 south of Bloomingburg to the county, but the District 6 website doesn't indicate they've done that.  Subsequently I crossed OH 38 just southwest of Bloomingburg and there was an OH 38 marker there. 

Update:  It appears OH 38 has indeed been rerouted as described previously.  Old 38, except at intersections with other state routes, still displays now-erroneous OH 38 markers.  I guess this is a case of ODOT saying "not my job" , as the road presumably is now the responsibility of Fayette County.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KG909 on January 09, 2015, 11:19:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2015, 09:15:54 AM
Quote from: KG909 on January 09, 2015, 01:07:07 AM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F01%2F08%2F131021effae357e816ac70974aacca24.jpg&hash=01255f70e9fd6a077d046e82e6d26befdd6ee683)
I know it's being used as a street name; but seeing Route 66 as destination/street just seems weird.
Yeah I think it's weird too, you don't really see that often.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on January 09, 2015, 11:19:18 AM
The far left sign and the pull-thru Baltimore sign are new within the past few weeks. The "EXIT ONLY" banner on the leftmost sign is erroneous because the lane continues on through, splits off to the left to go around a flyover ramp, and rejoins the highway on the far left side.

This is a location where an APL sign might seemingly be useful, but it would have to be enormous to span the full width of the highway (I think there are seven lanes here) and the number of ramps might make it confusing for some people (two exits on each side of the highway). The right-most arrow on the "Washington" sign and the left-most arrow on the "Richmond" sign point to the same lane, for example, and that lane then becomes exit-only at the ramp to I-395 further down the road. Meanwhile, the lane under the left-most arrow on the "Washington" sign is an option lane that allows you to continue on towards Baltimore.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FNewexitsignonBeltway_zps6f156caf.png&hash=3da1e571a2d9679b621b2efb6dbd6c095252f028)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 13, 2015, 03:13:23 PM
VA 3 gets an upgrade at the Chancellorsville Battlefield Park. This looked fairly new:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.310848,-77.65137,3a,75y,44.01h,74.86t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1soSI-kq8Salnp0Jzd4Ebn4Q!2e0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on January 18, 2015, 04:27:11 PM
Found a couple from Missouri while looking through a page of photos from a trip a few years ago.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2010_DFW_Day_3%2FImages%2F380.jpg&hash=29a4ac3122117d1347acde0ce525614522906a4e)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2010_DFW_Day_3%2FImages%2F381.jpg&hash=decf812f52550b5c10deab8e966508cc2a6dbfee)

And one from Kentucky from the same day.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2010_DFW_Day_3%2FImages%2F479.jpg&hash=7a2137cae0c0206471af8fcd4b0be50dfda4236f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KG909 on January 18, 2015, 06:19:13 PM
Should be California 210.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F01%2F18%2F97e8cef6c17643121866e53f8d5ff314.jpg&hash=9b01d3fe52c6e0bda60e2a9f3ba8a304ad953fd5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on January 24, 2015, 08:10:05 PM
Hammond, LA (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.502842,-90.461979,3a,75y,175.55h,81.26t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1stGT5_XNbA70Alt4t-3Xq-A!2e0). Should have a "BUSINESS" banner. The actual US 51 is some distance to the west. Much of the 51 BUS route is signed as just "US 51." And that can cause navigational issues if you direct someone to "Business 51 instead of regular 51" to get to I-12. The business route interchanges with I-12; the actual route doesn't.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on January 24, 2015, 11:05:24 PM
Found three goodies from Virginia while looking at a page of pictures from a road trip several years ago. I know the first one is gone. It's from Grundy.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_1%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_1-Images%2F35.jpg&hash=f5bc2cb42f01f98964a93a5dc3c174ed8d761acb)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_1%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_1-Images%2F169.jpg&hash=6a1da45e84d012ab154bca466fb61f956fa9cdb7)

Yes, there is a US 211, but it ends at I-81 in New Market, to the east of this location. That should be a VA 211 marker.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_1%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_1-Images%2F287.jpg&hash=4c9211da3132213934b9002f167258ae7de43794)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 26, 2015, 09:18:06 PM
Two finds while converting Massachusetts pages for the main site:

U.S. 1 signed as Massachusetts 1 along MA 114 west. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.559411,-70.973476,3a,75y,297.81h,89.5t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sGHCqUz0Bdq6Hp6JRuq3mqA!2e0?hl=en)

U.S. 202 signed as Massachusetts 202 on Resnic Boulevard (north of the I-391 end) in Holyoke. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.202255,-72.620531,3a,75y,306.68h,82.82t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1smOtnYeecC4KcUAEFOvRtyA!2e0?hl=en)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on January 27, 2015, 09:13:10 AM
Quote from: Alex on January 26, 2015, 09:18:06 PMU.S. 1 signed as Massachusetts 1 along MA 114 west. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.559411,-70.973476,3a,75y,297.81h,89.5t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sGHCqUz0Bdq6Hp6JRuq3mqA!2e0?hl=en)

That's probably the first time I've seen a stand-alone/trailblazer MA 1 shield.  Most of the erroneous MA 1 shields I've seen were on LGS' once posted along the stetch between Topsfield & Salisbury.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on January 27, 2015, 07:58:01 PM
This is most definitely wrong:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=46.719707,-92.103961&spn=0.000003,0.001778&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=46.719707,-92.103961&panoid=6GCdt3TEw-dPb1wcA-t7CQ&cbp=12,32.77,,1,-3.46

Or maybe it's saying there's a 40 ton weight limit for I-535 which is the Blatnik Bridge..?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on January 29, 2015, 12:00:01 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on January 27, 2015, 07:58:01 PM
This is most definitely wrong:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=46.719707,-92.103961&spn=0.000003,0.001778&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=46.719707,-92.103961&panoid=6GCdt3TEw-dPb1wcA-t7CQ&cbp=12,32.77,,1,-3.46

Or maybe it's saying there's a 40 ton weight limit for I-535 which is the Blatnik Bridge..?

Probably.  Also, insert tasteless Green Bay insult here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on January 29, 2015, 01:34:10 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on January 29, 2015, 12:00:01 PM
Also, insert tasteless Green Bay insult here.
I don't get it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on January 29, 2015, 02:02:27 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 29, 2015, 01:34:10 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on January 29, 2015, 12:00:01 PM
Also, insert tasteless Green Bay insult here. i get it
I don't get it.
i get it.    :-/  :angry:

It is from rival NFL team fans commenating about us being overwaight.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 29, 2015, 08:56:13 PM
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i0363b-temple.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i0363b-temple.jpg)

Found in Temple, Texas today by Jeff Royston.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on January 29, 2015, 09:55:32 PM
I'd forgive them if Loop 363 were actually a loop through downtown. But it's a bypass loop.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on January 30, 2015, 12:28:49 AM
Quote from: Alex on January 29, 2015, 08:56:13 PM
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i0363b-temple.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i0363b-temple.jpg)

Found in Temple, Texas today by Jeff Royston.

I don't know what's worse - the RIDOT style non-cutout shield, or the fact that they "upgraded" TX 363 into a business loop (with a non-existent parent no less!) .
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on February 03, 2015, 07:17:07 PM
Maybe it's the new trend...

This is the second time this has happened in Virginia (I-7 Business shields were up at one point).

Thanks to Kevin MacNutt for this picture from Downtown Harrisonburg:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fi33bus.jpg&hash=bbfd599daba3ffdaf91378d3377ae9bfecc67425)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on February 04, 2015, 08:24:52 AM
I find that all the worse because Virginia has no Interstate business routes, meaning there's that much less excuse for making that mistake.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 04, 2015, 02:41:01 PM
What's with the white sign on the mast-arm?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex4897 on February 04, 2015, 03:43:48 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 04, 2015, 02:41:01 PM
What's with the white sign on the mast-arm?

Looks like its trying to depict an awkward lane shift + lane addition.  That's definitely unique.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 04, 2015, 09:46:35 PM
Seattle needs those.  I can't count how many intersections have misaligned lanes.


iPhone
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on February 04, 2015, 11:26:19 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 04, 2015, 09:46:35 PM
Seattle needs those.  I can't count how many intersections have misaligned lanes.

A really bad one in Tacoma along Emerson Street ... if you stayed straight, you'd drive head on into the oncoming left-turn lane:

(Yeah street view is old, but the newer street view is poorly aligned)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSDI5qzu.png&hash=1dcbde9c1600ab87f6240b37e5227ea1f270ee5f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on February 09, 2015, 06:36:43 PM
Not yet shown on GSV & I wasn't able to get a photo of such, but along US 222 Northbound approaching the PA 772 interchange; the 2-mile advance BGS for that interchange has a PA 272 shield on it.  This goof must've been made by the same contractor that erected the erroneous 322 Epharta BGS' instead of 322 Ephrata a year or two ago (those BGS' have since been replaced).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on February 12, 2015, 06:07:52 PM
This would be a perfectly okay install if the road didn't actually curve to the left. It's been this way for a while now, I believe.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7333/16327639049_c2f02855e9.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qSPqf6)Erroneous Right Turn Ahead Sign (https://flic.kr/p/qSPqf6) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7457/15891347264_96867c6305.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qdgiTW)Erroneous Right Turn Ahead Sign (https://flic.kr/p/qdgiTW) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8647/16328008077_9c98636ef7.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qSRiWD)Road Curving to the Left (https://flic.kr/p/qSRiWD) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr

EDIT: To make matters worse, the sign it replaced was correct (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.640351,-86.533999&spn=0.0007,0.001032&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.640441,-86.533993&panoid=RkpfSV71VRu6uJy2SU47BQ&cbp=12,31.44,,0,7.72).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 12, 2015, 08:13:13 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPTi819S.jpg&hash=de60797962abd5b965924dcf3f6cb7667fd49cfc)

Saw this while driving home the other day.  This is on 15th Ave NE and NE 45th St. in Seattle.  Not necessarily erroneous, since there's actually two detour routes currently.  The Pacific Ave - Montlake Connector is currently undergoing construction and will be closed for another week, so the detour to the right (eastbound NE 45th St.) is for that.  The detour to the left is for the Brooklyn Ave excavation for Soundlink Light Rail, which will be closed for 6 more years.

Regardless, SDOT should have added supplementary signs for what the detour is for.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on February 12, 2015, 09:26:17 PM
^^ and no parking your vehicle upside down?  :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on February 13, 2015, 08:58:44 AM
Quote from: Hoss6884 on February 13, 2015, 08:03:56 AM
Continuing the Virginia theme, Route 22 was "upgraded (http://goo.gl/yWdA4w)" in Louisa.

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Fd9L9Sf49A8/VN31s0m6X9I/AAAAAAAAFWQ/o2sfmXv239Q/w652-h457-no/US%2B%28VA%29%2B22.PNG)




Still there, huh? hbelkins posted that in post #2585 of this thread. How recent is the Street View image?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: dcbjms on February 13, 2015, 04:56:34 PM
Street View needs to update itself more often.

Old version:
http://goo.gl/maps/hqC5T

At the time, that intersection was under reconstruction.  Afterwards, with everything all said and done, the RI-126 shield was replaced with a US-126 (??) shield - in the same font, more or less, as the old shield!  :ded:  AFAIK, that particular street did not get an upgrade.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on February 13, 2015, 06:42:28 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 12, 2015, 08:13:13 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPTi819S.jpg&hash=de60797962abd5b965924dcf3f6cb7667fd49cfc)

Saw this while driving home the other day.  This is on 15th Ave NE and NE 45th St. in Seattle.  Not necessarily erroneous, since there's actually two detour routes currently.  The Pacific Ave - Montlake Connector is currently undergoing construction and will be closed for another week, so the detour to the right (eastbound NE 45th St.) is for that.  The detour to the left is for the Brooklyn Ave excavation for Soundlink Light Rail, which will be closed for 6 more years.

Regardless, SDOT should have added supplementary signs for what the detour is for.

Yes, thank you for explaining that.  On the plus side, the closed part of 35th Ave. NE around NE 105th St. has reopened.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on February 14, 2015, 12:17:12 AM
Not really erroneous, but

https://goo.gl/maps/OfGv3

The directional sign infers that 101 goes to 129, but in fact, this is 129 in a concurrency with 101.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 14, 2015, 09:52:59 AM
^ This is the only occurrence of two triple digit routes being multiplexed in Ontario, and there isn't one normal assembly anywhere along that short multiplex.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 18, 2015, 01:28:28 PM
US 32 makes its debut in Pennsylvania. Not only once, but twice.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.210182,-74.770978,3a,75y,270h,70.14t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sK-D3Zr9-ltac-_EPTTU6Jg!2e0
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.210063,-74.771551,3a,75y,238.27h,85.71t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sI99kS1eYReMB1fxnojYjBQ!2e0

Should be PA 32 in Morrisville, PA.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: steviep24 on February 18, 2015, 01:54:49 PM
US 404 shield on NY 404. I've seen others in that area, not sure if they're still there.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.213893,-77.419671,3a,37.5y,92.41h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2hKiq_pEtm3RA1LCyrKlIg!2e0!6m1!1e1?hl=en
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on February 18, 2015, 02:00:08 PM
Quote from: steviep24 on February 18, 2015, 01:54:49 PM
US 404 shield on NY 404. I've seen others in that area, not sure if they're still there.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.213893,-77.419671,3a,37.5y,92.41h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2hKiq_pEtm3RA1LCyrKlIg!2e0!6m1!1e1?hl=en

So that's where alpsroads.net gets the US 404 shield from?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on February 18, 2015, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 18, 2015, 02:00:08 PM
So that's where alpsroads.net gets the US 404 shield from?

The one on top is from http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/de/de_404/ . I don't remember where I saw the other one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: steviep24 on February 18, 2015, 02:19:44 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 18, 2015, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 18, 2015, 02:00:08 PM
So that's where alpsroads.net gets the US 404 shield from?

The one on top is from http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/de/de_404/ . I don't remember where I saw the other one.
Found the one for NY 404. http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/ny_404/
Several US 404 shields are pictured there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on February 20, 2015, 01:24:49 AM
Just randomly turned on HGTV and found an episode of House Hunters with a Cincinnati couple who have a 36 inch OH state route 50 shield hanging in their basement.  Apparently this episode was new "today" (19 Feb 2015).  Sorry I don't tell like taking a picture of my TV set at the moment.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: busman_49 on February 20, 2015, 07:49:24 AM
Better check your dictionary again...
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/13776135843_83f8f1a34e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/mZmiev)100_7418 (https://flic.kr/p/mZmiev) by Ryan busman_49 (https://www.flickr.com/people/23731450@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on February 20, 2015, 08:28:20 AM
Jeak Breaking prohibited.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 20, 2015, 02:47:32 PM
If there is a Speed Limit 50 sign posted, but the law on the books says it's supposed to be 40, what's the enforceable limit?

If it's striped and signed for two-way traffic (and for the left turn from the driveway), it's de facto legal regardless of what the de jure law says.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on February 20, 2015, 04:13:51 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 20, 2015, 02:47:32 PM
If there is a Speed Limit 50 sign posted, but the law on the books says it's supposed to be 40, what's the enforceable limit?

Whatever the person with the badge and the gun feels like enforcing?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on February 20, 2015, 04:20:13 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 20, 2015, 02:47:32 PM
If there is a Speed Limit 50 sign posted, but the law on the books says it's supposed to be 40, what's the enforceable limit?

If it's striped and signed for two-way traffic (and for the left turn from the driveway), it's de facto legal regardless of what the de jure law says.

What's the context of the question? I've never seen Washington post a speed limit above what the law books say it's supposed to be.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on February 20, 2015, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 20, 2015, 04:20:13 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 20, 2015, 02:47:32 PM
If there is a Speed Limit 50 sign posted, but the law on the books says it's supposed to be 40, what's the enforceable limit?

If it's striped and signed for two-way traffic (and for the left turn from the driveway), it's de facto legal regardless of what the de jure law says.

What's the context of the question? I've never seen Washington post a speed limit above what the law books say it's supposed to be.

Was the phrase, "...unless otherwise posted..." written anywhere in that law?  That's how Massachusetts words its various speed laws.

Example: by the book, its (MA) speed on divided highways is 50, unless otherwise posted.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on February 20, 2015, 04:58:17 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2015, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 20, 2015, 04:20:13 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 20, 2015, 02:47:32 PM
If there is a Speed Limit 50 sign posted, but the law on the books says it's supposed to be 40, what's the enforceable limit?

If it's striped and signed for two-way traffic (and for the left turn from the driveway), it's de facto legal regardless of what the de jure law says.

What's the context of the question? I've never seen Washington post a speed limit above what the law books say it's supposed to be.

Was the phrase, "...unless otherwise posted..." written anywhere in that law?  That's how Massachusetts words its various speed laws.

Example: by the book, its (MA) speed on divided highways is 50, unless otherwise posted.

The law (here (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.400)) allows for adjustments within a city, when a study proves the limit is too low, or when the secretary of transport approves an increase.

My original comment looks a bit daft now. I should have said "I've never seen Washington post a speed limit on a high-speed road that was higher than what the state allowed (50 for county roads, 60 for state highways).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on February 20, 2015, 06:26:31 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 20, 2015, 02:47:32 PM
If there is a Speed Limit 50 sign posted, but the law on the books says it's supposed to be 40, what's the enforceable limit?

It depends if you are a local or an out-of-towner!  :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on February 21, 2015, 07:43:10 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F43ABYT3.png&hash=19e456a4a2222aad88e22679170193a934c410fd) (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=35.928502,-89.910307&spn=0.024777,0.049567&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=35.928421,-89.918612&panoid=cFcknMdyIiSECs6JTX9wzw&cbp=12,326.84,,2,0.59)
You can barely make out a white patch in the top right. They probably made an AR 18X shield (since this direction of the one-way pair is inventoried as section 7X).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on February 22, 2015, 10:09:26 AM
FYI: The discussion that arose from jeffandnicole's post has now been split into it's own topic in the Northeast forum. Please continue to post road signs containing errors in them here! Thanks!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 26, 2015, 08:19:26 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.724355,-74.089481,3a,75y,40.79h,70.83t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCsU5xGQYg45q-VP-V3Y4WQ!2e0

Here is a sign that should read NO LEFT TURN instead of NO TURNS, as there is no road to the right here on NB NJ 440 in Jersey City, NJ.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on February 26, 2015, 09:15:34 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 26, 2015, 08:19:26 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.724355,-74.089481,3a,75y,40.79h,70.83t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCsU5xGQYg45q-VP-V3Y4WQ!2e0

Here is a sign that should read NO LEFT TURN instead of NO TURNS, as there is no road to the right here on NB NJ 440 in Jersey City, NJ.

I don't get it. What's the error?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on February 26, 2015, 09:27:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 26, 2015, 08:19:26 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.724355,-74.089481,3a,75y,40.79h,70.83t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCsU5xGQYg45q-VP-V3Y4WQ!2e0

Here is a sign that should read NO LEFT TURN instead of NO TURNS, as there is no road to the right here on NB NJ 440 in Jersey City, NJ.
Not sure if it's really erroneous.
You can't turn right for obvious reasons and it appears that left and u turns are prohibited.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadrunner75 on February 26, 2015, 08:57:56 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 26, 2015, 09:27:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 26, 2015, 08:19:26 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.724355,-74.089481,3a,75y,40.79h,70.83t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCsU5xGQYg45q-VP-V3Y4WQ!2e0

Here is a sign that should read NO LEFT TURN instead of NO TURNS, as there is no road to the right here on NB NJ 440 in Jersey City, NJ.
Not sure if it's really erroneous.
You can't turn right for obvious reasons and it appears that left and u turns are prohibited.
Went through that very intersection today, EB from Truck 1-9 to Communipaw...a complete mess as usual and deserving of a reconfiguration / flyover / etc.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on February 27, 2015, 10:04:53 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 26, 2015, 09:27:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 26, 2015, 08:19:26 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.724355,-74.089481,3a,75y,40.79h,70.83t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCsU5xGQYg45q-VP-V3Y4WQ!2e0

Here is a sign that should read NO LEFT TURN instead of NO TURNS, as there is no road to the right here on NB NJ 440 in Jersey City, NJ.
Not sure if it's really erroneous.
You can't turn right for obvious reasons and it appears that left and u turns are prohibited.

Before the graphical version of the combined no left/U turn sign was created, entities around the Las Vegas area often used the "No Turns" sign mounted in the median or on the end of the mast arm to disallow both turn types at an intersection. (In the interim, they went to posting both a no left turn and a no U turn sign.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 27, 2015, 10:37:34 AM
In New Jersey a NO LEFT TURN sign also means NO U TURNS as well.  They look at it as this: you have to make a left turn first to make the u turn as you must pass 90 degrees before you reach 180 degrees.

Basically, a No Left Turn sign should have been posted to cover all bases here.  A NO TURNS sign means No left or right, or at a merge which is for both sides of the merge where the road merging is not to turn left and the main road is not to turn right on a standard right side merge or the opposite on a left side merge.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on February 27, 2015, 11:10:50 AM
NO TURNS means no turns. It's not incorrect at this location.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 27, 2015, 11:16:21 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 27, 2015, 11:10:50 AM
NO TURNS means no turns. It's not incorrect at this location.
That is your opinion.  To me and many others (maybe not on here as I just learned) NO TURNS means left and right and not LEFT and U.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on February 27, 2015, 11:20:23 AM
what

Seriously, in what dictionary is a U-turn not a type of turn?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 27, 2015, 11:30:52 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 27, 2015, 11:20:23 AM
what

Seriously, in what dictionary is a U-turn not a type of turn?
Seriously, you are arguing over something this stupid and irrelevant!  Its a sign for crying out loud.  I just think NO LEFT TURN would be cover both and it does here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.837206,-69.285977,3a,75y,125.31h,86.05t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szlhaccaISkqBc5GD7OiA5A!2e0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on February 27, 2015, 11:32:06 AM
The sign looks accurate to me, but I think they could have underscored it by using a vertical green arrow on the traffic light instead of a green circle.

I view that sign as being somewhat similar to the foreign sign consisting of a vertical "straight-ahead" arrow inside a green circle, thereby indicating "you can go straight ahead," which they understand to imply "and you cannot go any other way because no sign allows it." The US approach is simply different because the idea here is to tell you what you CAN'T do, rather to say "you CAN do X and anything else is prohibited."

In this case, it says "NO TURNS." A U-turn is obviously a form of turn (it says so in the name, right?). "NO TURNS" is therefore the equivalent of "thou shalt continue straight ahead."

I don't know whether "No Left Turn" would be deemed sufficient to cover U-turns. Some people seem to think they're different animals, though a U-turn around a median is functionally the same thing as two left turns if you view it from a theoretical viewpoint.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 27, 2015, 11:43:40 AM
That is how it is in the NJ 28 W Bound at CR 617 in Roselle Park (the other link) and some other places around New Jersey.

I did not bring the politics of this sign into when I initially posted, nor was it my intent.  It is just that to me I feel that the NO TURNS should be used when you cannot turn left and right.  Yes theoretically it is another turn and in this case it can be used to denote the third turn.  However, not overhead on a sign on the right side of the road.  If it were the median maybe so.

Remember this is just opinion and not rule as I am not a road sign dictator.  Yes, I can see your point on this and it does have merit as it can be looked at as two turns.  I will not disagree with that now, but initially when I first posted it did look odd to me that a NO TURNS sign was there considering that NJDOT used to like to consider the left and u as one being you have to make a left into the median first to make the u as noted in the NJ 28 photo added.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on February 27, 2015, 12:02:07 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 27, 2015, 11:43:40 AM
I did not bring the politics of this sign into when I initially posted, nor was it my intent.
what what what the fuck?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on February 27, 2015, 12:23:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 27, 2015, 11:30:52 AMI just think NO LEFT TURN would be cover both and it does here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.837206,-69.285977,3a,75y,125.31h,86.05t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szlhaccaISkqBc5GD7OiA5A!2e0
:confused:  Are you sure you have the right GSV link posted? 

The only signs in the above-link is a route sine salad (ok, maybe a side-order-sized sine salad) w/a funky-looking US 2 shield & font.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: riiga on February 27, 2015, 12:50:29 PM
This is why you should use a pictogram rather than text, it removes the ambiguity and need to argue about semantics.

Any of these would make it completely clear:
(https://www.lysator.liu.se/~riiga/Bilder/Amerikanska/no_turns.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on February 27, 2015, 12:57:50 PM
The latter two of those would probably NOT be clear to the average American driver who's never been abroad. As I noted before, the American approach to road signage is definitely biased towards telling you what you cannot do. A sign with a straight-ahead arrow would need to say "ONLY" to indicate you're not allowed to turn.

The sign on the left is perfectly clear in my opinion, but I don't see a practical difference between that and "NO TURNS" at the particular intersection in question other than the symbol perhaps being better for people who do not speak or read English. BTW, I explored around the Street View image and I note that at the next intersection behind the camera viewpoint roadman linked, there are separate "No Left Turn" and "No U-Turn" signs posted on the median one above the other. I've seen the single sign of the sort you've posted in some places in the US, but it's not all that common here for whatever reason (don't know why, it seems perfectly clear to me).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on February 27, 2015, 01:18:48 PM
^^ The green balls in the signals could also be replaced with green ahead arrows.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on February 27, 2015, 03:26:41 PM
Quote from: riiga on February 27, 2015, 12:50:29 PM
This is why you should use a pictogram rather than text, it removes the ambiguity and need to argue about semantics.

Any of these would make it completely clear:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24401393/Amerikanska/no_turns.png)
Except that the green circle sometimes means "you must do this" and sometimes means "you are permitted to do this".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on February 27, 2015, 04:18:28 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 27, 2015, 03:26:41 PM
Quote from: riiga on February 27, 2015, 12:50:29 PM
This is why you should use a pictogram rather than text, it removes the ambiguity and need to argue about semantics.

Any of these would make it completely clear:

Except that the green circle sometimes means "you must do this" and sometimes means "you are permitted to do this".

That's also why that type of sign doesn't exist yet (green is too ambiguous (based on current regulation)). That doesn't negate Riiga's reasoning, however. It makes more sense to tell drivers what they must do rather than what they can't do, status quo be damned.

Perhaps instead, a couple of these:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wpclipart.com%2Fpage_frames%2Ffull_page_signs%2Ftraffic_signs_1%2Fstraight_only_sign.png&hash=479b5376f45290d1da2c4528bf288b31f16e26e4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on February 27, 2015, 04:35:22 PM
Maybe the reason for not having those at that particular location is that they have the single traffic light for both lanes on a short mast arm and most DOTs seem to prefer having one of those signs for each lane?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on February 27, 2015, 04:39:13 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 27, 2015, 04:18:28 PM
Perhaps instead, a couple of these:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wpclipart.com%2Fpage_frames%2Ffull_page_signs%2Ftraffic_signs_1%2Fstraight_only_sign.png&hash=479b5376f45290d1da2c4528bf288b31f16e26e4)

I have a suspicion some people might take that as having the same meaning as a "ONE WAY" sign, and not realize that it prohibits turns.  After all, a "ONE WAY" sign for a crossroad is very similar, and it doesn't require drivers to turn that way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on February 27, 2015, 04:45:57 PM
Copied from the Redesign This (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9539.1875#quickreply) thread:
Quote(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_3%2FImages%2F36.jpg&hash=76ab45fc7ace0e045e95a5ebf5531de82221e8d1)
The street itself is VT 9; if one scans through GSV, one can see several trailblazer/reassurance signs indicating such in the immediate vicinity.

The right BGS should include 9 EAST legend and the middle BGS can be narrower sans the misleading TO Vt. 9 EAST legend.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on February 27, 2015, 06:51:18 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_3%2FImages%2F36.jpg&hash=76ab45fc7ace0e045e95a5ebf5531de82221e8d1)

Those "9"s in the I-91 shields got hit with an ugly stick!   :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on February 27, 2015, 06:53:02 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on February 27, 2015, 06:51:18 PM
Those "9"s in the I-91 shields got hit with an ugly stick!   :-D

Actually, I think that's the "LeHay" font.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on February 27, 2015, 06:55:40 PM
Just replace the 'to' with a 'bypass' and all is good.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 27, 2015, 07:09:21 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 27, 2015, 11:16:21 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 27, 2015, 11:10:50 AM
NO TURNS means no turns. It's not incorrect at this location.
That is your opinion.  To me and many others (maybe not on here as I just learned) NO TURNS means left and right and not LEFT and U.

http://goo.gl/maps/j10sM

Throughout the state this sign is found at the base of nearly every ramp as one enters a highway.  Are you saying that one can't turn left across the highway into the median; can't turn right into the woods, but making a U-turn is perfectly fine???
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on February 27, 2015, 07:10:59 PM
Funny. My redesign was the only one that put "VT-9" on the through portion:

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2015, 02:59:50 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYzPBQpC.png&hash=89f3754ee3474ec7bf5dc53fb0bae473419f9cc0)




Quote from: vtk on February 27, 2015, 04:39:13 PM
I have a suspicion some people might take that as having the same meaning as a "ONE WAY" sign, and not realize that it prohibits turns.  After all, a "ONE WAY" sign for a crossroad is very similar, and it doesn't require drivers to turn that way.

Maybe. Sometimes I've seen an "Only" sign next to a prohibition sign to prevent this confusion.

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 27, 2015, 04:35:22 PM
Maybe the reason for not having those at that particular location is that they have the single traffic light for both lanes on a short mast arm and most DOTs seem to prefer having one of those signs for each lane?

Perhaps.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on March 02, 2015, 02:08:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 27, 2015, 07:10:59 PM
Funny. My redesign was the only one that put "VT-9" on the through portion:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYzPBQpC.png&hash=89f3754ee3474ec7bf5dc53fb0bae473419f9cc0)
It's also worth noting that VT 9 intersects US 5 in downtown Brattleboro (it also is multiplexes with it to the north); so the TO US 5 references on the I-91 BGS', while not 100% incorrect can be misleading as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on March 02, 2015, 07:53:14 PM
Found this on Facebook:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t31.0-8/10984534_957272014283320_4088451725373851672_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on March 02, 2015, 08:08:51 PM
Perhaps there was a 'trucks over x tons' or somesuch on the bottom.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 02, 2015, 08:26:16 PM
Even if right turns are prohibited, the double arrow would still let me know to watch for traffic coming from both directions.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 03, 2015, 01:08:44 AM
I never see this kind of screwup in Washington...US-395 is incorrectly labelled as SR-395 on street blades at three different signals near downtown Kennewick:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3c3pcGZ.png&hash=b74b4602fd22ae0073c039c343b894692a3bea1b)

Now technically, US-395 is legislated as SR-395 for maintenance purposes or something, but to the general public, this might be a bit misleading.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on March 03, 2015, 01:15:51 AM
One of the I-5/US 12 interchanges had a street blade on the overpass that says "SR 12".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 03, 2015, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 03, 2015, 01:15:51 AM
One of the I-5/US 12 interchanges had a street blade on the overpass that says "SR 12".

Hmm. Perhaps more common than I thought. Can you think of any other mis-labels like this?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on March 03, 2015, 07:30:41 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2015, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 03, 2015, 01:15:51 AM
One of the I-5/US 12 interchanges had a street blade on the overpass that says "SR 12".

Hmm. Perhaps more common than I thought. Can you think of any other mis-labels like this?
I've seen a ton of SR 99s...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on March 03, 2015, 10:18:43 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on March 02, 2015, 07:53:14 PM
Found this on Facebook:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t31.0-8/10984534_957272014283320_4088451725373851672_o.jpg)
Quote from: NE2 on March 02, 2015, 08:08:51 PM
Perhaps there was a 'trucks over x tons' or somesuch on the bottom.
Quote from: kphoger on March 02, 2015, 08:26:16 PM
Even if right turns are prohibited, the double arrow would still let me know to watch for traffic coming from both directions.
The AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY sign posted to the right of the double-arrow sign might shed some light regarding that intersection; but if the intended restriction is applied to those turning right (as well as those continuing straight on the main road), IMHO, that sign should be placed near or below that No Right turn sign.  The sign's current location is a bit confusing/misleading.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on March 04, 2015, 04:21:29 AM
This is an "only in NJ" moment.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Y93qtlJ0ooI/VPbPeryn8SI/AAAAAAAAEXA/yUYbWbjzFlA/w557-h333/Capture22.PNG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on March 04, 2015, 11:51:09 AM
This should be US 31 and not US 72. US 72 doesn't even run through Decatur (although US 72 Alt. does).
http://www.instantstreetview.com/@34.603843,-86.980522,-240.77h,-0.39p,3z
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 04, 2015, 02:54:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2015, 01:08:44 AM
I never see this kind of screwup in Washington...US-395 is incorrectly labelled as SR-395 on street blades at three different signals near downtown Kennewick:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3c3pcGZ.png&hash=b74b4602fd22ae0073c039c343b894692a3bea1b)

Now technically, US-395 is legislated as SR-395 for maintenance purposes or something, but to the general public, this might be a bit misleading.

I'm struggling to imagine a person actually being misled by that sign.

A thought that will never happen: "Oh, look, here's highway 395, which is where I need to turn. Oh, crap, wait a minute, this road is STATE route 395 but I'm looking for U.S. 395, so I guess I'd better keep driving until I find my junction."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on March 04, 2015, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on March 04, 2015, 11:51:09 AM
This should be US 31 and not US 72. US 72 doesn't even run through Decatur (although US 72 Alt. does).
http://www.instantstreetview.com/@34.603843,-86.980522,-240.77h,-0.39p,3z

I'm guessing AL 24 ran along Moulton Street and ended at US 31, until it was routed along Beltline Avenue/AL 67. "TO" signs weren't as widespread as they are now...but US 72 (Alternate) is just a few blocks away.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on March 04, 2015, 03:05:47 PM
Quote from: djsinco on March 04, 2015, 04:21:29 AM
This is an "only in NJ" moment.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Y93qtlJ0ooI/VPbPeryn8SI/AAAAAAAAEXA/yUYbWbjzFlA/w557-h333/Capture22.PNG)

Stop sign, "no stopping", and traffic signal – any two of those are contradictory.  And the stop sign is hinged...  Got an explanation for any of this?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: djsinco on March 04, 2015, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: vtk on March 04, 2015, 03:05:47 PM
Quote from: djsinco on March 04, 2015, 04:21:29 AM
This is an "only in NJ" moment.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Y93qtlJ0ooI/VPbPeryn8SI/AAAAAAAAEXA/yUYbWbjzFlA/w557-h333/Capture22.PNG)

Stop sign, "no stopping", and traffic signal – any two of those are contradictory.  And the stop sign is hinged...  Got an explanation for any of this?
My friend who live in the area told me that Sunday morning they flip the sign down, and there is a police officer directing traffic.

Good catch, this makes it a little less humorous, but, to me, I still got a kick out of it...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on March 04, 2015, 05:54:48 PM

Quote from: djsinco on March 04, 2015, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: vtk on March 04, 2015, 03:05:47 PM
Quote from: djsinco on March 04, 2015, 04:21:29 AM
This is an "only in NJ" moment.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Y93qtlJ0ooI/VPbPeryn8SI/AAAAAAAAEXA/yUYbWbjzFlA/w557-h333/Capture22.PNG)

Stop sign, "no stopping", and traffic signal – any two of those are contradictory.  And the stop sign is hinged...  Got an explanation for any of this?
My friend who live in the area told me that Sunday morning they flip the sign down, and there is a police officer directing traffic.

Good catch, this makes it a little less humorous, but, to me, I still got a kick out of it...

That wouldn't be bad in case of a power outage, either.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TCN7JM on March 04, 2015, 08:53:46 PM
The StreetView (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.257894,-96.883036,3a,75y,297.68h,73.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8OV_XuDb_p6ys0cbhjezRA!2e0) is from 2008 (read: bad), but it appears that today I discovered a long-lost western segment of US 46 right here in South Dakota! This is supposed to be SD 46, and the StreetView date would suggest it's been wrong for years.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on March 04, 2015, 09:10:23 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 03, 2015, 07:30:41 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2015, 01:19:56 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 03, 2015, 01:15:51 AM
One of the I-5/US 12 interchanges had a street blade on the overpass that says "SR 12".

Hmm. Perhaps more common than I thought. Can you think of any other mis-labels like this?
I've seen a ton of SR 99s...

what
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on March 04, 2015, 09:45:40 PM
Quote from: 6a on March 04, 2015, 05:54:48 PM

Quote from: djsinco on March 04, 2015, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: vtk on March 04, 2015, 03:05:47 PM
Quote from: djsinco on March 04, 2015, 04:21:29 AM
This is an "only in NJ" moment.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Y93qtlJ0ooI/VPbPeryn8SI/AAAAAAAAEXA/yUYbWbjzFlA/w557-h333/Capture22.PNG)

Stop sign, "no stopping", and traffic signal – any two of those are contradictory.  And the stop sign is hinged...  Got an explanation for any of this?
My friend who live in the area told me that Sunday morning they flip the sign down, and there is a police officer directing traffic.

Good catch, this makes it a little less humorous, but, to me, I still got a kick out of it...

That wouldn't be bad in case of a power outage, either.

That's what I thought it was for, and some moron left the sign in the open position after the power came back on.

It's how we use similar stop signs here in Illinois.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on March 04, 2015, 09:56:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2015, 02:54:46 PM
A thought that will never happen: "Oh, look, here's highway 395, which is where I need to turn. Oh, crap, wait a minute, this road is STATE route 395 but I'm looking for U.S. 395, so I guess I'd better keep driving until I find my junction."

Maybe not in Washington. Some other (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.0530989,-84.8029675,17z) places* (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.1319941,-84.085067,11z), though (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6556209,-84.0084107,14z)...

* US 41 is also (signed) SR 19 south of Forsyth, though you can't see that here because Google
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SD Mapman on March 04, 2015, 10:06:37 PM
Quote from: TCN7JM on March 04, 2015, 08:53:46 PM
The StreetView (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.257894,-96.883036,3a,75y,297.68h,73.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8OV_XuDb_p6ys0cbhjezRA!2e0) is from 2008 (read: bad), but it appears that today I discovered a long-lost western segment of US 46 right here in South Dakota! This is supposed to be SD 46, and the StreetView date would suggest it's been wrong for years.
There's also an eastern US 87 in Wind Cave National Park linky (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.57301,-103.487731,3a,75y,60.51h,63.91t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srOObAcIgVEiFHMEWwISzyg!2e0)
The "385" shield is a bit wierd to just have by itself, too (look around).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TCN7JM on March 04, 2015, 11:30:25 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on March 04, 2015, 10:06:37 PM
Quote from: TCN7JM on March 04, 2015, 08:53:46 PM
The StreetView (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.257894,-96.883036,3a,75y,297.68h,73.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8OV_XuDb_p6ys0cbhjezRA!2e0) is from 2008 (read: bad), but it appears that today I discovered a long-lost western segment of US 46 right here in South Dakota! This is supposed to be SD 46, and the StreetView date would suggest it's been wrong for years.
There's also an eastern US 87 in Wind Cave National Park linky (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.57301,-103.487731,3a,75y,60.51h,63.91t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srOObAcIgVEiFHMEWwISzyg!2e0)
The "385" shield is a bit wierd to just have by itself, too (look around).
Damn, y'all have got newer StreetView than us. I guess the Google car drivers feel like taking a trip to Rushmore more often than they feel like visiting farmland in rural Lincoln County...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 04, 2015, 11:57:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2015, 02:54:46 PM
A thought that will never happen: "Oh, look, here's highway 395, which is where I need to turn. Oh, crap, wait a minute, this road is STATE route 395 but I'm looking for U.S. 395, so I guess I'd better keep driving until I find my junction."

I concur, however, that doesn't change the erroneous nature of the sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SD Mapman on March 05, 2015, 12:35:19 AM
Quote from: TCN7JM on March 04, 2015, 11:30:25 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on March 04, 2015, 10:06:37 PM
Quote from: TCN7JM on March 04, 2015, 08:53:46 PM
The StreetView (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.257894,-96.883036,3a,75y,297.68h,73.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8OV_XuDb_p6ys0cbhjezRA!2e0) is from 2008 (read: bad), but it appears that today I discovered a long-lost western segment of US 46 right here in South Dakota! This is supposed to be SD 46, and the StreetView date would suggest it's been wrong for years.
There's also an eastern US 87 in Wind Cave National Park linky (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.57301,-103.487731,3a,75y,60.51h,63.91t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srOObAcIgVEiFHMEWwISzyg!2e0)
The "385" shield is a bit weird to just have by itself, too (look around).
Damn, y'all have got newer StreetView than us. I guess the Google car drivers feel like taking a trip to Rushmore more often than they feel like visiting farmland in rural Lincoln County...
We also have these: link1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.493556,-103.847466,3a,75y,99.3h,74.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSkvGpGuhaCjckg_2hPEIpg!2e0) and link2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.475587,-103.814613,3a,75y,169.3h,80.94t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUzFAG8eq0NRvO86ynQDlYQ!2e0)
US 85 isn't even traveling west there! And also, that 14A sign is not on the route itself, but 10 feet off of it. Then again, signage is horribly bad along the Colorado stretch of 14A.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 05, 2015, 01:58:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 04, 2015, 11:57:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2015, 02:54:46 PM
A thought that will never happen: "Oh, look, here's highway 395, which is where I need to turn. Oh, crap, wait a minute, this road is STATE route 395 but I'm looking for U.S. 395, so I guess I'd better keep driving until I find my junction."

I concur, however, that doesn't change the erroneous nature of the sign.

Perhaps (as has been mentioned, it is SR-395 on paper).  But, more to the point, my post was in reply to–and quoted–the phrase "might be a bit misleading".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 05, 2015, 03:44:17 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2015, 01:58:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 04, 2015, 11:57:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2015, 02:54:46 PM
A thought that will never happen: "Oh, look, here's highway 395, which is where I need to turn. Oh, crap, wait a minute, this road is STATE route 395 but I'm looking for U.S. 395, so I guess I'd better keep driving until I find my junction."

I concur, however, that doesn't change the erroneous nature of the sign.

Perhaps (as has been mentioned, it is SR-395 on paper).  But, more to the point, my post was in reply to–and quoted–the phrase "might be a bit misleading".

Touché.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KG909 on March 08, 2015, 11:47:49 PM
Spotted today, should be I-215
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F03%2F08%2F1ed4b0c87eb835d2f72572195113defb.jpg&hash=54819ac5a0a13311f2fc4228ee9d9c07bab52730)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F03%2F08%2Fabacb8145ad1b2b8ee8caee83d004c42.jpg&hash=4a11fb308ea181923abf3cb1bc02bb7a13b59ce3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on March 09, 2015, 01:00:09 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2015, 02:54:46 PM
A thought that will never happen: "Oh, look, here's highway 395, which is where I need to turn. Oh, crap, wait a minute, this road is STATE route 395 but I'm looking for U.S. 395, so I guess I'd better keep driving until I find my junction."
Texas.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 09, 2015, 09:46:27 AM
Quote from: yakra on March 09, 2015, 01:00:09 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2015, 02:54:46 PM
A thought that will never happen: "Oh, look, here's highway 395, which is where I need to turn. Oh, crap, wait a minute, this road is STATE route 395 but I'm looking for U.S. 395, so I guess I'd better keep driving until I find my junction."
Texas.
Salamanders
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on March 09, 2015, 12:41:50 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.179722,-71.869766,3a,37.5y,55.49h,88.29t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shHYI3bW2F5bdL2sBcKRmIw!2e0
Here is one in Auburn, MA that shows US 20 as MA 20.  I know that most people in Massachusetts call all highways whether US or state as "Route" so it probably is nothing out of the ordinary in most minds, but realistically it is not a MA route designation.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on March 09, 2015, 01:21:58 PM
There are quite a few MA202 signs in the wild as well. Forget where I saw them; Westfield or maybe Holyoke. Too lazy to go GMSVing around for them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on March 09, 2015, 01:24:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 09, 2015, 12:41:50 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.179722,-71.869766,3a,37.5y,55.49h,88.29t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shHYI3bW2F5bdL2sBcKRmIw!2e0
Here is one in Auburn, MA that shows US 20 as MA 20.  I know that most people in Massachusetts call all highways whether US or state as "Route" so it probably is nothing out of the ordinary in most minds, but realistically it is not a MA route designation.
Fortunately, that's only a temporary construction sign.  There have been similar MA 20 shield goofs on more permanent BGS' out there (and probably since noted on this thread several pages back).

Quote from: yakra on March 09, 2015, 01:21:58 PM
There are quite a few MA202 signs in the wild as well. Forget where I saw them; Westfield or maybe Holyoke. Too lazy to go GMSVing around for them.
Such were likely already commented on this thread (several pages back).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: dfwmapper on March 09, 2015, 08:00:47 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2015, 09:46:27 AM
Quote from: yakra on March 09, 2015, 01:00:09 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2015, 02:54:46 PM
A thought that will never happen: "Oh, look, here's highway 395, which is where I need to turn. Oh, crap, wait a minute, this road is STATE route 395 but I'm looking for U.S. 395, so I guess I'd better keep driving until I find my junction."
Texas.
Salamanders
It's a legitimate problem in Texas because FM/RM, state highway, loop/spur, US, and Interstate are all separate classes of roads that have duplicate numbers, occasionally with different roads of the same number in close proximity to each other.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on March 09, 2015, 08:04:13 PM
Quote from: yakra on March 09, 2015, 01:00:09 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2015, 02:54:46 PM
A thought that will never happen: "Oh, look, here's highway 395, which is where I need to turn. Oh, crap, wait a minute, this road is STATE route 395 but I'm looking for U.S. 395, so I guess I'd better keep driving until I find my junction."
Texas.
Or Oklahoma, for that matter, which designated OK 270 over an old alignment of US 270. So now there are two highways with the same number running parallel. (Although US 270 follows I-40 for most of this section).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 09, 2015, 11:45:22 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on March 09, 2015, 08:00:47 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2015, 09:46:27 AM
Quote from: yakra on March 09, 2015, 01:00:09 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2015, 02:54:46 PM
A thought that will never happen: "Oh, look, here's highway 395, which is where I need to turn. Oh, crap, wait a minute, this road is STATE route 395 but I'm looking for U.S. 395, so I guess I'd better keep driving until I find my junction."

Texas.

Salamanders

It's a legitimate problem in Texas because FM/RM, state highway, loop/spur, US, and Interstate are all separate classes of roads that have duplicate numbers, occasionally with different roads of the same number in close proximity to each other.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 09, 2015, 08:04:13 PM
Or Oklahoma, for that matter, which designated OK 270 over an old alignment of US 270. So now there are two highways with the same number running parallel. (Although US 270 follows I-40 for most of this section).

In his defence, he was responding to my initial proposition that Washington drivers were going to be confused by the difference between US-395 and WA-395, and he is correct (for Washington) in that we aren't likely to confuse the two, since we don't use duplicate route numbers (for example, I-5 is legislated as SR-5, US-12 as SR-12, US-395 as SR-395, and so on). That's why, sometimes, we don't use the letter prefix when speaking about a highway (routes are often just the number).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on March 10, 2015, 12:28:30 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 09, 2015, 11:45:22 PM
In his defence, he was responding to my initial proposition that Washington drivers were going to be confused by the difference between US-395 and WA-395, and he is correct (for Washington) in that we aren't likely to confuse the two, since we don't use duplicate route numbers (for example, I-5 is legislated as SR-5, US-12 as SR-12, US-395 as SR-395, and so on). That's why, sometimes, we don't use the letter prefix when speaking about a highway (routes are often just the number).

We would know that, but it would still be confusing to the average motorist who may have just moved here from Texas or just not been paying that much attention to route numbering.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 10, 2015, 01:00:26 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 10, 2015, 12:28:30 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 09, 2015, 11:45:22 PM
In his defence, he was responding to my initial proposition that Washington drivers were going to be confused by the difference between US-395 and WA-395, and he is correct (for Washington) in that we aren't likely to confuse the two, since we don't use duplicate route numbers (for example, I-5 is legislated as SR-5, US-12 as SR-12, US-395 as SR-395, and so on). That's why, sometimes, we don't use the letter prefix when speaking about a highway (routes are often just the number).

We would know that, but it would still be confusing to the average motorist who may have just moved here from Texas or just not been paying that much attention to route numbering.

FWIW, I'm not promoting the usage of an incorrect prefix.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bzakharin on March 10, 2015, 03:49:37 PM
Worse are routes of the same number in the same state (the 600 series county routes in NJ). Most locals don't even know most of those numbers exist and when they are neutered on signs... well, wouldn't you expect someone to be able to go from https://www.google.com/maps/@39.848653,-75.17715,3a,75y,27.63h,88.59t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sNrJ5btUJMJsqnLH3wgtUNw!2e0!5m1!1e1 to https://www.google.com/maps/@39.975163,-75.026494,3a,75y,60.87h,103.82t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEOlXEh7Ke-IeosPGahdH5g!2e0!5m1!1e1 via "route 644"?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on March 15, 2015, 04:13:40 PM
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7607/16203345474_d796d6cb0b_c.jpg)
Directional shields off of Westbound I-10 Exit 266 in Louisiana that are reversed.  US 190 E Bound is to the left here while W Bound is to the right toward Slidell.

I heard that this assembly was corrected since I took the photo back in July of 10.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on March 16, 2015, 05:37:46 PM
Found this on Facebook.
This is in Tuscumbia, AL. US 20 should be AL 20.
(https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10410711_10204028453207514_3767198981753732888_n.jpg?oh=357005d3cd4b889cfc83c5d8fe5e9bec&oe=55706671)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on March 16, 2015, 08:27:20 PM
I don't know if anyone has a picture of it, but NYSTA recently installed a rare erroneous BGS west of Exit 59. The relatively-new EB 1 mile advance (in Clearview, of course) uses a US 60 shield for NY 60.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route17fan on March 16, 2015, 11:04:03 PM
On NY 60 in Jamestown (northbound) there's at least one US 60 shield - it's a shame that quality control has gone down the tubes.

New Yorkers in the Albany area: are the upside down NY 337 shields still there in Rotterdam?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on March 16, 2015, 11:26:06 PM
Quote from: route17fan on March 16, 2015, 11:04:03 PM
New Yorkers in the Albany area: are the upside down NY 337 shields still there in Rotterdam?
Deliberate vandalism by a Confederate carpetbagger?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jmd41280 on March 17, 2015, 07:27:39 PM
Gettysburg, PA - Should be PA Route 34 instead of US 34...

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8187/8095566536_359154b570_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/dknTTo)
Sign Goof - Gettysburg, PA (https://flic.kr/p/dknTTo) by jmd41280 (https://www.flickr.com/people/91396833@N00/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on March 17, 2015, 09:28:23 PM
Quote from: jmd41280 on March 17, 2015, 07:27:39 PM
Gettysburg, PA - Should be PA Route 34 instead of US 34...

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8187/8095566536_359154b570_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/dknTTo)
Sign Goof - Gettysburg, PA (https://flic.kr/p/dknTTo) by jmd41280 (https://www.flickr.com/people/91396833@N00/), on Flickr

Ithaca NY also has (had?) a "US 34".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on March 18, 2015, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: jmd41280 on March 17, 2015, 07:27:39 PM
Gettysburg, PA - Should be PA Route 34 instead of US 34...

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8187/8095566536_359154b570_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/dknTTo)
Sign Goof - Gettysburg, PA (https://flic.kr/p/dknTTo) by jmd41280 (https://www.flickr.com/people/91396833@N00/), on Flickr

Yeah, it looked a bit odd for Oswego, Illinois.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jmd41280 on March 29, 2015, 06:35:57 PM
You had one job, PennDOT...

(Yes, I know this is a temporary detour sign, but still...)

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8713/16970328732_e806ecd481_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rRBnuG)
You had one job, PennDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/rRBnuG) by jmd41280 (https://www.flickr.com/people/91396833@N00/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 29, 2015, 06:40:35 PM
Quote from: jmd41280 on March 29, 2015, 06:35:57 PM
You had one job, PennDOT...

(Yes, I know this is a temporary detour sign, but still...)

I think that better fits into the "Signs with Design Errors (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.msg2054028#new)" thread since the information is still correct. Still quite funny, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on March 29, 2015, 06:44:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2015, 06:40:35 PM
Quote from: jmd41280 on March 29, 2015, 06:35:57 PM
You had one job, PennDOT...

(Yes, I know this is a temporary detour sign, but still...)

I think that better fits into the "Signs with Design Errors (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.msg2054028#new)" thread since the information is still correct. Still quite funny, though.
It was just assembled upside down.  906 reads the same either way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 29, 2015, 06:45:50 PM
Quote from: Big John on March 29, 2015, 06:44:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2015, 06:40:35 PM
Quote from: jmd41280 on March 29, 2015, 06:35:57 PM
You had one job, PennDOT...

(Yes, I know this is a temporary detour sign, but still...)

I think that better fits into the "Signs with Design Errors (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.msg2054028#new)" thread since the information is still correct. Still quite funny, though.

It was just assembled upside down.  906 reads the same either way.

I feel like a complete idiot.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jmd41280 on March 29, 2015, 07:40:13 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2015, 06:45:50 PM
Quote from: Big John on March 29, 2015, 06:44:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2015, 06:40:35 PM
Quote from: jmd41280 on March 29, 2015, 06:35:57 PM
You had one job, PennDOT...

(Yes, I know this is a temporary detour sign, but still...)

I think that better fits into the "Signs with Design Errors (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.msg2054028#new)" thread since the information is still correct. Still quite funny, though.

It was just assembled upside down.  906 reads the same either way.

I feel like a complete idiot.

I realized that it was upside down after I posted the picture.  Either way, they had one job...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 29, 2015, 07:54:37 PM
Quote from: jmd41280 on March 29, 2015, 06:35:57 PM
You had one job, PennDOT...

(Yes, I know this is a temporary detour sign, but still...)

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8713/16970328732_e806ecd481_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rRBnuG)
You had one job, PennDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/rRBnuG) by jmd41280 (https://www.flickr.com/people/91396833@N00/), on Flickr

Is that traffic light in front of the Interstate signs? Could also go under "Poor sign placement" https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7009.0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on March 29, 2015, 08:18:33 PM
More like PennDOT's contractor had one job...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on March 30, 2015, 05:50:01 AM
Quote from: jmd41280 on March 29, 2015, 06:35:57 PM
You had one job, PennDOT...

(Yes, I know this is a temporary detour sign, but still...)

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8713/16970328732_e806ecd481_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rRBnuG)
You had one job, PennDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/rRBnuG) by jmd41280 (https://www.flickr.com/people/91396833@N00/), on Flickr
Looks like the upside-down Keystone kind of looks like Snoopy's doghouse!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 30, 2015, 02:49:17 PM
Quote from: route17fan on March 16, 2015, 11:04:03 PM
On NY 60 in Jamestown (northbound) there's at least one US 60 shield - it's a shame that quality control has gone down the tubes.

I have a legit US-60 shield from VA....oldest sign in the area it seems...around Busch Gardens.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3860/14539494125_d9f130bf5c_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jmd41280 on April 02, 2015, 08:32:41 PM
Quote from: Hoss6884 on March 30, 2015, 07:25:06 AM
Quote from: jmd41280 on March 29, 2015, 06:35:57 PM
You had one job, PennDOT...

(Yes, I know this is a temporary detour sign, but still...)

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8713/16970328732_e806ecd481_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rRBnuG)
You had one job, PennDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/rRBnuG) by jmd41280 (https://www.flickr.com/people/91396833@N00/), on Flickr

I hope that is still there when I'm in the Valley on Friday.

They flipped it the right way the other day.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 04, 2015, 09:48:26 PM
If you had any faith left in IDOT, this sign will surely take it from you.  :banghead:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcYdSz3J.png&hash=16c4b27a3fbd9f9fbd4487f533fcb3d2a0a531d4)

The only true curve on this road would be a gentle left curve further up the road.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on April 05, 2015, 08:52:41 AM
^^ Shermer Road is either Cook County or municipal, not IDOT.  Let's not blame IDOT for things they haven't done, just the idiocy they have done.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on April 05, 2015, 09:53:11 AM
Quote from: Brandon on April 05, 2015, 08:52:41 AM
^^ Shermer Road is either Cook County or municipal, not IDOT.  Let's not blame IDOT for things they haven't done, just the idiocy they have done.

Not to change the subject, but is IDOT really that bad? I know you and Joe love to hammer them (particularly Joe) but they don't seem that bad from an overall perspective.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 05, 2015, 11:23:16 AM
Quote from: Brandon on April 05, 2015, 08:52:41 AM
^^ Shermer Road is either Cook County or municipal, not IDOT.  Let's not blame IDOT for things they haven't done, just the idiocy they have done.

Well, actually Shermer Road is in control by Glenview from West Lake to Old Willow Road. Old Willow to Willow is IDOT. Willow to Waukegan is Northbrook. Waukegan to Dundee I'm pretty sure is controlled by IDOT. The style of signs looks like it.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 05, 2015, 09:53:11 AM
Not to change the subject, but is IDOT really that bad? I know you and Joe love to hammer them (particularly Joe) but they don't seem that bad from an overall perspective.

I probably hammer them a bit more than needed, just move of their BGS installs are poorly designed and sometimes you get stupid sign placements like this one.

According to this map (http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/Maps-&-Charts/Highway/Township/Northfield.pdf) (even though some things are outdated) it shows that Shermer Road in that segment is maintained by IDOT. (Sign is just East of IL-43 Waukegan Rd)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on April 05, 2015, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 05, 2015, 09:53:11 AM
Quote from: Brandon on April 05, 2015, 08:52:41 AM
^^ Shermer Road is either Cook County or municipal, not IDOT.  Let's not blame IDOT for things they haven't done, just the idiocy they have done.

Not to change the subject, but is IDOT really that bad? I know you and Joe love to hammer them (particularly Joe) but they don't seem that bad from an overall perspective.

They've done their fair share of bad (as has every DOT).  Usually IDOT's failing, at least around Chicago (District 1) is the lack of lanes and auxiliary lanes between close exits (I-55 between IL-53 and I-355 as a classic example).  Some of their signage can be very good, and they do have some good ideas such as placing the expressway name just below the cardinal direction on the sign (examples below).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2145.jpg&hash=e27ad7b9e5b94ed0be7d302adcd5d993617ce4ce) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_2145.jpg.html)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2778.jpg&hash=bf206d9c90fc3f218a1d5e4cb42681b103bc2c9f) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_2778.jpg.html)

And more than one signal per turning direction.  IDOT mandates a minimum of two with a minimum of three for through traffic (Ridge Road and IL-126 below in District 3).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_4869_zpshintmbhs.jpg&hash=f7081157e746f9b289e9e7c8fada1d838e4a49a8) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_4869_zpshintmbhs.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on April 05, 2015, 07:01:23 PM
I think a minimum of 3 per direction and 2 for turn movements is excessive, especially if it's a 2 lane road (like the pictured example). New York standard (outside of NYC) tends to be 2/through movement or one per through lane (whichever is greater). An intersection like the one shown would probably only have 2 doghouses, maybe a single 3-head signal in the center. LEDs in particular tend to give a warning when they're close to failure, so there's time to replace bulbs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 06, 2015, 08:01:07 PM
Quote from: jmd41280 on March 29, 2015, 06:35:57 PM
You had one job, PennDOT...

(Yes, I know this is a temporary detour sign, but still...)

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8713/16970328732_e806ecd481_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rRBnuG)
You had one job, PennDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/rRBnuG) by jmd41280 (https://www.flickr.com/people/91396833@N00/), on Flickr
Maybe they expect a lot of drunks to drive by as this may seem normal to them.

I must say this has got to be funny.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on April 07, 2015, 12:42:05 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 06, 2015, 08:01:07 PM
Maybe they expect a lot of drunks to drive by as this may seem normal to them.

I must say this has got to be funny.

I was stone cold sober the first time I saw this, and it looked normal.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route56 on April 07, 2015, 11:21:47 AM
Quote from: jmd41280 on March 29, 2015, 06:35:57 PM
You had one job, PennDOT...

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8713/16970328732_e806ecd481_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rRBnuG)
You had one job, PennDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/rRBnuG) by jmd41280 (https://www.flickr.com/people/91396833@N00/), on Flickr

We've had a few cases of upside-down US 69 signs here in Kansas.

Now, if there is a upside-down K-96 sign, I doubt anyone, even us roadgeeks, would notice.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on April 07, 2015, 02:20:00 PM
Quote from: route56 on April 07, 2015, 11:21:47 AM
Now, if there is a upside-down K-96 sign, I doubt anyone, even us roadgeeks, would notice.

How the hell would one know?  Isn't the Kansas sunflower the same in both directions?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 07, 2015, 11:01:38 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 07, 2015, 02:20:00 PM
Quote from: route56 on April 07, 2015, 11:21:47 AM
Now, if there is a upside-down K-96 sign, I doubt anyone, even us roadgeeks, would notice.

How the hell would one know? 

Any good roadgeek would surely notice that the sticker on the back was upside-down!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 08, 2015, 10:07:41 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2015, 11:01:38 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 07, 2015, 02:20:00 PM
Quote from: route56 on April 07, 2015, 11:21:47 AM
Now, if there is a upside-down K-96 sign, I doubt anyone, even us roadgeeks, would notice.

How the hell would one know? 

Any good roadgeek would surely notice that the sticker on the back was upside-down!
The sticker could've been put on upside-down.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on April 08, 2015, 10:23:28 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on April 08, 2015, 10:07:41 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2015, 11:01:38 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 07, 2015, 02:20:00 PM
Quote from: route56 on April 07, 2015, 11:21:47 AM
Now, if there is a upside-down K-96 sign, I doubt anyone, even us roadgeeks, would notice.

How the hell would one know? 

Any good roadgeek would surely notice that the sticker on the back was upside-down!

The sticker could've been put on upside-down.

I've seen enough of those even on signs installed the correct way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on April 08, 2015, 07:36:08 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 08, 2015, 10:23:28 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on April 08, 2015, 10:07:41 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2015, 11:01:38 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 07, 2015, 02:20:00 PM
Quote from: route56 on April 07, 2015, 11:21:47 AM
Now, if there is a upside-down K-96 sign, I doubt anyone, even us roadgeeks, would notice.

How the hell would one know? 

Any good roadgeek would surely notice that the sticker on the back was upside-down!

The sticker could've been put on upside-down.

I've seen enough of those even on signs installed the correct way.

...So then we'll look for the house next to the house with no numbers...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on April 09, 2015, 10:24:02 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2015, 11:01:38 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 07, 2015, 02:20:00 PM
Quote from: route56 on April 07, 2015, 11:21:47 AM
Now, if there is a upside-down K-96 sign, I doubt anyone, even us roadgeeks, would notice.

How the hell would one know? 

Any good roadgeek would surely notice that the sticker on the back was upside-down!

You assume there is an inventory sticker on the back, which may not be the case... Not all jurisdictions use a tag for all signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 09, 2015, 10:57:13 PM
Quote from: roadfro on April 09, 2015, 10:24:02 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2015, 11:01:38 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 07, 2015, 02:20:00 PM
Quote from: route56 on April 07, 2015, 11:21:47 AM
Now, if there is a upside-down K-96 sign, I doubt anyone, even us roadgeeks, would notice.

How the hell would one know? 

Any good roadgeek would surely notice that the sticker on the back was upside-down!

You assume there is an inventory sticker on the back, which may not be the case... Not all jurisdictions use a tag for all signs.

What jurisdictions sign K-96 but don't use inventory stickers?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on April 09, 2015, 10:58:10 PM
I doubt it gets a sticker on a guide sign, and if it did you wouldn't be able to see it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KG909 on April 10, 2015, 12:01:17 AM
Um?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F04%2F09%2Fab941f6a26d09d043545d59470ad956f.jpg&hash=719fff2d69364e88d76441353248b42dfaf6fadb)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on April 10, 2015, 06:22:13 AM
Not erroneous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on April 14, 2015, 11:47:16 AM
Look closely at these signs...

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8806/16515337743_25076960b9_z.jpg)

Saint John, NB along Main Street (NB 100).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on April 14, 2015, 11:53:34 AM
Quote from: Ian on April 14, 2015, 11:47:16 AM
Look closely at these signs...

Saint John, NB along Main Street (NB 100).

I wonder how long that's been spelled wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on April 14, 2015, 12:43:32 PM
Quote from: Ian on April 14, 2015, 11:47:16 AM
Look closely at these signs...

Saint John, NB along Main Street (NB 100).

They have misspelt 西 :sombrero:.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on April 14, 2015, 01:20:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2015, 11:53:34 AM
Quote from: Ian on April 14, 2015, 11:47:16 AM
Look closely at these signs...

Saint John, NB along Main Street (NB 100).

I wonder how long that's been spelled wrong.

Probably from the ou(t)set.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on April 14, 2015, 01:30:41 PM
Quote from: Ian on April 14, 2015, 11:47:16 AM
Look closely at these signs...

Saint John, NB along Main Street (NB 100).

Is it also odd that they have a blue background on the NB 100 shield, but a green background on the NB 1 and 7 shields?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on April 14, 2015, 01:50:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2015, 01:30:41 PM
Quote from: Ian on April 14, 2015, 11:47:16 AM
Look closely at these signs...

Saint John, NB along Main Street (NB 100).

Is it also odd that they have a blue background on the NB 100 shield, but a green background on the NB 1 and 7 shields?


New Brunswick uses different colored shields for different classes of highways. Green are primary highways (freeways, super-2's, and other major highways), blue are collector (secondary) highways, and black are are tertiary (local) highways.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on April 14, 2015, 03:25:49 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 14, 2015, 01:20:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2015, 11:53:34 AM
Quote from: Ian on April 14, 2015, 11:47:16 AM
Look closely at these signs...

Saint John, NB along Main Street (NB 100).

I wonder how long that's been spelled wrong.

Probably from the ou(t)set.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F816uC.gif&hash=f16c6f5e46aa28af93c6187575f2086738118092)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on April 14, 2015, 08:36:59 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 14, 2015, 01:20:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2015, 11:53:34 AM
Quote from: Ian on April 14, 2015, 11:47:16 AM
Look closely at these signs...

Saint John, NB along Main Street (NB 100).

I wonder how long that's been spelled wrong.

Probably from the ou(t)set.

I'm glad formulanone gave the above clue...I was about to say Fredricton was needing a "k".  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on April 14, 2015, 10:22:48 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on April 14, 2015, 08:36:59 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 14, 2015, 01:20:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2015, 11:53:34 AM
Quote from: Ian on April 14, 2015, 11:47:16 AM
Look closely at these signs...

Saint John, NB along Main Street (NB 100).

I wonder how long that's been spelled wrong.

Probably from the ou(t)set.

I'm glad formulanone gave the above clue...I was about to say Fredericton was needing a "k".  :pan:

I thought the error was with Fredericton as well. But then I realized I needed to be able to spell it right for my Grade 3 provincial capitals.  It's 'Fred' 'der' 'ic' 'ton'.  Took me several seconds to see the error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SR669 on April 16, 2015, 01:54:42 PM
Ran across several errors in my neck of the woods recently...though I'm not sure if any of them are actually at the state level. (Apologies for the somewhat meh photos - they were taken at the spur of the moment.)

I think this first one is a private error...it's been floating around on Commonwealth Drive off USVA 171 for a couple of years now.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1038.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa466%2FVirginiaSirens%2FRoadgeekery%2FIMG_0634_zpscgtjfoj0.jpg&hash=e0ef2ebed4098ddf83777926c8d15f155fc56a5b)

I'm not sure if this one fits under erroneous or design error, but either way it's very nearby the first one, on Kiln Creek Parkway (which I believe is county-maintained).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1038.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa466%2FVirginiaSirens%2FRoadgeekery%2FIMG_0635_zpsmpsl8qjy.jpg&hash=47d90b8ff01d01f23b0aa3e250bb8dc44a15a417)

Finally, I caught these on a night drive on the new section of City Center Boulevard in Newport News that opened a few weeks ago. Double error - they switched both the directions and route classifications here. There's also a JCT VA 60 shield behind it, and matching sets of both on the other side of the intersection. (Also, groovy rainbow effect ahoy!)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1038.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa466%2FVirginiaSirens%2FRoadgeekery%2FIMG_0638_zpsasstwerx.jpg&hash=b0cd25a4d0924f9aed28e6f1c02ce68044d8b5b4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on April 16, 2015, 09:48:51 PM
Quote from: SR669 on April 16, 2015, 01:54:42 PM
Ran across several errors in my neck of the woods recently...though I'm not sure if any of them are actually at the state level. (Apologies for the somewhat meh photos - they were taken at the spur of the moment.)

I think this first one is a private error...it's been floating around on Commonwealth Drive off USVA 171 for a couple of years now.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1038.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa466%2FVirginiaSirens%2FRoadgeekery%2FIMG_0634_zpscgtjfoj0.jpg&hash=e0ef2ebed4098ddf83777926c8d15f155fc56a5b)


That's the 1st one of those I have ever known to exist outside of Louisiana.  :-D :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JKRhodes on April 20, 2015, 07:24:52 PM
Not sure if this one at I-25 and University Ave in Las Cruces has been covered yet(no time to comb thru 130+ pages of replies), but it's always bugged me:

http://goo.gl/maps/S30J4

R4-4 sign is used to signify that traffic merging onto University Ave from I-25 is to yield to bicycles. But it's not a right turn lane so much as an acceleration/merging lane.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on April 20, 2015, 11:02:08 PM
Those VA 60 shields look like a contractor error. Newport News doesn't usually use the standard Virginia shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Thing 342 on April 21, 2015, 06:05:05 AM
Quote from: SR669 on April 16, 2015, 01:54:42 PM
Ran across several errors in my neck of the woods recently...though I'm not sure if any of them are actually at the state level. (Apologies for the somewhat meh photos - they were taken at the spur of the moment.)

I think this first one is a private error...it's been floating around on Commonwealth Drive off USVA 171 for a couple of years now.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1038.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa466%2FVirginiaSirens%2FRoadgeekery%2FIMG_0634_zpscgtjfoj0.jpg&hash=e0ef2ebed4098ddf83777926c8d15f155fc56a5b)

I'm not sure if this one fits under erroneous or design error, but either way it's very nearby the first one, on Kiln Creek Parkway (which I believe is county-maintained).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1038.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa466%2FVirginiaSirens%2FRoadgeekery%2FIMG_0635_zpsmpsl8qjy.jpg&hash=47d90b8ff01d01f23b0aa3e250bb8dc44a15a417)

Finally, I caught these on a night drive on the new section of City Center Boulevard in Newport News that opened a few weeks ago. Double error - they switched both the directions and route classifications here. There's also a JCT VA 60 shield behind it, and matching sets of both on the other side of the intersection. (Also, groovy rainbow effect ahoy!)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1038.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa466%2FVirginiaSirens%2FRoadgeekery%2FIMG_0638_zpsasstwerx.jpg&hash=b0cd25a4d0924f9aed28e6f1c02ce68044d8b5b4)
Interesting that they're signed north-south, just like the new postings for VA-143 further along the route.
The VA-60s may be gone now, as I didn't see them when I drove the new road on Sunday.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on April 21, 2015, 05:39:10 PM
Even though this sign has been up for nearly 10 years, I think it's great that this error lives on. NY Route 57 was decommissioned in 1982.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/314912/Liverpool.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on April 21, 2015, 07:45:41 PM
Seconded!  A reminder of my childhood when I lived in the Syracuse area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xcellntbuy on April 21, 2015, 08:51:45 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on April 21, 2015, 05:39:10 PM
Even though this sign has been up for nearly 10 years, I think it's great that this error lives on. NY Route 57 was decommissioned in 1982.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/314912/Liverpool.jpg)
That is a long, long time ago, the year I started graduate school at Syracuse University.  I remember old NY 57 signs on the north side of Syracuse with the little "NY" at the top of the shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on April 21, 2015, 10:27:23 PM
Quote from: xcellntbuy on April 21, 2015, 08:51:45 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on April 21, 2015, 05:39:10 PM
Even though this sign has been up for nearly 10 years, I think it's great that this error lives on. NY Route 57 was decommissioned in 1982.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/314912/Liverpool.jpg)
That is a long, long time ago, the year I started graduate school at Syracuse University.  I remember old NY 57 signs on the north side of Syracuse with the little "NY" at the top of the shield.

I remember those NY 57 markers as well. I also remember a sign in NYSDOT's version of the LeHay font at the I-81 SB ramp to Onondaga Lake Pkwy/Old Liverpool Rd split that said
(left up arrow) N Y 57 - Liverpool
Old Liverpool Rd (right up arrow)

When NY 57 was decommissioned in 1982 and before the reconstruction of the area (the six lane bridge of I-81 over Park St), a BGS NY 370 shield was slapped over the NY 57 on this LGS.  I wish I had taken a picture.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: davewiecking on April 25, 2015, 10:20:22 AM
I think this counts as erroneous. If it had contact info as to how one could get permission to use this state road without trespassing, it would be a bit more helpful. Been in place for some years now. Detour (should one wish to take the sign literally) is at least 15 minutes out of the way, so I routinely trespass on this part of state property.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dawnet.com%2Fimg%2Fnotresp.jpg&hash=3680ec35fd397e02474b5d7a6847d31a9a2495b4)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bzakharin on April 27, 2015, 12:46:31 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on April 25, 2015, 10:20:22 AM
I think this counts as erroneous. If it had contact info as to how one could get permission to use this state road without trespassing, it would be a bit more helpful. Been in place for some years now. Detour (should one wish to take the sign literally) is at least 15 minutes out of the way, so I routinely trespass on this part of state property.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dawnet.com%2Fimg%2Fnotresp.jpg&hash=3680ec35fd397e02474b5d7a6847d31a9a2495b4)
I assume the intention is that the sign itself is state property and "tresspassing" involves doing something to it, like defacing or stealing it. Still, since they don't put it on every assembly, there's got to be a story about why this particular assembly needs it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on April 27, 2015, 01:10:49 PM
It may be for the plot of land to the right.  This 2008 GMSV shows planting going on...

https://goo.gl/maps/Ojo0P

Current view seems to show that endeavor abandoned or at least overgrown by meadow...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on April 27, 2015, 10:31:18 PM
Vermont Avenue and I Street NW in DC outside the subway station:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FDF953EB8-D966-43B8-A77D-F344F3CCC541_zpsv4xkng9d.jpg&hash=e52728e4c40620a7767d201fb21ea6ff963fcfa2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: davewiecking on April 28, 2015, 06:43:08 PM
QuoteIt may be for the plot of land to the right.  This 2008 GMSV shows planting going on...

https://goo.gl/maps/Ojo0P

Current view seems to show that endeavor abandoned or at least overgrown by meadow...

Mapmikey

I believe that Mapmikey is partially right. This used to be a normal T intersection, with DE20/26 turning left at a traffic light (as one drove east). DelDOT bought the land that used to hold a gas station (Texaco or Gulf, I don't remember), then rebuilt the intersection so that the main traffic movement continued around a bend. The portion of the lot not used for the realigned road, in various stages of planting, is still DelDOT property, and I imagine that this is the piece of land they (for some reason) don't want anyone trespassing on. But this sign has bugged me since it was installed several years ago.

The rebuilt intersection is rather bizarre-visible to the right of Mapmikey's GSV link. A left turn lane for no reason other than to allow folks to make a U-turn, and a "pocket" to allow such without hitting the curb. Usually the only people that I've seen use that left turn lane are those that are confused into thinking they should use it to continue on DE 20/26 towards the ocean, when in fact that's now the straight-thru movement. The pickup truck occupying this pocket in GSV is the first time I've seen someone use this space apparently for its intended purpose. Or someone just pulled over to make a phone call.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 16, 2015, 03:27:13 PM
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5467/17553314380_7c21dcd15d_z.jpg
Not exactly erroneous, but its conflicting exit numbers are noteworthy.   It is Exit 234 from I-10 E Bound, but the actual ramp to US 90 and Clairborne Avenue are on US 90 Business that technically begins at the split ahead.  So in retrospect it gets US 90's exit number "13B" to be used on the guide sign above it.

To a non road geek it may be considered that though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on May 16, 2015, 05:40:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2015, 03:27:13 PM
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5467/17553314380_7c21dcd15d_z.jpg
Not exactly erroneous, but its conflicting exit numbers are noteworthy.   It is Exit 234 from I-10 E Bound, but the actual ramp to US 90 and Clairborne Avenue are on US 90 Business that technically begins at the split ahead.  So in retrospect it gets US 90's exit number "13B" to be used on the guide sign above it.

To a non road geek it may be considered that though.
if anything, i'd call that a design error - for clarification, there should be a pull-through on the far left for US 90 Bus.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 16, 2015, 08:57:51 PM
Quote from: odditude on May 16, 2015, 05:40:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2015, 03:27:13 PM
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5467/17553314380_7c21dcd15d_z.jpg
Not exactly erroneous, but its conflicting exit numbers are noteworthy.   It is Exit 234 from I-10 E Bound, but the actual ramp to US 90 and Clairborne Avenue are on US 90 Business that technically begins at the split ahead.  So in retrospect it gets US 90's exit number "13B" to be used on the guide sign above it.

To a non road geek it may be considered that though.
if anything, i'd call that a design error - for clarification, there should be a pull-through on the far left for US 90 Bus.
Exactly considering that the advanced signs for Exit 234A include the Westbank as well.

Anyway, with large interchange from freeway to freeway gets complicated.  I myself would not use the exit number at all being its the start of something new, it really would not matter if it had no number of its own considering that it is right in the shadow of I-10's Exit 234A.  People could call it that and I would be anyway.  I would not direct someone to Clairborne Avenue via Exit 13B-A, but to get off at left exit 234A and keep to the immediate right.  This distance is only a few hundred feet anyway.

Hopefully if LADOTD ever gets I-49 completed from Lafayette to NOLA, it might change as this would not be Exit 13 on the new interstate's mileposts.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 17, 2015, 04:03:00 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.485083,-96.413624,3a,75y,5.07h,90.27t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sLV5D1WEUi0KaERpJFcfweg!2e0!6m1!1e1
US 77 is next exit here in South Sioux City, NE.  Really, considering that US 77 ends ahead at the said next exit, I don't think so.

Hopefully with the new interchange now at US 77's northern terminus, this sign is  since corrected unless Iowa wants Nebraska to do the honors as is sometimes the case where one interchange's signs are in another state or jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on May 20, 2015, 09:25:37 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 20, 2015, 06:02:39 PM
No photo  :-( but on the PA Turnpike WB after the Midway service plaza, there is a street name overhead that literally reads "Findley street". IIRC, it was at milepost 149.

Unless you are commenting on capitalization, that sign is correct.

See here (this link uses Classic Google Maps)  (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Findley+St,+Berlin,+PA&hl=en&ll=39.983993,-78.773432&spn=0.009372,0.014656&sll=40.271144,-77.772217&sspn=2.388964,3.751831&oq=findley+st.&hnear=Findley+St,+Berlin,+Pennsylvania+15530&t=m&z=16&output=classi)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 21, 2015, 01:27:36 AM
http://goo.gl/maps/BkVj3

Hwy 2 doesn't go to I-95... not at all. Unless you zig zag minor roads there  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on May 21, 2015, 08:40:27 AM
And Maine is ME, not Me. The lowercase e gives it an ownership type of noun. State abbreviations are all caps at all times the way I see it. These contractors really sure love to rush things through and not double check their work, no matter what agency they work for. There are always silly mistakes like this.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on May 21, 2015, 11:16:22 AM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on May 21, 2015, 08:40:27 AM
And Maine is ME, not Me. The lowercase e gives it an ownership type of noun. State abbreviations are all caps at all times the way I see it. These contractors really sure love to rush things through and not double check their work, no matter what agency they work for. There are always silly mistakes like this.

ODOT used to use "Pa" on BGSs (there are still some left in the wild). So if your dad lived in Erie, PA, then he always was a destination coming out of the Cleveland area on I-90 or I-271.  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 21, 2015, 11:55:17 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 21, 2015, 01:27:36 AM
http://goo.gl/maps/BkVj3

Hwy 2 doesn't go to I-95... not at all. Unless you zig zag minor roads there  :-D

It's an odd sign, and I'd definitely put it in the category of erroneous.  But my guess is that it's not actually trying to imply that Hwy 2 goes to I-95.  Rather either lane will take you to 95/Houlton, but only the right lane will take you to 2/Edmunston.  But surely the average motorist wouldn't be likely to interpret it that way, thus erroneous.

Quote from: Billy F 1988 on May 21, 2015, 08:40:27 AM
And Maine is ME, not Me. The lowercase e gives it an ownership type of noun. State abbreviations are all caps at all times the way I see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_abbreviations

Postal abbreviations are generally only intended to be used for addressing letters, so that the state is easily recognizable, especially now that sorting is pretty much automated.  (Why the state is so important when it's essentially redundant to the zip code, I couldn't tell you.)  In most other contexts, such as writing papers for school, newspaper articles, etc., mixed case is correct.  I don't know what the sign standards are in New Brunswick, but given that the US MUTCD tends towards mixed case and deprecating periods, I'd say "Me" is correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on May 21, 2015, 12:35:27 PM
Yes, the postal abbreviations are a pet peeve.  Two letters isn't enough to distinctively identify a state -- is MS Missouri, Minnesota, or Massachusetts?  The postal service set up the 2-letter abbreviations at the same time they introduced Zip codes, to make the city-state-zip line shorter for mass mailers with equipment that would have to be replaced to accomodate 5 more characters.

The Postal Service would prefer the entire name and address to be printed in uppercase only, with no punctuation, for the benefit of its crude optical character recognition equipment.

The Associated Press Stylebook and U.S. Government Printing Office have their own sets of abbreviations.  Both are shown in the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_abbreviations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_abbreviations).  Either is better for non-postal use.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on May 21, 2015, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 21, 2015, 12:35:27 PM
Two letters isn't enough to distinctively identify a state -- is MS Missouri, Minnesota, or Massachusetts?
Most of us can tell the difference between MS, MO, MN and MA. (MS is Mississippi.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on May 21, 2015, 03:32:05 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 21, 2015, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 21, 2015, 12:35:27 PM
Two letters isn't enough to distinctively identify a state -- is MS Missouri, Minnesota, or Massachusetts?
Most of us can tell the difference between MS, MO, MN and MA. (MS is Mississippi.)

I guess I forgot the sarcasm tags, sorry.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on May 30, 2015, 02:17:27 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 20, 2015, 09:25:37 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 20, 2015, 06:02:39 PM
No photo  :-( but on the PA Turnpike WB after the Midway service plaza, there is a street name overhead that literally reads "Findley street". IIRC, it was at milepost 149.

Unless you are commenting on capitalization, that sign is correct.

See here (this link uses Classic Google Maps)  (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Findley+St,+Berlin,+PA&hl=en&ll=39.983993,-78.773432&spn=0.009372,0.014656&sll=40.271144,-77.772217&sspn=2.388964,3.751831&oq=findley+st.&hnear=Findley+St,+Berlin,+Pennsylvania+15530&t=m&z=16&output=classi)
Dude. I dunno how the smeg you did it. But that link actually links to classic gmaps. And doesn't forward to that new rubbish. Great. Now I need to change my pants.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 30, 2015, 02:41:43 PM
Quote from: yakra on May 30, 2015, 02:17:27 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 20, 2015, 09:25:37 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 20, 2015, 06:02:39 PM
No photo  :-( but on the PA Turnpike WB after the Midway service plaza, there is a street name overhead that literally reads "Findley street". IIRC, it was at milepost 149.
Unless you are commenting on capitalization, that sign is correct.
See here (this link uses Classic Google Maps)  (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Findley+St,+Berlin,+PA&hl=en&ll=39.983993,-78.773432&spn=0.009372,0.014656&sll=40.271144,-77.772217&sspn=2.388964,3.751831&oq=findley+st.&hnear=Findley+St,+Berlin,+Pennsylvania+15530&t=m&z=16&output=classi)
Dude. I dunno how the smeg you did it. But that link actually links to classic gmaps. And doesn't forward to that new rubbish. Great. Now I need to change my pants.
Yeah...tell us how you did that.  I added "&output=classi" to a new Gmaps link but no luck, and I'm sure there's more to it than that.  I need to be able to convert standard links to classic output, even if I have to manually edit the URL.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on May 30, 2015, 02:51:22 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 30, 2015, 02:41:43 PM
Quote from: yakra on May 30, 2015, 02:17:27 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 20, 2015, 09:25:37 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 20, 2015, 06:02:39 PM
No photo  :-( but on the PA Turnpike WB after the Midway service plaza, there is a street name overhead that literally reads "Findley street". IIRC, it was at milepost 149.
Unless you are commenting on capitalization, that sign is correct.
See here (this link uses Classic Google Maps)  (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Findley+St,+Berlin,+PA&hl=en&ll=39.983993,-78.773432&spn=0.009372,0.014656&sll=40.271144,-77.772217&sspn=2.388964,3.751831&oq=findley+st.&hnear=Findley+St,+Berlin,+Pennsylvania+15530&t=m&z=16&output=classi)
Dude. I dunno how the smeg you did it. But that link actually links to classic gmaps. And doesn't forward to that new rubbish. Great. Now I need to change my pants.
Yeah...tell us how you did that.  I added "&output=classi" to a new Gmaps link but no luck, and I'm sure there's more to it than that.  I need to be able to convert standard links to classic output, even if I have to manually edit the URL.

Adding it to a New Google Maps page will not work. Typing it in while you are on a non-Google page, a blank page, a new tab, or a new window will work.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 30, 2015, 04:12:00 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 21, 2015, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 21, 2015, 12:35:27 PM
Two letters isn't enough to distinctively identify a state -- is MS Missouri, Minnesota, or Massachusetts?
Most of us can tell the difference between MS, MO, MN and MA. (MS is Mississippi.)

Well, yes, I can tell the difference between them.  And if you give me a list of all 8 states that begin with M, I could  correctly identify their abbreviations (and vice versa).

But if I'm just given one (so I can't use process of elimination), and only given a split second to do it... I will always think Maryland is MA every time.  (I don't know why, but that's always the one that trips me.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 30, 2015, 11:30:06 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 30, 2015, 02:51:22 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 30, 2015, 02:41:43 PM
Quote from: yakra on May 30, 2015, 02:17:27 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 20, 2015, 09:25:37 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 20, 2015, 06:02:39 PM
No photo  :-( but on the PA Turnpike WB after the Midway service plaza, there is a street name overhead that literally reads "Findley street". IIRC, it was at milepost 149.
Unless you are commenting on capitalization, that sign is correct.
See here (this link uses Classic Google Maps)  (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Findley+St,+Berlin,+PA&hl=en&ll=39.983993,-78.773432&spn=0.009372,0.014656&sll=40.271144,-77.772217&sspn=2.388964,3.751831&oq=findley+st.&hnear=Findley+St,+Berlin,+Pennsylvania+15530&t=m&z=16&output=classi)
Dude. I dunno how the smeg you did it. But that link actually links to classic gmaps. And doesn't forward to that new rubbish. Great. Now I need to change my pants.
Yeah...tell us how you did that.  I added "&output=classi" to a new Gmaps link but no luck, and I'm sure there's more to it than that.  I need to be able to convert standard links to classic output, even if I have to manually edit the URL.
Adding it to a New Google Maps page will not work. Typing it in while you are on a non-Google page, a blank page, a new tab, or a new window will work.
Can you elaborate further on this?  Copying the maps link (which normally would open New Maps), adding the '&output=classi' and plugging it in on a blank page doesn't seem to work.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on May 31, 2015, 01:51:06 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 30, 2015, 04:12:00 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 21, 2015, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 21, 2015, 12:35:27 PM
Two letters isn't enough to distinctively identify a state -- is MS Missouri, Minnesota, or Massachusetts?
Most of us can tell the difference between MS, MO, MN and MA. (MS is Mississippi.)

Well, yes, I can tell the difference between them.  And if you give me a list of all 8 states that begin with M, I could  correctly identify their abbreviations (and vice versa).

But if I'm just given one (so I can't use process of elimination), and only given a split second to do it... I will always think Maryland is MA every time.  (I don't know why, but that's always the one that trips me.)
I got out of a NYC parking ticket once because the ticket had the "MA" state box ticked. For a plate number that quite possibly didn't even exist in MA. There was no "ME" check-box; I forget whether there was an "Other".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on May 31, 2015, 10:47:03 PM
A long standing error over on Moulton Street in Decatur, AL:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/494/17708558983_2154f7bfc3.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/sYQZCt)Old US 72 Shield (https://flic.kr/p/sYQZCt) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/279/18141473030_2ceb8a0c6e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/tD6MTL)Old US 72 Shield (https://flic.kr/p/tD6MTL) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
US 72 doesn't run through Decatur (although US 72 Alt. does) and this sign is approaching US 31. Though one could argue that it's correct since going north from here does take you to US 72, but you'd have to go all the way up to Athens before you reach it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on June 02, 2015, 11:17:20 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 21, 2015, 02:54:26 PM
(MS is Mississippi.)

...unless you're on a boat, in which case MS is Massachusetts.  The USCG state abbreviations are not necessarily in sync with the USPS ones.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 05, 2015, 12:52:38 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4S1mBTd.jpg&hash=17d3328138651c6521c52f930c7178f6d98027dd)

Maybe a bit subtle at first glance. Read carefully.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 05, 2015, 08:50:24 AM
Reading carefully isn't giving it to me (unless I'm blind).  Unless the exit is actually on the left, I'm thinking this is Dept. of Redundancy Department material, and possibly Signs with Design Errors, but nothing that's actually erroneous.

(Or unless the "exit" is an at-grade 90-degree turn, but that's a bit anal for my tastes, and definitely nothing I haven't seen before.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 05, 2015, 09:28:35 AM
Should be "Britton Road – Right Lane, Exit Only." Upon exiting, you can, in fact, go left on Britton.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 05, 2015, 10:53:55 AM
Oh, I see what you're saying, that might qualify. But I mean, it's still a right off the mainline, so...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on June 07, 2015, 02:08:10 AM
That's as may be, Scott, but "right" isn't a cardinal direction. I can't think of any DOT that posts "right" and "left" as directions on a road. It's always south, north, east, or west.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on June 07, 2015, 02:22:58 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 07, 2015, 02:08:10 AM
It's always south, north, east, or west.

What about EST, OUEST, NORD & SUD?  :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on June 08, 2015, 12:20:21 AM
But don't they drive on the left in Britain?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on June 08, 2015, 03:52:51 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.008907,-81.052273,3a,44.4y,70.53h,95.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sxC2e2qIjzrR-rEow08LTrQ!2e0

Erroneous because at this point I-126 has ended; you are solely on US 76.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 08, 2015, 04:16:58 PM
I noticed one on the Exit 10 ramp to CR 514 east in Edison,NJ.  Fords, which was one of the two control cities for the ramp departing the complex interchange for that roadway, is been replaced with Raritan Center.

The problem is Raritan Center is the other way on 514.  It is signed as such for the proper ramp, which leads me to conclude that either NJTA or NJDOT goofed on the sign gantry as if you head east on 514 you will not find any follow ups for U Turn, or even one directing you east on CR 501 to Old Post Road which also gets you into the Raritan Center.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on June 08, 2015, 05:03:52 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 08, 2015, 03:52:51 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.008907,-81.052273,3a,44.4y,70.53h,95.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sxC2e2qIjzrR-rEow08LTrQ!2e0

Erroneous because at this point I-126 has ended; you are solely on US 76.

The addition of that shield may have been related to the Business Spur I-126 (http://www.interstate-guide.com/business-routes/bus26.html) concept. South Carolina has erroneously (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=SC19791264) signed business spurs with tri-color Interstate shields (https://www.aaroads.com/southeast/south_carolina999/main_st_eb_at_us-176_sc-009_01.jpg) before.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on June 08, 2015, 05:07:58 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 08, 2015, 03:52:51 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.008907,-81.052273,3a,44.4y,70.53h,95.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sxC2e2qIjzrR-rEow08LTrQ!2e0

Erroneous because at this point I-126 has ended; you are solely on US 76.
Technically, I would not call it an error because it is still freeway status. Except I-180 in Wyoming, if there is an at grade intersection/ends sign at the end point, I can safely say that it has ended.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on June 08, 2015, 05:33:54 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 08, 2015, 05:07:58 PM
Technically, I would not call it an error because it is still freeway status. Except I-180 in Wyoming, if there is an at grade intersection/ends sign at the end point, I can safely say that it has ended.

The speed limit at this point is 35 miles per hour though, which automatically disqualifies it from being a freeway in my book. Plus, I believe I-126 effectively ends at this sign; on Google Maps, it is marked as US 76 only. I can't find any official document stating where I-126 ends, but there is a diamond warning sign less than 1/4 of a mile away that says "FREEWAY ENDS". Still, that 35 MPH sign to me says "the freeway is done" to me. Not to mention the shoulder line disappearing after the gore.

Quote from: Alex on June 08, 2015, 05:03:52 PM
The addition of that shield may have been related to the Business Spur I-126 (http://www.interstate-guide.com/business-routes/bus26.html) concept. South Carolina has erroneously (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=SC19791264) signed business spurs with tri-color Interstate shields (https://www.aaroads.com/southeast/south_carolina999/main_st_eb_at_us-176_sc-009_01.jpg) before.

Interesting. I suppose it's possible, but this shield is just a standard I-126 shield, with "INTERSTATE" in the top portion and not BUSINESS. I'm not too versed in this region though, so perhaps someone else can shed some more light on if it was intended or not.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 11, 2015, 07:56:35 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.861727,-80.630623,3a,75y,343.6h,95.88t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sA4uR8syprepZlJxzFnfjcQ!2e0!6m1!1e1  What happened to US 98?

All other routes are correct though, but they left out a key US route here as 98 is concurrent with US 441 here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on June 14, 2015, 07:38:01 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2FErroneous%2520Hwy%252075_zpsyvkly9r6.jpg&hash=ce368095bbe021255f906c0ebe624ed271a5c4ce)

Supposed to be Hwy 75 (different shield), not 100.

100 goes East-West and is the bridge which this sign is posted on.

https://goo.gl/maps/HCdM9
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on June 16, 2015, 04:33:23 PM
These two shields are on US 1/460 Business at VA 226. They're for a future construction project (a roundabout or two, I think). In addition to the erroneous US shield the direction is erroneous as VA 226, being an old alignment of US 460, is universally posted East-West.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi42.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe343%2Fagenthydra%2FMobile%2520Uploads%2FIMG_20150616_161216.jpg&hash=a7b916d7a90b36a886aaaa389f5556453b1c995d)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi42.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe343%2Fagenthydra%2FMobile%2520Uploads%2FIMG_20150616_161143.jpg&hash=e34de149f8dd27c8b3efa532aba7bd19d189b384)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on June 16, 2015, 06:39:09 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.010166,-81.049138,3a,22.9y,286.39h,95.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSqFWeW4bfhdPHQFQpM6ZXg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I-126 hasn't started yet: you still are on Elmwood Avenue/US 76 when you see this sign.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.011458,-81.045352,3a,75.2y,279.45h,108.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srvZKkGtuhR9RhtPA7i0dUA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Same deal here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: spooky on June 17, 2015, 07:06:22 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 16, 2015, 06:39:09 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.010166,-81.049138,3a,22.9y,286.39h,95.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSqFWeW4bfhdPHQFQpM6ZXg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I-126 hasn't started yet: you still are on Elmwood Avenue/US 76 when you see this sign.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.011458,-81.045352,3a,75.2y,279.45h,108.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srvZKkGtuhR9RhtPA7i0dUA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Same deal here.

Splitting hairs.

Is this sign wrong because you're not on MA 3 SB yet?

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.192127,-70.955643,3a,75y,345.1h,94.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXdDaWuFp1nQ50a8bHQaxmQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on June 17, 2015, 02:36:09 PM
Quote from: spooky on June 17, 2015, 07:06:22 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 16, 2015, 06:39:09 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.010166,-81.049138,3a,22.9y,286.39h,95.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSqFWeW4bfhdPHQFQpM6ZXg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I-126 hasn't started yet: you still are on Elmwood Avenue/US 76 when you see this sign.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.011458,-81.045352,3a,75.2y,279.45h,108.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srvZKkGtuhR9RhtPA7i0dUA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Same deal here.

Splitting hairs.

Is this sign wrong because you're not on MA 3 SB yet?

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.192127,-70.955643,3a,75y,345.1h,94.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXdDaWuFp1nQ50a8bHQaxmQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That is the entrance ramp to MA 3 SB, which is a freeway at this point. That is correct - my other links actually show erroneous signs. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: spooky on June 17, 2015, 03:30:51 PM
I realize it's not an apples to apples comparison because your link is the continuation of US 76 WB, which is not the same as the ramp shown in my example. I could be interpreting the street view wrong, but it looks to me that if you stay in the right two lanes designated by the two signs you posted, you will end up on I-126, so I don't see any reason NOT to sign them in the same manner as if they were ramps leading to I-126.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 17, 2015, 10:20:49 PM
www.google.com/maps/@40.866551,-73.83157,3a,37.5y,45.92h,85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syNR7L4KOWGcD83HygCmV8A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
This is not an error of google, its an error of somebody being careless in the NYSTA.  Taken in The Bronx at Exit 11 for Co-op City Road.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on June 18, 2015, 11:28:30 PM
I'm about ready to go down to Crestline and points south and snap photos of all the improper signage at the U.S. 400/Alt 69/160 junction as well as the 69-160-400/K-171 junction south of town. They're driving me nuts.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 19, 2015, 01:13:40 PM
What's wrong with it, other than (as best I can recall) some odd shield shapes? I've been through those intersections a couple of times and don't recall anything that much out of the ordinary.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mwb1848 on June 19, 2015, 08:18:05 PM
High-flying, directional stack interchanges don't come cheap. So the state of Texas has been building the new stack interchange at IH-10 and Loop 375 in East El Paso two ramps at a time. Each pair of ramps is treated as a unique project and let separately from all the rest. This approach has lead to a piece-meal approach to signage.

Ramps five and six just opened and accompanying signage went up.

Under the new alignment, eastbound traffic on IH-10 uses Exit 34A to get to the northbound and southbound Loop 375 freeway lanes, while using Exit 34B to get to Joe Battle Boulevard and Americas Avenue, which are the Loop 375 frontage roads. These errant signs were up for about a month before the Loop 375 shields were removed leaving WAAAY too much green space.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi907.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac274%2Fmartinbartlett%2FIMG_0043_zpsm58vmwet.jpg&hash=be54cfedd0ab2bf635656e9ce3061bc56ff51520) (http://s907.photobucket.com/user/martinbartlett/media/IMG_0043_zpsm58vmwet.jpg.html)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi907.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac274%2Fmartinbartlett%2Funnamed_zps0u4xzvnn.jpg&hash=e1eb04061de2ecc0df285b9f0e74cb13bfd5b7f5) (http://s907.photobucket.com/user/martinbartlett/media/unnamed_zps0u4xzvnn.jpg.html)

A handful of other signs have had to be greened-out because they indicated the Exit 34A direct connector only sent to Loop 375 north.

Of all the recently installed eastbound signage, this sign bridge is the only one that didn't have to be modified.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi907.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac274%2Fmartinbartlett%2FIMG_0049_zpsvsxjplzp.jpg&hash=73e674f98e2c5980f44a2256aaedb147b670f21f) (http://s907.photobucket.com/user/martinbartlett/media/IMG_0049_zpsvsxjplzp.jpg.html)

By contrast, all the westbound signage got it right.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on June 27, 2015, 02:32:32 PM
Apparently US 16 got extended eastward to Buffalo at some point: https://goo.gl/maps/nj7VO (Should be NY 16, needless to say).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on June 28, 2015, 06:10:02 PM
New sign on I-40 eastbound in Oklahoma City; Rockwell "Road" is signed instead of Rockwell "Ave".

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/505/19245972495_ce64725e08_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vjGD6Z)DSC05128 (https://flic.kr/p/vjGD6Z) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 28, 2015, 06:43:09 PM
Quote from: okroads on June 28, 2015, 06:10:02 PM
New sign on I-40 eastbound in Oklahoma City; Rockwell "Road" is signed instead of Rockwell "Ave".

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/505/19245972495_ce64725e08_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vjGD6Z)DSC05128 (https://flic.kr/p/vjGD6Z) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

I will give them a pass if they are planning to pluck the side BGS out of the ground in the very near future, but if not...Why would you put the overhead sign right next to the advance exit sign for Morgan Road? (I know...because it's ODOT  :pan:)  One of those two signs should've been placed 1/4 mile away.

-- A message from the Department of the Redundancy Department...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on July 01, 2015, 03:45:16 PM
Welcome to beautiful northern.... Bossier City, LA?!?!?!?  :confused:  :hmmm:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/130771900@N08/19144747938/in/album-72157655329475165/

Yes...new mileposts as part of a sign replacement project on I-220 around Shreveport & Bossier City, LA.  This is the only erroneous milepost so far.  (This is seen going westbound)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route17fan on July 01, 2015, 04:26:46 PM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on June 27, 2015, 02:32:32 PM
Apparently US 16 got extended eastward to Buffalo at some point: https://goo.gl/maps/nj7VO (Should be NY 16, needless to say).

This is just getting ridiculous! NYSDOT is getting really bad at posting NY routes as US routes. Now NY 16 is in the bunch - along with the following:

US shields posted on NY routes  :no:
NY 5 - Chautauqua County, just west of NY 76
NY 10 - Delaware county - a couple of shields posted
NY 16 - see link above
NY 17 - US 17 shields in Orange County (and a few in Sullivan County if memory serves)
NY 17C - a couple US 17C shields observed in Endicott
NY 27 - waay out east on Long Island near Shinnecock (eww)
NY 30A - a US 30A shield southbound just past I-88 Schoharie County
NY 34 - a US 34 shield - I know it's there, I just can't remember where I saw it.
NY 60 - was just a couple in Jamestown - now has moved north to Dunkirk including the northern terminus and the END! assembly and one Thruway BGS eastbound
NY 404 - US 404 shields observed
NY 481 - US 481 shields observed in Oswego

NY shields on US routes  :wow:
NY 9W - couple of them seen near Newburgh
NY 20A - couple of shields observed
NY 219 - on I-86/US 219 at exit 23 eastbound

UPSIDE DOWN NY shields  :eyebrow:
NY 96 - excusable for the reasons mentioned in various other threads - still though, upside down
NY 337 - a TON of them!
NY 391 - one or two of them
NY 990V - various places along the route
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route17fan on July 01, 2015, 04:30:19 PM
I joke about it, but the way things are going, US 990V just may be posted....in an upside down US shield no less..but may be posted. That scares the living crap out of me (lol)!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: steviep24 on July 01, 2015, 05:02:16 PM
Quote from: route17fan on July 01, 2015, 04:26:46 PM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on June 27, 2015, 02:32:32 PM
Apparently US 16 got extended eastward to Buffalo at some point: https://goo.gl/maps/nj7VO (Should be NY 16, needless to say).

This is just getting ridiculous! NYSDOT is getting really bad at posting NY routes as US routes. Now NY 16 is in the bunch - along with the following:

US shields posted on NY routes  :no:
NY 5 - Chautauqua County, just west of NY 76
NY 10 - Delaware county - a couple of shields posted
NY 16 - see link above
NY 17 - US 17 shields in Orange County (and a few in Sullivan County if memory serves)
NY 27 - waay out east on Long Island near Shinnecock (eww)
NY 30A - a US 30A shield southbound just past I-88 Schoharie County
NY 34 - a US 34 shield - I know it's there, I just can't remember where I saw it.
NY 60 - was just a couple in Jamestown - now has moved north to Dunkirk including the northern terminus and the END! assembly and one Thruway BGS eastbound

NY shields on US routes  :wow:
NY 9W - couple of them seen near Newburgh
NY 20A - couple of shields observed
NY 219 - on I-86/US 219 at exit 23 eastbound

UPSIDE DOWN NY shields  :eyebrow:
NY 96 - excusable for the reasons mentioned in various other threads - still though, upside down
NY 337 - a TON of them!
NY 391 - one or two of them
NY 990V - various places along the route
NY 404 in Webster had a few US shields as of a few months ago. Not sure if they're still there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on July 01, 2015, 05:20:58 PM
Also, the NY 210 bowtie shield. HORRIBLE!  :pan: :poke: :banghead: :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route17fan on July 01, 2015, 05:30:53 PM
Oh I forgot about the bowtie / "Budweiser" 210! and the US 404 shields :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on July 01, 2015, 07:04:48 PM
Quote from: route17fan on July 01, 2015, 04:26:46 PM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on June 27, 2015, 02:32:32 PM
Apparently US 16 got extended eastward to Buffalo at some point: https://goo.gl/maps/nj7VO (Should be NY 16, needless to say).
NY 34 - a US 34 shield - I know it's there, I just can't remember where I saw it.
NY 96 - excusable for the reasons mentioned in various other threads - still though, upside down

Both of these are in central Ithaca.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 02, 2015, 06:11:57 PM
Two from Lehigh Valley Airport...one looks a bit older than the other, but mysterious mix-ups just a quarter-mile apart are part of the fun.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.staticflickr.com%2F329%2F19331587101_0d7276fd6a_c.jpg&hash=66e393d1398691c071329247bf74103908f94477)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3826%2F18707014283_840cd3332d_c.jpg&hash=100ed3e582ab714473918f1185767967861da468)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on July 02, 2015, 06:19:03 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 02, 2015, 06:11:57 PM
Two from Lehigh Valley Airport...one looks a bit older than the other, but mysterious mix-ups just a quarter-mile apart are part of the fun.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.staticflickr.com%2F329%2F19331587101_0d7276fd6a_c.jpg&hash=66e393d1398691c071329247bf74103908f94477)

Yuck on the shape. Reminds me of some US 6 shields that were posted around here a while back.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on July 02, 2015, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on July 02, 2015, 06:19:03 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 02, 2015, 06:11:57 PM
Two from Lehigh Valley Airport...one looks a bit older than the other, but mysterious mix-ups just a quarter-mile apart are part of the fun.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.staticflickr.com%2F329%2F19331587101_0d7276fd6a_c.jpg&hash=66e393d1398691c071329247bf74103908f94477)

Yuck on the shape. Reminds me of some US 6 shields that were posted around here a while back.
acorn shields  :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 03, 2015, 01:16:13 AM
Quote from: Takumi on June 16, 2015, 04:33:23 PM
These two shields are on US 1/460 Business at VA 226. They're for a future construction project (a roundabout or two, I think). In addition to the erroneous US shield the direction is erroneous as VA 226, being an old alignment of US 460, is universally posted East-West.

Slightly OT, but in Chesapeake I noticed that VDOT created a US 13 DETOUR (the sign said use US 13 DETOUR for some reason the way I understood), to remind traffic to stay on I-64 during closures involving the Gilmerton Bridge  replacement project.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on July 06, 2015, 01:00:58 AM
Pretty sure the lower NY 36 shield should actually be a NY 63 shield: https://goo.gl/maps/0WSp9

Quote from: route17fan on July 01, 2015, 04:26:46 PMNY 17 - US 17 shields in Orange County (and a few in Sullivan County if memory serves)

I've also seen a US 17 error shield in Elmira just east of NY 14. Will have to try and get a pic when I go down next weekend.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on July 06, 2015, 09:48:32 AM
I should check my memory, but I believe NYSDOT actually replaced a NY 9 shield on US 9 north as it approached I-90 in Albany.

It seems NYSDOT is putting up erroneous shields at a quicker pace than they are correcting them, however! :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route17fan on July 06, 2015, 07:44:01 PM
True! We can add a couple of NY 62 shields on US 62 from Gowanda NY south.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on July 08, 2015, 11:12:23 PM
I've passed this sign probably hundreds of times. Never noticed the sign on the right is erroneous until today. It was correct in 2012.

https://goo.gl/maps/fyE6N

EDIT: The top bracket which holds the sign to the post probably failed, making the sign upside down. Still erroneous though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JCinSummerfield on July 09, 2015, 01:43:16 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on July 08, 2015, 11:12:23 PM
I've passed this sign probably hundreds of times. Never noticed the sign on the right is erroneous until today. It was correct in 2012.

https://goo.gl/maps/fyE6N

EDIT: The top bracket which holds the sign to the post probably failed, making the sign upside down. Still erroneous though.



The sign on the right actually looks correct to me, for where it is posted.  The one on the left should be further up, on the next island.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on July 09, 2015, 09:26:22 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on July 09, 2015, 01:43:16 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on July 08, 2015, 11:12:23 PM
I've passed this sign probably hundreds of times. Never noticed the sign on the right is erroneous until today. It was correct in 2012.

https://goo.gl/maps/fyE6N

EDIT: The top bracket which holds the sign to the post probably failed, making the sign upside down. Still erroneous though.

The sign on the right actually looks correct to me, for where it is posted.  The one on the left should be further up, on the next island.

It's a warning sign for a condition that lies ahead. If you swivel around, you see that the street up to this point has a median separation, so the warning applies to that portion of the street ahead where the median disappears. Thus, the sign in the median is correct and the sign on the right is wrong (or hanging upside down).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JCinSummerfield on July 10, 2015, 02:06:43 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 09, 2015, 09:26:22 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on July 09, 2015, 01:43:16 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on July 08, 2015, 11:12:23 PM
I've passed this sign probably hundreds of times. Never noticed the sign on the right is erroneous until today. It was correct in 2012.

https://goo.gl/maps/fyE6N

EDIT: The top bracket which holds the sign to the post probably failed, making the sign upside down. Still erroneous though.

The sign on the right actually looks correct to me, for where it is posted.  The one on the left should be further up, on the next island.

It's a warning sign for a condition that lies ahead. If you swivel around, you see that the street up to this point has a median separation, so the warning applies to that portion of the street ahead where the median disappears. Thus, the sign in the median is correct and the sign on the right is wrong (or hanging upside down).

And I would agree with that, had they been posted on the other side of the intersection, rather than prior to it.  To me, it's the same concept of why speed limits are posted after an intersection, and not before it.  That way, the traffic turning onto the road can also be informed of the speed limit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on July 11, 2015, 02:00:36 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on July 10, 2015, 02:06:43 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 09, 2015, 09:26:22 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on July 09, 2015, 01:43:16 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on July 08, 2015, 11:12:23 PM
I've passed this sign probably hundreds of times. Never noticed the sign on the right is erroneous until today. It was correct in 2012.

https://goo.gl/maps/fyE6N

EDIT: The top bracket which holds the sign to the post probably failed, making the sign upside down. Still erroneous though.

The sign on the right actually looks correct to me, for where it is posted.  The one on the left should be further up, on the next island.

It's a warning sign for a condition that lies ahead. If you swivel around, you see that the street up to this point has a median separation, so the warning applies to that portion of the street ahead where the median disappears. Thus, the sign in the median is correct and the sign on the right is wrong (or hanging upside down).

And I would agree with that, had they been posted on the other side of the intersection, rather than prior to it.  To me, it's the same concept of why speed limits are posted after an intersection, and not before it.  That way, the traffic turning onto the road can also be informed of the speed limit.

Except that warning signs of this nature are supposed to be placed a certain distance ahead of the condition. If you were to put this warning on the opposite side of the intersection, at a sufficient distance where drivers would be able to see it after completing their turn, you'd already be at the convergence point.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on July 13, 2015, 12:11:34 PM
If the divided road becomes undivided just for an intersection and then immediately becomes divided again, I think these signs can be left out entirely.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on July 13, 2015, 02:53:47 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/458/19433209999_a4699f13f8_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vBfhhP)DSC05331 (https://flic.kr/p/vBfhhP) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

Photo taken by me on July 11, 2015, in Boise City, OK. U.S. 385 North at U.S. 287.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on July 13, 2015, 05:55:02 PM
Quote from: okroads on July 13, 2015, 02:53:47 PM
DSC05331 (https://flic.kr/p/vBfhhP) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

Photo taken by me on July 11, 2015, in Boise City, OK. U.S. 385 North at U.S. 287.
can you point out the error(s) to us non-locals?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on July 13, 2015, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: odditude on July 13, 2015, 05:55:02 PM
Quote from: okroads on July 13, 2015, 02:53:47 PM
DSC05331 (https://flic.kr/p/vBfhhP) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

Photo taken by me on July 11, 2015, in Boise City, OK. U.S. 385 North at U.S. 287.
can you point out the error(s) to us non-locals?

Certainly. 287 & 385 are both U.S. highways, and both of them are signed as Oklahoma state highways here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 13, 2015, 07:01:33 PM
Quote from: odditude on July 13, 2015, 05:55:02 PM
Quote from: okroads on July 13, 2015, 02:53:47 PM
DSC05331 (https://flic.kr/p/vBfhhP) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

Photo taken by me on July 11, 2015, in Boise City, OK. U.S. 385 North at U.S. 287.
can you point out the error(s) to us non-locals?

Uh, duh.  Read the caption and compare with the photo.  I'm a non-local and I got it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on July 13, 2015, 09:22:16 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 13, 2015, 07:01:33 PM
Quote from: odditude on July 13, 2015, 05:55:02 PM
Quote from: okroads on July 13, 2015, 02:53:47 PM
DSC05331 (https://flic.kr/p/vBfhhP) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

Photo taken by me on July 11, 2015, in Boise City, OK. U.S. 385 North at U.S. 287.
can you point out the error(s) to us non-locals?

Uh, duh.  Read the caption and compare with the photo.  I'm a non-local and I got it.
yep, complete failure to read on my part. sorry 'bout that, carry on.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on July 14, 2015, 01:55:37 AM
Quote from: vtk on July 13, 2015, 12:11:34 PM
If the divided road becomes undivided just for an intersection and then immediately becomes divided again, I think these signs can be left out entirely.

That's not the case here. These signs are warning of a condition that lies beyond the intersection where the divided highway narrows down to a single carriageway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: busman_49 on July 14, 2015, 09:09:03 AM
I-675 south at US 35 east...at least someone realized the goof (it said Dayton, but is supposed to say Xenia)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/440/19496145512_1d2b77b376.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vGNQPS)P1080484 (https://flic.kr/p/vGNQPS) by Ryan busman_49 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/busman_49/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on July 14, 2015, 09:10:49 AM
Quote from: busman_49 on July 14, 2015, 09:09:03 AM
I-675 south at US 35 east...at least someone realized the goof (it said Dayton, but is supposed to say Xenia)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/440/19496145512_1d2b77b376.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vGNQPS)P1080484 (https://flic.kr/p/vGNQPS) by Ryan busman_49 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/busman_49/), on Flickr
Stop making us guess and flat out tell us what the goof is.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on July 14, 2015, 09:39:14 AM
The greenout isn't completely covering everything it's supposed to. Some white sticks out.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: busman_49 on July 14, 2015, 10:57:21 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 14, 2015, 09:10:49 AM
Stop making us guess and flat out tell us what the goof is.

I did...or at least I thought I did...

From the original post:
"I-675 south at US 35 east...at least someone realized the goof (it said Dayton, but is supposed to say Xenia)"

Anyway...
Going from I-675 south, US 35 east was signed for Dayton until someone noticed the mistake and the DOT applied the greenout.  35 WEST will take one to Dayton (apologies if THAT wasn't made clear).  So I guess you could call it a half-assed-fixed mistake.  I surmise that eventually the Xenia wording will be applied.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ekt8750 on July 14, 2015, 12:00:25 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 02, 2015, 06:11:57 PM
Two from Lehigh Valley Airport...one looks a bit older than the other, but mysterious mix-ups just a quarter-mile apart are part of the fun.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.staticflickr.com%2F329%2F19331587101_0d7276fd6a_c.jpg&hash=66e393d1398691c071329247bf74103908f94477)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3826%2F18707014283_840cd3332d_c.jpg&hash=100ed3e582ab714473918f1185767967861da468)

Worst part is we could have been spared that monstrosity if it was signed properly. It's supposed to be PA 987 not US 987. Kinda hard to screw up a keystone.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 14, 2015, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: okroads on July 13, 2015, 02:53:47 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/458/19433209999_a4699f13f8_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vBfhhP)DSC05331 (https://flic.kr/p/vBfhhP) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

Photo taken by me on July 11, 2015, in Boise City, OK. U.S. 385 North at U.S. 287.

To me, that seems like an awful lot of post/support braces just to mount three route marker assemblies.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: signalman on July 14, 2015, 07:01:42 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on July 14, 2015, 12:00:25 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 02, 2015, 06:11:57 PM
Two from Lehigh Valley Airport...one looks a bit older than the other, but mysterious mix-ups just a quarter-mile apart are part of the fun.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.staticflickr.com%2F329%2F19331587101_0d7276fd6a_c.jpg&hash=66e393d1398691c071329247bf74103908f94477)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3826%2F18707014283_840cd3332d_c.jpg&hash=100ed3e582ab714473918f1185767967861da468)

Worst part is we could have been spared that monstrosity if it was signed properly. It's supposed to be PA 987 not US 987. Kinda hard to screw up a keystone.
True.  However, we could have gained an acorn US 22 shield, instead of an erroneous PA 22 shield. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ekt8750 on July 14, 2015, 07:45:12 PM
Quote from: signalman on July 14, 2015, 07:01:42 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on July 14, 2015, 12:00:25 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 02, 2015, 06:11:57 PM
Two from Lehigh Valley Airport...one looks a bit older than the other, but mysterious mix-ups just a quarter-mile apart are part of the fun.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.staticflickr.com%2F329%2F19331587101_0d7276fd6a_c.jpg&hash=66e393d1398691c071329247bf74103908f94477)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3826%2F18707014283_840cd3332d_c.jpg&hash=100ed3e582ab714473918f1185767967861da468)

Worst part is we could have been spared that monstrosity if it was signed properly. It's supposed to be PA 987 not US 987. Kinda hard to screw up a keystone.
True.  However, we could have gained an acorn US 22 shield, instead of an erroneous PA 22 shield.

Touche. Moral of this story is airports tend to screw up stuff like this on their signage. Although I've seen PennDOT screw up state and US highways. Case and point:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.888299,-75.300513,3a,42.9y,158.9h,86.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saZFl5apGoUUtU7qo5xKWHg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DaZFl5apGoUUtU7qo5xKWHg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D86.447937%26pitch%3D0!7i3328!8i1664
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on July 15, 2015, 11:00:01 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on July 14, 2015, 07:45:12 PMAlthough I've seen PennDOT screw up state and US highways. Case and point:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.888299,-75.300513,3a,42.9y,158.9h,86.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saZFl5apGoUUtU7qo5xKWHg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DaZFl5apGoUUtU7qo5xKWHg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D86.447937%26pitch%3D0!7i3328!8i1664
What's sad about that case was that those erroneous PA 13 trailblazer signs (and its companions, not shown) replaced correct US 13 trailblazer signs (all sporting PennDOT's bastardization of Series D font for the numerals) that were only a year or two old.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: doorknob60 on July 15, 2015, 12:45:13 PM
I don't have a picture as this sign has been installed sometime between January and now, but here is a picture of the old sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXJiIFzB.png&hash=7fc8e979cb44703eef93bb27d144803098fbdef0) (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.890029,-123.957205,3a,32.1y,32.59h,81.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKsRPH8R0fjomxoQPWSruOw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

ODOT recently saw the need to replace this assembly. The mileage sign is now mixed case (fine by me). But they replaced the reassurance marker with an OR-101 shield! :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on July 15, 2015, 02:46:34 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 15, 2015, 12:45:13 PM
The mileage sign is now mixed case (fine by me).

I believe that's a requirement now, so I hope you're fine with it :-D

Quote from: doorknob60 on July 15, 2015, 12:45:13 PM
But they replaced the reassurance marker with an OR-101 shield!

It does seem like Oregon makes this mistake more than Washington. I'd love to see an OR-101 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on July 15, 2015, 07:05:41 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 15, 2015, 02:46:34 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 15, 2015, 12:45:13 PM
The mileage sign is now mixed case (fine by me).

I believe that's a requirement now, so I hope you're fine with it :-D

I actually prefer mixed case signs of this nature. They look "neater" in my mind anyway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on July 22, 2015, 09:17:21 PM
Apparently New York decided to downgrade US 62 to NY 62: http://binged.it/1LvoXwS

It's a fairly new installation, too, thus it's not present in StreetView (hence the Bing StreetSide link).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 22, 2015, 09:41:17 PM
A while back I remember seeing a news article because they new signs on the Robert Moses Causeway had misspelled Jones Beach as "Jonse Beach" Im pretty sure they patched it over already.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on July 26, 2015, 02:59:21 PM
Someone at VDOT doesn't seem to know the difference between a US Highway shield and a Virginia primary route shield. These are both just east of Gainesville on US-29, seen yesterday and today as indicated by the dashcam time-stamp. (The state shields in the first photo are particularly ugly, too.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FVA-29%2520SB_zps9setvs5r.png&hash=5a8200781b5042968684cac7f4ad0e024eab38b9)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FVA-29%2520NB_zpsqlobmvax.png&hash=3ae09cc65a7b865144576b62eaf304194ca3b85f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 26, 2015, 04:17:09 PM
Found this on Facebook:
(https://scontent-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11168518_10204806251971997_1826703654136569608_n.jpg?oh=690a9680148456058266e0a0aa041927&oe=5616B69A)
It's located in Tuscumbia, AL
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on July 26, 2015, 07:17:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2015, 02:59:21 PM
Someone at VDOT doesn't seem to know the difference between a US Highway shield and a Virginia primary route shield. These are both just east of Gainesville on US-29, seen yesterday and today as indicated by the dashcam time-stamp. (The state shields in the first photo are particularly ugly, too.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FVA-29%2520SB_zps9setvs5r.png&hash=5a8200781b5042968684cac7f4ad0e024eab38b9)

Not to mention the right lane clearly goes to I-66 west, not east.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on July 26, 2015, 07:27:56 PM
I noted that too. I think it is intended to refer to the two thru lanes, but it's poorly worded.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FLRoads on July 26, 2015, 08:18:00 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 26, 2015, 04:17:09 PM
Found this on Facebook:
(https://scontent-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11168518_10204806251971997_1826703654136569608_n.jpg?oh=690a9680148456058266e0a0aa041927&oe=5616B69A)
It's located in Tuscumbia, AL

Wow, that's still there? I photographed that back in December 2009:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AL/AL20090201i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FreewayDan on July 27, 2015, 07:02:19 AM
It appears that Interstate 95 has been extended west to Yuma, AZ:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.698488,-114.603097,3a,65.8y,192.16h,90.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTIjvyNADYRFxwg5Uk3UumA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on July 27, 2015, 11:49:06 AM
Quote from: FreewayDan on July 27, 2015, 07:02:19 AM
It appears that Interstate 95 has been extended west to Yuma, AZ:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.698488,-114.603097,3a,65.8y,192.16h,90.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTIjvyNADYRFxwg5Uk3UumA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Interesting in comparing old and new street view that it appears that older signage had it right, and it was replaced with the error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 27, 2015, 04:40:31 PM
So, apparently an END US 11 shield got posted near the intersection in Bristol, VA where US 11 splits into US 11E & US 11W...

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.603208,-82.190787,3a,75y,289.37h,89.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siRjNvkcXDA-Cq7BTcyEO3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 27, 2015, 09:58:00 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 27, 2015, 04:40:31 PM
So, apparently an END US 11 shield got posted near the intersection in Bristol, VA where US 11 splits into US 11E & US 11W...

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.603208,-82.190787,3a,75y,289.37h,89.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siRjNvkcXDA-Cq7BTcyEO3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Not necessarily erroneous, because US 11 does end there -- at lest in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on July 28, 2015, 05:47:25 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/386/19908551870_45e6446e46_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wkfwSj)IMG_20150728_083703315 (https://flic.kr/p/wkfwSj) by iBallasticwolf2 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133197723@N05/), on Flickr

Found this one on Central Parkway. Apparently US 127 and US 27 have been decommisioned and became state routes and US 52 mysteriously disappeared! Sarcasm Intended.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on July 29, 2015, 04:06:34 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 28, 2015, 05:47:25 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/386/19908551870_45e6446e46_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wkfwSj)IMG_20150728_083703315 (https://flic.kr/p/wkfwSj) by iBallasticwolf2 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133197723@N05/), on Flickr

Found this one on Central Parkway. Apparently US 127 and US 27 have been decommisioned and became state routes and US 52 mysteriously disappeared! Sarcasm Intended.
Gosh, that image is sooo blurry. Did you take it out of a moving car?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on July 29, 2015, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 29, 2015, 04:06:34 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 28, 2015, 05:47:25 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/386/19908551870_45e6446e46_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wkfwSj)IMG_20150728_083703315 (https://flic.kr/p/wkfwSj) by iBallasticwolf2 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133197723@N05/), on Flickr

Found this one on Central Parkway. Apparently US 127 and US 27 have been decommisioned and became state routes and US 52 mysteriously disappeared! Sarcasm Intended.
Gosh, that image is sooo blurry. Did you take it out of a moving car?
Yep

XT830C

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on July 29, 2015, 09:26:24 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 29, 2015, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 29, 2015, 04:06:34 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 28, 2015, 05:47:25 PM
Gosh, that image is sooo blurry. Did you take it out of a moving car?
Yep

If you can figure out how to tell your camera to use a super-fast shutter speed, like 1/500s or faster, you'll get much clearer pics from a moving vehicle (as long as there's plenty of light).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on July 29, 2015, 09:31:35 AM
Quote from: vtk on July 29, 2015, 09:26:24 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 29, 2015, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 29, 2015, 04:06:34 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 28, 2015, 05:47:25 PM
Gosh, that image is sooo blurry. Did you take it out of a moving car?
Yep

If you can figure out how to tell your camera to use a super-fast shutter speed, like 1/500s or faster, you'll get much clearer pics from a moving vehicle (as long as there's plenty of light).

I use my Moto E's crappy camera that I barely know how to use besides the crappy zooming and pressing the screen to take a picture.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: doorknob60 on July 30, 2015, 12:09:06 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 15, 2015, 12:45:13 PM
I don't have a picture as this sign has been installed sometime between January and now, but here is a picture of the old sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXJiIFzB.png&hash=7fc8e979cb44703eef93bb27d144803098fbdef0) (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.890029,-123.957205,3a,32.1y,32.59h,81.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKsRPH8R0fjomxoQPWSruOw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

ODOT recently saw the need to replace this assembly. The mileage sign is now mixed case (fine by me). But they replaced the reassurance marker with an OR-101 shield! :ded:

Just an update on this one (an edit would be buried), I emailed ODOT about a week ago about this issue, and today they left me a message that they replaced the sign. I won't be able to see it for myself anytime soon, but looks like the problem is solved. (Though it would have been nice to get a picture of the mistake first haha).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JMoses24 on August 01, 2015, 03:00:10 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 28, 2015, 05:47:25 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/386/19908551870_45e6446e46_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wkfwSj)IMG_20150728_083703315 (https://flic.kr/p/wkfwSj) by iBallasticwolf2 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133197723@N05/), on Flickr

Found this one on Central Parkway. Apparently US 127 and US 27 have been decommisioned and became state routes and US 52 mysteriously disappeared! Sarcasm Intended.

If I had seen this earlier, I might have looked for it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on August 01, 2015, 02:09:41 PM
US 431 North actually goes straight here.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/358/20178099526_457e745900.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wK52ZG)Bus. US 431/US 431 (https://flic.kr/p/wK52ZG) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on August 02, 2015, 10:57:16 AM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/556/20188109476_f8bfab1c54_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wKXkB3)IN 66 (https://flic.kr/p/wKXkB3)iBallasticwolf2 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133197723@N05/)
There's another one of these on I-69 north I think.
The font looks like something out of the 30s but the shield is square.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TravelingBethelite on August 04, 2015, 01:03:51 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFyadPzi.jpg&hash=ce9ffc4d2c8ecbe50be2aecba8ea3e1b5b00c7c9)                     This and a couple assemblies just like it have been up here in Bethel for roughly 6-8 years.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Tom958 on August 04, 2015, 03:29:25 PM
You may remember this from a few months ago, with the two lanes of I-285 seemingly directed onto Chamblee Tucker Road:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FX3WRTae.jpg%3F1&hash=0101e67ef7886394a874e549bc5b7d02f3367159)


Now it has a brother downstream, which I saw for the first time yesterday, and which I'd driven past by the time I realized how epic the fail I'd just witnessed was.  :wow: Today, it's my gift to all of you:   :clap:

Spoiler below...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcSSLBvb.jpg&hash=35c8b76bf729698391d491c0671ffee3d0ceccfa)


The split arrow is over the fifth lane on the new sign. The fourth lane is the one that splits, as shown correctly on the previous sign.   :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Stratuscaster on August 06, 2015, 07:57:50 AM
All it took was a wider sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on August 06, 2015, 12:11:15 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/MTl44

Other than the bad layout of the signs, the left sign doesn't go to 216.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on August 06, 2015, 01:13:02 PM
^ Alberta's signage is such a hodgepodge sometimes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 06, 2015, 08:30:12 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on August 06, 2015, 01:13:02 PM
^ Alberta's signage is such a hodgepodge sometimes.

The Prairies seem to have a lot of shit signage. BC ain't great either, but I saw a lot of crap in Alberta last I was there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on August 06, 2015, 08:58:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 06, 2015, 08:30:12 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on August 06, 2015, 01:13:02 PM
^ Alberta's signage is such a hodgepodge sometimes.

The Prairies seem to have a lot of shit signage. BC ain't great either, but I saw a lot of crap in Alberta last I was there.

What about this?

Advance signage is fine:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2FDSC02595_zps0dtmjvkw.jpg&hash=b29029581e11ada57d9a9f8268278c4128d39926)

Pardon the blurriness, this sign indicates that the exit towards Harvie Heights is 1 km away. That's fine for the average motorist and the signgeek alike.

But, 1 km away, you see this sign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2FDSC02597_zps6lgi8hzt.jpg&hash=e09e079e0eaf4b3a43370a3b5ee9f277ad03a25c)

Let me explain. This sign is for the same exit, near the gore point, but it says "1 km" on the sign. It took me several times to confirm that sign is for that exit, and not for another exit down the road.

What the sign is trying to say is that the town of Harvie Heights is in 1 km, and not the exit from the highway. There should be a standard exit arrow, then a sign off the exit saying the town is 1 km away.

Not necessarily erroneous, but confusing IMO.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 06, 2015, 09:14:16 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 06, 2015, 08:58:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 06, 2015, 08:30:12 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on August 06, 2015, 01:13:02 PM
^ Alberta's signage is such a hodgepodge sometimes.

The Prairies seem to have a lot of shit signage. BC ain't great either, but I saw a lot of crap in Alberta last I was there.

What about this?

Advance signage is fine:
...
Pardon the blurriness, this sign indicates that the exit towards Harvie Heights is 1 km away. That's fine for the average motorist and the signgeek alike.

But, 1 km away, you see this sign:
...
Not necessarily erroneous, but confusing IMO.

Good lord. Exactly my point.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on August 06, 2015, 09:19:13 PM
My last one. I'll be in Alberta until the 10th though, so who knows what I'll find.  :)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2Fq_zpsacypvfta.jpg&hash=fb1d9d2dd1682901c2170ceceb8095fa0f25d6b9)

Minor, but the '1' shield is wrong. Should be a maple leaf TC shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 07, 2015, 01:15:28 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 08, 2015, 03:52:51 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.008907,-81.052273,3a,44.4y,70.53h,95.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sxC2e2qIjzrR-rEow08LTrQ!2e0

Erroneous because at this point I-126 has ended; you are solely on US 76.

Not true.  SCDOT GIS data clearly shows I-126 ending @ Gadsden Street. (See the blue line.)

So does the Columbia map here on this page: http://info.scdot.org/sites/GIS/SitePages/tfresults.aspx?cty=Richland&MapType=Functional (View Sheet 8 for Columbia)

I even have an older copy of that map clearly showing a I-126 on that segment.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on August 07, 2015, 02:50:31 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.681156,-70.254764,3a,66.8y,221.12h,89.51t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2SBzzqDVxqouMkCjaZuuHg!2e0

A relatively new installation, within the past year or so.
The problem here is that US1 was removed from Baxter Blvd in 2007; it now multiplexes with I-295 until Exit 4.
Back up one click (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.681255,-70.254672,3a,66.8y,221.12h,89.51t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sRDPAzdfNdjHag_quIbT_sw!2e0) to see the correct signage that it replaced.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on August 09, 2015, 08:06:46 PM
IL 31 gets a promotion to a US route in Ringwood, IL (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.39196,-88.297325,3a,75y,51.12h,91.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJEiEn6OLmU47Vqp9U9vDKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex4897 on August 12, 2015, 03:41:59 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3Bj7cUnl.jpg&hash=6052abc5783bd1ffad28e3ff66cf421ad4b853a9)

US 192 WB at the exit for World Dr NB.

US 192 has three total lanes and none of them split here.  The right most lane could be considered an option lane, it spits out both of the ramp's two lanes at once.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: intelati49 on August 13, 2015, 09:33:21 AM
Quote from: Alex4897 on August 12, 2015, 03:41:59 PM
http://i.imgur.com/3Bj7cUnl.jpg

US 192 WB at the exit for World Dr NB.

US 192 has three total lanes and none of them split here.  The right most lane could be considered an option lane, it spits out both of the ramp's two lanes at once.

Wow... was this reconfigured from that configuration??? But yeah, that's bad.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex4897 on August 14, 2015, 01:01:05 AM
Quote from: intelati49 on August 13, 2015, 09:33:21 AM
Quote from: Alex4897 on August 12, 2015, 03:41:59 PM
http://i.imgur.com/3Bj7cUnl.jpg

US 192 WB at the exit for World Dr NB.

US 192 has three total lanes and none of them split here.  The right most lane could be considered an option lane, it spits out both of the ramp's two lanes at once.

Wow... was this reconfigured from that configuration??? But yeah, that's bad.

Per HistoricAerials, I think that's the case.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2WqcSVs.png&hash=a7feed6d939eb73411ecebbec8ea4e9c54ef0099)
You can't exactly see the stripes, but you can see two distinct streams of vehicles on US 192 past the split.  This image is from 1999 and the next one is from 2007, so no matter where between those years the widening of US 192 occurred the fact that this sign is still here is all the more surprising.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on August 23, 2015, 06:15:38 PM
Found in a parking lot off of Essex Street in Lodi, NJ near where Essex St and NJ 17 intersect:

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5771/20800037736_f901108759_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/xG2Cyh)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on August 24, 2015, 08:39:14 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2015, 06:15:38 PM
Found in a parking lot off of Essex Street in Lodi, NJ near where Essex St and NJ 17 intersect:

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5771/20800037736_f901108759_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/xG2Cyh)

Are pedestrians expected to be able to cross here? In that case, a proper crossbuck might be appropriate for them, while vehicular traffic needs some end-of-road markers. This may be a case of "right idea, wrong sign"...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 24, 2015, 08:55:44 AM
Quote from: vtk on August 24, 2015, 08:39:14 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2015, 06:15:38 PM
Found in a parking lot off of Essex Street in Lodi, NJ near where Essex St and NJ 17 intersect:

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5771/20800037736_f901108759_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/xG2Cyh)

Are pedestrians expected to be able to cross here? In that case, a proper crossbuck might be appropriate for them, while vehicular traffic needs some end-of-road markers. This may be a case of "right idea, wrong sign"...

I see a fence.  Definitely no pedestrian crossing.  If it was for pedestrians, there would need to be a proper sidewalk thru the tracks. It would need to be handicap accessible.  Most likely there would need to be a gate, flashing lights and bells also...even for a pedestrian crossing.

Similar to a situation I'm familiar with.  Maybe the crossing existed...but it would've been 40 or 50 years ago.  Yet, the sign seems new!

Also...No O tlet.  You've been warned.

https://goo.gl/maps/CYYAS
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JCinSummerfield on August 24, 2015, 01:40:44 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 09, 2015, 08:06:46 PM
IL 31 gets a promotion to a US route in Ringwood, IL (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.39196,-88.297325,3a,75y,51.12h,91.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJEiEn6OLmU47Vqp9U9vDKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en)

Well they only missed by one state!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on August 28, 2015, 11:14:57 PM
Forgive me for not searching through so many pages of this thread to make sure this isn't a repeat.  Taken this month in South Strafford, Vermont:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fvt-nh-20150813-16%2F13%2FDSCF0015-800.jpg&hash=1573a21b6c779815824bcb9d523bfd14aef085e8)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 29, 2015, 12:00:57 AM
Quote from: Jim on August 28, 2015, 11:14:57 PM
Forgive me for not searching through so many pages of this thread to make sure this isn't a repeat.  Taken this month in South Strafford, Vermont:

I wouldn't worry. Repeats happen a lot. But I must ask, what's the error here? I'm probably not getting it due to my unfamiliarity.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on August 29, 2015, 12:01:59 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 29, 2015, 12:00:57 AM
Quote from: Jim on August 28, 2015, 11:14:57 PM
Forgive me for not searching through so many pages of this thread to make sure this isn't a repeat.  Taken this month in South Strafford, Vermont:

I wouldn't worry. Repeats happen a lot. But I must ask, what's the error here? I'm probably not getting it due to my unfamiliarity.

I don't think US 132 exists. Either that or the directional tab is mis-placed (even though I personally prefer it below the shield).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 29, 2015, 12:04:21 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 29, 2015, 12:01:59 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 29, 2015, 12:00:57 AM
Quote from: Jim on August 28, 2015, 11:14:57 PM
Forgive me for not searching through so many pages of this thread to make sure this isn't a repeat.  Taken this month in South Strafford, Vermont:

I wouldn't worry. Repeats happen a lot. But I must ask, what's the error here? I'm probably not getting it due to my unfamiliarity.

I don't think US 132 exists. Either that or the directional tab is mis-placed (even though I personally prefer it below the shield).

Looks like your right. That should have been my first guess but it skipped my mind.

EDIT: I'm not a genius in any respect, but I can't believe it didn't occur to me that a number like 32 being in Vermont makes no sense whatsoever.  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on August 29, 2015, 12:06:24 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 29, 2015, 12:01:59 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 29, 2015, 12:00:57 AM
Quote from: Jim on August 28, 2015, 11:14:57 PM
Forgive me for not searching through so many pages of this thread to make sure this isn't a repeat.  Taken this month in South Strafford, Vermont:

I wouldn't worry. Repeats happen a lot. But I must ask, what's the error here? I'm probably not getting it due to my unfamiliarity.

I don't think US 132 exists. Either that or the directional tab is mis-placed (even though I personally prefer it below the shield).

Should have included more in my post.  This is on Vermont 132 (or whatever the proper name is for the circle-shield routes in Vermont).  There is no US 132 anywhere, and if there was one, it likely wouldn't be in Vermont.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 29, 2015, 12:07:19 AM
Quote from: Jim on August 29, 2015, 12:06:24 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 29, 2015, 12:01:59 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 29, 2015, 12:00:57 AM
Quote from: Jim on August 28, 2015, 11:14:57 PM
Forgive me for not searching through so many pages of this thread to make sure this isn't a repeat.  Taken this month in South Strafford, Vermont:

I wouldn't worry. Repeats happen a lot. But I must ask, what's the error here? I'm probably not getting it due to my unfamiliarity.

I don't think US 132 exists. Either that or the directional tab is mis-placed (even though I personally prefer it below the shield).

Should have included more in my post.  This is on Vermont 132 (or whatever the proper name is for the circle-shield routes in Vermont).  There is no US 132 anywhere, and if there was one, it likely wouldn't be in Vermont.

No worries. I just updated my second post, but yeah, on second thought, having an even number that far north wouldn't make any sense. Lol.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on August 29, 2015, 08:19:20 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 29, 2015, 12:07:19 AM
No worries. I just updated my second post, but yeah, on second thought, having an even number that far north wouldn't make any sense. Lol.

One could say the same about US 44 and US 46, yet there they are.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on August 29, 2015, 09:48:25 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 29, 2015, 12:07:19 AM

No worries. I just updated my second post, but yeah, on second thought, having an even number that far north wouldn't make any sense. Lol.

Or nowhere near its parent or orphaned, looking at you 163, 400, 412, 425.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on August 29, 2015, 09:59:40 AM
Quote from: Big John on August 29, 2015, 09:48:25 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 29, 2015, 12:07:19 AM

No worries. I just updated my second post, but yeah, on second thought, having an even number that far north wouldn't make any sense. Lol.

Or nowhere near its parent or orphaned, looking at you 163, 400, 412, 425.

Also 202 (part of it is near its parent, but part of it is not).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Stratuscaster on August 29, 2015, 02:03:28 PM
Quote from: Big John on August 29, 2015, 09:48:25 AM
Or nowhere near its parent or orphaned, looking at you 163, 400, 412, 425.
Aren't 400/412/425 exceptions - ie; they don't have parents?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FreewayDan on August 29, 2015, 04:27:07 PM
Now since when did U.S. Highway 43 was extended northwest from Columbia, TN, up to Portland, OR:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4994785,-122.6728231,3a,47.6y,10.26h,91.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEzTnlLac_AmvsGhIIE9tYg!2e0!5s20140501T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on August 29, 2015, 05:04:43 PM
Quote from: FreewayDan on August 29, 2015, 04:27:07 PM
Now since when did U.S. Highway 43 was extended northwest from Columbia, TN, up to Portland, OR:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4994785,-122.6728231,3a,47.6y,10.26h,91.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEzTnlLac_AmvsGhIIE9tYg!2e0!5s20140501T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

That sign has been there for quite awhile too. Not to mention the undersized numbers, wrong width, and wrong shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on August 29, 2015, 05:11:39 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 29, 2015, 05:04:43 PM
Quote from: FreewayDan on August 29, 2015, 04:27:07 PM
Now since when did U.S. Highway 43 was extended northwest from Columbia, TN, up to Portland, OR:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4994785,-122.6728231,3a,47.6y,10.26h,91.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEzTnlLac_AmvsGhIIE9tYg!2e0!5s20140501T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

That sign has been there for quite awhile too. Not to mention the undersized numbers, wrong width, and wrong shield.
Critical failure.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on August 29, 2015, 06:05:43 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 29, 2015, 09:59:40 AMAlso 202 (part of it is near its parent, but part of it is not).

Add 220 to that. And depending of your viewpoint, 101 :P.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 29, 2015, 05:04:43 PM
Quote from: FreewayDan on August 29, 2015, 04:27:07 PM
Now since when did U.S. Highway 43 was extended northwest from Columbia, TN, up to Portland, OR:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4994785,-122.6728231,3a,47.6y,10.26h,91.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEzTnlLac_AmvsGhIIE9tYg!2e0!5s20140501T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

That sign has been there for quite awhile too. Not to mention the undersized numbers, wrong width, and wrong shield.

Since no later than July 2011, according to that time machine Street View has.

PS: I was looking at the BGS which has the correct OR 43 shield, and I was thinking there were no errors there... until I saw that standalone shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on August 30, 2015, 12:49:25 AM
NY 32 as US 32 (https://goo.gl/maps/tQjPL).  Maybe US 132 in VT is a spur off of this US 32! :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: webfil on September 06, 2015, 03:22:23 PM
Quote from: flaroads on October 20, 2014, 12:22:14 PM
Vermont 207 and 235 shield assembly mistakenly manufactured as U.S. highways:

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/vt-078_eb_at_vt_207_nb.jpg)

That one struck me as odd too. VT 207 and 235 north of highways 78 and 120 are exclusively signed with pre-95 spec shields (white circle/black square) or US-route shields. (That makes VT-235, let's say, more or less wholly mistakenly signed as US-route).

Franklin county might have lost it when they replaced old markers.

"Hey, we need to replace these old shields. Their numbers have became unreadable.
-What shield?
-Well, you know, the black and white route markers. In Highgate.
-Ok. Like this one? [Shows a US-route marker]
-I don't know... Well... I guess..."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on September 06, 2015, 08:01:25 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/716/21170643996_a1a8c15142_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/yfM5To) (https://flic.kr/p/yfM5To) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133197723@N05/)
OH 127 instead of US 127 in Hamilton, another one of these are a little further north on the road.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 07, 2015, 10:15:24 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Orlando,+FL/@28.536275,-81.378613,3a,66.8y,178.42h,99.22t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2KCCIH_86BB2Dmk07DKyBQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e773d8fecdbc77:0xac3b2063ca5bf9e

Look at the FL 408 shields placecards.  The TO and the WEST are switched around and reads wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on September 07, 2015, 10:37:04 PM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on July 22, 2015, 09:17:21 PM
Apparently New York decided to downgrade US 62 to NY 62: http://binged.it/1LvoXwS

It's a fairly new installation, too, thus it's not present in StreetView (hence the Bing StreetSide link).

Found a few more:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0867494,-78.8893658,3a,15y,167.51h,86.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLf_5zwztAnl27d85w2ymCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0928334,-79.0574534,3a,15y,326.87h,89.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM6GSZ17I4PUBrDcu1127ng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (and with a perfectly accurate US 62 shield right next to it  :banghead:)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on September 16, 2015, 08:27:30 PM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on September 07, 2015, 10:37:04 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0928334,-79.0574534,3a,15y,326.87h,89.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM6GSZ17I4PUBrDcu1127ng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (and with a perfectly accurate US 62 shield right next to it  :banghead:)

And in a sign salad to boot,
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 16, 2015, 08:38:53 PM
Proof of a gate after death?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FBxmveQpIIAAX81N.jpg&hash=6ee3ed1de8303b0b5b04937c4eed3342bf56353c)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on September 16, 2015, 11:18:58 PM
Quote from: formulanone on September 16, 2015, 08:38:53 PM
Proof of a gate after death?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FBxmveQpIIAAX81N.jpg&hash=6ee3ed1de8303b0b5b04937c4eed3342bf56353c)
You have to stop until a gate stops existing. Any gate in the world, really.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 21, 2015, 08:21:28 AM
But the gate must first stop existing, then close.  In order to close, the gate must resume existing, as an intermediate step.  But how do we establish that it's the same gate that existed before?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TravelingBethelite on September 21, 2015, 09:04:32 AM
I think your link "is broke".  :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on October 04, 2015, 05:12:08 PM
Double oops.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2290367,-77.3907365,3a,23.2y,337.64h,84.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa74CNAKq_yR5j4Mz3BpheQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is (leading to) VA 36, in addition to using a 3-digit shield in lieu of a 2-digit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 04, 2015, 05:17:38 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 04, 2015, 05:12:08 PM
Double oops.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2290367,-77.3907365,3a,23.2y,337.64h,84.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa74CNAKq_yR5j4Mz3BpheQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is (leading to) VA 36, in addition to using a 3-digit shield in lieu of a 2-digit.

US 36 has existed in Petersburg since I can remember.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 04, 2015, 05:31:28 PM
US 32 exists in Morrisville, PA as well.  Just come off the Trenton Makes Bridge and you will see US 32 signed after coming ashore.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on October 10, 2015, 02:51:42 PM
U.S. 32 also exists in Athens, OH (photo taken by me on 10/4):

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5736/21927226816_895ce7afd4_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/zpCLAL)DSC09092 (https://flic.kr/p/zpCLAL) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JCinSummerfield on October 11, 2015, 09:44:16 AM
I drive through Athens probably 15 times a year, and never noticed that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on October 11, 2015, 03:57:25 PM
It seems Froggie's US route plan is becoming a reality :sombrero:, but then the US 32 shield would be in the place of the US 33 one.

Also, technically US 33's direction should be South. I'll pass this since it actually runs more East-West than North-South for its entire lenght, making an odd number an (a redundantly) odd choice. (Ironically, US 32 would fit better)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on October 11, 2015, 07:46:46 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 11, 2015, 03:57:25 PM
It seems Froggie's US route plan is becoming a reality :sombrero:, but then the US 32 shield would be in the place of the US 33 one.

Also, technically US 33's direction should be South. I'll pass this since it actually runs more East-West than North-South for its entire lenght, making an odd number an (a redundantly) odd choice. (Ironically, US 32 would fit better)

33 is just one of the numerous diagonal US routes in Ohio that are "off" by 90 degrees--33, 35, 42, 68, and sometimes 62 all are posted in directions perpendicular to what their number would suggest in general.  They were all N-WEST/S-EAST or N-EAST/S-WEST routes once, but when Ohio fell in line with other states, these routes wound up getting the "off" directions.  35, for example, changes direction from SOUTH to EAST at the Indiana-Ohio line because Indiana is strict about US routes' directions and Ohio isn't.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on October 11, 2015, 08:41:31 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on October 11, 2015, 07:46:46 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 11, 2015, 03:57:25 PM
It seems Froggie's US route plan is becoming a reality :sombrero:, but then the US 32 shield would be in the place of the US 33 one.

Also, technically US 33's direction should be South. I'll pass this since it actually runs more East-West than North-South for its entire lenght, making an odd number an (a redundantly) odd choice. (Ironically, US 32 would fit better)

33 is just one of the numerous diagonal US routes in Ohio that are "off" by 90 degrees--33, 35, 42, 68, and sometimes 62 all are posted in directions perpendicular to what their number would suggest in general.  They were all N-WEST/S-EAST or N-EAST/S-WEST routes once, but when Ohio fell in line with other states, these routes wound up getting the "off" directions.  35, for example, changes direction from SOUTH to EAST at the Indiana-Ohio line because Indiana is strict about US routes' directions and Ohio isn't.

Almost all signage now has US 62 as east-west. There are two errant shields left between US 40 and I-670. WB isn't even signed on this stretch. Pennsylvania and New York continue to have US 62 as north/south and, in the case of New York, a lot of the NB direction actually tracks west.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on October 11, 2015, 09:33:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 11, 2015, 08:41:31 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on October 11, 2015, 07:46:46 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on October 11, 2015, 03:57:25 PM
It seems Froggie's US route plan is becoming a reality :sombrero:, but then the US 32 shield would be in the place of the US 33 one.

Also, technically US 33's direction should be South. I'll pass this since it actually runs more East-West than North-South for its entire lenght, making an odd number an (a redundantly) odd choice. (Ironically, US 32 would fit better)

33 is just one of the numerous diagonal US routes in Ohio that are "off" by 90 degrees--33, 35, 42, 68, and sometimes 62 all are posted in directions perpendicular to what their number would suggest in general.  They were all N-WEST/S-EAST or N-EAST/S-WEST routes once, but when Ohio fell in line with other states, these routes wound up getting the "off" directions.  35, for example, changes direction from SOUTH to EAST at the Indiana-Ohio line because Indiana is strict about US routes' directions and Ohio isn't.

Almost all signage now has US 62 as east-west. There are two errant shields left between US 40 and I-670. WB isn't even signed on this stretch. Pennsylvania and New York continue to have US 62 as north/south and, in the case of New York, a lot of the NB direction actually tracks west.
North of PA 36/Allegheny National Forest is US 62's direction correct up until NY 60 southeast of Jamestown, New York. From NY 60 up until NY 241 is US 62's direction east/west (20 and a half miles). North of there up until US 62 ends is US 62 north/south.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 11, 2015, 10:08:43 PM
West Virginia and Virginia both sign US 33 as E-W.

What I don't understand is WV signing US 250 as N-S.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 12, 2015, 11:39:33 AM
I found one yesterday on US 192 near Disney.  A misspelled "St Petersburg" with "St Peterburg" on a supplemental sign approaching the I-4 ramps.

I hopefully will photograph it later on today so I can share it with you, or for those of you who live in Central Florida and have time, check it out in person along EB US 192 at I-4 just east of World Drive.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on October 13, 2015, 11:10:56 AM
Quote from: okroads on October 10, 2015, 02:51:42 PM
U.S. 32 also exists in Athens, OH (photo taken by me on 10/4):

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5736/21927226816_895ce7afd4_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/zpCLAL)DSC09092 (https://flic.kr/p/zpCLAL) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

I just drove through there yesterday and I didn't notice. But usually when I drive through this stretch I'm looking to see if they've happened to fix the exit numbers.  Also, a little ways upstream from this photo, there's a 30" independent-mount US 33 pasted over a 36" guide-sign Ohio state route marker (which probably says 33); I usually don't miss that one...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JCinSummerfield on October 13, 2015, 01:18:59 PM
Quote from: vtk on October 13, 2015, 11:10:56 AM
there's a 30" independent-mount US 33 pasted over a 36" guide-sign Ohio state route marker (which probably says 33); I usually don't miss that one…

I noticed that one about 5 years ago, and now I'm always looking at it, too!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 15, 2015, 12:49:59 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Saddle+Brook,+NJ/@40.903278,-74.104956,3a,66.8y,357.36h,96.39t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scPMc2ucYaj_aAsrPhcc7WA!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2fbc15e7bed7f:0x9b090ac7f11dda29
This one here implying that the Garden State Parkway is concurrent with I-80 and runs east with it.  Plus the lack of "TO" signs.

BTW that Disney area misspelled "St Peterburg" got replaced as soon as I posted it here.  Uggh, FDOT acted fast for once.  Anyway, you snooze you lose, or maybe keep that camera at all times or just use my phone's.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 15, 2015, 12:53:02 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Saddle+Brook,+NJ/@40.904856,-74.105379,3a,66.8y,210.57h,84.66t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sraiyHBPbYzKYMy-UIAaoBw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2fbc15e7bed7f:0x9b090ac7f11dda29
It gets even better.  A erroneous arrow for the Garden State Parkway coming the other way on the same road for the same intersection.
:awesomeface:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on October 15, 2015, 02:05:44 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2015, 12:53:02 PM
two pictures
a quick look at the map says neither are erroneous; they're consistent with a great many other signs pointing you towards the turnpike or parkway (which often omit the TO placard).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on October 15, 2015, 09:57:04 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on October 13, 2015, 01:18:59 PM
Quote from: vtk on October 13, 2015, 11:10:56 AM
there's a 30" independent-mount US 33 pasted over a 36" guide-sign Ohio state route marker (which probably says 33); I usually don't miss that one…

I noticed that one about 5 years ago, and now I'm always looking at it, too!

This would be the one:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/741/21941263072_c5804a89de_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/zqSH6b)DSC09087 (https://flic.kr/p/zqSH6b) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on October 15, 2015, 10:03:38 PM
A couple more Ohio sign goofs I've noticed in my travels:

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/743/21896834900_6a893e39d6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/zmX19d)DSC09955 (https://flic.kr/p/zmX19d) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

U.S. 315 is signed just underneath the "TO Interstate 71 South" trailblazer instead of OH 315. Photo taken by me on 10/10/15.

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/615/21477709044_dd3ee55409_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/yHUSCm)DSC00893 (https://flic.kr/p/yHUSCm) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

OH 161 in an oval shield. Photo taken by me on 10/11/15.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on October 15, 2015, 10:05:51 PM
There are some oval shields on SR 161 itself near the intersection, as well. How those ended up in Ohio is beyond me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route17fan on October 16, 2015, 02:30:29 AM
Speaking of misplaced ovals, my hometown of Mount Vernon, OH has an oval 229 - I can not place it (i.e., from which state it belongs) but it definitely does not belong in Ohio.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3936754,-82.4868518,3a,37.5y,161.39h,84.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOni--R4_AREB_JnGnMDvHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

When I think of the treasure trove of signs I grew up with in that little town - like shields with wind holes in them on the square, and ironically, at that intersection cited above but headed westbound at the post office was a TEMPORARY bannered 13, and 18"x18" 586 and 661 shields - aah the good old days..it just makes me want to gag when the newer shields like this 586 shield - in which Ashtabula and northeast Ohio annex part of Lake Erie. I would take the smaller 3-di shields in a 2-di any day of the week compared to the following freak of nature:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3829476,-82.4843737,3a,15y,196.08h,86.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWyQaCxv-KUsk4_3ymv3hBw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I am not a violent man, but I would take a pistol to that (those) shield(s) and put them out of their misery (I know there are more of them). I can not stand those shields.  :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on October 16, 2015, 09:32:05 AM
Quote from: route17fan on October 16, 2015, 02:30:29 AM
Speaking of misplaced ovals, my hometown of Mount Vernon, OH has an oval 229 - I can not place it (i.e., from which state it belongs) but it definitely does not belong in Ohio.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3936754,-82.4868518,3a,37.5y,161.39h,84.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOni--R4_AREB_JnGnMDvHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That looks like New Jersey or Mississippi. Both use the same oval.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 16, 2015, 10:02:55 AM
Quote from: odditude on October 15, 2015, 02:05:44 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2015, 12:53:02 PM
two pictures
a quick look at the map says neither are erroneous; they're consistent with a great many other signs pointing you towards the turnpike or parkway (which often omit the TO placard).
Yes about the Parkway.  I grew up in New Jersey and that is the norm, however that is not my point.  The I-80 signs really should have the TO on them as that is not common for NJ Interstates to not have them.

Also on the jughandle error in the second photo the up and right arrow is wrong.  It should have an arrow similar to the ALL TURNS sign or at least to the direct right.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 16, 2015, 10:18:40 AM
Also I would like to comment on a previous photo that I posted that could count as erroneous that was considered iffy.  The thing I have found here that some may consider something erroneous that the rest do not.  It does not make the one wrong and the other right or vice versa, it is just many of us have different opinions.

To someone this here photo may be erroneous, but to another it is not.
https://flic.kr/p/egKQ8K

The two US 9 signs contradicts each other as one says to use Exit 25 for US 9 South because the Beeslys Point Bridge is Out, but the next sign says use NEXT RIGHT for the same US 9 South.  However, some who know the area will say that US 9 still has a lot of businesses and residents in Somers Point between the next exit and the closed bridge for the sign in the backround to be there.  On the other hand the sign for the closed bridge has been there too long at that the orange sign is now a permanent piece, that would void out the second sign.

Whatever, to those of you who consider it erroneous here it is.  For me personally I say it is because of how non road geeks would see it which is confusion.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: spooky on October 16, 2015, 10:41:21 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2015, 10:18:40 AM
Also I would like to comment on a previous photo that I posted that could count as erroneous that was considered iffy.  The thing I have found here that some may consider something erroneous that the rest do not.  It does not make the one wrong and the other right or vice versa, it is just many of us have different opinions.

To someone this here photo may be erroneous, but to another it is not.
https://flic.kr/p/egKQ8K

The two US 9 signs contradicts each other as one says to use Exit 25 for US 9 South because the Beeslys Point Bridge is Out, but the next sign says use NEXT RIGHT for the same US 9 South.  However, some who know the area will say that US 9 still has a lot of businesses and residents in Somers Point between the next exit and the closed bridge for the sign in the backround to be there.  On the other hand the sign for the closed bridge has been there too long at that the orange sign is now a permanent piece, that would void out the second sign.

Whatever, to those of you who consider it erroneous here it is.  For me personally I say it is because of how non road geeks would see it which is confusion.

If the bridge is out and exit 25 gets you to 9 South, then the sign isn't erroneous.

The two signs are potentially confusing in tandem, but neither is erroneous. The green sign should have either been covered or had an orange "LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY" plaque added, IMHO.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on October 16, 2015, 11:43:20 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 15, 2015, 10:05:51 PM
There are some oval shields on SR 161 itself near the intersection, as well. How those ended up in Ohio is beyond me.

Those were installed when that intersection (SR-161 & US-23) was either rebuilt &/or widened back in the mid-to-late 90s.  The work was probably done by the contractor and not ODOT. 

What's more amazing is that the circle 161 signs are still standing after nearly 20 years! 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on October 16, 2015, 12:07:14 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on October 16, 2015, 11:43:20 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 15, 2015, 10:05:51 PM
There are some oval shields on SR 161 itself near the intersection, as well. How those ended up in Ohio is beyond me.

Those were installed when that intersection (SR-161 & US-23) was either rebuilt &/or widened back in the mid-to-late 90s.  The work was probably done by the contractor and not ODOT. 

What's more amazing is that the circle 161 signs are still standing after nearly 20 years!

That's my point. I first saw them when I moved to the area in 2003 and they were still there when I was driving through 2 months ago, long after I moved back to New York
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route17fan on October 16, 2015, 12:30:11 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 16, 2015, 12:07:14 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on October 16, 2015, 11:43:20 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 15, 2015, 10:05:51 PM
There are some oval shields on SR 161 itself near the intersection, as well. How those ended up in Ohio is beyond me.

Those were installed when that intersection (SR-161 & US-23) was either rebuilt &/or widened back in the mid-to-late 90s.  The work was probably done by the contractor and not ODOT. 

What's more amazing is that the circle 161 signs are still standing after nearly 20 years!

That's my point. I first saw them when I moved to the area in 2003 and they were still there when I was driving through 2 months ago, long after I moved back to New York

Agreed - the 229 shield in Mt Vernon has been there for nearly as long too!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on October 16, 2015, 04:40:59 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on October 16, 2015, 11:43:20 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 15, 2015, 10:05:51 PM
There are some oval shields on SR 161 itself near the intersection, as well. How those ended up in Ohio is beyond me.

Those were installed when that intersection (SR-161 & US-23) was either rebuilt &/or widened back in the mid-to-late 90s.  The work was probably done by the contractor and not ODOT. 

What's more amazing is that the circle 161 signs are still standing after nearly 20 years!

Cities over 10k population in Ohio maintain state highways within their borders. City Of Worthington is likely to blame here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on October 19, 2015, 03:40:27 PM
Here are some that LADOTD erected just last month right by my house. This is at a curve in LA 1063 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6303854,-90.5085742,16z). There is a road that juts southward from the curve. LADOTD is erecting twin 48" cautionary signs at curves like these throughout southeast Louisiana.

Northbound is  bad...

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5809/21444990884_b1df61a2a0.jpg)

... but southbound is even worse, because if you take it literally, you turn off of LA 1063 and onto the side street.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/724/22077802171_14a9ece7d2.jpg)

Ironically, the curve already had proper cautionary signs (minus indication of the side street); you can see (https://goo.gl/maps/J4Re1AoXAAE2) them (https://goo.gl/maps/3eiAhtmBPZJ2) in Street View.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 19, 2015, 08:10:05 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bay+Ridge,+Brooklyn,+NY/@40.605194,-74.029874,3a,66.8y,286.73h,96.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sU55y3SnO0IElA34lRX15nw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2455f3f1cab0d:0xa5a45198ea4d73d6

This one here is iffy at best, but the pull through for the Belt Parkway lists I-278 as the Brooklyn- Queens Expressway when the Belt Parkway officially joins I-278 E Bound where it is the Gowanus Expressway.  The BQE does not begin for another 3 or so miles beyond the end of the Belt Parkway.

Now I say iffy because some of the old Exxon Maps show the Gowanus as being part of the BQE, using the "Brooklyn Queens Expressway" in regular letters, but using the "Gowanus Expressway" in parentheses.  Yet the talk of the traffic reporters always refer to the BQE ending at the Brooklyn- Battery Tunnel and that the Gowanus starts at the Brooklyn tunnel portal and goes to the Verrazano Bridge.  So does some of the people here, as well, as in previous topics it was always mentioned or at most implied as such.

Edit: Here is what Wikipedia has to say about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_278#Brooklyn.E2.80.93Queens_Expressway
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on October 19, 2015, 08:46:02 PM
Well, it DOES eventually lead to the BQE. You just have to use the Gowanus to get there.

My grandparents lived fairly close to Exit 2 (they lived on 91 Street between Ridge Boulevard and 3 Avenue), so I've spent a fair amount of time in that area over the years. I can't say I recall any signs referring to the Gowanus. The pull-thru sign on northbound I-278 prior to the exit for Fort Hamilton Parkway says "Bklyn-Qns Expwy" before you even reach the elevated Gowanus. The sign on the Prospect Expressway said the same thing. (My relatives all refer to the Gowanus, of course, though they're more likely to call it "the fucking Gowanus.")
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on October 20, 2015, 02:26:23 AM
Quote from: jbnv on October 19, 2015, 03:40:27 PM
Here are some that LADOTD erected just last month right by my house. This is at a curve in LA 1063 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6303854,-90.5085742,16z). There is a road that juts southward from the curve. LADOTD is erecting twin 48" cautionary signs at curves like these throughout southeast Louisiana.

Northbound is  bad...

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5809/21444990884_b1df61a2a0.jpg)

... but southbound is even worse, because if you take it literally, you turn off of LA 1063 and onto the side street.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/724/22077802171_14a9ece7d2.jpg)

Ironically, the curve already had proper cautionary signs (minus indication of the side street); you can see (https://goo.gl/maps/J4Re1AoXAAE2) them (https://goo.gl/maps/3eiAhtmBPZJ2) in Street View.

I think the new signs are actually more indicative of the hazard. It's not a tight reverse curve, but rather one tighter curve. Yes there is a slight second curve, but not to the degree of the other that warrants the reverse curve warning.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on October 20, 2015, 06:19:09 PM
Quote from: jbnv on October 19, 2015, 03:40:27 PM
Here are some that LADOTD erected just last month right by my house. This is at a curve in LA 1063 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6303854,-90.5085742,16z). There is a road that juts southward from the curve. LADOTD is erecting twin 48" cautionary signs at curves like these throughout southeast Louisiana.

Northbound is  bad...

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5809/21444990884_b1df61a2a0.jpg)

... but southbound is even worse, because if you take it literally, you turn off of LA 1063 and onto the side street.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/724/22077802171_14a9ece7d2.jpg)

Ironically, the curve already had proper cautionary signs (minus indication of the side street); you can see (https://goo.gl/maps/J4Re1AoXAAE2) them (https://goo.gl/maps/3eiAhtmBPZJ2) in Street View.

So, you're saying they are erroneous because the road does not deflect 90° as implied by the signs?

Technically the choice of the sharp curve sign versus the gentle curve sign is supposed to be dictated by the design speed of the curve, not the angle of deflection.  A long sweeping high-speed curve through more than 100° of deflection would technically call for the gentle curve sign (which shows only about 50° deflection) while an abrupt 20° kink in the road would technically call for the sharp curve sign (which shows a full 90° deflection).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on October 20, 2015, 07:07:34 PM
Quote from: vtk on October 20, 2015, 06:19:09 PM
Quote from: jbnv on October 19, 2015, 03:40:27 PM
Here are some that LADOTD erected just last month right by my house. This is at a curve in LA 1063 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6303854,-90.5085742,16z). There is a road that juts southward from the curve. LADOTD is erecting twin 48" cautionary signs at curves like these throughout southeast Louisiana.

Northbound is  bad...

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5809/21444990884_b1df61a2a0.jpg)

... but southbound is even worse, because if you take it literally, you turn off of LA 1063 and onto the side street.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/724/22077802171_14a9ece7d2.jpg)

Ironically, the curve already had proper cautionary signs (minus indication of the side street); you can see (https://goo.gl/maps/J4Re1AoXAAE2) them (https://goo.gl/maps/3eiAhtmBPZJ2) in Street View.

So, you're saying they are erroneous because the road does not deflect 90° as implied by the signs?

Technically the choice of the sharp curve sign versus the gentle curve sign is supposed to be dictated by the design speed of the curve, not the angle of deflection.  A long sweeping high-speed curve through more than 100° of deflection would technically call for the gentle curve sign (which shows only about 50° deflection) while an abrupt 20° kink in the road would technically call for the sharp curve sign (which shows a full 90° deflection).

Correct. A W1-1 (turn sign) is to be used if an advisory speed is 30 mph or less. The W1-3 (reverse turn) should be used in place of two consecutive W1-1s or a W1-1/W1-2 pair, but it is not required. 135 degrees or more gets the W1-11 (hairpin turn) regardless of advisory speed, while a loop that allows one to cross the original path (as in a cloverleaf) gets the W1-15 (270-degree loop). A W1-1/2/3/4/5 is only required if the advisory speed is more than 5 mph below the speed limit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on October 20, 2015, 08:27:17 PM
Quote from: vtk on October 20, 2015, 06:19:09 PM
Quote from: jbnv on October 19, 2015, 03:40:27 PM
Here are some that LADOTD erected just last month right by my house. This is at a curve in LA 1063 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6303854,-90.5085742,16z). There is a road that juts southward from the curve.

So, you're saying they are erroneous because the road does not deflect 90° as implied by the signs?

No, I'm saying it's erroneous because there are two bends in the deflection, there is a side-street here that is not indicated by the sign, there are existing (https://goo.gl/maps/J4Re1AoXAAE2) signs (https://goo.gl/maps/3eiAhtmBPZJ2) (which are still up, BTW) that more accurately depicted the turn, and if you take the southbound sign literally, you will leave the highway and go onto the side street.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on October 20, 2015, 09:35:08 PM
Quote from: jbnv on October 20, 2015, 08:27:17 PM
Quote from: vtk on October 20, 2015, 06:19:09 PM
Quote from: jbnv on October 19, 2015, 03:40:27 PM
Here are some that LADOTD erected just last month right by my house. This is at a curve in LA 1063 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6303854,-90.5085742,16z). There is a road that juts southward from the curve.

So, you're saying they are erroneous because the road does not deflect 90° as implied by the signs?

No, I'm saying it's erroneous because there are two bends in the deflection, there is a side-street here that is not indicated by the sign, there are existing (https://goo.gl/maps/J4Re1AoXAAE2) signs (https://goo.gl/maps/3eiAhtmBPZJ2) (which are still up, BTW) that more accurately depicted the turn, and if you take the southbound sign literally, you will leave the highway and go onto the side street.

Doesn't make it erroneous. If anything, it's excessive signage. The W1-3s should have been removed when the W1-1s went up. Indication of side streets is not required and, in this case, a W1-10 would have been somewhat-erroneous if you want to be technical as the side street departs outside of the curve. If you want the side street shown on the turn sign, replace the W1-3s (reverse turn) with W1-10ds (reverse curve/turn with side street on one side).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on October 20, 2015, 09:40:09 PM
How does the fact that if you follow the literal direction on a sign, you will leave the highway that you are on and go onto a different street, not make it erroneous?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on October 20, 2015, 09:48:11 PM
Quote from: jbnv on October 20, 2015, 09:40:09 PM
How does the fact that if you follow the literal direction on a sign, you will leave the highway that you are on and go onto a different street, not make it erroneous?

The inflection point of the reverse curve is before the side street and, as I already mentioned, showing a side street is merely a suggestion, not a standard.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 21, 2015, 01:54:35 PM
There are lots of intersections of main roads and side roads in curves that are signed as such, and nobody thinks that if you follow the sign's suggestion you'll turn off the main road.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 26, 2015, 08:40:44 PM
www.google.com/maps/@40.2291072,-74.0086663,3a,75y,72.39h,81.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPYJx9DPK-ZPe0FuDmq9GhQ!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656
This sign is erroneous as it implies that NJ 71 north is the street where the sign is at and not the intersection beyond it.

Some may say its misleading, but still an upward and right arrow would be better to avoid the confusion.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on October 27, 2015, 04:26:59 PM
Quote from: jbnv on October 20, 2015, 09:40:09 PM
How does the fact that if you follow the literal direction on a sign, you will leave the highway that you are on and go onto a different street, not make it erroneous?

That doesn't make the sign erroneous, it makes you and/or the motorist in question unable to tell the difference between a "curve ahead" sign and an "intersection ahead" sign.  (And possibly also the difference between a warning sign and a guide sign.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theline on October 27, 2015, 06:04:03 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 26, 2015, 08:40:44 PM
www.google.com/maps/@40.2291072,-74.0086663,3a,75y,72.39h,81.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPYJx9DPK-ZPe0FuDmq9GhQ!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656
This sign is erroneous as it implies that NJ 71 north is the street where the sign is at and not the intersection beyond it.

Some may say its misleading, but still an upward and right arrow would be better to avoid the confusion.

Agreed. Several spots in downtown South Bend have a similar problem. Here's one: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6777299,-86.2509543,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7gdFP48BWlYzDTZ90BwWyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6777299,-86.2509543,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7gdFP48BWlYzDTZ90BwWyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I'm not sure how many visitors turn left down Woodward Ct., but I suspect many are confused. The real turn is one-half block ahead at Main St. Note that the blue Century Center sign has the proper arrow, but the Business US 31 and SR 933 signs seem to scream "turn now." We also have another error here, in that this is Business US 20, but marked as the mainline. The mistake is made frequently through the city.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on October 27, 2015, 11:15:50 PM
Quote from: theline on October 27, 2015, 06:04:03 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 26, 2015, 08:40:44 PM
www.google.com/maps/@40.2291072,-74.0086663,3a,75y,72.39h,81.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPYJx9DPK-ZPe0FuDmq9GhQ!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656
This sign is erroneous as it implies that NJ 71 north is the street where the sign is at and not the intersection beyond it.

Some may say its misleading, but still an upward and right arrow would be better to avoid the confusion.

Agreed. Several spots in downtown South Bend have a similar problem. Here's one: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6777299,-86.2509543,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7gdFP48BWlYzDTZ90BwWyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6777299,-86.2509543,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7gdFP48BWlYzDTZ90BwWyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I'm not sure how many visitors turn left down Woodward Ct., but I suspect many are confused. The real turn is one-half block ahead at Main St. Note that the blue Century Center sign has the proper arrow, but the Business US 31 and SR 933 signs seem to scream "turn now." We also have another error here, in that this is Business US 20, but marked as the mainline. The mistake is made frequently through the city.

Plus, if you consider that since the NO RIGHT TURN sign amongst that sign salad is placed before and for that immediate intersection, then the 31/933 duplex seems to be indicating to turn there -- even though it is (usually) standard practice in Indiana to place overhead intersection route markers a fair distance ahead of the actual intersection.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theline on October 29, 2015, 07:02:17 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on October 27, 2015, 11:15:50 PM
Quote from: theline on October 27, 2015, 06:04:03 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 26, 2015, 08:40:44 PM
www.google.com/maps/@40.2291072,-74.0086663,3a,75y,72.39h,81.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPYJx9DPK-ZPe0FuDmq9GhQ!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656
This sign is erroneous as it implies that NJ 71 north is the street where the sign is at and not the intersection beyond it.

Some may say its misleading, but still an upward and right arrow would be better to avoid the confusion.

Agreed. Several spots in downtown South Bend have a similar problem. Here's one: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6777299,-86.2509543,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7gdFP48BWlYzDTZ90BwWyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6777299,-86.2509543,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7gdFP48BWlYzDTZ90BwWyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I'm not sure how many visitors turn left down Woodward Ct., but I suspect many are confused. The real turn is one-half block ahead at Main St. Note that the blue Century Center sign has the proper arrow, but the Business US 31 and SR 933 signs seem to scream "turn now." We also have another error here, in that this is Business US 20, but marked as the mainline. The mistake is made frequently through the city.

Plus, if you consider that since the NO RIGHT TURN sign amongst that sign salad is placed before and for that immediate intersection, then the 31/933 duplex seems to be indicating to turn there -- even though it is (usually) standard practice in Indiana to place overhead intersection route markers a fair distance ahead of the actual intersection.

Agreed that Indiana often provides the overhead signs as advance warning, which was clearly the intent here. I just contend that the structure should have been placed closer to Main Street or that they should have used the "L" shaped arrow here. I don't know what the technical name is for an arrow like this:

  <----
         |
         |

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on November 03, 2015, 06:17:22 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 19, 2015, 08:46:02 PM
Well, it DOES eventually lead to the BQE. You just have to use the Gowanus to get there.

My grandparents lived fairly close to Exit 2 (they lived on 91 Street between Ridge Boulevard and 3 Avenue), so I've spent a fair amount of time in that area over the years. I can't say I recall any signs referring to the Gowanus. The pull-thru sign on northbound I-278 prior to the exit for Fort Hamilton Parkway says "Bklyn-Qns Expwy" before you even reach the elevated Gowanus. The sign on the Prospect Expressway said the same thing. (My relatives all refer to the Gowanus, of course, though they're more likely to call it "the fucking Gowanus.")

Technically true, but for all intents and purposes the full road from the Grand Central to the Verrazano Bridge is known by highway signs as the BQE.  The fact that the southern 3 miles is technically a different name is not important.

Similarly, the Shore Parkway, Southern Parkway, Laurelton Parkway, and Cross Island Parkway are separate parkways collectively known as the "Belt System".  Excluding the Cross Island Parkway, the other three segments are now known collectively as the official "Belt Parkway". It is designated an east—west route, and its exit numbering system begins, in standard fashion, at the western terminus of the Shore Parkway, the westernmost parkway in the system. The numbering increases as the parkway proceeds eastward, and continues onto the Cross Island at the eastern terminus of the Belt Parkway. The north—south Cross Island Parkway retains the numbering scheme to its northern terminus.  (Borrowing from wikipedia, but technically all true)

And how many people refer to I-95 thru Manhattan as the Trans-Manhattan Expy?  It's so short, most people refer to it as an extension of the Cross-Bronx or as a lead in to the GWB.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on November 03, 2015, 10:00:51 AM
Coming from someone whose family is from the area, the Cross Island is referred to by name, but the Belt Parkway refers to the other three sections. The Trans-Manhattan Expressway is almost always the Cross Bronx. Similarly, all of I-495 is the LIE, even though it has other official names in Queens. I-678 is typically the Van Wyck for the entire length in Queens, even when it is officially the Whitestone Expressway. The BQE/Gowanus depends on the person.
Title: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 03, 2015, 12:35:51 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 03, 2015, 10:00:51 AM
The Trans-Manhattan Expressway is almost always the Cross Bronx.

The exception I am familiar with is the radio traffic report name, "Under the Apartment Buildings."

For the uninitiated, I'm not joking.  The Manhattan portion of I-95 is almost completely covered by air rights development in the form of the Port Authority George Washington Bridge Bus Station and several residential towers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on November 03, 2015, 11:52:21 PM
I think the point is that many of the official names for these parkways are really not used - so even the BGSs omit the names.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ModernDayWarrior on November 04, 2015, 08:53:51 PM
I spotted a couple of erroneous road signs today in Rolla, Missouri:

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/702/22172653073_4672a2c3b5_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/zMjDgX)008 (https://flic.kr/p/zMjDgX) by ModernDayWarrior (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135525684@N04/), on Flickr

MO-72 duplexes with US-63 through Rolla until it ends at I-44 about a mile north of this spot, except that MO-72 is an east-west route. This is the only sign I saw that signed MO-72 as a northbound route - and didn't see any that signed it southbound, either.

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5786/22780292342_73461d7e91_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/AH1Xg5)010 (https://flic.kr/p/AH1Xg5) by ModernDayWarrior (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135525684@N04/), on Flickr

Same junction. No directional arrows for US-63!

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5691/22171052584_f77fe7dbc7_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/zMbrvj)012 (https://flic.kr/p/zMbrvj) by ModernDayWarrior (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135525684@N04/), on Flickr

Here is MO-72 correctly signed as a westbound route, just past the previous junction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 07, 2015, 02:13:33 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9606286,-89.089909,3a,75y,113.49h,76.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sumfaO4J8z-0v85jlNGDqsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The JCT header is erroneous as the sign is actually on all three routes which concur through Downtown Vandalia, IL.  The caption is looking East on US 40 and IL 185, and South on US 51 before US 51 splits off to head to Sandoval from the other two routes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on November 07, 2015, 02:45:57 PM
^^ I have see this in Illinois before where they use a junction sign when a multiplex ends.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 07, 2015, 02:53:07 PM
Quote from: Big John on November 07, 2015, 02:45:57 PM
^^ I have see this in Illinois before where they use a junction sign when a multiplex ends.
Dodge City, KS as well before US 400 got rerouted to bypass the historic city.  Over the bridge where US 56 & US 283 junction with US 50 Business there was one in the 2001 that I have photographed.  I will have to check GSV to see if its still there or not, but I imagine it still is.

Anyway, it is kind of the wrong header to use.  Maybe our local grammar Nazis need to lecture IDOT and KDOT on these signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on November 07, 2015, 03:29:40 PM
Quote from: Big John on November 07, 2015, 02:45:57 PM
^^ I have see this in Illinois before where they use a junction sign when a multiplex ends.

I've seen it in Louisiana.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 07, 2015, 10:09:13 PM
Yes, this is a fairly common occurrence in Illinois.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theFXexpert on November 08, 2015, 12:29:23 AM
Here is a similarly misused JCT assembly on US 92 in Lakeland:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.0407358,-81.9941641,3a,85y,92h,82.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO9NIjf4c6JNeKkEAJnk6qg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.0407358,-81.9941641,3a,85y,92h,82.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO9NIjf4c6JNeKkEAJnk6qg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Also, qualifies for "Dumb Road Signs" I guess.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on November 12, 2015, 07:34:18 PM
Should be MA129A, not MA129:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.484372,-70.942109,3a,66.8y,213.42h,86.22t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sGIhU7lO5mpuLXxN7YCqJfA!2e0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 12, 2015, 09:58:39 PM
Going through some old photos and I found this.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmillenniumhwy.net%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2-Images%2F238.jpg&hash=94af44bf9189f4eacc9cb77a01b4fa75561637b8)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on November 13, 2015, 12:42:36 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2015, 09:58:39 PM
Going through some old photos and I found this.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmillenniumhwy.net%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2-Images%2F238.jpg&hash=94af44bf9189f4eacc9cb77a01b4fa75561637b8)
Wait. What... Where...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on November 13, 2015, 11:01:32 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2015, 09:58:39 PM
Going through some old photos and I found this.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmillenniumhwy.net%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2-Images%2F238.jpg&hash=94af44bf9189f4eacc9cb77a01b4fa75561637b8)
I'm  a bit confused here. It might be just my general unfamiliarity with the area, but which shield is erroneous? If I had to take a guess though, I'd say either the US 6 or US 250 sheilds.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kurumi on November 13, 2015, 11:28:23 AM
Looks like Afton, VA: https://goo.gl/maps/srRMAsqpRkC2

Very surprising because VA is not known for bad signage :-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on November 13, 2015, 12:01:54 PM
US-6 & US-250 meet in Sandusky, OH.   That ain't no Sandusky!!  :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on November 13, 2015, 01:18:39 PM
Especially since I-64 is nowhere near Sandusky! :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on November 13, 2015, 01:53:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2015, 02:13:33 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9606286,-89.089909,3a,75y,113.49h,76.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sumfaO4J8z-0v85jlNGDqsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The JCT header is erroneous as the sign is actually on all three routes which concur through Downtown Vandalia, IL.  The caption is looking East on US 40 and IL 185, and South on US 51 before US 51 splits off to head to Sandoval from the other two routes.

That's fairly standard for IDOT.

Here's something similar from Gibson City: https://goo.gl/maps/Kmq2hWm9pjQ2
At that point, you're on all three routes (IL-9, 47, and 54).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on November 13, 2015, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2015, 09:58:39 PM
Going through some old photos and I found this.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmillenniumhwy.net%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2-Images%2F238.jpg&hash=94af44bf9189f4eacc9cb77a01b4fa75561637b8)

With US-6 and US-250, it looked like Ohio screwed up in Sandusky.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2015, 02:22:56 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 13, 2015, 01:53:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2015, 02:13:33 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9606286,-89.089909,3a,75y,113.49h,76.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sumfaO4J8z-0v85jlNGDqsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The JCT header is erroneous as the sign is actually on all three routes which concur through Downtown Vandalia, IL.  The caption is looking East on US 40 and IL 185, and South on US 51 before US 51 splits off to head to Sandoval from the other two routes.

That's fairly standard for IDOT.

Here's something similar from Gibson City: https://goo.gl/maps/Kmq2hWm9pjQ2
At that point, you're on all three routes (IL-9, 47, and 54).
Whether standard in Illinois or not, its still erroneous.  The JCT header is for the new roads coming into the mix or crossing the one you are on.

If that is the case lets for say at the Junction of US 6 in US 219 in rural western central PA which is a standard four way intersection have on US 6 in both directions have a sign that reads "JCT US 6 & US 219" or here in Florida at US 98 and US 331 in the Panhandle on all three legs read "JCT US 98 & US 331."

IDOT is wrong for adapting this as having shields with arrows showing the split or even doing what Wyoming does and that is have a large sign reading "Routes divide Ahead" is better than this.  FDOT got rid of theirs that they used in Haines City as its the wrong way to do so.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 13, 2015, 03:16:53 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2015, 09:58:39 PM
Going through some old photos and I found this.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmillenniumhwy.net%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2-Images%2F238.jpg&hash=94af44bf9189f4eacc9cb77a01b4fa75561637b8)

Something is seriously wrong with that I-64 shield, too...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnati27 on November 13, 2015, 03:19:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2015, 09:58:39 PM
Going through some old photos and I found this.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmillenniumhwy.net%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2-Images%2F238.jpg&hash=94af44bf9189f4eacc9cb77a01b4fa75561637b8)

Looks like they've fixed it now, at least on GSV. This is in Virginia, outside of Waynesboro. I know it doesn't look like that at all in Sandusky, OH!
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0379387,-78.8365591,3a,30.4y,306.38h,85.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfbC-3yodc-M_IvZZnh5XEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
:biggrin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 13, 2015, 03:33:29 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 13, 2015, 03:16:53 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2015, 09:58:39 PM
Going through some old photos and I found this.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmillenniumhwy.net%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2-Images%2F238.jpg&hash=94af44bf9189f4eacc9cb77a01b4fa75561637b8)

Something is seriously wrong with that I-64 shield, too...

There's some peeling going on with all of the signs on that assembly. It looks similar to what I've seen when a grass fire got too close to signs with reflective sheeting.

Quote from: kurumi on November 13, 2015, 11:28:23 AM

Very surprising because VA is not known for bad signage :-)

Surely you jest...  :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnati27 on November 13, 2015, 03:54:34 PM
Quote from: kurumi on November 13, 2015, 11:28:23 AM
Looks like Afton, VA: https://goo.gl/maps/srRMAsqpRkC2

Very surprising because VA is not known for bad signage :-)

Oh man, I just realized I had found nearly the exact same map point as this picture. Sorry about the redundancy y'all!   :-/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on November 13, 2015, 06:19:22 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2015, 09:58:39 PM
Going through some old photos and I found this.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmillenniumhwy.net%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_2-Images%2F238.jpg&hash=94af44bf9189f4eacc9cb77a01b4fa75561637b8)

Anyone notice the 'TO' has the 'O' as a lowercase? It looks like it could be Clearview as well, but can't tell.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on November 13, 2015, 08:08:02 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on November 13, 2015, 06:19:22 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2015, 09:58:39 PM
Going through some old photos and I found this.

Anyone notice the 'TO' has the 'O' as a lowercase? It looks like it could be Clearview as well, but can't tell.

I think both characters are caps, but the "T" is just larger per MUTCD rules, which require larger initial caps.

I don't think it's Clearview, but both the "T" and "O" are hard to distinguish by themselves, so I couldn't be sure.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on November 13, 2015, 08:11:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2015, 08:08:02 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on November 13, 2015, 06:19:22 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2015, 09:58:39 PM
Going through some old photos and I found this.

Anyone notice the 'TO' has the 'O' as a lowercase? It looks like it could be Clearview as well, but can't tell.

I think both characters are caps, but the "T" is just larger per MUTCD rules, which require larger initial caps.

I don't think it's Clearview, but both the "T" and "O" are hard to distinguish by themselves, so I couldn't be sure.

Initial caps for 'TO' as well? I thought that was just for cardinal directions (NORTH)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on November 13, 2015, 08:20:46 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on November 13, 2015, 08:11:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2015, 08:08:02 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on November 13, 2015, 06:19:22 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2015, 09:58:39 PM
Going through some old photos and I found this.

Anyone notice the 'TO' has the 'O' as a lowercase? It looks like it could be Clearview as well, but can't tell.

I think both characters are caps, but the "T" is just larger per MUTCD rules, which require larger initial caps.

I don't think it's Clearview, but both the "T" and "O" are hard to distinguish by themselves, so I couldn't be sure.

Initial caps for 'TO' as well? I thought that was just for cardinal directions (NORTH)

Just for cardinal directions: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2d_04_longdesc.htm
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on November 13, 2015, 08:42:02 PM
Quote from: Big John on November 13, 2015, 08:20:46 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on November 13, 2015, 08:11:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2015, 08:08:02 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on November 13, 2015, 06:19:22 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 12, 2015, 09:58:39 PM
Going through some old photos and I found this.

Anyone notice the 'TO' has the 'O' as a lowercase? It looks like it could be Clearview as well, but can't tell.

I think both characters are caps, but the "T" is just larger per MUTCD rules, which require larger initial caps.

I don't think it's Clearview, but both the "T" and "O" are hard to distinguish by themselves, so I couldn't be sure.

Initial caps for 'TO' as well? I thought that was just for cardinal directions (NORTH)

Just for cardinal directions: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2d_04_longdesc.htm

Seems like it would be a common error. I've seen larger T's on many occasions.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 13, 2015, 10:43:56 PM
Virginia really seems to like using the larger "T" in "To" banners.

After seeing the new Street View image someone posted, I tend to believe the fading/peeling on my photo was caused by a fire. Come to think of it, I believe I thought when I passed that area that it looked like there'd been a forest fire or grass fire.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on November 14, 2015, 02:10:51 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on November 13, 2015, 01:18:39 PM
Especially since I-64 is nowhere near Sandusky! :sombrero:

The shield configuration at the REAL US-6/US-250 Junction in Sandusky is far worse:  https://www.google.com/maps/@41.446037,-82.6974736,3a,75y,16.42h,75.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgBm5C3TFnbhRubFpM3d1eg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on November 14, 2015, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 13, 2015, 10:43:56 PM
Virginia really seems to like using the larger "T" in "To" banners.

After seeing the new Street View image someone posted, I tend to believe the fading/peeling on my photo was caused by a fire. Come to think of it, I believe I thought when I passed that area that it looked like there'd been a forest fire or grass fire.

Here is a fuzzy view of what it looked like in 2006 before the fire...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fva-ends%2Fva000%2Fva006_wt_04.jpg&hash=d67c7124f995855be6d0146deab902e2eac5fa74)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 16, 2015, 12:44:21 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/23075607041/in/dateposted-public/

The above one is totally incorrect about the "Racetrack" as the NJ Turnpike does not go there.  In fact to put a VMS for any of the attractions at the Sports Complex via the NJ Turnpike is erroneous. 

I do know that there is a second entrance to the Complex about a quarter mile beyond the NJT, but that is not what the sign says even with the follow up signage ahead.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on November 16, 2015, 01:30:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 16, 2015, 12:44:21 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/23075607041/in/dateposted-public/

The above one is totally incorrect about the "Racetrack" as the NJ Turnpike does not go there.  In fact to put a VMS for any of the attractions at the Sports Complex via the NJ Turnpike is erroneous. 

I do know that there is a second entrance to the Complex about a quarter mile beyond the NJT, but that is not what the sign says even with the follow up signage ahead.
it's not saying to use the Turnpike; it's saying to use that lane. a driver paying attention to the VMSs will not have an issue.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on November 18, 2015, 09:20:52 PM
I noticed a couple of sign goofs from an August trip I took to Kansas:

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/655/21038799052_e79ef2ddec_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/y48kYG)DSC05909 (https://flic.kr/p/y48kYG) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

This is on Interstate 135 & U.S. 81 North not South as signed here.

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/767/20860659300_5f4bac664d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/xMokeE)DSC05917 (https://flic.kr/p/xMokeE) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

This is at the end of the Exit 82 off-ramp from Interstate 135/U.S. 81 North & K-4 East. K-4 is actually to the right and not to the left.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on November 21, 2015, 11:58:21 PM
More of erroneous markings but I've never seen a stop bar with a "STOP" marking at a traffic light until I passed this one today: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4605345,-74.3380201,3a,75y,354.88h,68.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLH4N_4DcC3sFlAuM5CdmkA!2e0!5s20070801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en-US
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on November 22, 2015, 01:36:18 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 21, 2015, 11:58:21 PM
More of erroneous markings but I've never seen a stop bar with a "STOP" marking at a traffic light until I passed this one today: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4605345,-74.3380201,3a,75y,354.88h,68.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLH4N_4DcC3sFlAuM5CdmkA!2e0!5s20070801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en-US

Almost certainly left over from a previous configuration, though I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MarkF on November 22, 2015, 04:16:27 AM
For a construction detour sign, CA 55 was mis-signed as US 55:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2FP1050859a%2520-%2520US55_zpsnvzndztz.jpg&hash=a92365e8aeaa0619f98170ba283fc37523d6b029)
End of the 1st Street exit from southbound I-5 in Santa Ana.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2015, 07:13:32 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2015, 01:36:18 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 21, 2015, 11:58:21 PM
More of erroneous markings but I've never seen a stop bar with a "STOP" marking at a traffic light until I passed this one today: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4605345,-74.3380201,3a,75y,354.88h,68.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLH4N_4DcC3sFlAuM5CdmkA!2e0!5s20070801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en-US

Almost certainly left over from a previous configuration, though I could be wrong.

That STOP marking seems fairly freshly painted, and the traffic light poles and assemblies seem to be fairly old!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: davewiecking on November 22, 2015, 07:42:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2015, 07:13:32 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2015, 01:36:18 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 21, 2015, 11:58:21 PM
More of erroneous markings but I've never seen a stop bar with a "STOP" marking at a traffic light until I passed this one today: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4605345,-74.3380201,3a,75y,354.88h,68.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLH4N_4DcC3sFlAuM5CdmkA!2e0!5s20070801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en-US

Almost certainly left over from a previous configuration, though I could be wrong.

That STOP marking seems fairly freshly painted, and the traffic light poles and assemblies seem to be fairly old!

I have a hard time believing that a STOP bar for a stop sign would be that far back from the intersection-zero visibility to the left. I think it's trying to reinforce that if traffic doesn't stop back far enough, cars (trucks, busses) turning left onto this road will have difficulty fitting through.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on November 22, 2015, 08:16:34 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2015, 07:13:32 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2015, 01:36:18 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 21, 2015, 11:58:21 PM
More of erroneous markings but I've never seen a stop bar with a "STOP" marking at a traffic light until I passed this one today: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4605345,-74.3380201,3a,75y,354.88h,68.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLH4N_4DcC3sFlAuM5CdmkA!2e0!5s20070801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en-US

Almost certainly left over from a previous configuration, though I could be wrong.

That STOP marking seems fairly freshly painted, and the traffic light poles and assemblies seem to be fairly old!
That is from the 2007 view.  Newer photos show the stop bar repainted but the stop text faded as that was not repainted.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on November 22, 2015, 10:41:37 AM
Quote from: Big John on November 22, 2015, 08:16:34 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2015, 07:13:32 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2015, 01:36:18 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 21, 2015, 11:58:21 PM
More of erroneous markings but I've never seen a stop bar with a "STOP" marking at a traffic light until I passed this one today: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4605345,-74.3380201,3a,75y,354.88h,68.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLH4N_4DcC3sFlAuM5CdmkA!2e0!5s20070801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en-US

Almost certainly left over from a previous configuration, though I could be wrong.

That STOP marking seems fairly freshly painted, and the traffic light poles and assemblies seem to be fairly old!
That is from the 2007 view.  Newer photos show the stop bar repainted but the stop text faded as that was not repainted.

The 2013 Streetview does show it faded (didn't want to use it because of the car over it), but it has been replaced recently, at least as of yesterday. I took this poorly-angled photo showing that it's been replaced with a thermoplastic STOP: http://i.imgur.com/wFpji77.jpg

EDIT: And apparently, it was really recently as the July 2015 GSV along Washington Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4608201,-74.3380734,3a,15y,177.62h,80.66t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sf8UY2nMgh_vOAE4LFqUo8Q!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i13312!8i6656) shows the faded marking.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on November 22, 2015, 12:45:26 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 22, 2015, 10:41:37 AM
Quote from: Big John on November 22, 2015, 08:16:34 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2015, 07:13:32 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2015, 01:36:18 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 21, 2015, 11:58:21 PM
More of erroneous markings but I've never seen a stop bar with a "STOP" marking at a traffic light until I passed this one today: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4605345,-74.3380201,3a,75y,354.88h,68.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLH4N_4DcC3sFlAuM5CdmkA!2e0!5s20070801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en-US

Almost certainly left over from a previous configuration, though I could be wrong.

That STOP marking seems fairly freshly painted, and the traffic light poles and assemblies seem to be fairly old!
That is from the 2007 view.  Newer photos show the stop bar repainted but the stop text faded as that was not repainted.

The 2013 Streetview does show it faded (didn't want to use it because of the car over it), but it has been replaced recently, at least as of yesterday. I took this poorly-angled photo showing that it's been replaced with a thermoplastic STOP: http://i.imgur.com/wFpji77.jpg

Interesting. Then, the only thing I can reasonably decide is that Sayreville is misusing the pavement "STOP" markings for stop line markings (by this, I mean they are misinterpreting the point of such markings).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on November 22, 2015, 02:46:52 PM
Fairlawn, Ohio this past week replaced all the signage on its stretch of Market St/OH 18 (including some signs that were only a year old, but they got $$ from ODOT for the project in part, apparently) and perfectly good OH 18 shields were replaced with this:

(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10461476_10105704414040468_8186989392412571600_n.jpg?oh=caa440f1c51c6c32b1154b5b810a2f42&oe=56EDA442)

They appear eastbound and westbound, independent on a post and above other signs as pictured.

In a separate thread (probably Good, Bad, and Ugly) I'll share an interesting piece of awesome that appeared in the past week as part of the project....
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2015, 08:35:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2015, 12:45:26 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 22, 2015, 10:41:37 AM
Quote from: Big John on November 22, 2015, 08:16:34 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2015, 07:13:32 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2015, 01:36:18 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 21, 2015, 11:58:21 PM
More of erroneous markings but I've never seen a stop bar with a "STOP" marking at a traffic light until I passed this one today: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4605345,-74.3380201,3a,75y,354.88h,68.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLH4N_4DcC3sFlAuM5CdmkA!2e0!5s20070801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en-US

Almost certainly left over from a previous configuration, though I could be wrong.

That STOP marking seems fairly freshly painted, and the traffic light poles and assemblies seem to be fairly old!
That is from the 2007 view.  Newer photos show the stop bar repainted but the stop text faded as that was not repainted.

The 2013 Streetview does show it faded (didn't want to use it because of the car over it), but it has been replaced recently, at least as of yesterday. I took this poorly-angled photo showing that it's been replaced with a thermoplastic STOP: http://i.imgur.com/wFpji77.jpg

Interesting. Then, the only thing I can reasonably decide is that Sayreville is misusing the pavement "STOP" markings for stop line markings (by this, I mean they are misinterpreting the point of such markings).

It's a county intersection, so the county would have jurisdiction here.  Although I wouldn't think they would do something like this.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on November 24, 2015, 10:30:11 PM
This error in Tuscumbia, AL still stands:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5677/23290975805_82f8d079df.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Bu9kEn)Spot the Error (https://flic.kr/p/Bu9kEn) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on November 25, 2015, 12:39:37 AM
^^ US 20 does not enter Alabama.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on November 29, 2015, 07:34:45 PM
Not sure if this is genuinely erroneous yet, though I suspect it will be replaced soon. That's clearly a doghouse, unless Sumner (WA) has plans to make this an FYA-doghouse hybrid (as seen in Wisconsin?):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpIA2nyc.jpg&hash=ca3d4f413fd473f62662871a5f41b5a6896ff36f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on December 04, 2015, 02:46:14 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 21, 2015, 11:58:21 PM
More of erroneous markings but I've never seen a stop bar with a "STOP" marking at a traffic light until I passed this one today: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4605345,-74.3380201,3a,75y,354.88h,68.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLH4N_4DcC3sFlAuM5CdmkA!2e0!5s20070801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en-US

Here's another variation of that, except at a much wider intersection. This example is in Renton, Washington, near the Boeing 737 plant. Doubt this was ever a stop-controlled intersection, given how wide it is:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5nSqrWZh.jpg&hash=1e23a509feae6c3e6172324a253b3ba13974677f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 13, 2015, 05:13:18 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5319482,-74.2974203,3a,75y,20.91h,68.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sILD1U5fFW8A33HQZE8GDdQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656  The "Outerbridge" is supposed to be Outerbridge Crossing. 

Yeah, I know its short form on a sign with two other control points, but considering its not its proper name and that NJDOT always gets it right with "Outerbridge Crossing." Here they are merely treating the "bridge" as the type of crossing even though Outerbridge is one word named after a proper person.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5378294,-74.2955881,3a,75y,273.38h,88.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s__ifUIiP0eplvSjGk2HA9g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Same interchange different side, but this ramp actually leads to NJ 184 as it terminates at the Garden State Parkway.  So signing it is an error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 18, 2015, 09:31:38 AM
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5821/23719540802_e09309d3e0_z.jpg)

This one was taken in 08, and any good road geek should know by looking at the sign what is erroneous about it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on December 18, 2015, 10:14:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 18, 2015, 09:31:38 AM
This one was taken in 08, and any good road geek should know by looking at the sign what is erroneous about it.
guess i'm not a "good road geek" then, since i have no knowledge of Michigan. explanation?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on December 18, 2015, 10:39:22 AM
Quote from: odditude on December 18, 2015, 10:14:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 18, 2015, 09:31:38 AM
This one was taken in 08, and any good road geek should know by looking at the sign what is erroneous about it.
guess i'm not a "good road geek" then, since i have no knowledge of Michigan. explanation?

US-27 has been de-commed north of Fort Wayne for years.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TEG24601 on December 18, 2015, 03:27:30 PM
Yea, there were still a few left on I-69 when I left in Dec. 2008.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on December 18, 2015, 03:45:11 PM
That's probably a remnant for US 27 running north of Fort Wayne, not an erroneous sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 18, 2015, 06:14:45 PM
Quote from: odditude on December 18, 2015, 10:14:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 18, 2015, 09:31:38 AM
This one was taken in 08, and any good road geek should know by looking at the sign what is erroneous about it.
guess i'm not a "good road geek" then, since i have no knowledge of Michigan. explanation?
I meant that many of us here do know already of the decommissioning, not to say that we all should know about it.  It is pretty explainable why the sign is erroneous to most.

And to you noel, if a state road agency cannot remember to dispatch a crew to remove old road signs or at least update them after several years its not just remnants anymore!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on December 18, 2015, 08:07:10 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 18, 2015, 06:14:45 PM
Quote from: odditude on December 18, 2015, 10:14:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 18, 2015, 09:31:38 AM
This one was taken in 08, and any good road geek should know by looking at the sign what is erroneous about it.

guess i'm not a "good road geek" then, since i have no knowledge of Michigan. explanation?

I meant that many of us here do know already of the decommissioning, not to say that we all should know about it.  It is pretty explainable why the sign is erroneous to most.

I don't think everyone here knows as much as you think. Some of us specialize in different areas. I, for example, am pretty decent with anything related to traffic control, but I'm absolute shit when it comes to route numbers, where they're placed, etc. (For example, it takes me quite a long time to figure out, off the cuff, where US-27 would be in the US -- it's not that I can't eventually figure it out, but it's not knowledge that I would be able to access immediately, let alone whether or not it still exists in some areas).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 19, 2015, 12:57:44 PM
Do not take it so literal!  I am not grading you like some do on here as there are two users on here, no names, but they expect all users on here to know all state line diagrams in all 50 states and know every word from the Federal MUTCD verbatim.

No I was just being figurative when I said it.   
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on December 19, 2015, 01:15:38 PM
So if a DOT fails to upgrade a sign after seven years, and that's not called a remnant, but they leave up a sign dating to an arrangement over 50 years old, and they never replace it, they call it a remnant? Then what is a remnant?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 19, 2015, 01:56:45 PM
Yeah, I guess I don't consider that "erroneous" since it wasn't an error when the sign was installed.

And honestly I'd pretty much hurt someone to find an old US 61 shield north of the Twin Cities now, of which I believe none remain. :(
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on December 20, 2015, 11:24:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 19, 2015, 12:57:44 PM
Do not take it so literal!  I am not grading you like some do on here as there are two users on here, no names, but they expect all users on here to know all state line diagrams in all 50 states and know every word from the Federal MUTCD verbatim.

No I was just being figurative when I said it.   

If you don't like the way certain users treat others, the answer is not to copy the same behavior and expect us to assume you're joking.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on December 20, 2015, 11:29:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 18, 2015, 08:07:10 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 18, 2015, 06:14:45 PM
Quote from: odditude on December 18, 2015, 10:14:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 18, 2015, 09:31:38 AM
This one was taken in 08, and any good road geek should know by looking at the sign what is erroneous about it.

guess i'm not a "good road geek" then, since i have no knowledge of Michigan. explanation?

I meant that many of us here do know already of the decommissioning, not to say that we all should know about it.  It is pretty explainable why the sign is erroneous to most.

I don't think everyone here knows as much as you think. Some of us specialize in different areas. I, for example, am pretty decent with anything related to traffic control, but I'm absolute shit when it comes to route numbers, where they're placed, etc. (For example, it takes me quite a long time to figure out, off the cuff, where US-27 would be in the US -- it's not that I can't eventually figure it out, but it's not knowledge that I would be able to access immediately, let alone whether or not it still exists in some areas).

Same. I also have a terrible memory, so most of the time I have to refer back to either Google Maps or the Internet to figure out where or what something is. Not all of us can can memorize where each highway used to run in addition to where current ones do. As with everyone else here, we're all different in our capabilities. Generalizations don't help.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on December 20, 2015, 11:33:05 PM
Quote from: Big John on November 25, 2015, 12:39:37 AM
^^ US 20 does not enter Alabama.
Because US 20 is actually a mid-Oregon to SoMass (southern Massachusetts) route. It starts nearby Portland, then starts cutting into southern Idaho, barely hits southwest Montana, mainly in the northwest quadrant of the park area, heads through northwest Wyoming, heads down in the middle part of the state where I think it's tripled with US 26 and 14 (correct me if it doesn't), then shoots east through extreme northern Nebraska/extreme southern South Dakota, then cuts through the middle of Iowa, northern Illinois, northern Indiana, northern Ohio, barely skirts northwest Pennsylvania, cuts through middle New York and into SoMass.

I'd like to think this is AL 20 that the sign in Tuscumbia is misrepresenting. It can't be I-20 because that doesn't go into Alabama either.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 20, 2015, 11:37:02 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on December 20, 2015, 11:33:05 PM
Quote from: Big John on November 25, 2015, 12:39:37 AM
^^ US 20 does not enter Alabama.
I'd like to think this is AL 20 that the sign in Tuscumbia is misrepresenting. It can't be I-20 because that doesn't go into Alabama either.

I-20 enters Alabama, just not northern Alabama in Florence.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on December 20, 2015, 11:47:53 PM
Over by Cuba, York and Livingston, AL as I understand it where the 4/27/11 tornadoes were.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 20, 2015, 11:56:30 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on December 20, 2015, 11:24:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 19, 2015, 12:57:44 PM
Do not take it so literal!  I am not grading you like some do on here as there are two users on here, no names, but they expect all users on here to know all state line diagrams in all 50 states and know every word from the Federal MUTCD verbatim.

No I was just being figurative when I said it.   

If you don't like the way certain users treat others, the answer is not to copy the same behavior and expect us to assume you're joking.
Who says anything about disliking this user?  All I said was originally point out that the picture needed no explanation.  He got all hurt like I was calling him stupid!

Heck Kacie, there are more people on this site more critical than me!  You know who they are, and some of these have no sense of humor at all!  Some if you have bad grammar or say something on social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc) about who you are to your friends and the other user witnesses it there, will always be critical here on this site.

I am not talking about my own experiences either. I have met guys on here outside this site and yes, some start out as good friends during road gatherings, and something happens to make them enemies.  People need to lighten up on here and not take things so hard!  Like one user on here once told another who defended me from one troll, who is nameless, hey if you cannot take snark on here then too bad as that is the fun of this site.

Anyway, I was not trying to be funny either when I said it.  Heck I bet if I explained that photo to people, Alps, NE 2, or some other smartass would say that I was talking too much, as it needed no explanation like one time I was explaining out the streets of Springfield being changed due to I-78.  I did not do it in one sentence as I could have, but I wanted to share my experiences of coming to the conclusion of my discovery.  However one of those said users quoted my long story to prove how smart he is, and then wrote it on how it should have been written.

It is stuff like this is why non road geeks think we are all weird like many of us complain in various posts at times on how mistreated our hobby is by other people as we all fight and argue over stupid crap!  We all have the same love of roads but many of us flame out at each other over the most dumbest stuff!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2015, 12:32:36 AM
When the "No Turns" sign is directly in front of you, you probably have to turn.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F1220151331c.jpg&hash=04b6594475aefca952864fcdcb95c8cc46d95afd) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/1220151331c.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on December 21, 2015, 04:19:46 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 20, 2015, 11:56:30 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on December 20, 2015, 11:24:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 19, 2015, 12:57:44 PM
Do not take it so literal!  I am not grading you like some do on here as there are two users on here, no names, but they expect all users on here to know all state line diagrams in all 50 states and know every word from the Federal MUTCD verbatim.

No I was just being figurative when I said it.   

If you don't like the way certain users treat others, the answer is not to copy the same behavior and expect us to assume you're joking.
Who says anything about disliking this user?  All I said was originally point out that the picture needed no explanation.  He got all hurt like I was calling him stupid!

I don't want to drag this on, so in not going to respond to your other paragraphs, and just try to further explain what I meant.

If you don't think the picture needs any explanation, then fine, don't explain it.  Wouldn't be the first time someone's done that on this thread, and if someone asks, we can politely explain later.

But when you say "any good road geek should know" on a board where we all come to have fun as road geeks and share our knowledge, then that's as good as calling him stupid.

"I am not grading you like some do on here"... that's actually exactly what you did with that sentence.  I'm sorry if we took it too literally, but I really don't see how else we were supposed to take it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 21, 2015, 08:39:43 AM
Oh no, I did not or did not mean to sound like it.  Its okay. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CapeCodder on December 21, 2015, 10:28:05 AM
One by me, it's been like this ever since I was a kid (over 20 years) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.674612,-70.3086437,3a,19.5y,361.7h,82.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swWsXuhEyKoWSrEkUo89wEA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.674612,-70.3086437,3a,19.5y,361.7h,82.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swWsXuhEyKoWSrEkUo89wEA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on December 22, 2015, 09:52:27 AM
US Route 522, with a Keystone...
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/608/23612507090_7bdb0b959c_o.jpg) (http://flic.kr/p/BYygHd)

This should probably have a Florida State Road 818 sign, since that's where I'm facing, and there's no I-95 west.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/776/23798558255_2009d76c6f_o.jpg) (http://flic.kr/p/CfZQeV)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JCinSummerfield on December 23, 2015, 01:32:27 PM
This should probably have a Florida State Road 818 sign, since that's where I'm facing, and there's no I-95 west.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/776/23798558255_2009d76c6f_o.jpg) (http://flic.kr/p/CfZQeV)
[/quote]

Probably should also have a "TO" banner for I-95.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on December 24, 2015, 04:12:22 PM
You know what's extra weird?  Google Street View shows the same error, but with the shields in a different order...
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.063291,-80.1416079,3a,15y,317.58h,85.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBWmmLPYCr2s8CgqeZsK0Lg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 24, 2015, 05:57:09 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on December 20, 2015, 11:33:05 PM
I'd like to think this is AL 20 that the sign in Tuscumbia is misrepresenting. It can't be I-20 because that doesn't go into Alabama either.
It is supposed to be AL 20. Also, I think this is the only sign at this intersection with this error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: dcbjms on December 25, 2015, 06:01:44 PM
A little bit of Australia somehow ended up near a gentlemen's club in Providence, RI.
https://goo.gl/maps/6Pg5pv9nj7m
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 06:38:08 PM
Saw this today. Had to drive out of Clay County Florida to buy beer.. Can't sell alcohol on Jesus' birthday, but seeing this made it worthwhile... I don't get how this happens.. US 17 is all N-S in Florida and I think everywhere it goes, there is no multiplex.. The road is not diagonal
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20151225/2468c6b734e04b62d126f1b702c0a0ec.jpg)


Fixed link
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on December 25, 2015, 06:55:19 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 06:38:08 PM
Saw this today. Had to drive out of Clay County Florida to buy beer.. Can't sell alcohol on Jesus' birthday.

You can't buy alcohol anywhere in Arkansas on Christmas Day

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 07:00:22 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 25, 2015, 06:55:19 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 06:38:08 PM
Saw this today. Had to drive out of Clay County Florida to buy beer.. Can't sell alcohol on Jesus' birthday.

You can't buy alcohol anywhere in Arkansas on Christmas Day
We voted a few years ago to allow Sunday sales like every other day but I guess the Christmas restrictions is a different law
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on December 25, 2015, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 07:00:22 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 25, 2015, 06:55:19 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 06:38:08 PM
Saw this today. Had to drive out of Clay County Florida to buy beer.. Can't sell alcohol on Jesus' birthday.

You can't buy alcohol anywhere in Arkansas on Christmas Day
We voted a few years ago to allow Sunday sales like every other day but I guess the Christmas restrictions is a different law

In New York, you can buy anything that doesn't have to be bought at a liquor store on Christmas, but the bigger issue is finding a place that is open. No restrictions on sale for sales at a restaurant/bar unless it falls on a Sunday. Given that the state has quite the notable non-Christian population, I'm shocked such a law is still on the books.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 10:41:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 25, 2015, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 07:00:22 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 25, 2015, 06:55:19 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 06:38:08 PM
Saw this today. Had to drive out of Clay County Florida to buy beer.. Can't sell alcohol on Jesus' birthday.

You can't buy alcohol anywhere in Arkansas on Christmas Day
We voted a few years ago to allow Sunday sales like every other day but I guess the Christmas restrictions is a different law

In New York, you can buy anything that doesn't have to be bought at a liquor store on Christmas, but the bigger issue is finding a place that is open. No restrictions on sale for sales at a restaurant/bar unless it falls on a Sunday. Given that the state has quite the notable non-Christian population, I'm shocked such a law is still on the books.
New York state was a hot bed of temperance activity.

I always thought it odd that in the bible belt you can buy beer at 7-11 but in NJ you have to got to liquor store
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on December 25, 2015, 10:48:40 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 10:41:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 25, 2015, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 07:00:22 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 25, 2015, 06:55:19 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 06:38:08 PM
Saw this today. Had to drive out of Clay County Florida to buy beer.. Can't sell alcohol on Jesus' birthday.

You can't buy alcohol anywhere in Arkansas on Christmas Day
We voted a few years ago to allow Sunday sales like every other day but I guess the Christmas restrictions is a different law

In New York, you can buy anything that doesn't have to be bought at a liquor store on Christmas, but the bigger issue is finding a place that is open. No restrictions on sale for sales at a restaurant/bar unless it falls on a Sunday. Given that the state has quite the notable non-Christian population, I'm shocked such a law is still on the books.
New York state was a hot bed of temperance activity.

I always thought it odd that in the bible belt you can buy beer at 7-11 but in NJ you have to got to liquor store

A few counties are trying to get rid of the Sunday law. It rose to prominence in Western New York when the Bills played a game in London and the state wouldn't let bars open for the game.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 10:50:23 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 25, 2015, 10:48:40 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 10:41:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 25, 2015, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 07:00:22 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 25, 2015, 06:55:19 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 06:38:08 PM
Saw this today. Had to drive out of Clay County Florida to buy beer.. Can't sell alcohol on Jesus' birthday.

You can't buy alcohol anywhere in Arkansas on Christmas Day
We voted a few years ago to allow Sunday sales like every other day but I guess the Christmas restrictions is a different law

In New York, you can buy anything that doesn't have to be bought at a liquor store on Christmas, but the bigger issue is finding a place that is open. No restrictions on sale for sales at a restaurant/bar unless it falls on a Sunday. Given that the state has quite the notable non-Christian population, I'm shocked such a law is still on the books.
New York state was a hot bed of temperance activity.

I always thought it odd that in the bible belt you can buy beer at 7-11 but in NJ you have to got to liquor store

A few counties are trying to get rid of the Sunday law. It rose to prominence in Western New York when the Bills played a game in London and the state wouldn't let bars open for the game.
Wow even in Jacksonville bible belt paradise bars are open on Sunday like any other day
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on December 25, 2015, 10:53:04 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 10:50:23 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 25, 2015, 10:48:40 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 10:41:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 25, 2015, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 07:00:22 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 25, 2015, 06:55:19 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 06:38:08 PM
Saw this today. Had to drive out of Clay County Florida to buy beer.. Can't sell alcohol on Jesus' birthday.

You can't buy alcohol anywhere in Arkansas on Christmas Day
We voted a few years ago to allow Sunday sales like every other day but I guess the Christmas restrictions is a different law

In New York, you can buy anything that doesn't have to be bought at a liquor store on Christmas, but the bigger issue is finding a place that is open. No restrictions on sale for sales at a restaurant/bar unless it falls on a Sunday. Given that the state has quite the notable non-Christian population, I'm shocked such a law is still on the books.
New York state was a hot bed of temperance activity.

I always thought it odd that in the bible belt you can buy beer at 7-11 but in NJ you have to got to liquor store

A few counties are trying to get rid of the Sunday law. It rose to prominence in Western New York when the Bills played a game in London and the state wouldn't let bars open for the game.
Wow even in Jacksonville bible belt paradise bars are open on Sunday like any other day

Yep. Alcohol can't be served before noon on Sunday. Can sell it for off-site use at 8.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: The Nature Boy on December 25, 2015, 11:56:27 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 10:41:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 25, 2015, 10:18:54 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 07:00:22 PM
Quote from: US71 on December 25, 2015, 06:55:19 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 06:38:08 PM
Saw this today. Had to drive out of Clay County Florida to buy beer.. Can't sell alcohol on Jesus' birthday.

You can't buy alcohol anywhere in Arkansas on Christmas Day
We voted a few years ago to allow Sunday sales like every other day but I guess the Christmas restrictions is a different law

In New York, you can buy anything that doesn't have to be bought at a liquor store on Christmas, but the bigger issue is finding a place that is open. No restrictions on sale for sales at a restaurant/bar unless it falls on a Sunday. Given that the state has quite the notable non-Christian population, I'm shocked such a law is still on the books.
New York state was a hot bed of temperance activity.

I always thought it odd that in the bible belt you can buy beer at 7-11 but in NJ you have to got to liquor store

Not all of the Bible Belt. In the Carolinas and Virginia, you can't.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 26, 2015, 12:52:28 AM
In parts of Alabama, you can't sell alcohol at all, such as Marshall County and Hartselle, though the counties that are dry allow individual cities and towns to decided if they want to become wet, such as Guntersville and Albertville in Marshall County.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: riiga on December 26, 2015, 05:29:56 AM
Here, anything stronger than 3.5 % ABV is restriced to the government-owned stores (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget), which are typically open
Mo-Fr: 10-19
Sa: 10-15
Su: Closed

They're also closed on holidays, this Christmas for example they're closed from the 24th to the 26th + the 27th since it's a Sunday. You have to plan ahead here...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on December 26, 2015, 07:34:56 AM
In Illinois it varies by municipality.  You can buy alcohol at the local gas station, provided that it has a liquor license.  Otherwise, most other places one would typically buy alcohol (grocers, liquor stores) are closed Christmas Day.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2015, 09:43:22 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 25, 2015, 11:56:27 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 10:41:27 PM
I always thought it odd that in the bible belt you can buy beer at 7-11 but in NJ you have to got to liquor store

Not all of the Bible Belt. In the Carolinas and Virginia, you can't.

What the hell are you talking about?  They sell beer in nearly every gas station and liquor store in VA & the Carolinas.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on December 26, 2015, 09:52:14 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2015, 09:43:22 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 25, 2015, 11:56:27 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 10:41:27 PM
I always thought it odd that in the bible belt you can buy beer at 7-11 but in NJ you have to got to liquor store

Not all of the Bible Belt. In the Carolinas and Virginia, you can't.

What the hell are you talking about?  They sell beer in nearly every gas station and liquor store in VA & the Carolinas.

I bought beer in a CVS (which is sort of ironic if you think about it) when I went to Virginia a few months ago. Beer is practically everywhere in Virginia. The only place I didn't see it was at fast food establishments.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2015, 10:06:32 AM
I meant they sell beer in nearly every gas station and convenience store in VA & the Carolinas.  But as Zeffy pointed out, it's very easy to find. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on December 26, 2015, 10:19:07 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 26, 2015, 09:52:14 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2015, 09:43:22 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 25, 2015, 11:56:27 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 25, 2015, 10:41:27 PM
I always thought it odd that in the bible belt you can buy beer at 7-11 but in NJ you have to got to liquor store

Not all of the Bible Belt. In the Carolinas and Virginia, you can't.

What the hell are you talking about?  They sell beer in nearly every gas station and liquor store in VA & the Carolinas.

I bought beer in a CVS (which is sort of ironic if you think about it) when I went to Virginia a few months ago. Beer is practically everywhere in Virginia. The only place I didn't see it was at fast food establishments.
It varies by County and city.. Florida doesn't have many dry counties left
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 26, 2015, 10:58:21 AM
Minnesota has a no Sunday sales law regarding liquor stores (although they did ease it a bit last year allowing Sunday growler sales). The state legislators try and fail every year to change this law; interestingly, the main opposition is no longer based on religious concerns but rather from liquor store owners who are not interested in opening on Sundays but fear a bill allowing Sunday sales would force them to have to be open in order to remain competitive. Which I don't really buy, but their opposition is still strong enough to keep Sunday sales off the books, so what do I know.

You can still buy 3.2 beer in grocery stores and gas stations on Sundays.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2015, 09:45:39 PM
NJ is all home rule by municipality, and can vary from dry to 24 hour sales. One of the few hard and fast statewide rules is liquor can only be sold between 9am & 10pm. 

Unlike what is normally assumed, alcohol can be sold in supermarkets and convenience stores, but any one person or corporation can own 2 liquor licenses, so it's pretty rare liquor will be found within those types of stores. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on December 27, 2015, 01:35:44 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2015, 09:45:39 PM
NJ is all home rule by municipality, and can vary from dry to 24 hour sales. One of the few hard and fast statewide rules is liquor can only be sold between 9am & 10pm. 

Unlike what is normally assumed, alcohol can be sold in supermarkets and convenience stores, but any one person or corporation can own 2 liquor licenses, so it's pretty rare liquor will be found within those types of stores.
Thinking back there was a couple mom and pop grocery stores with liquor sales.  I know liquor licences are limited and at a premium in New Jersey.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on December 27, 2015, 04:46:52 AM
What has to do all this discusion about alcohol with erroneous road signs? :?

Anyway, it shocks me all those regulations on alcohol, coming from a country that apart from the age limit and a ban to sell it on grocery stores after 10 p.m. doesn't have that much.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on December 29, 2015, 03:37:19 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 22, 2015, 09:52:27 AM
This should probably have a Florida State Road 818 sign, since that's where I'm facing, and there's no I-95 west.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/776/23798558255_2009d76c6f_o.jpg) (http://flic.kr/p/CfZQeV)
Quote from: Kacie Jane on December 24, 2015, 04:12:22 PM
You know what's extra weird?  Google Street View shows the same error, but with the shields in a different order...
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.063291,-80.1416079,3a,15y,317.58h,85.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBWmmLPYCr2s8CgqeZsK0Lg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Someone said..."fix that sign!" And so they did.  :-/

I do see a bit more of the "continuing reassurance" signage in Florida, but it's still rather uncommon to find in advance of an intersection. Usually, letting a motorist know that they can find the nearest Interstate highway is more common, but what we have here is a mix-up of both. Why the shields didn't just go up 2x2 is odd, although there's prior signage for I-95, I-595, and US 1 just aft of this photo, so the Interstate sign stands out as extraneous, at least to me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Buck87 on December 30, 2015, 02:45:15 PM
Here's one in Marion, Indiana

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frailroadfan.com%2Fphpbb%2Fdownload%2Ffile.php%3Fid%3D1055%26amp%3Bt%3D1&hash=e38968a427fdd95bd0e722f8fcd68e259cd9bbc6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jovet on December 30, 2015, 05:48:15 PM
Quote from: Buck87 on December 30, 2015, 02:45:15 PM
Here's one in Marion, Indiana
(WarningDiamond:"BLINDING RAILROAD")
That's a great one.  I have to put that into one of my train simulation games.

I mean, I know train headlights can be pretty bright, especially at night, but... sheesh....   :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on December 30, 2015, 09:24:59 PM
Oops.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7723075,-74.0357001,3a,15y,31.85h,87.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sixysSoOJJqr_5yRrG-QfcQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on December 30, 2015, 09:31:32 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 30, 2015, 09:24:59 PM
Oops.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7723075,-74.0357001,3a,15y,31.85h,87.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sixysSoOJJqr_5yRrG-QfcQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on December 31, 2015, 03:28:43 AM
Pretty sure this is an error (Lynnwood, WA). The 405 ends here, for what it's worth, but there's a "BEGIN" plaque anyways, despite the "END" plaque just above the shield. WA-525 begins at this point. If the "BEGIN" plaque was black on white, I could make the case that the 525 shield just fell off, but it's blue.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJgJe6At.png&hash=2f8050a3b5622d02bec0391c4c4babdb492afdda)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on December 31, 2015, 03:29:47 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 30, 2015, 09:31:32 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 30, 2015, 09:24:59 PM
Oops.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7723075,-74.0357001,3a,15y,31.85h,87.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sixysSoOJJqr_5yRrG-QfcQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Breaching off into a slight tangent here: what exactly are you applauding? :confused:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on December 31, 2015, 10:55:37 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 31, 2015, 03:28:43 AM
Pretty sure this is an error (Lynnwood, WA). The 405 ends here, for what it's worth, but there's a "BEGIN" plaque anyways, despite the "END" plaque just above the shield. WA-525 begins at this point. If the "BEGIN" plaque was black on white, I could make the case that the 525 shield just fell off, but it's blue.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJgJe6At.png&hash=2f8050a3b5622d02bec0391c4c4babdb492afdda)

I strongly suspect that even though the BEGIN legend is white-on-blue, the WA-525 shield did fall off.  If you look very closely at the sign support you can see the two mounting points for the shield, one right below BEGIN and the other one almost lost in the buildings in the background.

I've seen enough mix-and-matches with BEGIN, END, TO and JCT auxiliaries to know that their color isn't always indicative of what is or should be mounted below them, MUTCD specs notwithstanding.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on December 31, 2015, 10:56:47 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 31, 2015, 03:29:47 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 30, 2015, 09:31:32 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 30, 2015, 09:24:59 PM
Oops.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7723075,-74.0357001,3a,15y,31.85h,87.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sixysSoOJJqr_5yRrG-QfcQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Breaching off into a slight tangent here: what exactly are you applauding? :confused:
The I-495 shield references the cancelled routing of I-495 through New Jersey. New signs stil seem to reference that I-495 still enters New Jersey.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on December 31, 2015, 11:04:24 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on December 31, 2015, 10:55:37 AM
I strongly suspect that even though the BEGIN legend is white-on-blue, the WA-525 shield did fall off.  If you look very closely at the sign support you can see the two mounting points for the shield, one right below BEGIN and the other one almost lost in the buildings in the background.

I've seen enough mix-and-matches with BEGIN, END, TO and JCT auxiliaries to know that their color isn't always indicative of what is or should be mounted below them, MUTCD specs notwithstanding.

Definitely was a Washington 525 shield, as the old assembly included it as well:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages405%2Fi-405_wa_nt_07.jpg&hash=f1eee623998848c00ae41cfb2844b3949c182349)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Tom958 on January 03, 2016, 11:45:01 PM
Last summer I posted here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=204.msg2083853#msg2083853) about two new APL signs on I-285. I emailed Georgia DOT and they replied that they'd have their contractor fix the problems. I don't go that way often anymore, but today my wife and I took a Sunday drive, and... yep, they fixed it alright.  :banghead:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fbyx7HAt.jpg%3F1&hash=2a5a80c8227ba3f274e5e26e6db853155932620b)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 12:04:01 AM
Quote from: Tom958 on January 03, 2016, 11:45:01 PM
Last summer I posted here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=204.msg2083853#msg2083853) about two new APL signs on I-285. I emailed Georgia DOT and they replied that they'd have their contractor fix the problems. I don't go that way often anymore, but today my wife and I took a Sunday drive, and... yep, they fixed it alright.  :banghead:

They fixed one thing and broke another. Why the fuck did they add an up arrow for the 85?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on January 04, 2016, 10:21:23 AM
My goodness...   :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on January 04, 2016, 02:59:48 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on January 03, 2016, 11:45:01 PMLast summer I posted here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=204.msg2083853#msg2083853) about two new APL signs on I-285. I emailed Georgia DOT and they replied that they'd have their contractor fix the problems. I don't go that way often anymore, but today my wife and I took a Sunday drive, and... yep, they fixed it alright.  :banghead:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fbyx7HAt.jpg%3F1&hash=2a5a80c8227ba3f274e5e26e6db853155932620b)

The sign was originally fabricated exactly as shown in the construction plans (Georgia DOT PI number M004201, sheet 89).  This is actually a fine demonstration of what a bed of Procrustes the OAPL diagrammatic concept can be, since correct display of the lane configuration (three lanes remaining on I-285) would entail fitting a very wide legend ("Chamblee-Tucker Rd" with 20 in caps, broken up across two lines at the hyphen) in a space barely one 12 ft lane wide.  It is simply too large to fit when rendered in Series E Modified--I think it would have to be shrunk down to Series D or even Series C width to fit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on January 04, 2016, 05:20:26 PM
I certainly hope it's a "greenout in process"...otherwise, what the heck were they thinking?

We're in "Worst of Signs" territory here, as this just adds more potential chaos to the daily roller derby events on I-285.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on January 04, 2016, 08:19:31 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 04, 2016, 02:59:48 PMThis is actually a fine demonstration of what a bed of Procrustes the OAPL diagrammatic concept can be, since correct display of the lane configuration (three lanes remaining on I-285) would entail fitting a very wide legend ("Chamblee-Tucker Rd" with 20 in caps, broken up across two lines at the hyphen) in a space barely one 12 ft lane wide.  It is simply too large to fit when rendered in Series E Modified--I think it would have to be shrunk down to Series D or even Series C width to fit.

When Georgia returned to E(M), it really should have been accompanied by a reduction in the text size. Using 15" 16" destination text like everyone else would avoid this problem:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2F2016%2Fsigns%2Fgeorgia-text-size.png&hash=a25bc32551f31be004e85e8036ed8d900a90e817)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on January 04, 2016, 08:33:26 PM
Actually, I think the standard is 16 inch uppercase and 12 inch lowercase. I mean it's close enough.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on January 04, 2016, 08:51:17 PM
You're right, it is 16. Updated accordingly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Tom958 on January 04, 2016, 11:44:24 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 04, 2016, 02:59:48 PMThe sign was originally fabricated exactly as shown in the construction plans (Georgia DOT PI number M004201, sheet 89).

:banghead: :pan: :no: :clap:

QuoteThis is actually a fine demonstration of what a bed of Procrustes the OAPL diagrammatic concept can be, since correct display of the lane configuration (three lanes remaining on I-285) would entail fitting a very wide legend ("Chamblee-Tucker Rd" with 20 in caps, broken up across two lines at the hyphen) in a space barely one 12 ft lane wide.  It is simply too large to fit when rendered in Series E Modified--I think it would have to be shrunk down to Series D or even Series C width to fit.

Or, redo the MUTCD. Really, if it was "Chamblee Road," we'd have the same problem. After some discussion, IMO riiga got it very close to right (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9539.msg2055656#msg2055656). Doing away with arrows over lanes that don't need them would be better and cheaper:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24401393/Skyltar/Am10-03.png)



Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 05, 2016, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: Tom958 on January 04, 2016, 11:44:24 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 04, 2016, 02:59:48 PMThe sign was originally fabricated exactly as shown in the construction plans (Georgia DOT PI number M004201, sheet 89).

:banghead: :pan: :no: :clap:

QuoteThis is actually a fine demonstration of what a bed of Procrustes the OAPL diagrammatic concept can be, since correct display of the lane configuration (three lanes remaining on I-285) would entail fitting a very wide legend ("Chamblee-Tucker Rd" with 20 in caps, broken up across two lines at the hyphen) in a space barely one 12 ft lane wide.  It is simply too large to fit when rendered in Series E Modified--I think it would have to be shrunk down to Series D or even Series C width to fit.

Or, redo the MUTCD. Really, if it was "Chamblee Road," we'd have the same problem. After some discussion, IMO riiga got it very close to right (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9539.msg2055656#msg2055656). Doing away with arrows over lanes that don't need them would be better and cheaper:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24401393/Skyltar/Am10-03.png)

I don't think you need to redo the MUTCD in what is really a rare issue, and a state-created issue at that.  If they used a smaller, tighter font, the sign would be fine.    As in these examples, the 'West' is much too tight next to Chattanooga.  And the road name is unusually long.

Signage in general is fairly cheap.  A large APL sign probably runs about $20,000 - $25,000.  To put it in perspective, that would pay to repave about 90 feet of highway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Tom958 on January 05, 2016, 08:41:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 05, 2016, 08:49:29 AMI don't think you need to redo the MUTCD in what is really a rare issue, and a state-created issue at that.  If they used a smaller, tighter font, the sign would be fine.    As in these examples, the 'West' is much too tight next to Chattanooga.  And the road name is unusually long.

Signage in general is fairly cheap.  A large APL sign probably runs about $20,000 - $25,000.  To put it in perspective, that would pay to repave about 90 feet of highway.

Well, this particular scheme could use a bit more white space, which, of course, would be green. The real fatal flaw, which I was quite stupid not to notice before posting, is that the main purpose of APL's is to enable clear delineation of an option lane that serves both the mainline and an exit. This lane configuration doesn't do that, and a semi-APL like this needs to have something for the straight ahead arrow to point to.

However...

Georgia is infamous for installing APL's where there is no option lane. So it'd work here-- meaning in this state.  :clap:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 06, 2016, 03:39:20 PM
VA 18 gets an upgrade in Covington...

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7779087,-79.9851987,3a,75y,326.71h,82.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSo71JfIUMsGCwb5vRLbkCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on January 06, 2016, 04:10:52 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 06, 2016, 03:39:20 PM
VA 18 gets an upgrade in Covington...

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7779087,-79.9851987,3a,75y,326.71h,82.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSo71JfIUMsGCwb5vRLbkCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

There's a US 18 shield in the other direction as well.  There have been US 18 shields at this intersection back to at least the mid-90s.

The updated GMSV shows there are still plenty of cutouts in Covington, so that is exciting...

Mike
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TravelingBethelite on January 06, 2016, 05:20:59 PM
NY 17 got a US upgrade (on I-84 west):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Ftsv40bA.jpg&hash=2c95253734cd58af2bc12186970f5904ca7c13a8)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on January 06, 2016, 06:52:19 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 06, 2016, 04:10:52 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 06, 2016, 03:39:20 PM
VA 18 gets an upgrade in Covington...

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7779087,-79.9851987,3a,75y,326.71h,82.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSo71JfIUMsGCwb5vRLbkCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

There's a US 18 shield in the other direction as well.  There have been US 18 shields at this intersection back to at least the mid-90s.

The updated GMSV shows there are still plenty of cutouts in Covington, so that is exciting...

Mike

Oh, yes. I've seen those two US 18 signs in Covington, as well as this set a little south of town.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmillenniumhwy.net%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_1%2F2007_WV_VA_Day_1-Images%2F169.jpg&hash=4529fd65e99e86fa6c8d9c9f43873979edd164a6)

And there were also several cutouts along VA 18 approaching Covington back in 2007.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 06, 2016, 07:33:37 PM
Quote from: Ian on September 09, 2010, 07:57:26 PM
No photos, but I spotted several US 291 (should be PA 291) shields along PA 291 in Chester today.

Yeah these US 291 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8307105,-75.3900304,3a,75y,300.03h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx-7YcxYqDZ5McU-FPwh2ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) shields are at the intersection of PA 291 and Highland Ave (as I saw today).  What is even odder to me is the "TRUCK NORTH I-95" that apparently turns onto PA 291 EB here (on the north side of the intersection). 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on January 07, 2016, 11:13:11 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 06, 2016, 07:33:37 PM
Quote from: Ian on September 09, 2010, 07:57:26 PM
No photos, but I spotted several US 291 (should be PA 291) shields along PA 291 in Chester today.

Yeah these US 291 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8307105,-75.3900304,3a,75y,300.03h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx-7YcxYqDZ5McU-FPwh2ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) shields are at the intersection of PA 291 and Highland Ave (as I saw today).  What is even odder to me is the "TRUCK NORTH I-95" that apparently turns onto PA 291 EB here (on the north side of the intersection). 
Those US 291 shields (and with others along the way) were erected as part of the PA 291 widening project roughly a decade ago.  I believe that some of them were since replaced with proper PA 291 shields (obviously not those two at Highland Ave.). 

I scanned through that GSV and did not see any TRUCK NORTH 95 signage.  Just the TO 95 trailblazers directing 291 traffic onto Highland Ave.  These signs likely predated the existence of the ramp linking 291 to US 322 Westbound (to I-95) from the Commodore Barry Bridge.  The latter's a more logical & convenient access to I-95.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on January 07, 2016, 11:24:10 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 07, 2016, 11:13:11 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 06, 2016, 07:33:37 PM
Quote from: Ian on September 09, 2010, 07:57:26 PM
No photos, but I spotted several US 291 (should be PA 291) shields along PA 291 in Chester today.

Yeah these US 291 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8307105,-75.3900304,3a,75y,300.03h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx-7YcxYqDZ5McU-FPwh2ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) shields are at the intersection of PA 291 and Highland Ave (as I saw today).  What is even odder to me is the "TRUCK NORTH I-95" that apparently turns onto PA 291 EB here (on the north side of the intersection). 
Those US 291 shields (and with others along the way) were erected as part of the PA 291 widening project roughly a decade ago.  I believe that some of them were since replaced with proper PA 291 shields (obviously not those two at Highland Ave.). 

I scanned through that GSV and did not see any TRUCK NORTH 95 signage.  Just the TO 95 trailblazers directing 291 traffic onto Highland Ave.  These signs likely predated the existence of the ramp linking 291 to US 322 Westbound (to I-95) from the Commodore Barry Bridge.  The latter's a more logical & convenient access to I-95.
Some of the shields appear to have the state name at that intersection! :clap:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8306837,-75.3901833,3a,19y,121.89h,91.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-38ZIoTtwQS72cIDhNn0XQ!2e0!5m1!1e1

I think this is what they were talking about in the post, though:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8310462,-75.3903246,3a,36.8y,182.33h,87.64t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1suYiJLCeM2oxotUplG6ic8g!2e0!5m1!1e1
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on January 07, 2016, 05:00:03 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on January 07, 2016, 11:24:10 AMSome of the shields appear to have the state name at that intersection! :clap:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8306837,-75.3901833,3a,19y,121.89h,91.99t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-38ZIoTtwQS72cIDhNn0XQ!2e0!5m1!1e1
Every now and then, a few state-named Interstate shields do get erected in PA.  Not erroneous; just interesting and (dare I say it) retro.

Quote from: freebrickproductions on January 07, 2016, 11:24:10 AM
I think this is what they were talking about in the post, though:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8310462,-75.3903246,3a,36.8y,182.33h,87.64t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1suYiJLCeM2oxotUplG6ic8g!2e0!5m1!1e1
Judging by the size & color of the shield (a darker blue); I have to wonder if such was installed after the new ramp to US 322 West was built.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on January 08, 2016, 10:52:39 AM
Quote from: Tom958 on January 03, 2016, 11:45:01 PM
Last summer I posted here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=204.msg2083853#msg2083853) about two new APL signs on I-285. I emailed Georgia DOT and they replied that they'd have their contractor fix the problems. I don't go that way often anymore, but today my wife and I took a Sunday drive, and... yep, they fixed it alright.  :banghead:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fbyx7HAt.jpg%3F1&hash=2a5a80c8227ba3f274e5e26e6db853155932620b)
Obviously, there are bike lanes on the Interstate. Because RIGHT HOOK.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on January 08, 2016, 07:11:38 PM
Other than the very bad spacing on this sign, it also has multiple errors.

https://goo.gl/maps/kCn7p9nUq292

*It should be '2A' not '2'.
*It's 'De Winton', not 'Dewinton'.
*Contrary to the sign, the mentioned road doesn't even go close to De Winton. Motorists should take the next exit for that.

It should also have the 552 shield, but not having it isn't really an error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bzakharin on January 14, 2016, 02:42:51 PM
The current construction at I-295 / NJ 42 has temporary signs saying "All Lanes Thru" on 295 South approaching Exit 26 where the left lane exits. Also, the construction signs on the Atlantic City Expressway approaching exit 7S (Parkway South) say "Parkway North traffic use right lane". Of course the two right lanes exit for Parkway South.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 15, 2016, 08:10:15 PM
This one with an erroneous I-20 East Shield.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1636/24350055615_a10f5bc0f3_z.jpg)

Should be a BS I-20 shield as I-20 ends here at this particular interchange.  This photo was taken in 04 and according to one  the members of this site that error is still there as of today over 11 years later.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: slorydn1 on January 18, 2016, 06:43:28 PM

I know it was still like that when I went through there August 1 2015, and according to GSV it still was in September 2015. (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2018813,-79.835237,3a,75y,218.87h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm7Cb_ABWj35CqC0PTbR3xQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on January 18, 2016, 07:37:53 PM
It was there in Nov 2015 when I drove by.  It has been there back to at least the 1980s and may go back to the opening of the interchange and the original BGSs...

Mike
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on January 18, 2016, 07:59:57 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 18, 2016, 07:37:53 PM
It was there in Nov 2015 when I drove by.  It has been there back to at least the 1980s and may go back to the opening of the interchange and the original BGSs...

Mike
At least we get to enjoy a 30+ year error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: spooky on January 22, 2016, 09:22:31 AM
My wife pointed this out to me. My apologies if it has been brought up here before.

On I-95/Route 128 approaching the I-93/I-95 interchange in Canton, the 1 mile advance diagrammatic correctly identifies the configuration at Exit 12: The 3 left lanes go to I-93 NB, the 2nd from the right lane is an option lane, and the right lane is I-95 SB only.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2166566,-71.1563859,3a,75y,126.5h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIPdWtA-okAIAqdd1SuKDYA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The 1/2 mile diagrammatic is also correct, and here you can see the exit only lane which is also the accel lane from the Exit 13 on-ramp.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2130689,-71.15003,3a,75y,128.63h,80.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHZ7wGrwUT-pFQw8Av3LFaA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

However, the next set of overhead signs suggest that only the left 3 lanes continue to I-93:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2119555,-71.1480663,3a,75y,120.56h,80.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLf7Gbd3RUhqWIbB4OLLMVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is repeated closer to the exit gore:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2099549,-71.1445099,3a,75y,120.56h,80.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swKdmqj8fvvPFi7FT_THBlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I think the 3 through lanes was correct once upon a time during add-a-lane construction, but is now erroneous.

Side rant: There should only be three through lanes here. The I-95 NB on-ramp has two lanes onto I-93 which drop to one, which then becomes an exit only lane to Rt. 138 SB at Exit 2. All traffic from I-95 NB to I-93 NB has to merge and then shift a lane.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on January 22, 2016, 11:02:59 AM
Quote from: spooky on January 22, 2016, 09:22:31 AMSide rant: There should only be three through lanes here. The I-95 NB on-ramp has two lanes onto I-93 which drop to one, which then becomes an exit only lane to Rt. 138 SB at Exit 2. All traffic from I-95 NB to I-93 NB has to merge and then shift a lane.
It's worth noting that there are plans to reconfigure this interchange into a directional/flyover ramp type.  I'm not 100% sure but such related issues (like the nearby MA 138 interchange) could be addressed in that project as well.

Side bar: all those BGS' are brand new (less than 2 years old).  This new arrangement (with 4-lanes to I-93 North) may be a perfect candidate for *cough-cough* APLs since that 2nd lane from the right is now a shared lane.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 23, 2016, 08:20:12 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6480718,-74.3518543,3a,37.5y,302.95h,90.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4HSVaHhFl_x_nNY5SjX_4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

A forty year error.  Union County Route 509 has not gone this way since bell bottoms were hip.  Welllll...........not that old, but CR 509 has been truncated to NJ 28 in Westfield since the mid 70's or shortly afterwards

What is even more odd is that the other direction on NJ 28 shows the error of CR 509 being routed on West Broad Street as well as a concurrency that no longer takes place.

Also inside the circle nearby signs show that CR 509 also concurs with NJ 28 as well, and one block away on North Avenue it shows it going both ways on East Broad Street.  So its not just one sign but a whole route being signed where it should not be.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theFXexpert on January 27, 2016, 11:02:09 AM
A recently erected assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.5786142,-82.5402382,3a,49y,14.25h,89.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRTCtWlu7ohCdw-vqTZOv6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) incorrectly implies that the ramp for I-275 Northbound is left at this traffic light. The ramp is actually a 1/2 mile farther down.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on January 27, 2016, 10:01:12 PM
Quote from: Hoss6884 on January 27, 2016, 07:01:45 AM
These I-279 shields (http://bit.ly/20seNle) are still in place on the West Busway off-ramp from the Parkway West in Pittsburgh six years after the road became I-376.

Nice catch.
It almost seems overkill to have signs where bus drivers should already know the routes their taking anyway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Walleye2013 on January 28, 2016, 12:51:24 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 14, 2015, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 13, 2015, 10:43:56 PM
Virginia really seems to like using the larger "T" in "To" banners.

After seeing the new Street View image someone posted, I tend to believe the fading/peeling on my photo was caused by a fire. Come to think of it, I believe I thought when I passed that area that it looked like there'd been a forest fire or grass fire.

Here is a fuzzy view of what it looked like in 2006 before the fire...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fva-ends%2Fva000%2Fva006_wt_04.jpg&hash=d67c7124f995855be6d0146deab902e2eac5fa74)

What's that US 6 Shield doing in Virginia???
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnati27 on January 28, 2016, 01:02:13 PM
Oops...
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2500432,-84.5475817,3a,75y,236.27h,82.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdz1yjoiH1vatk6YPTea0cw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Looks like Ohio is trying to take over US 127.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnati27 on January 28, 2016, 01:05:18 PM
This one's a little more subtle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2878675,-84.3043983,3a,26.1y,81.27h,83.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shemB3pK9s-Wu1HdcW76KDw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

US-22 should be signed East, and OH-3 should be North
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 29, 2016, 08:16:16 PM
US 165 has made it to Virginia.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8762672,-76.2107526,3a,15y,231.7h,90.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2S0O_s9yeM4lbstaycnqbg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on January 29, 2016, 10:47:57 PM
On my Martin Luther King, Jr. Weekend trip, I believe the APL on I-81 North right after its western interchange with NY 17 may not be correct.  I think it's on the three-lane section of I-81 before the fourth lane addition from US 11/Front Street.  Unfortunately, I did not get a photo of it.

And...it was late at night, so I might actually be wrong.

Anyone seen it as well?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on February 01, 2016, 12:54:50 PM
S. Outer Line Dr. at Valley Forge Park:

The lower sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0924733,-75.4396353,3a,75y,221.14h,78.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL80vR0UoxLytg2lL8BYp_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is more of an incorrectly located sign than anything else (the road's already 2-way at this point).

A more appropriate (IMHO) location would be here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0928214,-75.4390957,3a,75y,232.27h,70.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWb4KJos2qG-7EdURNO7SVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  Where N. Outer Line Dr. (a one-way street) meets Gulph Rd. & S. Outer Line Dr.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mwb1848 on February 03, 2016, 02:53:44 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 15, 2016, 08:10:15 PM
This one with an erroneous I-20 East Shield.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1636/24350055615_a10f5bc0f3_z.jpg)

Should be a BS I-20 shield as I-20 ends here at this particular interchange.  This photo was taken in 04 and according to one  the members of this site that error is still there as of today over 11 years later.

Personal point of pride: There was a similar issue on I-10 in Fort Stockton, Texas. The pull through was a Business Route shield on that goofy white background TxDOT sometimes uses. Wrote a letter to the district engineer, got a nice note back, and voila!

https://goo.gl/maps/TcHVS1ahbz62

The design's not perfect, but at least it's accurate.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on February 03, 2016, 10:08:01 PM
This is in Kentucky, so...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1028.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy348%2Fhbelkins%2FKY%252068%2520sign_zpsmcsuyt5c.jpg&hash=93fcada36c28405a98124fa28d3f978d0eee1779)[/URL]

(On KY 36 westbound just outside Carlisle.)

And from the state that offers up US 31EX, we now have this, plus two others...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1028.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy348%2Fhbelkins%2FKY%252031EX_zpsxwmseerc.jpg&hash=40b67e5b1b2a7bb1ff52f514dfaa12ce16afbd84)[/URL]

This and the marker at the intersection on westbound KY 44 in Mt. Washington are both "KY 31EX" signs, as is the sign at the intersection going east. The "JCT" assembly eastbound on KY 44 is a US route marker, but the letters are both lowercase -- 31ex instead of 31EX.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on February 04, 2016, 11:27:27 AM
Found this on Google Street View. US 67 gets a downgrade in Barnhart, Texas:
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1278829,-101.1707042,3a,15.2y,163.85h,90.38t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSG-jma5ePGJDyDWzGwD06w!2e0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 10, 2016, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on January 08, 2016, 07:11:38 PM
Other than the very bad spacing on this sign, it also has multiple errors.

https://goo.gl/maps/kCn7p9nUq292

*It should be '2A' not '2'.
*It's 'De Winton', not 'Dewinton'.
*Contrary to the sign, the mentioned road doesn't even go close to De Winton. Motorists should take the next exit for that.

It should also have the 552 shield, but not having it isn't really an error.

That is a shockingly ugly sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 12, 2016, 12:22:32 AM
Here is a photo taken in Stroudsburg, PA facing south, on the road that becomes PA-33 past this junction with PA-611. 
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1720/25093474576_08d0b6e1c7_k.jpg)
Someone's sign shop doesn't know that not all numbered roads have a US shield?

(Edit: fixed broken uRL to image)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on February 12, 2016, 02:19:13 PM
OK, I'm getting something that looks like a Do Not Enter sign without text, or a minus sign in a circle if you prefer, instead of a picture on the above post.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on February 12, 2016, 03:23:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 12, 2016, 02:19:13 PM
OK, I'm getting something that looks like a Do Not Enter sign without text, or a minus sign in a circle if you prefer, instead of a picture on the above post.

Not just you HB. I see the dead link as well.

Your image link is exceptionally long, Paul. You may be linking to a URL that only you have access to.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnati27 on February 12, 2016, 04:00:55 PM
I think I found the erroneous signs on GSV:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@41.00062,-75.2686708,3a,90y,210.5h,99.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq-vCAlBBdoW3wcWQUK9MJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

It looks like US route shields instead of PA state route shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ekt8750 on February 12, 2016, 05:28:16 PM
Quote from: jbnati27 on February 12, 2016, 04:00:55 PM
I think I found the erroneous signs on GSV:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@41.00062,-75.2686708,3a,90y,210.5h,99.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq-vCAlBBdoW3wcWQUK9MJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

It looks like US route shields instead of PA state route shields.

Or they could just be old. 611 used to be a US route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on February 12, 2016, 05:33:41 PM
^^ Also has a US 33 shield, which does not enter PA.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 12, 2016, 07:40:30 PM
Definitely an error sign! I've been on a segment of PA Route 33. It's southern terminus is at I-78, in the area of Easton, PA, not terribly far from the NJ border.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 12, 2016, 07:53:09 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 12, 2016, 07:40:30 PM
Definitely an error sign! I've been on a segment of PA Route 33. It's southern terminus is at I-78, in the area of Easton, PA, not terribly far from the NJ border.

This one at Westfarms Mall in CT might be better off if it were in Fishkill, NY

https://goo.gl/maps/eZFJPKtzu162
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 13, 2016, 10:36:49 AM
I took a picture of that very sign, which is sitting on my cell phone. It should be in a simple square.

Also, ConnDOT has done something similar. There are a few error "6" signs along I-84 in West Hartford, since US Route 6 is multiplexed with it from Exit 38 (Farmington) to 60 (Manchester). They simply took a few extra signs from nearby CT Route 9 and turned them upside down. I kid you not!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TravelingBethelite on February 13, 2016, 10:55:59 AM
Something similar here in my hometown:

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5661/20964179231_d0c1be6b0b_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/xWwU74)GEDC1068 (https://flic.kr/p/xWwU74) by CTRoads (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135847145@N08/), on Flickr

I think it's a Town install.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 13, 2016, 12:22:11 PM

Quote from: TravelingBethelite on February 13, 2016, 10:55:59 AM
Something similar here in my hometown:

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5661/20964179231_d0c1be6b0b_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/xWwU74)GEDC1068 (https://flic.kr/p/xWwU74) by CTRoads (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135847145@N08/), on Flickr

I think it's a Town install.

That 6 looks like it came off a lamppost in a mall parking lot.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 14, 2016, 06:18:32 PM
Quote from: jbnati27 on February 12, 2016, 04:00:55 PM
I think I found the erroneous signs on GSV:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@41.00062,-75.2686708,3a,90y,210.5h,99.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq-vCAlBBdoW3wcWQUK9MJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

It looks like US route shields instead of PA state route shields.

My apologies, yes that is the exact site of the signs I photographed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on February 18, 2016, 09:39:29 PM
Apparently US 17 got extended to Elmira, NY (zoom in): http://binged.it/1PUZTx2

(should be NY 17, obviously.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on February 18, 2016, 09:56:14 PM
Before (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9971814,-64.1595316,3a,15y,145.21h,90.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sV_GVS-uQEmXeSrXM3oOjUw!2e0!5s20120801T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
After (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9971848,-64.1595434,3a,15y,140.33h,90.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqEQi7-AlD4y2QwqC39bG3Q!2e0!5s20140801T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on February 18, 2016, 10:00:08 PM
Quote from: yakra on February 18, 2016, 09:56:14 PM
Before (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9971814,-64.1595316,3a,15y,145.21h,90.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sV_GVS-uQEmXeSrXM3oOjUw!2e0!5s20120801T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
After (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9971848,-64.1595434,3a,15y,140.33h,90.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqEQi7-AlD4y2QwqC39bG3Q!2e0!5s20140801T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
Since when was US 1 in Nova Scotia?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on February 18, 2016, 10:08:10 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 18, 2016, 10:00:08 PM
Quote from: yakra on February 18, 2016, 09:56:14 PM
Before (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9971814,-64.1595316,3a,15y,145.21h,90.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sV_GVS-uQEmXeSrXM3oOjUw!2e0!5s20120801T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
After (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9971848,-64.1595434,3a,15y,140.33h,90.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqEQi7-AlD4y2QwqC39bG3Q!2e0!5s20140801T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
Since when was US 1 in Nova Scotia?

That's (one of) their shields. That's not US 1. The error is with the cardinal direction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 19, 2016, 09:08:57 AM
You can also play with the time slider thingy in the top left, then click on the magnifying glass. I also notice the graffiti was gone on the corrected sign, too! :)

Yeah, the US route looking shields got me at first, too!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on February 19, 2016, 10:31:41 AM
I don't know how Nova Scotians can drive around without losing their sanity. Those signs are hideous, whether correct or erroneous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on February 19, 2016, 11:20:48 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 18, 2016, 10:00:08 PM
Since when was US 1 in Nova Scotia?

What Americans call a federal highway shield (US route), the Canadians call a trunk route shield.  A trunk route is a main highway, usually with controlled access, used for long-distance travel.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on February 19, 2016, 11:56:27 AM
Quote from: jbnv on February 19, 2016, 10:31:41 AM
I don't know how Nova Scotians can drive around without losing their sanity. Those signs are hideous, whether correct or erroneous.

I know I might will get some flak for saying this but...I guess I can say the same thing if I believed it:

I don't know how Americans can drive around without losing their sanity. Their signs are hideous, whether correct or erroneous.

END sarcasm. Now of course that's an example. The American road system signage is one of the best in the world, and one that other countries look to. But, every jurisdiction has its own style. I don't like Nova Scotia's style either, but there's worse out there. I'm just trying to put it in perspective. The signs posted earlier are clear to the motorist, just not aesthetically pleasing.

Personally, I feel Newfoundland's is worse.

https://goo.gl/maps/PJQevo1q5B32
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: yakra on February 19, 2016, 12:13:25 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on February 18, 2016, 10:08:10 PM
That's (one of) their shields. That's not US 1. The error is with the cardinal direction.
Ding Ding! We have a winner!

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 19, 2016, 09:08:57 AM
You can also play with the time slider thingy in the top left, then click on the magnifying glass. I also notice the graffiti was gone on the corrected sign, too! :)
Not corrected, b0rked: The newer sign is the one that has it wrong. After noticing that, I went over to the time slider too see if any older versions had it right, and hey whaddayaknow!

Quote from: jbnv on February 19, 2016, 10:31:41 AM
I don't know how Nova Scotians can drive around without losing their sanity. Those signs are hideous, whether correct or erroneous.
Sanity? Heh. Try following some of the scenic travelways from end to end. Bras d'Or Lakes Scenic Dr, anyone?

Quote from: SidS1045 on February 19, 2016, 11:20:48 AM
What Americans call a federal highway shield (US route), the Canadians call a trunk route shield.
Americans != Krl Rgrz! :bigass:

Quote from: SidS1045 on February 19, 2016, 11:20:48 AM
A trunk route is a main highway, usually with controlled access, used for long-distance travel.
In NS, that wouldn't be the Trunks (US-1 style shield), but rather the Arterials (provincial flag style shield, e.g. NS-101).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on February 19, 2016, 04:11:08 PM
Quote from: yakra on February 19, 2016, 12:13:25 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on February 19, 2016, 11:20:48 AM
What Americans call a federal highway shield (US route), the Canadians call a trunk route shield.
Americans != Krl Rgrz! :bigass:

Beat me to it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 19, 2016, 04:12:47 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 12, 2016, 12:22:32 AM
Here is a photo taken in Stroudsburg, PA facing south, on the road that becomes PA-33 past this junction with PA-611. 
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1720/25093474576_08d0b6e1c7_k.jpg)
Someone's sign shop doesn't know that not all numbered roads have a US shield?

(Edit: fixed broken uRL to image)

I didn't know US 33 was in Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on February 20, 2016, 10:49:15 PM
US 31 gets a rather ugly downgrade in Cullman, AL:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1545/25134001166_f781935d8b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Ei1jTG)Ugly, Erroneous Shield (https://flic.kr/p/Ei1jTG) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on February 22, 2016, 04:32:49 PM
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1667/24586559810_9ce86e232b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DsCxDC)DSC00774 (https://flic.kr/p/DsCxDC) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

U.S. 30 & U.S. 250 signed as OH 30 & OH 250 on OH 3 North in Wooster. Photo taken 2/6/16.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1516/24524985994_afdbda597c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DnbXU7)DSC01427 (https://flic.kr/p/DnbXU7) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

U.S. 38 shield on OH 38 North in Marysville. Photo taken 2/20/16.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: elsmere241 on February 23, 2016, 08:58:38 PM
US shields and Ohio shields do kind of look alike, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on February 23, 2016, 09:26:41 PM
The San Francisco area has an EXPERSS LANE (go to 1:25 of the video for the error):

http://youtu.be/bbIMNmeftxc

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2F12c9393f98b9901f5667b31275c1ec13_zps3lgzear6.jpg&hash=22bd43057dc82c0edd68e783a2c3e9c5a55d34f2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on February 23, 2016, 10:02:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 23, 2016, 09:26:41 PM
The San Francisco area has an EXPERSS LANE (go to 1:25 of the video for the error):

http://youtu.be/bbIMNmeftxc

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2F12c9393f98b9901f5667b31275c1ec13_zps3lgzear6.jpg&hash=22bd43057dc82c0edd68e783a2c3e9c5a55d34f2)
I don't see it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on February 23, 2016, 10:24:43 PM
^^  experss lane
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on February 23, 2016, 10:58:16 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 23, 2016, 09:26:41 PM
The San Francisco area has an EXPERSS LANE (go to 1:25 of the video for the error):

Doh.   :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on February 23, 2016, 11:00:58 PM
Quote from: Big John on February 23, 2016, 10:24:43 PM
^^  experss lane

This particular Fast Track road (Experss Lane) was named after Samuel H. Experss, the founder of Fast Track. :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on February 23, 2016, 11:01:13 PM
Quote from: Big John on February 23, 2016, 10:24:43 PM
^^  experss lane
me naed lurn spullng.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 23, 2016, 11:57:54 PM
Quote from: okroads on February 22, 2016, 04:32:49 PM

U.S. 30 & U.S. 250 signed as OH 30 & OH 250 on OH 3 North in Wooster. Photo taken 2/6/16. (photo)

U.S. 38 shield on OH 38 North in Marysville. Photo taken 2/20/16. (photo)


US315? A similar situation on the SB Olentangy Fwy in Columbus
https://goo.gl/maps/D6H8NUr9qSH2
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: route17fan on February 24, 2016, 05:58:43 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 23, 2016, 11:57:54 PM
Quote from: okroads on February 22, 2016, 04:32:49 PM

U.S. 30 & U.S. 250 signed as OH 30 & OH 250 on OH 3 North in Wooster. Photo taken 2/6/16. (photo)

U.S. 38 shield on OH 38 North in Marysville. Photo taken 2/20/16. (photo)


US315? A similar situation on the SB Olentangy Fwy in Columbus
https://goo.gl/maps/D6H8NUr9qSH2

May as well include US 317 near Port Columbus:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9880453,-82.8698055,3a,15y,50.38h,88.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG8OVil7_5z6pKFUAhIKZow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on February 24, 2016, 06:53:46 PM
It looks like there are many sign fabricators that cannot determine the difference between a US route and a state route.  Many of these signs look good, however, these errors are becoming more and more numerous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on February 24, 2016, 07:09:06 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on February 23, 2016, 11:00:58 PM
Quote from: Big John on February 23, 2016, 10:24:43 PM
^^  experss lane

This particular Fast Track road (Experss Lane) was named after Samuel H. Experss, the founder of Fast Track. :-P

Maybe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdO9SzDd3OU
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on February 27, 2016, 09:58:33 PM
An unintended consequence of a bridge replacement project on US 1/301 just north of VA 145 is that a US 145 shield has been brought into the world. I'll get a photo within the next few days.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on February 27, 2016, 10:03:48 PM
Quote from: formulanone on February 24, 2016, 07:09:06 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on February 23, 2016, 11:00:58 PM
Quote from: Big John on February 23, 2016, 10:24:43 PM
^^  experss lane

This particular Fast Track road (Experss Lane) was named after Samuel H. Experss, the founder of Fast Track. :-P

Maybe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdO9SzDd3OU
I never thought I'd see an Autechre reference on this forum, even as weird as some of us are.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on February 28, 2016, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: Takumi on February 27, 2016, 10:03:48 PM
I never thought I'd see an Autechre reference on this forum, even as weird as some of us are.

For added roadgeek cred, they had an EP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anvil_Vapre) with tracks named after the places along Snake Pass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_Pass).

They're also known for intentional track misspellings, so we now continue with our regularly-scheduled thread programming...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 29, 2016, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: Takumi on February 27, 2016, 09:58:33 PM
An unintended consequence of a bridge replacement project on US 1/301 just north of VA 145 is that a US 145 shield has been brought into the world. I'll get a photo within the next few days.

I guess someone decided that the US 144 shield in Colonial Heights needed a friend.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on February 29, 2016, 09:54:27 PM
My wife sent this to me tonight. I don't know where it's supposed to be nor whether it's real.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FIMG_0817_zpshijnn3k0.jpg&hash=4710a589807cad44f83584f840bf908907e403dd)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 29, 2016, 10:43:30 PM
Quote from: okroads on February 22, 2016, 04:32:49 PM

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1516/24524985994_afdbda597c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DnbXU7)DSC01427 (https://flic.kr/p/DnbXU7) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

U.S. 38 shield on OH 38 North in Marysville. Photo taken 2/20/16.

So happy I accidentally happened on these same signs.  Got to see them for myself!  These are at the junction of OH-736 on the south side of Marysville, OH
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1572/25026488249_d23582423c_k.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1559/25300960211_d6ad664601_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on February 29, 2016, 11:02:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 29, 2016, 09:54:27 PM
My wife sent this to me tonight. I don't know where it's supposed to be nor whether it's real.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FIMG_0817_zpshijnn3k0.jpg&hash=4710a589807cad44f83584f840bf908907e403dd)

Probably 7 AM to 8 PM. That's why 24 hour clocks work better.  :-/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on February 29, 2016, 11:18:41 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 29, 2016, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: Takumi on February 27, 2016, 09:58:33 PM
An unintended consequence of a bridge replacement project on US 1/301 just north of VA 145 is that a US 145 shield has been brought into the world. I'll get a photo within the next few days.

I guess someone decided that the US 144 shield in Colonial Heights needed a friend.
Heh, yeah. My photo of the 145 didn't turn out (because race car). I'll try again next time I'm up that way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 03, 2016, 07:00:36 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on February 29, 2016, 11:02:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 29, 2016, 09:54:27 PM
My wife sent this to me tonight. I don't know where it's supposed to be nor whether it's real.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FIMG_0817_zpshijnn3k0.jpg&hash=4710a589807cad44f83584f840bf908907e403dd)

Probably 7 AM to 8 PM. That's why 24 hour clocks work better.  :-/

I thought it was posted because it's a "2 hour parking" restriction during a 1 hour time period.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on March 04, 2016, 12:44:26 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 03, 2016, 07:00:36 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on February 29, 2016, 11:02:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 29, 2016, 09:54:27 PM
My wife sent this to me tonight. I don't know where it's supposed to be nor whether it's real.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FIMG_0817_zpshijnn3k0.jpg&hash=4710a589807cad44f83584f840bf908907e403dd)

Probably 7 AM to 8 PM. That's why 24 hour clocks work better.  :-/

I thought it was posted because it's a "2 hour parking" restriction during a 1 hour time period.

Maybe it's two metric hours???
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on March 04, 2016, 08:13:32 AM
^^ When France tried that, a day was divided into 10 metric hours and there was no AM or PM.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 04, 2016, 09:56:41 AM
Quote from: Big John on March 04, 2016, 08:13:32 AM
^^ When France tried that, a day was divided into 10 metric hours and there was no AM or PM.
So each time zone had a width of 36° longitude?  Good luck getting any other country to agree to that  :bigass:

Were there 144 minutes per hour so the number of minutes per day would be retained? XD
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on March 04, 2016, 12:23:38 PM
Each hour had 100 minutes and each minute had 100 seconds, meaning 100,000 seconds in a day so each metric second was a little bit shorter than a regular second.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on March 04, 2016, 01:19:08 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 04, 2016, 09:56:41 AM
Quote from: Big John on March 04, 2016, 08:13:32 AM
^^ When France tried that, a day was divided into 10 metric hours and there was no AM or PM.
So each time zone had a width of 36° longitude?  Good luck getting any other country to agree to that  :bigass:

And of course they didn't have time zones in 1793.  Each place would set its time with noon when the sun was at its highest point in the sky.  When they were trying decimal time, instead of noon, it would be 5.  Decimal time lasted even less long than the French revolutionary calendar.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tdindy88 on March 04, 2016, 03:03:33 PM
There must be something about "US 38" because I noticed this sign in Richmond, Indiana last week, guiding traffic to US 35 and Indiana 38. The sign is likely not by INDOT as it's on a local street.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1030.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy361%2Fthomasj88%2FIMG_5254_zpsjoggz8xt.jpg&hash=4fb17211d4bdd78eba9dadece2acabb51570b3f3) (http://s1030.photobucket.com/user/thomasj88/media/IMG_5254_zpsjoggz8xt.jpg.html)

By the way, I don't it's actually too easy to find erroneous road signs in Indiana based on my travels, so this was rare find for me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on March 04, 2016, 10:29:41 PM
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 04, 2016, 03:03:33 PM
There must be something about "US 38" because I noticed this sign in Richmond, Indiana last week, guiding traffic to US 35 and Indiana 38. The sign is likely not by INDOT as it's on a local street.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1030.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy361%2Fthomasj88%2FIMG_5254_zpsjoggz8xt.jpg&hash=4fb17211d4bdd78eba9dadece2acabb51570b3f3) (http://s1030.photobucket.com/user/thomasj88/media/IMG_5254_zpsjoggz8xt.jpg.html)

By the way, I don't it's actually too easy to find erroneous road signs in Indiana based on my travels, so this was rare find for me.
That's a special kind of mistake! Someone clearly got the shields backwards.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on March 04, 2016, 11:48:39 PM
It's a double mistake, since that's not even the correct state route marker.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on March 05, 2016, 09:48:22 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 03, 2016, 07:00:36 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on February 29, 2016, 11:02:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 29, 2016, 09:54:27 PM
My wife sent this to me tonight. I don't know where it's supposed to be nor whether it's real.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FIMG_0817_zpshijnn3k0.jpg&hash=4710a589807cad44f83584f840bf908907e403dd)

Probably 7 AM to 8 PM. That's why 24 hour clocks work better.  :-/

I thought it was posted because it's a "2 hour parking" restriction during a 1 hour time period.

You are correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 05, 2016, 01:21:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 05, 2016, 09:48:22 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 03, 2016, 07:00:36 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on February 29, 2016, 11:02:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 29, 2016, 09:54:27 PM
My wife sent this to me tonight. I don't know where it's supposed to be nor whether it's real.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/IMG_0817_zpshijnn3k0.jpg

Probably 7 AM to 8 PM. That's why 24 hour clocks work better.  :-/

I thought it was posted because it's a "2 hour parking" restriction during a 1 hour time period.

You are correct.

I don't get it. 1 hour parking from 7pm to 8pm? That couldn't possibly be right. Why bother even posting the sign?

I'm putting my money on accidental use of "PM" for the 7 o'clock hour.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on March 05, 2016, 03:01:37 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8010761,-77.8794034,3a,15y,150.17h,99.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sif5TQAbCnw6oN5LxZKVE9g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

This sign says Left Turn at Park Avenue, but it shouldn't be this far from the road itself. Also, the left arrow is misleading, as that leads into a wooden fence and not a road.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tdindy88 on March 05, 2016, 03:46:07 PM
So I was wrong with my previous statement, it's a little bit easier to find erroneous signs in Indiana after all, on the same day no less. This is along US 27/SR 67 north of Portland. I suppose its karma for Richmond screwing up that 35/38 sign previously.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1030.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy361%2Fthomasj88%2FIMG_5147_zpsv6n8lwcz.jpg&hash=c8e7f9c214f1e9aa635529def63e4c096a9987a4) (http://s1030.photobucket.com/user/thomasj88/media/IMG_5147_zpsv6n8lwcz.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 07, 2016, 10:26:20 PM
Seems like an easy fix, don't even need green-out. Just add a quick line of white-out and it'll be good to go.  :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theFXexpert on March 07, 2016, 11:04:05 PM
No. (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.5786577,-82.5402358,3a,49.5y,26.93h,84.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9juS39D0GcuSSnY17R_ifg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on March 11, 2016, 08:44:20 PM
Passed this today walking from the Smithsonian Metro stop to my wife's office at the Watergate. There are two errors here, three if you feel "any time" should be two words. (Hint: I was in Washington, DC.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fcf8b64d229eb25d4b986d803710dd9ad_zpswqkk86d1.jpg&hash=2723db1498cae3c5494215cc8cdb9a702acb9a0c)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on March 11, 2016, 09:06:32 PM
Is one of the errors DC isn't technically a state, but a federal district created out of lands donated by Maryland and Virginia? They could've just used D.C. LAW instead there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on March 11, 2016, 10:14:02 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 11, 2016, 09:06:32 PM
Is one of the errors DC isn't technically a state, but a federal district created out of lands donated by Maryland and Virginia? They could've just used D.C. LAW instead there.

Correct, that is the more obvious of the errors. In fairness, I believe the sign was probably posted by the National Park Service given its location (just off Lincoln Memorial Circle on the road that connects down to Rock Creek Parkway), so they probably just slavishly followed the MUTCD. I doubt this sign reflects the District trying to call itself something it's not.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on March 11, 2016, 10:38:42 PM
I believe that they write out "PEDESTRIANS" and not use a symbol.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on March 11, 2016, 11:13:27 PM
My guess at the second error is that DC requires stopping for peds instead of yielding?

Mike
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 12, 2016, 12:35:45 AM
Another US/State shield mix-up.  This one is US12 westbound just off of I-5 in Washington.  Fresh off my trip to the NW

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1621/25717179675_3d4e95de1d.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Fbxgxz)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 12, 2016, 01:41:10 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 11, 2016, 10:38:42 PM
I believe that they write out "PEDESTRIANS" and not use a symbol.

All the ones I'm familiar with have symbols. Either way, that's not really an error.




What direction is the sign facing, 1995hoo? It looks to be facing the road perpendicularly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on March 12, 2016, 08:03:53 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2016, 08:44:20 PM
Passed this today walking from the Smithsonian Metro stop to my wife's office at the Watergate. There are two errors here, three if you feel "any time" should be two words. (Hint: I was in Washington, DC.)

[sign]

Yielding to pedestrians in a no stopping/standing zone seems like it could be a bit of a challenge.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on March 12, 2016, 10:07:56 AM
Also, he was in the District of Columbia, so a State Law would have no effect.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on March 12, 2016, 11:24:46 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 11, 2016, 11:13:27 PM
My guess at the second error is that DC requires stopping for peds instead of yielding?

Mike

This is correct. It should say DC law and Stop for Peds.

DC signs normally use the stop sign graphic and a pedestrian symbol, but I've seen some DC signs that incorrectly use the word "TO" between those two icons, which is obviously a grammatical error/absurdity.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on March 12, 2016, 01:24:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2016, 10:14:02 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 11, 2016, 09:06:32 PM
Is one of the errors DC isn't technically a state, but a federal district created out of lands donated by Maryland and Virginia? They could've just used D.C. LAW instead there.

Correct, that is the more obvious of the errors. In fairness, I believe the sign was probably posted by the National Park Service given its location (just off Lincoln Memorial Circle on the road that connects down to Rock Creek Parkway), so they probably just slavishly followed the MUTCD. I doubt this sign reflects the District trying to call itself something it's not.

Another not-so-obvious error has nothing to do with the sign design, but its posting location. These types of signs are only supposed to be used in the roadway at the crosswalk (on a center line or lane line, or on a small median in the roadway), and are not to be post mounted on the left or right side of the roadway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on March 12, 2016, 05:28:38 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2016, 01:24:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2016, 10:14:02 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 11, 2016, 09:06:32 PM
Is one of the errors DC isn't technically a state, but a federal district created out of lands donated by Maryland and Virginia? They could've just used D.C. LAW instead there.

Correct, that is the more obvious of the errors. In fairness, I believe the sign was probably posted by the National Park Service given its location (just off Lincoln Memorial Circle on the road that connects down to Rock Creek Parkway), so they probably just slavishly followed the MUTCD. I doubt this sign reflects the District trying to call itself something it's not.

Another not-so-obvious error has nothing to do with the sign design, but its posting location. These types of signs are only supposed to be used in the roadway at the crosswalk (on a center line or lane line, or on a small median in the roadway), and are not to be post mounted on the left or right side of the roadway.

Heh. DC routinely violates that.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FDF953EB8-D966-43B8-A77D-F344F3CCC541_zpsv4xkng9d.jpg&hash=e52728e4c40620a7767d201fb21ea6ff963fcfa2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 12, 2016, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2016, 01:24:23 PM
Another not-so-obvious error has nothing to do with the sign design, but its posting location. These types of signs are only supposed to be used in the roadway at the crosswalk (on a center line or lane line, or on a small median in the roadway), and are not to be post mounted on the left or right side of the roadway.

For mid-block crossings, absolutely. But what about traffic turning right at a traffic light? Seattle posts these signs a lot when the turns aren't fully protected, many strung by wire above the intersection near the right-most signal head.

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 12, 2016, 05:28:38 PM
Heh. DC routinely violates that.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/DF953EB8-D966-43B8-A77D-F344F3CCC541_zpsv4xkng9d.jpg

"STOP to Pedestrians/Bikes"?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on March 12, 2016, 08:16:09 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 12, 2016, 05:28:38 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2016, 01:24:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2016, 10:14:02 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 11, 2016, 09:06:32 PM
Is one of the errors DC isn't technically a state, but a federal district created out of lands donated by Maryland and Virginia? They could've just used D.C. LAW instead there.

Correct, that is the more obvious of the errors. In fairness, I believe the sign was probably posted by the National Park Service given its location (just off Lincoln Memorial Circle on the road that connects down to Rock Creek Parkway), so they probably just slavishly followed the MUTCD. I doubt this sign reflects the District trying to call itself something it's not.

Another not-so-obvious error has nothing to do with the sign design, but its posting location. These types of signs are only supposed to be used in the roadway at the crosswalk (on a center line or lane line, or on a small median in the roadway), and are not to be post mounted on the left or right side of the roadway.

Heh. DC routinely violates that.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FDF953EB8-D966-43B8-A77D-F344F3CCC541_zpsv4xkng9d.jpg&hash=e52728e4c40620a7767d201fb21ea6ff963fcfa2)

I was referring to the previously posted sign, vertical "State law yield to pedestrians within crosswalk". That is specifically named as 'In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign" in the MUTCD, and is typically installed in such a way that it can be knocked down by a vehicle and spring back up.

The "Turning Vehicles Yield to Peds" sign you posted is intended to be post-mounted.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 12, 2016, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2016, 01:24:23 PM
Another not-so-obvious error has nothing to do with the sign design, but its posting location. These types of signs are only supposed to be used in the roadway at the crosswalk (on a center line or lane line, or on a small median in the roadway), and are not to be post mounted on the left or right side of the roadway.

For mid-block crossings, absolutely. But what about traffic turning right at a traffic light? Seattle posts these signs a lot when the turns aren't fully protected, many strung by wire above the intersection near the right-most signal head.

The MUTCD specifically prohibits use of the in-street/overhead pedestrian crossing signs at signalized intersections.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: UCFKnights on March 14, 2016, 07:59:33 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 12, 2016, 11:24:46 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 11, 2016, 11:13:27 PM
My guess at the second error is that DC requires stopping for peds instead of yielding?

Mike

This is correct. It should say DC law and Stop for Peds.

DC signs normally use the stop sign graphic and a pedestrian symbol, but I've seen some DC signs that incorrectly use the word "TO" between those two icons, which is obviously a grammatical error/absurdity.
Why do those signs get the words "STATE LAW" but no other sign?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on March 14, 2016, 08:32:55 AM
Quote from: UCFKnights on March 14, 2016, 07:59:33 AM

Why do those signs get the words "STATE LAW" but no other sign?

North Carolina has signs with STATE LAW - https://goo.gl/maps/b2YthLGopmL2

Texas has the STATE LAW to obey warning signs - https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9637.0

Most states post their version of the 'move over for emergency vehicles' sign with the words state law in it...

Mike
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 14, 2016, 02:32:36 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2016, 08:16:09 PM
The MUTCD specifically prohibits use of the in-street/overhead pedestrian crossing signs at signalized intersections.

Seattle has been using pedestrian crossing signs at signalized intersections for quite some time. They probably didn't get the memo:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FletYuSb.png&hash=b8f0ad26ee6d988517ce3b7aa3139568d5da8230)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkFLNjbT.png&hash=cccef796ff92a9979b9454d3ea56e58904ffbff2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on March 14, 2016, 03:02:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 14, 2016, 02:32:36 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2016, 08:16:09 PM
The MUTCD specifically prohibits use of the in-street/overhead pedestrian crossing signs at signalized intersections.

Seattle has been using pedestrian crossing signs at signalized intersections for quite some time. They probably didn't get the memo: <snip>

Not that it would change the MUTCD, but perhaps it would make more sense to use a red ball rather than the STOP octogon.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: spooky on March 14, 2016, 04:35:04 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 14, 2016, 03:02:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 14, 2016, 02:32:36 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2016, 08:16:09 PM
The MUTCD specifically prohibits use of the in-street/overhead pedestrian crossing signs at signalized intersections.

Seattle has been using pedestrian crossing signs at signalized intersections for quite some time. They probably didn't get the memo: <snip>

Not that it would change the MUTCD, but perhaps it would make more sense to use a red ball rather than the STOP octogon.

I disagree. Red and green balls used on signage at signals tell you what you can or can't do during that indication. A red ball telling you what to do during a green indication would be confusing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on March 14, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
Me, Steve, and Lou came across this one yesterday on I-78 eastbound in Allentown; a PA Turnpike 476 shield. There were several of them going east and one going west (approaching exit 53).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FydlylWsl.jpg&hash=d2173faefd58c8e722d6661bc5cd8272b57e917a)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 14, 2016, 10:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ian on March 14, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
Me, Steve, and Lou came across this one yesterday on I-78 eastbound in Allentown; a PA Turnpike 476 shield. There were several of them going east and one going west (approaching exit 53).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FydlylWsl.jpg&hash=d2173faefd58c8e722d6661bc5cd8272b57e917a)

'New Jersey' is a pretty vague and poor control city. Maybe Bethlehem would be better? Of course, that sign is a copy of the button copy sign that was there just a months prior.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 15, 2016, 06:14:33 AM
Quote from: Ian on March 14, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
Me, Steve, and Lou came across this one yesterday on I-78 eastbound in Allentown; a PA Turnpike 476 shield. There were several of them going east and one going west (approaching exit 53).

Thanks Ian, I saw those signs about a week and a half ago heading that way for work-related stuff and could not get a photo of it. I also could not find it on GSV or the VideoLog since they are so recent.  I just wonder how a "PA TURNPIKE" shield made it out in the field since the NE Extension has been I-476 since 1996.  (For the most part, PA seems to have very few sign errors in comparison to VA.  I have not even seen any US 230 or US 309 shields yet surprisingly.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on March 15, 2016, 08:27:47 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 15, 2016, 06:14:33 AM
Quote from: Ian on March 14, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
Me, Steve, and Lou came across this one yesterday on I-78 eastbound in Allentown; a PA Turnpike 476 shield. There were several of them going east and one going west (approaching exit 53).

Thanks Ian, I saw those signs about a week and a half ago heading that way for work-related stuff and could not get a photo of it. I also could not find it on GSV or the VideoLog since they are so recent.  I just wonder how a "PA TURNPIKE" shield made it out in the field since the NE Extension has been I-476 since 1996.  (For the most part, PA seems to have very few sign errors in comparison to VA.  I have not even seen any US 230 or US 309 shields yet surprisingly.)
the NE Extension was PA 9 prior to the redesignation as I-476, so any way you slice it it's simply wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on March 15, 2016, 08:34:35 AM
Here is a PATpk 76 shield in Bedford: https://goo.gl/maps/c1aZK9jC5s52

Don't believe I've seen one with I-70...

Mike
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2016, 08:48:50 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on March 14, 2016, 10:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ian on March 14, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
Me, Steve, and Lou came across this one yesterday on I-78 eastbound in Allentown; a PA Turnpike 476 shield. There were several of them going east and one going west (approaching exit 53).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FydlylWsl.jpg&hash=d2173faefd58c8e722d6661bc5cd8272b57e917a)

'New Jersey' is a pretty vague and poor control city. Maybe Bethlehem would be better? Of course, that sign is a copy of the button copy sign that was there just a months prior.

Being that US 22 goes to Bethlehem and I-78 goes around it, that wouldn't be an appropriate control city.

Replacing LVI Airport with Bethlehem would be better.  That airport appears they have fewer than 20 arrivals and departures on a daily basis, which wouldn't generate much traffic on the highways.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Zeffy on March 15, 2016, 09:43:08 AM
My choices for I-78 at this point would be either Phillipsburg, Bridgewater, or Newark, if New Jersey is too generic. Phillipsburg is used on I-78 west in New Jersey already, so the reasoning is there. Bridgewater works too since it's a large (50K+) town that connects with I-287 a bit further south. The last option is Newark since it leads to Newark Liberty International Airport, which obviously is a huge destination since its in the New York City metro.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on March 15, 2016, 09:58:57 AM
Quote from: spooky on March 14, 2016, 04:35:04 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 14, 2016, 03:02:33 PM
Not that it would change the MUTCD, but perhaps it would make more sense to use a red ball rather than the STOP octogon.

I disagree. Red and green balls used on signage at signals tell you what you can or can't do during that indication. A red ball telling you what to do during a green indication would be confusing.

Because a STOP sign telling you what to do during a green indication is obviously not confusing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:07:54 AM
Quote from: jbnv on March 15, 2016, 09:58:57 AM
Quote from: spooky on March 14, 2016, 04:35:04 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 14, 2016, 03:02:33 PM
Not that it would change the MUTCD, but perhaps it would make more sense to use a red ball rather than the STOP octogon.

I disagree. Red and green balls used on signage at signals tell you what you can or can't do during that indication. A red ball telling you what to do during a green indication would be confusing.

Because a STOP sign telling you what to do during a green indication is obviously not confusing.

:-D

I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2016, 10:14:49 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:07:54 AM
Quote from: jbnv on March 15, 2016, 09:58:57 AM
Quote from: spooky on March 14, 2016, 04:35:04 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 14, 2016, 03:02:33 PM
Not that it would change the MUTCD, but perhaps it would make more sense to use a red ball rather than the STOP octogon.

I disagree. Red and green balls used on signage at signals tell you what you can or can't do during that indication. A red ball telling you what to do during a green indication would be confusing.

Because a STOP sign telling you what to do during a green indication is obviously not confusing.

:-D

I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2

That confuses you?

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: spooky on March 15, 2016, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2016, 10:14:49 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:07:54 AM
Quote from: jbnv on March 15, 2016, 09:58:57 AM
Quote from: spooky on March 14, 2016, 04:35:04 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 14, 2016, 03:02:33 PM
Not that it would change the MUTCD, but perhaps it would make more sense to use a red ball rather than the STOP octogon.

I disagree. Red and green balls used on signage at signals tell you what you can or can't do during that indication. A red ball telling you what to do during a green indication would be confusing.

Because a STOP sign telling you what to do during a green indication is obviously not confusing.

:-D

I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2

That confuses you?



hint: it means you have to yield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:33:36 AM
Quote from: spooky on March 15, 2016, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2016, 10:14:49 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:07:54 AM

:-D

I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2

That confuses you?



hint: it means you have to yield.

Wow no fucking shit.
I meant it's confusing to have a signal already tell you what to do, then there's more signage giving you a second message.  Here in Illinois, you should know how to turn right already based on whether there's a red ball, green ball, or yellow ball.  The signal already speaks for itself; as far as I'm concerned, any state that does this has a strong representation in the Department of Redundancy Department.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on March 15, 2016, 11:16:01 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:07:54 AM
I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2

The example you show is a right-turn lane that splits away from the other lanes before the intersection. I think a YIELD sign makes complete sense here, even with the signal. The person making this turn should check oncoming traffic before making the turn, not assume right-of-way because the road he is coming from has the green.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2016, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:33:36 AM
Quote from: spooky on March 15, 2016, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2016, 10:14:49 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:07:54 AM

:-D

I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2

That confuses you?



hint: it means you have to yield.

Wow no fucking shit.
I meant it's confusing to have a signal already tell you what to do, then there's more signage giving you a second message.  Here in Illinois, you should know how to turn right already based on whether there's a red ball, green ball, or yellow ball.  The signal already speaks for itself; as far as I'm concerned, any state that does this has a strong representation in the Department of Redundancy Department.

There's no sensor in those right lanes with yield signs, so a vehicle in that lane would never cycle the light.  And unless Illinois has a traffic light in front of such a turn lane (which they clearly don't in the majority of cases), then they are actually at fault for a MUTCD violation.  You should be facing ahead of you, not out the side window, in order to view the traffic light.

I would be surprised if not all 50 states had yield signs for right turning traffic at at least a few intersections
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on March 15, 2016, 12:49:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 14, 2016, 02:32:36 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2016, 08:16:09 PM
The MUTCD specifically prohibits use of the in-street/overhead pedestrian crossing signs at signalized intersections.

Seattle has been using pedestrian crossing signs at signalized intersections for quite some time. They probably didn't get the memo:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FletYuSb.png&hash=b8f0ad26ee6d988517ce3b7aa3139568d5da8230)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkFLNjbT.png&hash=cccef796ff92a9979b9454d3ea56e58904ffbff2)

There's two different but closely related conversations going on... One is regarding the tall narrow sign directed at all traffic (not just turning traffic) and is placed at a crosswalk across the road you're on (not the road you're turning onto). It's ideal midblock crossing, but can be placed at an unsignalized intersection... The second is the one in your second photo, meant for turning traffic at an intersection, including intersections with signals.

In other words, your second photo is fine. The sign in your first one should be replaced with the one in the second one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on March 15, 2016, 02:54:18 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2016, 08:48:50 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on March 14, 2016, 10:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ian on March 14, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
Me, Steve, and Lou came across this one yesterday on I-78 eastbound in Allentown; a PA Turnpike 476 shield. There were several of them going east and one going west (approaching exit 53).

[image snipped]

'New Jersey' is a pretty vague and poor control city. Maybe Bethlehem would be better? Of course, that sign is a copy of the button copy sign that was there just a months prior.

Being that US 22 goes to Bethlehem and I-78 goes around it, that wouldn't be an appropriate control city.

Replacing LVI Airport with Bethlehem would be better.  That airport appears they have fewer than 20 arrivals and departures on a daily basis, which wouldn't generate much traffic on the highways.

There's also this [button copy] sign approaching the interchange from the west that states you can reach Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton from taking either I-78 or US 22.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHelcz1Tl.jpg&hash=338c36c640f9dcef8de6612e09a17b0453b70940)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 15, 2016, 05:08:25 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:33:36 AM
I meant it's confusing to have a signal already tell you what to do, then there's more signage giving you a second message.  Here in Illinois, you should know how to turn right already based on whether there's a red ball, green ball, or yellow ball.  The signal already speaks for itself; as far as I'm concerned, any state that does this has a strong representation in the Department of Redundancy Department.

Your confusion is not unwarranted. Your Kentucky example upthread is a poor example of a channelized right turn. Channelized right turns should be clearly separated from the adjoining intersection using a concrete splitter island. If possible, the mast arms for the signal should be mounted in the splitter island, to help solidify to drivers that the lane they are in is not part of the intersection. Different crosswalk markings are preferable as well. Transverse for the signalized part of the intersection, zebra for the unsignalized part.

Here's your example, compared to a properly-constructed slip lane in Surrey, British Columbia (click to enlarge, I made the images small on purpose):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxQtSJ2e.png&hash=85790e81f97e5fd8641f53f99ac6f882d7c0bbb4) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZCEgf54.png&hash=d49062a1f39c11ff69f349deed143eee939aead1)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on March 15, 2016, 05:21:26 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:33:36 AM
Quote from: spooky on March 15, 2016, 10:24:01 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2016, 10:14:49 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:07:54 AM

:-D

I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2

That confuses you?



hint: it means you have to yield.

Wow no fucking shit.
I meant it's confusing to have a signal already tell you what to do, then there's more signage giving you a second message.  Here in Illinois, you should know how to turn right already based on whether there's a red ball, green ball, or yellow ball.  The signal already speaks for itself; as far as I'm concerned, any state that does this has a strong representation in the Department of Redundancy Department.

Not quite.  These enlightened states, unlike IDOT, believe that you can continue without stopping at the intersections if you are making a right turn, and if it is clear to proceed.  IDOT believes in making everyone stop, even if the right turn is channelized.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on March 15, 2016, 09:28:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2016, 11:38:27 AM
I would be surprised if not all 50 states had yield signs for right turning traffic at at least a few intersections

How about a stop sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8127039,-84.3082144,3a,75y,131.46h,86.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdsVugRzSNgNKISVnuhPBAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for right turning traffic?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 15, 2016, 09:44:20 PM
Quote from: Eth on March 15, 2016, 09:28:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2016, 11:38:27 AM
I would be surprised if not all 50 states had yield signs for right turning traffic at at least a few intersections

How about a stop sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8127039,-84.3082144,3a,75y,131.46h,86.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdsVugRzSNgNKISVnuhPBAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for right turning traffic?

I kinda agree that there should be a stop sign in this case as the sight distance to the left does not seem to be very good due to the tree in the way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on March 15, 2016, 10:02:19 PM
Another case of stop signs, all 4 quadrants in the intersection are the same in this aspect.  https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1788547,-88.1035887,3a,75y,18.04h,73.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-DQleiINsiaJdrglTz6viw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 15, 2016, 11:32:13 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 15, 2016, 09:44:20 PM
Quote from: Eth on March 15, 2016, 09:28:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2016, 11:38:27 AM
I would be surprised if not all 50 states had yield signs for right turning traffic at at least a few intersections

How about a stop sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8127039,-84.3082144,3a,75y,131.46h,86.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdsVugRzSNgNKISVnuhPBAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for right turning traffic?

I kinda agree that there should be a stop sign in this case as the sight distance to the left does not seem to be very good due to the tree in the way.

Seeing as there are phases where right turns are effectively protected, its better to install yield signs at channelized right turns, instead of stop signs -- Half the time, the maneuver is protected! During other phases, a yield sign acts as a stop sign anyway. Visibility should play no role when deciding on channelized right turn lane signage -- always install yield signs (or right-facing FYAs (a new fad)).

Also, not to be a smartass, but a stop sign doesn't make the visibility any better.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 16, 2016, 06:09:09 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 15, 2016, 11:32:13 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 15, 2016, 09:44:20 PM
Quote from: Eth on March 15, 2016, 09:28:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2016, 11:38:27 AM
I would be surprised if not all 50 states had yield signs for right turning traffic at at least a few intersections

How about a stop sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8127039,-84.3082144,3a,75y,131.46h,86.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdsVugRzSNgNKISVnuhPBAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for right turning traffic?

I kinda agree that there should be a stop sign in this case as the sight distance to the left does not seem to be very good due to the tree in the way.

Seeing as there are phases where right turns are effectively protected, its better to install yield signs at channelized right turns, instead of stop signs -- Half the time, the maneuver is protected! During other phases, a yield sign acts as a stop sign anyway. Visibility should play no role when deciding on channelized right turn lane signage -- always install yield signs (or right-facing FYAs (a new fad)).

Also, not to be a smartass, but a stop sign doesn't make the visibility any better.

Yeah the right-facing FYA or a different signal would work better I think.  Honestly I think a normal right-turn signal would work at this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2619326,-77.3241211,3a,75y,57.01h,87.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sulWicbnCakCGrrxgrk4M8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) done as a part of the VA 36 widening project in Hopewell a few years ago.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: busman_49 on March 16, 2016, 10:41:39 AM
Quote from: Eth on March 15, 2016, 09:28:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2016, 11:38:27 AM
I would be surprised if not all 50 states had yield signs for right turning traffic at at least a few intersections

How about a stop sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8127039,-84.3082144,3a,75y,131.46h,86.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdsVugRzSNgNKISVnuhPBAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for right turning traffic?

Bugs the fire out of me...  The light is green, why the %^@# should I have to stop? (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2829639,-84.4014072,3a,75y,298.71h,83.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stJXYIseiLYaDd4hdmnOc0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

Even when I'm coming the other direction!!! (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2829429,-84.4024231,3a,75y,104.99h,88.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWiKkTCdntRHWbm9tLKhmAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 16, 2016, 12:12:22 PM
Quote from: busman_49 on March 16, 2016, 10:41:39 AM
Bugs the fire out of me...  The light is green, why the %^@# should I have to stop? (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2829639,-84.4014072,3a,75y,298.71h,83.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stJXYIseiLYaDd4hdmnOc0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

Even when I'm coming the other direction!!! (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2829429,-84.4024231,3a,75y,104.99h,88.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWiKkTCdntRHWbm9tLKhmAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

See?  This is exactly the kind of garbage I don't like.  Fills me with so much nope.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MisterSG1 on March 16, 2016, 02:32:35 PM
Even worse is TWO stop signs you'll find in the six points interchange in Etobioke at Kipling Ave/Dundas St/Bloor St, this is specifically from the Kipling NB to Dundas WB ramp, why there aren't yield signs here, I'll never know:

https://goo.gl/maps/Q7FFeSpuqzt (https://goo.gl/maps/Q7FFeSpuqzt)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wytout on March 18, 2016, 09:28:10 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 13, 2016, 10:36:49 AM
I took a picture of that very sign, which is sitting on my cell phone. It should be in a simple square.

Also, ConnDOT has done something similar. There are a few error "6" signs along I-84 in West Hartford, since US Route 6 is multiplexed with it from Exit 38 (Farmington) to 60 (Manchester). They simply took a few extra signs from nearby CT Route 9 and turned them upside down. I kid you not!

I Think you are right, not error signs, but surplus CT 9 signs, turned upside down, as CT usually does a pretty good job with US routes.  These are very new, and I'm thinking they used these willfully in the interim if they had a surplus of 9's, instead of running a small batch of 36X36 US 6's, because the blanket signing upgrade contract is going to bid on 7/13/16 to encompass that whole area (Upgrade signing I 84, vic exit 33-52),  those signs will be replaced.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on March 20, 2016, 01:27:44 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 15, 2016, 11:16:01 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 15, 2016, 10:07:54 AM
I am from Illinois, and I already get confused enough when I go to states that have a separate yield sign for a right turn at a signalized intersection!  Wisconsin or Kentucky, for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/U3FKWKTu9KP2

The example you show is a right-turn lane that splits away from the other lanes before the intersection. I think a YIELD sign makes complete sense here, even with the signal. The person making this turn should check oncoming traffic before making the turn, not assume right-of-way because the road he is coming from has the green.

And also the seaparate yield sign will remind the driver to yield to pedestrians as well, even when you have a green light.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on March 20, 2016, 01:35:02 PM
Quote from: busman_49 on March 16, 2016, 10:41:39 AM
Quote from: Eth on March 15, 2016, 09:28:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2016, 11:38:27 AM
I would be surprised if not all 50 states had yield signs for right turning traffic at at least a few intersections

How about a stop sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8127039,-84.3082144,3a,75y,131.46h,86.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdsVugRzSNgNKISVnuhPBAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for right turning traffic?

Bugs the fire out of me...  The light is green, why the %^@# should I have to stop? (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2829639,-84.4014072,3a,75y,298.71h,83.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stJXYIseiLYaDd4hdmnOc0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

Even when I'm coming the other direction!!! (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2829429,-84.4024231,3a,75y,104.99h,88.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWiKkTCdntRHWbm9tLKhmAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

One of the worst examples I can think of with a stop sign at the right turn is here (Los Angeles):

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0541573,-118.3434425,3a,75y,4.12h,68.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNbp2mmWvZS0atmJ_FjsdFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

From the point of view of right turning traffic, it is very easy to see the main traffic light.  Plus there are a lot of people who make the turn here as this is a great shortcut from La Brea to Edgewood to reach Highland.  All the people stopping at the stop signs do cause backups on La Brea at busy times.

I would replace the stop sign with a traffic light.  Red, YA, GA.  Red when La Brea has the red, and it allows for peds to cross in front of right turners safely and for traffic on Edgwood to continue across. Right turn on red OK after stop. Green right arrow when La Brea has green, and when the corresponding left turners from Edgewood to southbound La Brea have a green left arrow. 

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on March 20, 2016, 04:22:10 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 15, 2016, 12:49:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 14, 2016, 02:32:36 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 12, 2016, 08:16:09 PM
The MUTCD specifically prohibits use of the in-street/overhead pedestrian crossing signs at signalized intersections.

Seattle has been using pedestrian crossing signs at signalized intersections for quite some time. They probably didn't get the memo:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FletYuSb.png&hash=b8f0ad26ee6d988517ce3b7aa3139568d5da8230)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkFLNjbT.png&hash=cccef796ff92a9979b9454d3ea56e58904ffbff2)

There's two different but closely related conversations going on... One is regarding the tall narrow sign directed at all traffic (not just turning traffic) and is placed at a crosswalk across the road you're on (not the road you're turning onto). It's ideal midblock crossing, but can be placed at an unsignalized intersection... The second is the one in your second photo, meant for turning traffic at an intersection, including intersections with signals.

In other words, your second photo is fine. The sign in your first one should be replaced with the one in the second one.

Agreed with Kacie Jane's comments

For reference: The "In-Street Pedestrian Crossing" sign is the R1-6 sign shown below (mounted on a removeable/bendable/crashworthy support in the road at the crosswalk). The "Overhead Pedestrian Crossing" sign is the R1-9 shown below, mounted on a mast arm above the crosswalk. Both are used at unsignalized crosswalks.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmutcd.fhwa.dot.gov%2Fhtm%2F2009r1r2%2Fimages%2Ffig2b_02.gif&hash=40ee4768780182c4874790824c04c2ac94bd1b04)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2016, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 15, 2016, 11:32:13 PM
Visibility should play no role when deciding on channelized right turn lane signage...

LOL...wow!  Visibility is probably one of the most important criteria in deciding whether to use a Stop or Yield sign!

And yes, a stop sign does help in visibility, because it forces the driver to stop and look for a few seconds to make sure there isn't another vehicle or other road user suddenly appearing from behind that tree.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 20, 2016, 07:54:35 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2016, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 15, 2016, 11:32:13 PM
Visibility should play no role when deciding on channelized right turn lane signage...

LOL...wow!  Visibility is probably one of the most important criteria in deciding whether to use a Stop or Yield sign!

And yes, a stop sign does help in visibility, because it forces the driver to stop and look for a few seconds to make sure there isn't another vehicle or other road user suddenly appearing from behind that tree.

If visibility is a problem, install a signal that can operate in conjunction with the the signal. A stop sign presents a whole slew of new problems, from cars who are going to ignore it anyways, to purely functional problems such that every right turning car needs to stop.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2016, 08:04:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 20, 2016, 07:54:35 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2016, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 15, 2016, 11:32:13 PM
Visibility should play no role when deciding on channelized right turn lane signage...

LOL...wow!  Visibility is probably one of the most important criteria in deciding whether to use a Stop or Yield sign!

And yes, a stop sign does help in visibility, because it forces the driver to stop and look for a few seconds to make sure there isn't another vehicle or other road user suddenly appearing from behind that tree.

If visibility is a problem, install a signal that can operate in conjunction with the the signal. A stop sign presents a whole slew of new problems, from cars who are going to ignore it anyways, to purely functional problems such that every right turning car needs to stop.

You know you're basically diagreeing with every transportation agency in the entire world, right? Feel free to become a traffic engineer and tell everyone they've been doing it wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 20, 2016, 08:39:43 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2016, 08:04:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 20, 2016, 07:54:35 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2016, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 15, 2016, 11:32:13 PM
Visibility should play no role when deciding on channelized right turn lane signage...

LOL...wow!  Visibility is probably one of the most important criteria in deciding whether to use a Stop or Yield sign!

And yes, a stop sign does help in visibility, because it forces the driver to stop and look for a few seconds to make sure there isn't another vehicle or other road user suddenly appearing from behind that tree.

If visibility is a problem, install a signal that can operate in conjunction with the the signal. A stop sign presents a whole slew of new problems, from cars who are going to ignore it anyways, to purely functional problems such that every right turning car needs to stop.

You know you're basically diagreeing with every transportation agency in the entire world, right? Feel free to become a traffic engineer and tell everyone they've been doing it wrong.

In what way??? I'm not aware of any other countries **with proficient engineering departments** that use the stop sign as much as we do. Most countries in Europe seem to signalized their slip lanes, whereas Australia and New Zealand, who are in my opinion the best users of slip lanes, almost always use yield signs. The rest of their slip lanes are signals.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2016, 08:58:08 PM
Yeah, the US does overuse the Stop sign by quite a bit. But in instances of visual obstructions, a stop sign is almost always going to be utilized.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 20, 2016, 09:12:35 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2016, 08:58:08 PM
Yeah, the US does overuse the Stop sign by quite a bit. But in instances of visual obstructions, a stop sign is almost always going to be utilized.

I'm talking about slip lanes (i.e. channelized right turns), not any ol' junction. I'm not against using stop signs in instances of poor visibility.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on March 20, 2016, 09:27:13 PM
This should be a yield sign. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7478585,-74.1672987,3a,75y,65.17h,83.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBKEt-rr20axQjTxlScfwug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on March 21, 2016, 03:14:42 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 20, 2016, 09:27:13 PM
This should be a yield sign. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7478585,-74.1672987,3a,75y,65.17h,83.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBKEt-rr20axQjTxlScfwug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
You might want to look in the opposite direction (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7479754,-74.1670985,3a,75y,273.55h,63.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxJOH-Hh3RAunwHn-Nz1Ggg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656); there's another entrance ramp just prior to that location.  Both ramps have STOP signs & bars.  Given that scenario, those STOP signs are actually appropriate & warranted.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 21, 2016, 03:46:14 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 21, 2016, 03:14:42 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 20, 2016, 09:27:13 PM
This should be a yield sign. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7478585,-74.1672987,3a,75y,65.17h,83.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBKEt-rr20axQjTxlScfwug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

You might want to look in the opposite direction (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7479754,-74.1670985,3a,75y,273.55h,63.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxJOH-Hh3RAunwHn-Nz1Ggg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656); there's another entrance ramp just prior to that location.  Both ramps have STOP signs & bars.  Given that scenario, those STOP signs are actually appropriate & warranted.

I'm torn about the second entrance ramp (posted by Noel), but the first entrance ramp being posted with a stop sign is just unnecessary. The ramp has conflicting signage, for one (the stop line is for both the signal and the stop sign, evidently). But more importantly, there's no merge occurring. Why should traffic stop? If people tend to slide into the number 2 lane instead of staying in their lane, install some flexible bollards to keep traffic in line.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 21, 2016, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 20, 2016, 09:27:13 PM
This should be a yield sign. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7478585,-74.1672987,3a,75y,65.17h,83.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBKEt-rr20axQjTxlScfwug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I would revise this to "there should actually be an acceleration lane for this on-ramp especially considering the ramp is just coming out of a tight curve!"  This is dangerous!  I understand why it's a stop sign and not a yield because of the poor sight distance granted to the on-ramp traffic.  But moreover, it's just dangerous!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on March 21, 2016, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 21, 2016, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 20, 2016, 09:27:13 PM
This should be a yield sign. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7478585,-74.1672987,3a,75y,65.17h,83.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBKEt-rr20axQjTxlScfwug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I would revise this to "there should actually be an acceleration lane for this on-ramp especially considering the ramp is just coming out of a tight curve!"  This is dangerous!  I understand why it's a stop sign and not a yield because of the poor sight distance granted to the on-ramp traffic.  But moreover, it's just dangerous!
This section of I-280 was built in and around 1949. This was also for cross river traffic wishing to cross the Passaic here rather than the NJ Turnpike further south. Thus, this is not meant for cross town traffic crossing Newark and is a substandard interchange, which is why this is dangerous. There are plans to reconstruct this interchange.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 26, 2016, 04:21:37 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 15, 2016, 06:14:33 AM
Quote from: Ian on March 14, 2016, 10:31:39 PM
Me, Steve, and Lou came across this one yesterday on I-78 eastbound in Allentown; a PA Turnpike 476 shield. There were several of them going east and one going west (approaching exit 53).

Thanks Ian, I saw those signs about a week and a half ago heading that way for work-related stuff and could not get a photo of it. I also could not find it on GSV or the VideoLog since they are so recent.  I just wonder how a "PA TURNPIKE" shield made it out in the field since the NE Extension has been I-476 since 1996.  (For the most part, PA seems to have very few sign errors in comparison to VA.  I have not even seen any US 230 or US 309 shields yet surprisingly.)

I asked some colleagues at PennDOT about this, and they contacted the PTC, which stated that it should be posted basically as you would see on this overhead on I-81 SB near the north end of I-476 at Clarks Summit (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4881009,-75.6788996,3a,75y,195.07h,78.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfl3rdm6HQkROJ7guXoAKjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)(with the I-476 and PENNA TURNPIKE shields you would expect).  Note that at this location a wider sign would have been required to do that and still have the "TO NORTH PA 309" on there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on April 01, 2016, 02:55:31 PM
I wasn't able to get a pic of such this past weekend and the latest GSV likely predated the erection of such; but there is a US 119 shield (with the smallish Series D digits placed very close together) along NY 119 in the White Plains area... westbound direction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 02, 2016, 08:05:37 AM
This here VMS on I-75 Northbound in Fort Myers, FL.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1562/26076127532_a04c59927c_z.jpg)
It is not Exit 58 for Tuckers Grade.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on April 02, 2016, 09:46:16 PM
It's Exit 158, right? Exit 58, if it existed, would be in the middle of the Everglades. I assume the sign was just malfunctioning or the "1" was burned out?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on April 02, 2016, 10:19:00 PM
Not even that. The 1 is there; it's just dimmer than the other characters.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on April 03, 2016, 09:25:24 PM
This has been here for over 10 years
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2018/2305207634_1d6b55c636_z_d.jpg)

North 43 should be Missouri, South should be Arkansas.

The road is actually OK 20/AR 43, but ODOT has their own way of doing things.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on April 04, 2016, 12:21:04 AM
Despite the error, that group of signs should go under the Best of Road Signs, or at least Unique Road Signs, simply because I have never seen a sign installation with more than two different state shields.  A tri-state install is extremely rare!!!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SD Mapman on April 04, 2016, 09:34:59 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 03, 2016, 09:25:24 PM
North 43 should be Missouri, South should be Arkansas.
Shouldn't they both be Arkansas at this junction?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on April 04, 2016, 09:56:25 AM
Quote from: SD Mapman on April 04, 2016, 09:34:59 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 03, 2016, 09:25:24 PM
North 43 should be Missouri, South should be Arkansas.
Shouldn't they both be Arkansas at this junction?

Yes, ODOT seem to have their own way of doing things
(https://scontent.fmci1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12923314_10207786479132375_7877045776545680967_n.jpg?oh=872a9493b46dbcdbf5485f5ce53fa32e&oe=5778DEC6)

(https://scontent.fmci1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12321368_10207786480212402_1763750154145929413_n.jpg?oh=3c635ae5bea79050416abfb0a8b55079&oe=57907B2C)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on April 05, 2016, 02:59:44 PM
Something's not quite right.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/21_05_04_16_2_45_18.jpeg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 06, 2016, 12:59:19 AM
Here's a classic.  Look at the sign on the right.  What's wrong with it?  https://goo.gl/maps/Xv5wTNg8ivT2
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on April 06, 2016, 12:59:11 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 06, 2016, 12:59:19 AM
Here's a classic.  Look at the sign on the right.  What's wrong with it?  https://goo.gl/maps/Xv5wTNg8ivT2

:rofl:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on April 06, 2016, 01:10:28 PM
Found this last week on our way out from Omaha:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/10_06_04_16_1_07_47.jpeg)

This should be a Nebraska 370 shield, not an Iowa one.
There is a companion circle N-85 shield in the northbound direction too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: peterj920 on April 07, 2016, 11:07:21 PM
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1545/25697659443_5def576e84_k_d.jpg)

Blue banner for Wis 55
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: peterj920 on April 08, 2016, 01:06:24 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 04, 2016, 09:56:25 AM
Quote from: SD Mapman on April 04, 2016, 09:34:59 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 03, 2016, 09:25:24 PM
North 43 should be Missouri, South should be Arkansas.
Shouldn't they both be Arkansas at this junction?

Yes, ODOT seem to have their own way of doing things
(https://scontent.fmci1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12923314_10207786479132375_7877045776545680967_n.jpg?oh=872a9493b46dbcdbf5485f5ce53fa32e&oe=5778DEC6)

(https://scontent.fmci1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12321368_10207786480212402_1763750154145929413_n.jpg?oh=3c635ae5bea79050416abfb0a8b55079&oe=57907B2C)

I can understand why the signs are posted the way that they are.  Heading north on OK 20, State Highway 43 heads into Missouri without any Arkansas destinations, which is most likely why the sign has a Missouri shield, despite straddling the Oklahoma/Arkansas border for about 5 miles.  Heading south into Oklahoma, State Highway 43 travels into Arkansas. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on April 08, 2016, 06:52:14 PM
Everyone's favorite New York example (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3924338,-74.4605206,3a,49.2y,219.48h,80.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_ZO1FgIU5HCKNd5lBPeVVw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664). Signed better than some touring routes, NY 990V is infamously posted. In fact, it is the legal and common name for the road that carries it. GSV coverage of the area is old and spotty at best, but I drove through earlier today and noticed that most of the reassurance shields had direction banners (East/West). Schoharie County posted a sign along CR 3 (what the highway is after state maintenance ends) facing the end of Greene CR 20 pointing to "NY 990V", "NY 30", and Conesville. This sign went up since GSV went through. Region 9 did do some good by eliminating most of the NY 962J signage, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SD Mapman on April 08, 2016, 07:56:53 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 08, 2016, 06:52:14 PM
Everyone's favorite New York example (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3924338,-74.4605206,3a,49.2y,219.48h,80.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_ZO1FgIU5HCKNd5lBPeVVw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664). Signed better than some touring routes, NY 990V is infamously posted. In fact, it is the legal and common name for the road that carries it. GSV coverage of the area is old and spotty at best, but I drove through earlier today and noticed that most of the reassurance shields had direction banners (East/West). Schoharie County posted a sign along CR 3 (what the highway is after state maintenance ends) facing the end of Greene CR 20 pointing to "NY 990V", "NY 30", and Conesville. This sign went up since GSV went through. Region 9 did do some good by eliminating most of the NY 962J signage, though.
961F (https://www.google.com/maps/place/NY-961F,+Arkport,+NY+14807/@42.3945807,-77.6965265,3a,15y,275.24h,87.78t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssGNIrRIj4R8gGwGstMK5UQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DsGNIrRIj4R8gGwGstMK5UQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D261.1886%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x89d1833449bd6f9d:0xfe972f3c7eba482) is still up too, looks like.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 09, 2016, 11:27:25 PM
On page 152 how about an erroneous RI-152 sign?  RI-152 doesn't even come down as far as where this exit is. I believe at one time it was supposed to.

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/715/22576675130_7bbe4c7bca_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on April 11, 2016, 11:41:41 AM
In its own, NY seems to have downgraded US 202 to NY 202 (but not US 6) in a couple places:

Here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3867571,-73.5852821,3a,75y,130.85h,78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svLlh4zxSdHKUK639X0J8UQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3855706,-73.5806381,3a,75y,112.52h,77.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHOgDCudUFOzc2f-OXk5-pw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on April 11, 2016, 12:30:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2016, 11:41:41 AM
In its own, NY seems to have downgraded US 202 to NY 202 (but not US 6) in a couple places:

Here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3867571,-73.5852821,3a,75y,130.85h,78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svLlh4zxSdHKUK639X0J8UQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3855706,-73.5806381,3a,75y,112.52h,77.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHOgDCudUFOzc2f-OXk5-pw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

At the recent conference that Vdeane and I attended, certain NYSDOT regional representatives (Region 8, I believe) stated that there was the perception -- albeit incorrect -- that there was a mandate to stop signing US routes in NY as US routes and to give them state shields. 

That was a little eye opening, since I always attributed it to sloppy specs or contractors (i.e., "The sign's got a number, what difference does the shape make?") rather than misunderstandings within NYSDOT.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on April 11, 2016, 12:44:22 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2016, 12:30:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2016, 11:41:41 AM
In its own, NY seems to have downgraded US 202 to NY 202 (but not US 6) in a couple places:

Here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3867571,-73.5852821,3a,75y,130.85h,78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svLlh4zxSdHKUK639X0J8UQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3855706,-73.5806381,3a,75y,112.52h,77.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHOgDCudUFOzc2f-OXk5-pw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

At the recent conference that Vdeane and I attended, certain NYSDOT regional representatives (Region 8, I believe) stated that there was the perception -- albeit incorrect -- that there was a mandate to stop signing US routes in NY as US routes and to give them state shields. 

That was a little eye opening, since I always attributed it to sloppy specs or contractors (i.e., "The sign's got a number, what difference does the shape make?") rather than misunderstandings within NYSDOT.
One problem (of many) with that notion vs. the above-examples is that NYSDOT doesn't seem to have any problems with posting US 6 shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on April 11, 2016, 12:45:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2016, 12:44:22 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2016, 12:30:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2016, 11:41:41 AM
In its own, NY seems to have downgraded US 202 to NY 202 (but not US 6) in a couple places:

Here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3867571,-73.5852821,3a,75y,130.85h,78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svLlh4zxSdHKUK639X0J8UQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3855706,-73.5806381,3a,75y,112.52h,77.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHOgDCudUFOzc2f-OXk5-pw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

At the recent conference that Vdeane and I attended, certain NYSDOT regional representatives (Region 8, I believe) stated that there was the perception -- albeit incorrect -- that there was a mandate to stop signing US routes in NY as US routes and to give them state shields. 

That was a little eye opening, since I always attributed it to sloppy specs or contractors (i.e., "The sign's got a number, what difference does the shape make?") rather than misunderstandings within NYSDOT.
One problem (of many) with that notion vs. the above-examples is that NYSDOT Region 8 doesn't seem to have any problems with posting US 6 shields.

Probably depends upon the particular project manager as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on April 11, 2016, 01:02:25 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2016, 12:44:22 PM
One problem (of many) with that notion vs. the above-examples is that NYSDOT doesn't seem to have any problems with posting US 6 shields.

There's always this from 2013:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fny6error.jpg&hash=0eb0b1a42adc0b1191779a5d32e6a8763b26437d)

Mike
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on April 11, 2016, 01:14:03 PM
Region 1 isn't much better (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.091811,-73.770998,3a,46.3y,23.86h,86.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH4ndNzG6bvuWcD_DtHE1jA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). This one is in Saratoga, with the NY 9 shield right next to a US 9 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bzakharin on April 11, 2016, 01:19:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2016, 12:30:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2016, 11:41:41 AM
In its own, NY seems to have downgraded US 202 to NY 202 (but not US 6) in a couple places:

Here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3867571,-73.5852821,3a,75y,130.85h,78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svLlh4zxSdHKUK639X0J8UQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3855706,-73.5806381,3a,75y,112.52h,77.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHOgDCudUFOzc2f-OXk5-pw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

At the recent conference that Vdeane and I attended, certain NYSDOT regional representatives (Region 8, I believe) stated that there was the perception -- albeit incorrect -- that there was a mandate to stop signing US routes in NY as US routes and to give them state shields. 

That was a little eye opening, since I always attributed it to sloppy specs or contractors (i.e., "The sign's got a number, what difference does the shape make?") rather than misunderstandings within NYSDOT.
Does the NYSDOT actually have the power to do something like that? Aren't there federal rules about how US and Interstate routes are supposed to be signed? Didn't Florida get into trouble by signing US routes with colored shields?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 11, 2016, 02:08:09 PM
If we removed all the "right number, wrong shield blank" posts from this thread, how short would it be?  These signs correctly convey the number of the highway they point to.  To me, they're more correct than incorrect.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on April 11, 2016, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 11, 2016, 02:08:09 PM
If we removed all the "right number, wrong shield blank" posts from this thread, how short would it be?  These signs correctly convey the number of the highway they point to.  To me, they're more correct than incorrect.

Of course, in New York, numbers are not unique, so using the wrong shield blank could cause issues, especially with the number of suffixed routes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on April 11, 2016, 02:39:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 11, 2016, 02:08:09 PM
If we removed all the "right number, wrong shield blank" posts from this thread, how short would it be?  These signs correctly convey the number of the highway they point to.  To me, they're more correct than incorrect.

Good luck using that logic in Texas.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on April 11, 2016, 03:18:13 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2016, 12:30:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2016, 11:41:41 AM
In its own, NY seems to have downgraded US 202 to NY 202 (but not US 6) in a couple places:

Here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3867571,-73.5852821,3a,75y,130.85h,78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svLlh4zxSdHKUK639X0J8UQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3855706,-73.5806381,3a,75y,112.52h,77.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHOgDCudUFOzc2f-OXk5-pw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

At the recent conference that Vdeane and I attended, certain NYSDOT regional representatives (Region 8, I believe) stated that there was the perception -- albeit incorrect -- that there was a mandate to stop signing US routes in NY as US routes and to give them state shields. 

That was a little eye opening, since I always attributed it to sloppy specs or contractors (i.e., "The sign's got a number, what difference does the shape make?") rather than misunderstandings within NYSDOT.

I'm not surprised by that, as one of the state contractors apparently just assumed that anything designed in Series D was to be Clearview, that's how a lot of Clearview signs popped up on NYSDOT highways.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: steviep24 on April 11, 2016, 04:05:32 PM
"404 error" still exists. US 404 shield on NY 404.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.208586,-77.4609391,3a,15y,90.49h,87.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9bDp26y7ofVZcoI42H3-xA!2e0!5s20150801T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en





Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bzakharin on April 11, 2016, 04:45:27 PM
Quote from: steviep24 on April 11, 2016, 04:05:32 PM
"404 error" still exists. US 404 shield on NY 404.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.208586,-77.4609391,3a,15y,90.49h,87.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9bDp26y7ofVZcoI42H3-xA!2e0!5s20150801T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en


There is at least one in Delaware too:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6994938,-75.4012705,3a,15y,216.79h,85.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbLQyuyHuKWtsPcIhD-YAtQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on April 11, 2016, 07:48:20 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 11, 2016, 02:08:09 PM
If we removed all the "right number, wrong shield blank" posts from this thread, how short would it be?  These signs correctly convey the number of the highway they point to.  To me, they're more correct than incorrect.

After all, the number of the highway is all that matters (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6540449,-84.0051809,3a,75y,217.9h,107.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sS2QGpd5ZzGFxf4lLkYLMbA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DS2QGpd5ZzGFxf4lLkYLMbA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D22.733538%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656). (NOTE: example given is not actually incorrect.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on April 11, 2016, 10:51:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2016, 12:30:52 PM

At the recent conference that Vdeane and I attended, certain NYSDOT regional representatives (Region 8, I believe) stated that there was the perception -- albeit incorrect -- that there was a mandate to stop signing US routes in NY as US routes and to give them state shields. 

That was a little eye opening, since I always attributed it to sloppy specs or contractors (i.e., "The sign's got a number, what difference does the shape make?") rather than misunderstandings within NYSDOT.

How in the world would they come to that conclusion? Other than sheer stupidity?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on April 11, 2016, 11:29:35 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 11, 2016, 10:51:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2016, 12:30:52 PM

At the recent conference that Vdeane and I attended, certain NYSDOT regional representatives (Region 8, I believe) stated that there was the perception -- albeit incorrect -- that there was a mandate to stop signing US routes in NY as US routes and to give them state shields. 

That was a little eye opening, since I always attributed it to sloppy specs or contractors (i.e., "The sign's got a number, what difference does the shape make?") rather than misunderstandings within NYSDOT.

How in the world would they come to that conclusion? Other than sheer stupidity?

With the crappy signage and marking jobs I've seen in R8, I can't say I'm surprised.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on April 12, 2016, 08:13:28 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 11, 2016, 10:51:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2016, 12:30:52 PM

At the recent conference that Vdeane and I attended, certain NYSDOT regional representatives (Region 8, I believe) stated that there was the perception -- albeit incorrect -- that there was a mandate to stop signing US routes in NY as US routes and to give them state shields. 

That was a little eye opening, since I always attributed it to sloppy specs or contractors (i.e., "The sign's got a number, what difference does the shape make?") rather than misunderstandings within NYSDOT.

How in the world would they come to that conclusion? Other than sheer stupidity?

At the conference, the presenter was just as confused as we all are when they brought up this idea in Q&A.  So, no one knows how they came up with the idea and they themselves just said that they heard that the order came down from management...which it didn't.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on April 14, 2016, 02:19:56 PM
Stanley Roberts just tweeted this. It's near UCSF.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F0B17AC0B-EFC0-4190-8A3E-2271E4122DD1_zpsyix4n3ll.jpg&hash=4aeaf5874967afed5edde23465ba471591e7881f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 14, 2016, 02:21:51 PM
I can barely stand listening to more than one minuet.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on April 14, 2016, 05:08:12 PM
IIRC there is one forumer who writes 'minuet' instead of minute, like that sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on April 14, 2016, 05:26:16 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 14, 2016, 05:08:12 PM
IIRC there is one forumer who writes 'minuet' instead of minute, like that sign.

roadman65
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US 81 on April 14, 2016, 05:35:23 PM
I kinda like the One Minuet Waltz, by Chop-in..... :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SD Mapman on April 14, 2016, 07:34:33 PM
Contractor stupidity or new signage pattern for business routes?

What do you think? (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4897828,-96.4038145,3a,19.4y,280.48h,86.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swOywNGc8IT33JFwjAFTF-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Look, there's a standalone (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4897952,-96.4013647,3a,15y,131.55h,87.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWS8U_jtbTNlsOHOvUjTlYw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) one too!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JMoses24 on April 16, 2016, 11:41:34 PM
I think this has been posted here, but here's a double error. This is US 27/US 127. It's on Central Parkway just north of the point where that road turns from east-west to north-south.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fz3AvVlh.jpg%3F1&hash=352d904639af2a99235c687c73ac586240f4ffe3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on April 17, 2016, 10:19:35 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 11, 2016, 02:08:09 PM
If we removed all the "right number, wrong shield blank" posts from this thread, how short would it be?  These signs correctly convey the number of the highway they point to.  To me, they're more correct than incorrect.

In this part of the world since all 'shields' are rectangles with different colors, it would be the wrong color. There are quite a few in my area (including a second-tier regional road (green) upgraded to a national one (red)).

However, I remember there was once at the start of a freeway a couple of 'new lane on the left' signs and then the lane appeared on the right. The freeway has since been extended, so the signs are gone.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on April 17, 2016, 12:01:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 11, 2016, 02:08:09 PMIf we removed all the "right number, wrong shield blank" posts from this thread, how short would it be?  These signs correctly convey the number of the highway they point to.  To me, they're more correct than incorrect.

Signing construction plan sheets come with this exclusion already applied since, in the vast majority of states (Utah being one exception), route marker signs are not considered designable.  On a similar basis it is reasonable to exclude sizing errors (capital letters too high in relation to lowercase loop height) because these are mistakes of formatting rather than content.  Even after this, I still see a few plan sheets with spelling errors:  "Pratice" rather than "Practice," "Churchdownd" instead of "Churchdown," etc.  I think the infamous "Elimitante thru trtaffic" (?) has its origins in a plan sheet as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: peterj920 on April 17, 2016, 12:01:55 PM
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1507/25880422693_5f95ab96c6_k_d.jpg)

Wrong lake.  Should be Lake Michigan.  Lake Superior isn't anywhere close to Manitowoc
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on April 18, 2016, 08:42:06 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 17, 2016, 12:01:55 PM

Wrong lake.  Should be Lake Michigan.  Lake Superior isn't anywhere close to Manitowoc

That's truly bizarre.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 18, 2016, 09:47:05 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2016, 08:42:06 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on April 17, 2016, 12:01:55 PM

Wrong lake.  Should be Lake Michigan.  Lake Superior isn't anywhere close to Manitowoc

That's truly bizarre.
I was going to theorize that the signs came from a shop/yard where signs for both circle tours are commingled...but there aren't any WISDOT districts that include shorelines on both lakes...so maybe someone at the sign supplier messed up  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on April 18, 2016, 09:59:56 AM
Worse yet is a sign buried somewhere in this thread showing a Lake Erie sign in Sheboygan WI. (This location but hard to read: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.71776,-87.760545,3a,75y,318.55h,79.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZM8nuNjNv9JOlu9PbNxYUw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on April 18, 2016, 10:38:33 AM
Quote from: Big John on April 18, 2016, 09:59:56 AM
Worse yet is a sign buried somewhere in this thread showing a Lake Erie sign in Sheboygan WI. (This location but hard to read: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.71776,-87.760545,3a,75y,318.55h,79.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZM8nuNjNv9JOlu9PbNxYUw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I take it the sign in question isn't the one on the unisign with I-43. That one looks like LAKE MICHIGAN to me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: peterj920 on April 18, 2016, 10:48:54 AM
Quote from: jbnv on April 18, 2016, 10:38:33 AM
Quote from: Big John on April 18, 2016, 09:59:56 AM
Worse yet is a sign buried somewhere in this thread showing a Lake Erie sign in Sheboygan WI. (This location but hard to read: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.71776,-87.760545,3a,75y,318.55h,79.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZM8nuNjNv9JOlu9PbNxYUw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I take it the sign in question isn't the one on the unisign with I-43. That one looks like LAKE MICHIGAN to me.

It says Lake Michigan, but the graphic in the sign is of Lake Erie.  Lake Erie is no where near Wisconsin so it would be interesting to see how that graphic made it onto the sign.  Here's a closeup that someone posted on flickr. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-turnbull/4429625013 

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on April 19, 2016, 05:13:33 PM
Saw a US-34 this weekend in Gettysburg; thought there might actually be a US-34, but then discovered about a block later they meant PA-34.  But I see these kinds of sign errors all the time.  In fact, just this morning I saw an MD-29 shield posted on US-29 (granted, it was on one of those "thanks for your patience during construction" signs, but still)...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 21, 2016, 12:47:43 PM
This intersection is 350 km away from Mexican federal highway 40.  Thinking the crossroad might be state route 40 instead, I checked the SCT website and the road is not listed as a state highway either.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2FMorelos_zpscifwshfc.png&hash=2c285252b1547200aaaf3f56cc033e04edac1e84)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on April 21, 2016, 03:21:00 PM
Here ya go.  This sign should say To PA-34, not To US-34.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8299606,-77.2311001,3a,75y,353.02h,86.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2PKDjHtfrp7gDPDgmD6ipg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on April 21, 2016, 03:24:57 PM
One of a seemingly interminable number of US-27 reassurance markers on NY-27 on Eastern Long Island:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8909295,-72.4888868,3a,75y,50.28h,91.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdoUTFf0zuESKQRg9Jdk7Xw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 21, 2016, 03:43:12 PM
Quote from: tckma on April 21, 2016, 03:24:57 PM
One of a seemingly interminable number of US-27 reassurance markers on NY-27 on Eastern Long Island:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8909295,-72.4888868,3a,75y,50.28h,91.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdoUTFf0zuESKQRg9Jdk7Xw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
For a state that has (had?) such a distaste for the US Route system, they sure do love to put up US Route shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on April 21, 2016, 03:43:49 PM
In the preview for the new movie "Founder" there's a US 17 in Arizona
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 21, 2016, 09:26:26 PM
Quote from: tckma on April 21, 2016, 03:21:00 PM
Here ya go.  This sign should say To PA-34, not To US-34.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8299606,-77.2311001,3a,75y,353.02h,86.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2PKDjHtfrp7gDPDgmD6ipg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Oh my god.
As a guy who grew up in Oswego, IL (home of the ACTUAL junction of US30-34), I find this sign assembly AMAZING.  :)
https://goo.gl/maps/hNLoCawiJb42
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on April 22, 2016, 06:58:23 PM
Quote from: tckma on April 21, 2016, 03:21:00 PM
Here ya go.  This sign should say To PA-34, not To US-34.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8299606,-77.2311001,3a,75y,353.02h,86.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2PKDjHtfrp7gDPDgmD6ipg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Only 689 miles to go!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on April 22, 2016, 06:59:02 PM
Quote from: tckma on April 21, 2016, 03:24:57 PM
One of a seemingly interminable number of US-27 reassurance markers on NY-27 on Eastern Long Island:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8909295,-72.4888868,3a,75y,50.28h,91.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdoUTFf0zuESKQRg9Jdk7Xw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Could Cincinnati borrow a few of those?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: briantroutman on April 26, 2016, 07:23:08 AM
I noticed this "US 15"  shield around the corner from the hotel where I stayed last night in Norwalk, CT. The shield obviously refers to CT 15 (The Merritt Parkway). What surprised me was the fact it has lasted so long–I would guess it to be a survivor from the '70s.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1683/26049614984_60b84cd05e_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1691/26655509065_fe97e52bc6_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1449/26655511055_71687dd0e2_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shadyjay on April 26, 2016, 11:41:57 AM
And up in Meriden, CT, on US 5 just north of I-691, you have another US 15...

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5441353,-72.7848341,3a,41.1y,46.78h,75.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sz-6LfPscWDAd-zGBiTnywA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


And then there's these, on CT 68 East a few miles south in Wallingford, CT:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.485644,-72.8089413,3a,21.5y,121.44h,80.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm7b_jChfYt6hgjiwdxay8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The CT 5 shield should be US 5.  And the same occurs in the other direction (CT 68 West), where there used to be a CT 5 and US 15 shield, before the US 15 shield was corrected with a CT 15 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on April 27, 2016, 09:51:48 AM
Directional sign to the Morgan Run Natural Environment Area (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Westminster,+MD+21157/@39.4584934,-77.0017324,3a,23.7y,185.24h,83.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEhayIeHorNA62zOS420KiQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DEhayIeHorNA62zOS420KiQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D141.64211%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c8383e496287b5:0xd04588bc64a2d41).  What's with the slash?

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 27, 2016, 05:10:06 PM
Quote from: tckma on April 27, 2016, 09:51:48 AM
Directional sign to the Morgan Run Natural Environment Area (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Westminster,+MD+21157/@39.4584934,-77.0017324,3a,23.7y,185.24h,83.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEhayIeHorNA62zOS420KiQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DEhayIeHorNA62zOS420KiQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D141.64211%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c8383e496287b5:0xd04588bc64a2d41).  What's with the slash?
I think they were trying to differentiate "Run NEA" from "Run DMC"  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 02, 2016, 11:13:40 AM
A bunch of these have started appearing throughout Carroll County, Maryland -- and ONLY in Carroll County.  New installations of this sign in other counties in the state have the correct grammar.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRW0E0Us.jpg%255D&hash=a19e4c19329f3ffb59b8c1378e95c12ac7774f03)

This one's on MD-140 eastbound approaching Hughes Shop Road in Westminster.  Two other locations I can think of off-hand are MD-140 westbound approaching the Taneytown Rotary, and MD-97 northbound just after the Howard/Carroll County Line and the CSX tracks.  I'm sure there are others.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 02, 2016, 11:43:55 AM
A few years ago, during a sign replacement project, MD SHA posted an MD-832 reassurance marker on what is clearly MD-140.  It was up for about three days.  I submitted a signage error request at the SHA website, and the wayward reassurance marker was silently replaced that day, without comment to me.

I took a photo:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.imgur.com%2FkNaZ1wh.jpg&hash=4e396d7a8275208ea6a8330f634bbf574e9ce8e9)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 03, 2016, 09:59:38 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 26, 2016, 11:41:57 AM
And up in Meriden, CT, on US 5 just north of I-691, you have another US 15...

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5441353,-72.7848341,3a,41.1y,46.78h,75.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sz-6LfPscWDAd-zGBiTnywA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

And then there's these, on CT 68 East a few miles south in Wallingford, CT:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.485644,-72.8089413,3a,21.5y,121.44h,80.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm7b_jChfYt6hgjiwdxay8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The CT 5 shield should be US 5.  And the same occurs in the other direction (CT 68 West), where there used to be a CT 5 and US 15 shield, before the US 15 shield was corrected with a CT 15 shield.

Let's not forget about I-84 and US Route 6 in West Hartford, CT. ConnDOT got lazy and used a few upside down CT Route 9 signs, which ends not too far west of this sign:

https://goo.gl/maps/KdCfqPe4ZTu
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Tom958 on May 05, 2016, 09:15:59 PM
Did they cut this sign in two with a freaking chop saw? Sure looks like it,lol.  :clap: GDOT's lack of comprehension of signage design principles reaches a new pinnacle.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS7sxMEL.jpg%3F1&hash=b1e3c1ece6a81cac1b9d75b4f256488a4678496b)

Watch the infuriating story here:
http://www.cbs46.com/story/31893090/wild-video-of-confused-drivers-on-i-285-misplaced-sign-to-blame

Here's the pre-APL condition:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fzv5nRjL.jpg%3F1&hash=4a20320d3f74f8b36cebdb5695614e500750f51f)


And its badly flawed replacement. Notice how it's located well behind the conventional sign even though it needed to be placed ahead.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkvS91Ps.jpg%3F1&hash=9510c4dba6b20859d9ec2a8fe86cd2b160fec8e6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 05, 2016, 09:34:05 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on May 05, 2016, 09:15:59 PM
Did they cut this sign in two with a freaking chop saw? Sure looks like it,lol.  :clap: GDOT's lack of comprehension of signage design principles reaches a new pinnacle.

http://i.imgur.com/S7sxMEL.jpg?1

If they cleaned up the cut-job, it's actually quite a nice sign. Rather reminiscent of some of the British Columbia APLs:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FX9k2Hrz.jpg&hash=50e26d60da715c48ac3e3cb5b0d533df0ac67fd4)

Photo mine.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on May 05, 2016, 09:51:04 PM
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13139215_10207985487187452_3704434290237201405_n.jpg?oh=bf00949a614a6cff52efbf406b262943&oe=579BDCD9)

Noel, MO. The correct shield in in the background :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on May 06, 2016, 12:12:42 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on May 05, 2016, 09:15:59 PM
Did they cut this sign in two with a freaking chop saw? Sure looks like it,lol.  :clap: GDOT's lack of comprehension of signage design principles reaches a new pinnacle.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS7sxMEL.jpg%3F1&hash=b1e3c1ece6a81cac1b9d75b4f256488a4678496b)

Watch the infuriating story here:
http://www.cbs46.com/story/31893090/wild-video-of-confused-drivers-on-i-285-misplaced-sign-to-blame

Here's the pre-APL condition:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fzv5nRjL.jpg%3F1&hash=4a20320d3f74f8b36cebdb5695614e500750f51f)


And it's badly flawed replacement. Notice how it's located well behind the conventional sign even though it needed to be placed ahead.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkvS91Ps.jpg%3F1&hash=9510c4dba6b20859d9ec2a8fe86cd2b160fec8e6)
I also noticed that drivers had run over the gore-point sign due to how badly designed it was. :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on May 06, 2016, 01:40:55 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on May 05, 2016, 09:15:59 PM
Did they cut this sign in two with a freaking chop saw? Sure looks like it,lol.  :clap: GDOT's lack of comprehension of signage design principles reaches a new pinnacle.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS7sxMEL.jpg%3F1&hash=b1e3c1ece6a81cac1b9d75b4f256488a4678496b)

Watch the infuriating story here:
http://www.cbs46.com/story/31893090/wild-video-of-confused-drivers-on-i-285-misplaced-sign-to-blame

Here's the pre-APL condition:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fzv5nRjL.jpg%3F1&hash=4a20320d3f74f8b36cebdb5695614e500750f51f)


And it's badly flawed replacement. Notice how it's located well behind the conventional sign even though it needed to be placed ahead.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkvS91Ps.jpg%3F1&hash=9510c4dba6b20859d9ec2a8fe86cd2b160fec8e6)

It's obvious that the new APL signs are extreme overkill for their application in many cases. I think the older installation worked much better for the application that that APL monstrosity. I can't help but think that APLs are economically motivated to increase revenue for the manufacturing companies.  Too large, too much green space, too much of a waste of money.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on May 06, 2016, 01:58:38 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on May 05, 2016, 09:15:59 PM
Did they cut this sign in two with a freaking chop saw? Sure looks like it,lol.  :clap: GDOT's lack of comprehension of signage design principles reaches a new pinnacle.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS7sxMEL.jpg%3F1&hash=b1e3c1ece6a81cac1b9d75b4f256488a4678496b)

Watch the infuriating story here:
http://www.cbs46.com/story/31893090/wild-video-of-confused-drivers-on-i-285-misplaced-sign-to-blame

Are you f'n kidding me?

The fact that GDOT says the sign is technically correct makes me want to  :banghead:!

Just another example of how APLs cannot be the sole way for signing multi-lane exits with an option lane.  DOTs should have the flexibility to install traditional down-arrow signs if APLs don't work for any reason.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 06, 2016, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 06, 2016, 01:58:38 PM
Just another example of how APLs cannot be the sole way for signing multi-lane exits with an option lane.

The CBS affiliate said the after-sign resulted in zero last-second decisions. Hardly scientific, but that says more about the placement of the sign than the APL itself.

Quote from: myosh_tino on May 06, 2016, 01:58:38 PM
DOTs should have the flexibility to install traditional down-arrow signs if APLs don't work for any reason.

Not to sound uppity, but APLs can work anywhere (see basically every redesign of mine in the "redesign this" thread). There just needs to be more flexibility in terms of how the signs can be laid out. The manual is far too imperious as-is.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on May 06, 2016, 06:59:24 PM
The Georgia example is nothing more than dumb sign placement. Gantry should have been placed 500 feet earlier. GDOT has been notoriously bad with their implementation of APLs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Tom958 on May 06, 2016, 08:33:15 PM
Quote from: cl94 on May 06, 2016, 06:59:24 PM
The Georgia example is nothing more than dumb sign placement. Gantry should have been placed 500 feet earlier.

True, except... a pretty good case could be made that there's a need to display legends for both 85 north and 85 south plus their respective control destinations since the divergence in the 85 ramp is so close. That's why there was a split sign when the conventional signage was there. In fact, IIRC, that split sign was installed after a few years for that very reason. And of course the control city for the left fork couldn't be something nice and short like Macon, could it?  :no:

On the one piece APL, the 85 south/Columbus/Montgomery legend was too big to fit where it needed to go. As a result, in addition to the obvious "crap, I just passed my exit!" problem, there may have also been confusion as to whether 85 south was to the right or straight ahead.


Quote from: cl94GDOT has been notoriously bad with their implementation of APLs.

Yes, bad, and MUTCD noncompliant, but also creative. Months ago I posted about this signage sequence (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=204.msg2118728#msg2118728) twenty miles further along 285. It's not directly comparable, but it demonstrates the appropriate-- and necessary-- level of creativity.

There's another possibility, too: perhaps the sign was intended to be installed at the correct location, but then it was decided to install it much further back, behind the existing sign instead of in front. GDOT has been doing that a lot lately. Then... they didn't bother to redesign the sign accordingly. I know from firsthand experience that it's happened before.  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JJBers on May 06, 2016, 08:52:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/MuTUbqHDzTF2 (https://goo.gl/maps/MuTUbqHDzTF2)
Sign is crooked, the road it points you to is dead ends at a river
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on May 07, 2016, 03:40:52 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 06, 2016, 01:58:38 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on May 05, 2016, 09:15:59 PM
Did they cut this sign in two with a freaking chop saw? Sure looks like it,lol.  :clap: GDOT's lack of comprehension of signage design principles reaches a new pinnacle.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS7sxMEL.jpg%3F1&hash=b1e3c1ece6a81cac1b9d75b4f256488a4678496b)

Watch the infuriating story here:
http://www.cbs46.com/story/31893090/wild-video-of-confused-drivers-on-i-285-misplaced-sign-to-blame

Are you f'n kidding me?

The fact that GDOT says the sign is technically correct makes me want to  :banghead:!

Ditto. While the arrows are correct, the sign text layout was just bad and not in keeping with APL designs. Also, APL signs should be placed at the theoretical gore point, and this was downstream of that.

Quote
Just another example of how APLs cannot be the sole way for signing multi-lane exits with an option lane.  DOTs should have the flexibility to install traditional down-arrow signs if APLs don't work for any reason.

I don't know about giving blanket flexibility for down arrows. But I do agree that some flexibility on APLs may be needed in cases of quick successive exits, etc.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jet380 on May 09, 2016, 06:23:11 AM
If you want to stay on State Route 77, you need to... do anything you like apparently!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxCsnWtb.png%3F1&hash=3540c4a35ed95a989cfad635cc82998eb7cfc0b8)
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-31.8595323,115.8110964,3a,75y,221.94h,83.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT6YZkBKgeRiv1LBV-PA5MA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-31.8595323,115.8110964,3a,75y,221.94h,83.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT6YZkBKgeRiv1LBV-PA5MA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The cross road is meant to be SR 78.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on May 09, 2016, 08:23:28 PM
Quote from: Jet380 on May 09, 2016, 06:23:11 AM
The cross road is meant to be SR 78.

I wonder if they just pulled too many 77s from the rack...do they keep some in stock?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 12, 2016, 10:07:45 AM
So VDOT's Richmond district has been experimenting with miniature unisigns in various places. Unfortunately, this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6042813,-77.3716726,3a,75y,255.15h,83.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOeDJARThazrAeZRelP3T1w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) upgraded SR 638 to a primary route. I'm not sure if it's still there; all the other signs at this intersection are correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 12, 2016, 07:19:11 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 12, 2016, 10:07:45 AM
So VDOT's Richmond district has been experimenting with miniature unisigns in various places. Unfortunately, this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6042813,-77.3716726,3a,75y,255.15h,83.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOeDJARThazrAeZRelP3T1w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) upgraded SR 638 to a primary route. I'm not sure if it's still there; all the other signs at this intersection are correct.

Are you sure this is somewhat new?  I do have a photo of the correct shields taken in 2013 coming from US 360 Business EB.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 13, 2016, 02:56:07 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 12, 2016, 07:19:11 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 12, 2016, 10:07:45 AM
So VDOT's Richmond district has been experimenting with miniature unisigns in various places. Unfortunately, this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6042813,-77.3716726,3a,75y,255.15h,83.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOeDJARThazrAeZRelP3T1w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) upgraded SR 638 to a primary route. I'm not sure if it's still there; all the other signs at this intersection are correct.

Are you sure this is somewhat new?  I do have a photo of the correct shields taken in 2013 coming from US 360 Business EB.

Yeah, it's fairly new - this is actually on US 360 Business WB. The EB signs have always been correct. I think these signs were put up late in 2014.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 13, 2016, 03:18:22 PM
Saw this on Wednesday, when I was running errands in this part of Columbia (which I rarely am).

WTF is this?!?!?!?

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1750252,-76.8606512,3a,75y,17.16h,91.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suXVTlszuFV4_jhcJ8KW9pQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

They realized that US-29 is not a Maryland state route, but instead of grabbing a US Route shield, they replaced "Maryland" with "Route" in the Maryland state highway shield?  What a half-assed job.  "But I was using my WHOLE ass!" -Homer Simpson
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: HTM Duke on May 13, 2016, 06:27:16 PM
An error with the directional banners on this assembly (express lanes exit from I-495 to Gallows Rd); it should be south-north instead of east-west.
https://goo.gl/maps/PmLcUa9Dpq62

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on May 13, 2016, 08:49:15 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 13, 2016, 03:18:22 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1750252,-76.8606512,3a,75y,17.16h,91.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suXVTlszuFV4_jhcJ8KW9pQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

They realized that US-29 is not a Maryland state route, but instead of grabbing a US Route shield, they replaced "Maryland" with "Route" in the Maryland state highway shield?  What a half-assed job.  "But I was using my WHOLE ass!" -Homer Simpson

Looks like they probably produced the MD 29 shield, recognized the error, then put on a "white out" patch to correct before posting in the field--path of least resistance? Notice how the white background within the "route" section is brighter/different.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on May 14, 2016, 02:09:22 PM
The AL 20 shield should have a JCT plaque above it, since you're intersection AL 20, and not actively on it at this point:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7116/27011493405_7418ca5cec.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/H9UXVx)AL 20/ALT US 72 (https://flic.kr/p/H9UXVx) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
This is in Courtland, AL.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on May 14, 2016, 05:34:46 PM
Found on NY Route 48 on the south side of Oswego.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupstatenyroads.com%2Faaroads%2F48oswego.jpg&hash=d5d6079d96cb5bbc9a1d88779e8dcc5d64615bb6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on May 14, 2016, 05:42:42 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupstatenyroads.com%2Faaroads%2Fus-104-us-481.jpg&hash=f37b78fada37d021dc08a52dc82714cdfd6b34b7)

US Route 104 is back and it's better than ever. And to join in the fun, introducing US Route 481!

Found on the east side of Oswego, N.Y.  These signs are pointing should be leading the way to NY 104 and NY 481 though in all fairness, NY 104 was US 104 until 1972.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 14, 2016, 06:18:25 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on May 14, 2016, 05:34:46 PM
Found on NY Route 48 on the south side of Oswego.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupstatenyroads.com%2Faaroads%2F48oswego.jpg&hash=d5d6079d96cb5bbc9a1d88779e8dcc5d64615bb6)
lmao that's incredible.  We see a lot of shields with errors on this thread--when there's plenty of more glaring fails out there on warning, regulatory, and other guide signs too!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on May 14, 2016, 06:30:50 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 14, 2016, 06:18:25 PM
lmao that's incredible.  We see a lot of shields with errors on this thread--when there's plenty of more glaring fails out there on warning, regulatory, and other guide signs too!

(Also the pic above me is sideways bro you may want to fix that)

I don't know how a sign shop in the United States would even have the ability to make a sign like that!

As far as the sideways pic, it's been fixed. Curse Apple and the way they handle photos on the iPad! It looked normal to me until I logged in on my Linux laptop.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 15, 2016, 09:09:34 PM
Yesterday I found error PA 11/PA 15 shields put in place for the US 11/US 15 detour for the current closure between I-81 and Marysville.  This is on PA 230 WB before US 22 WB turns onto Cameron St.  All of the other shields I saw for the detour were correct.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FDSC01372_zpscrc8vqtq.jpg&hash=b21ef1741dd7b08aab2c65229bbacd75683cd075)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on May 16, 2016, 11:34:53 AM
A couple of pictures from a trip took yesterday to southern Ohio & Greenup County, KY:

This should be U.S. 68 in Mt. Orab, OH:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7467/26970643061_18b3cc55eb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/H6iAxg)DSC03625 (https://flic.kr/p/H6iAxg) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

End Work Road? Taken in Russell, KY:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7009/26945732582_72a55e8576_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/H46Vwf)DSC03863 (https://flic.kr/p/H46Vwf) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 16, 2016, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on May 14, 2016, 05:34:46 PM
Found on NY Route 48 on the south side of Oswego.

Enlighten a n00b --- what is wrong with this?  If I had to guess, I'd say the road is already two way traffic at this point?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on May 16, 2016, 12:13:07 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 16, 2016, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on May 14, 2016, 05:34:46 PM
Found on NY Route 48 on the south side of Oswego.

Enlighten a n00b --- what is wrong with this?  If I had to guess, I'd say the road is already two way traffic at this point?

You sure you're not from Westminster, England instead of Westminster, MD...?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 16, 2016, 12:26:25 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 16, 2016, 12:13:07 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 16, 2016, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on May 14, 2016, 05:34:46 PM
Found on NY Route 48 on the south side of Oswego.

Enlighten a n00b --- what is wrong with this?  If I had to guess, I'd say the road is already two way traffic at this point?

You sure you're not from Westminster, England instead of Westminster, MD...?

Oh.  Whoops.  Installed upside-down, perhaps?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bzakharin on May 16, 2016, 12:36:28 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 16, 2016, 12:26:25 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 16, 2016, 12:13:07 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 16, 2016, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on May 14, 2016, 05:34:46 PM
Found on NY Route 48 on the south side of Oswego.

Enlighten a n00b --- what is wrong with this?  If I had to guess, I'd say the road is already two way traffic at this point?

You sure you're not from Westminster, England instead of Westminster, MD...?

Oh.  Whoops.  Installed upside-down, perhaps?
Try rotating the image in MS Paint or something
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on May 16, 2016, 12:37:45 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 16, 2016, 12:26:25 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 16, 2016, 12:13:07 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 16, 2016, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on May 14, 2016, 05:34:46 PM
Found on NY Route 48 on the south side of Oswego.

Enlighten a n00b --- what is wrong with this?  If I had to guess, I'd say the road is already two way traffic at this point?

You sure you're not from Westminster, England instead of Westminster, MD...?

Oh.  Whoops.  Installed upside-down, perhaps?

Upside-down actually looks the same as right-side up. It was created incorrectly, not installed incorrectly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2016, 12:47:24 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 16, 2016, 12:37:45 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 16, 2016, 12:26:25 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 16, 2016, 12:13:07 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 16, 2016, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on May 14, 2016, 05:34:46 PM
Found on NY Route 48 on the south side of Oswego.

Enlighten a n00b --- what is wrong with this?  If I had to guess, I'd say the road is already two way traffic at this point?

You sure you're not from Westminster, England instead of Westminster, MD...?

Oh.  Whoops.  Installed upside-down, perhaps?

Upside-down actually looks the same as right-side up. It was created incorrectly, not installed incorrectly.

It was installed backwards.  Turn it around so the back is facing forward!   :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on May 16, 2016, 01:14:22 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2016, 12:47:24 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 16, 2016, 12:37:45 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 16, 2016, 12:26:25 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 16, 2016, 12:13:07 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 16, 2016, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on May 14, 2016, 05:34:46 PM
Found on NY Route 48 on the south side of Oswego.

Enlighten a n00b --- what is wrong with this?  If I had to guess, I'd say the road is already two way traffic at this point?

You sure you're not from Westminster, England instead of Westminster, MD...?

Oh.  Whoops.  Installed upside-down, perhaps?

Upside-down actually looks the same as right-side up. It was created incorrectly, not installed incorrectly.

It was installed backwards.  Turn it around so the back is facing forward!   :spin:

This all kind of reminds me of this sign I photographed along US 1 in Yarmouth, ME back in 2009. I haven't been on this stretch of 1 in a while, so I'm not sure if it's still there. EDIT: According to the Google Street View of the sign (https://goo.gl/maps/cC2TGiHvoME2), it was still there as of October 2015.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-3WLHzSBw1QA/SpxgjWdRWeI/AAAAAAAANEc/pxJWnnY7boUJhpmLacl8gilWfSURpH3SgCCo/s640/IMG_9789.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on May 16, 2016, 01:16:31 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 16, 2016, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on May 14, 2016, 05:34:46 PM
Found on NY Route 48 on the south side of Oswego.

Enlighten a n00b --- what is wrong with this?  If I had to guess, I'd say the road is already two way traffic at this point?

Unless the contractor is installing this in the US Virgin Islands, it's made completely wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2016, 01:27:39 PM
Quote from: Ian on May 16, 2016, 01:14:22 PM
This all kind of reminds me of this sign I photographed along US 1 in Yarmouth, ME back in 2009. I haven't been on this stretch of 1 in a while, so I'm not sure if it's still there. EDIT: According to the Google Street View of the sign (https://goo.gl/maps/cC2TGiHvoME2), it was still there as of October 2015.

I think they went a little overboard with the painted turn arrows as well.  Based on the placement of the skip lines, they're painted every 75 feet.  About once every tenth of a mile (500' or so) is more than enough.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on May 16, 2016, 01:37:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2016, 01:27:39 PM
Quote from: Ian on May 16, 2016, 01:14:22 PM
This all kind of reminds me of this sign I photographed along US 1 in Yarmouth, ME back in 2009. I haven't been on this stretch of 1 in a while, so I'm not sure if it's still there. EDIT: According to the Google Street View of the sign (https://goo.gl/maps/cC2TGiHvoME2), it was still there as of October 2015.

I think they went a little overboard with the painted turn arrows as well.  Based on the placement of the skip lines, they're painted every 75 feet.  About once every tenth of a mile (500' or so) is more than enough.

Please, that's nothing compared to NYCDOT placement (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6757499,-73.8975517,103m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 16, 2016, 06:27:54 PM
This sign is only about 1000 feet from the gore point ahead.  Not to mention the signage would be a lot cleaner if they just but the yellow "exit V only" banner across the bottom of a single green sign.

And then, when you get to the gore point, the sign there doesn't have a yellow "exit r7 only" banner on the bottom, where one is required.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7709/26892160126_6e2d744da7_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GYnmid)

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7036/26321844783_bae4bec822_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/G6Ykq4)
20160509_104357 (https://flic.kr/p/G6Ykq4) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on May 16, 2016, 08:58:19 PM
Quote from: okroads on May 16, 2016, 11:34:53 AM
A couple of pictures from a trip took yesterday to southern Ohio & Greenup County, KY:

This should be U.S. 68 in Mt. Orab, OH:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7467/26970643061_18b3cc55eb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/H6iAxg)DSC03625 (https://flic.kr/p/H6iAxg) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

At least the state shape is to spec.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 16, 2016, 10:00:25 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 16, 2016, 06:27:54 PM
And then, when you get to the gore point, the sign there doesn't have a yellow "exit r7 only" banner on the bottom, where one is required.

Is it actually required in the MUTCD to have an 'EXIT ONLY' at the gore? I feel like I've seen many signs that are exit only that aren't signed as such.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on May 18, 2016, 09:47:42 AM
Spotted two shield errors in my travels the last 12 days which I tweeted about.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cimd3QAW0AE-KZ0.jpg:large)

https://twitter.com/AARoads/status/732290971422081025 (https://twitter.com/AARoads/status/732290971422081025)

Crummy Gadsden County install that replaced a FL 65 keys shield in 2010.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiQ7Zh0W0AADWiF.jpg:large)

https://twitter.com/AARoads/status/730774377856442368 (https://twitter.com/AARoads/status/730774377856442368)

They installed traffic lights at US 29 and Florida 97 in Molino last year (IIRC), and posted this assembly along the southbound US Highway mainline.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 18, 2016, 10:30:23 AM
Quote from: Alex on May 18, 2016, 09:47:42 AM
Spotted two shield errors in my travels the last 12 days which I tweeted about.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cimd3QAW0AE-KZ0.jpg:large)

https://twitter.com/AARoads/status/732290971422081025 (https://twitter.com/AARoads/status/732290971422081025)

Crummy Gadsden County install that replaced a FL 65 keys shield in 2010.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiQ7Zh0W0AADWiF.jpg:large)

https://twitter.com/AARoads/status/730774377856442368 (https://twitter.com/AARoads/status/730774377856442368)

They installed traffic lights at US 29 and Florida 97 in Molino last year (IIRC), and posted this assembly along the southbound US Highway mainline.  :rolleyes:

I was going to say, that sure doesn't look like New Jersey.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on May 18, 2016, 11:34:03 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?

MA 2 (not on route itself), 28, and 125 (125 is an oval)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on May 18, 2016, 11:44:52 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?

Virginia and Maryland can be on this list...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 18, 2016, 12:58:23 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?

New Hampshire seems to have a lot of squares:

Squares! (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7647907,-71.4401466,3a,25y,55.3h,95.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc_XKTcCryNRmjb-ZETAX7Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Circles show up for NH routes in Vermont near the state line, but Vermont used to be a circle state (I guess they still kind of are, with the inconsistency of route marker replacements):

Circles! (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NH19630121)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 18, 2016, 11:44:52 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?

Virginia and Maryland can be on this list...

Virginia uses circles for their secondary routes, so I wouldn't actually count them on this list.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on May 18, 2016, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?

Probably all of them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on May 18, 2016, 02:01:57 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 18, 2016, 11:44:52 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?



Virginia and Maryland can be on this list...

Virginia uses circles for their secondary routes, so I wouldn't actually count them on this list.

Virginia has had error primary route circle shields (also has had Massachusetts-style square errors and interstate business state route errors too)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on May 18, 2016, 02:07:39 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 18, 2016, 12:58:23 PM
New Hampshire seems to have a lot of squares:

Squares! (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7647907,-71.4401466,3a,25y,55.3h,95.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc_XKTcCryNRmjb-ZETAX7Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Before NH used the silhouette of the Old Man of the Mountain on their route shields, their standard shield was a plain square, much the same as the Massachusetts and Maine shields (and with the same inconsistency as to the appearance of the outline around the outside).

Quote from: tckma on May 18, 2016, 12:58:23 PMCircles show up for NH routes in Vermont near the state line, but Vermont used to be a circle state (I guess they still kind of are, with the inconsistency of route marker replacements):

Circles! (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NH19630121)

Vermont still uses circles for locally-maintained state routes, and prior to 1995 circles were used for all state roads.  Starting in 1995, VT state-maintained routes use the green shield with the legend "Vermont" above the route number.  Circle shields remaining on state-maintained state roads are being replaced with the green shield design.  As for NH routes posted in VT, I'm guessing they didn't go to the trouble of either obtaining shields from NH or getting the Old Man design template so they could do proper NH shields themselves.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 02:09:14 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 18, 2016, 02:01:57 PM
Virginia has had error primary route circle shields (also has had Massachusetts-style square errors and interstate business state route errors too)

It's not as big of a mistake to sign a Va. primary route with a circle. They have the circles on hand. I'm more interested in the states that don't use circles to sign any routes. In those cases, someone would have to make a circle blank or bring one in from out of state when they should already have proper blanks on hand.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 18, 2016, 02:09:17 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 18, 2016, 02:01:57 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 18, 2016, 11:44:52 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?



Virginia and Maryland can be on this list...

Virginia uses circles for their secondary routes, so I wouldn't actually count them on this list.

Virginia has had error primary route circle shields (also has had Massachusetts-style square errors and interstate business state route errors too)

I've also seen primary route shields where a circle route shield should have been placed.  In general, for Virginia, primary state routes have numbers < 600, and secondary routes have numbers >= 600.  Secondary route numbers can be duplicated as long as the two routes are not in the same county/independent city.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 18, 2016, 02:13:35 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 18, 2016, 02:07:39 PM
Before NH used the silhouette of the Old Man of the Mountain on their route markers, their standard route marker was a square.

I did not know this.  But that is consistent with all other New England states but Vermont.

Quote from: SidS1045 on May 18, 2016, 02:07:39 PM
Not inconsistent at all.  Vermont still uses circles for locally-maintained state routes.  State-maintained routes use the green marker with the legend "Vermont" above the route number.  As for NH routes posted in VT, I'm guessing they didn't go to the trouble of either obtaining markers from NH or getting the Old Man design template.

See, whenever I drove through Vermont, I always thought they were in the process of replacing the plain circle with the green "Vermont" circle and only replacing worn-out and unreadable signs to save money.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 18, 2016, 02:22:35 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 18, 2016, 02:09:17 PM

I've also seen primary route shields where a circle route shield should have been placed.  In general, for Virginia, primary state routes have numbers < 600, and secondary routes have numbers >= 600.  Secondary route numbers can be duplicated as long as the two routes are not in the same county/independent city.

This is, in fact, why the Fairfax County Parkway changed numbers from 7100 to 286 (in February 2012 according to Wikipedia) -- it was changed from a county-maintained secondary route to a state-maintained primary route, and thus the number had to change.  Ditto for the Franconia-Springfield Parkway (7900 --> 289) and the Prince William County Parkway (3100 --> 234), which both also changed from county to state maintenance with the same legislative action.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on May 18, 2016, 02:28:46 PM
Best I can tell, Vermont 132 is an entirely locally-maintained state route, so it has no green "Vermont" markers.  However, there are at least three different shield types along the route as of last August:

We have a square:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fvt-nh-20150813-16%2F13%2FDSCF0013-800.jpg&hash=6f51028a2479829d7a6e6abd85c6df35dde6d856)

Then the (correct) circle:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fvt-nh-20150813-16%2F13%2FDSCF0014-800.jpg&hash=da3c00c53be3a9ce8165962a049bd911343cb03a)

And a very erroneous US shield:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fvt-nh-20150813-16%2F13%2FDSCF0015-800.jpg&hash=1573a21b6c779815824bcb9d523bfd14aef085e8)

Apologies if I or someone else has posted these before.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 18, 2016, 02:33:04 PM
Quote from: Jim on May 18, 2016, 02:28:46 PM
Best I can tell, Vermont 132 is an entirely locally-maintained state route, so it has no green "Vermont" markers.  However, there are at least three different shield types along the route as of last August:

We have a square:

Funny... 132 is nowhere near the Massachusetts border (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Route_132), yet that is a Maine/Massachusetts square.  I wonder if New England road maintenance contractors know that different states are supposed to have different shield shapes.  (The US route shield is just plain wrong.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 18, 2016, 02:34:11 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 18, 2016, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?

Probably all of them.

Maybe in states that already use a basic shape (California, Oregon, maybe New Mexico), but probably not in states with relatively unique markers (Washington, Utah, Colorado).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 18, 2016, 02:37:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 18, 2016, 02:34:11 PM
Maybe in states that already use a basic shape (California, Oregon, maybe New Mexico), but probably not in states with relatively unique markers (Washington, Utah, Colorado).

Oregon's shape derives from the official state seal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_Oregon) (as does New York's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_New_York)), so I'd argue that shape is fairly unique.

New Mexico's shape is the symbol of the Zia Native Americans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zia_people#The_Zia_Sun_symbol)... so again unique, but in a circle.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 02:37:28 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 18, 2016, 02:34:11 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 18, 2016, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?

Probably all of them.

Maybe in states that already use a basic shape (California, Oregon, maybe New Mexico), but probably not in states with relatively unique markers (Washington, Utah, Colorado).

I'm not aware of any case of a circle in Louisiana (an outline state where some parishes use the county pentagon). I recall someone posting a LA-signed-US route here some time ago. I've never heard of a US route being signed with a LA shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on May 18, 2016, 02:49:52 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 18, 2016, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?

Probably all of them.
I have yet to see any appear in Alabama.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 18, 2016, 03:08:26 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 18, 2016, 02:37:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 18, 2016, 02:34:11 PM
Maybe in states that already use a basic shape (California, Oregon, maybe New Mexico), but probably not in states with relatively unique markers (Washington, Utah, Colorado).

Oregon's shape derives from the official state seal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_Oregon) (as does New York's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_New_York)), so I'd argue that shape is fairly unique.

New Mexico's shape is the symbol of the Zia Native Americans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zia_people#The_Zia_Sun_symbol)... so again unique, but in a circle.

Frankly, all states that don't use a circle or square are unique. I was just naming examples of route markers that feature basic shapes (Oregon = deformed Virginia, upside Hawaii; California = upside down Virginia) versus markers that use something like a bust, a flag, an object, or a state outline, that are highly exclusive to that one area, with little like it across the rest of the country).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on May 18, 2016, 03:42:17 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 18, 2016, 02:34:11 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 18, 2016, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?

Probably all of them.

Maybe in states that already use a basic shape (California, Oregon, maybe New Mexico), but probably not in states with relatively unique markers (Washington, Utah, Colorado).

I have lived in California and Washington quite a while, and I don't think I've seen any circles or squares.  I'd be interested if someone has.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 18, 2016, 10:29:54 PM
I've seen circles for at least two West Virginia state routes -- WV 10 in Logan and WV 34 near Hurricane.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on May 19, 2016, 12:17:15 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 18, 2016, 02:34:11 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 18, 2016, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?

Probably all of them.

Maybe in states that already use a basic shape (California, Oregon, maybe New Mexico), but probably not in states with relatively unique markers (Washington, Utah, Colorado).

Ohio at the intersection of US 23 and SR 161 in Worthington is a huge example. Shield is the state outline. There are a few squares/rectangles out there for New York state routes, possibly more of those than circles. The Tonawanda ones stick out quite a bit, as do a couple from NY 120A, everyone's favorite New York route that spends most of its time on the border or inside Connecticut. Whoever actually maintains/posts the signs on that one is a big question mark, as none of the signs are New York standard, but that's off-topic.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on May 19, 2016, 01:05:59 AM
Ohio and the infamous circle route 161 at US-23 in Wilmington (Columbus).


/beaten by one post....told ya it was infamous!!!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on May 19, 2016, 10:15:29 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 18, 2016, 11:34:03 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?

MA 2 (not on route itself), 28, and 125 (125 is an oval)

MA 9 has them pop up from time-to-time.  There was one WB near the Coolidge Bridge in Hadley, MA.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on May 19, 2016, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 19, 2016, 10:15:29 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 18, 2016, 11:34:03 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 18, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
Does someone have a list of non-circle states where circle shields have appeared?

MA 2 (not on route itself), 28, and 125 (125 is an oval)

MA 9 has them pop up from time-to-time.  There was one WB near the Coolidge Bridge in Hadley, MA.
This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5193686,-70.8933679,3a,75y,215.23h,76.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssE3_-tjcu1KK77KgCDlgEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) for MA 1A has been around since the 80s.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on May 19, 2016, 03:54:26 PM
Quote from: cl94 on May 19, 2016, 12:17:15 AM
Whoever actually maintains/posts the signs on that one is a big question mark, as none of the signs are New York standard, but that's off-topic.

Not a question mark at all.  NYSDOT maintains the road, even the parts that are wholly within Connecticut.  Plenty of the shields on the road are perfectly good NY-spec, like this one in Port Chester:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/NY_120A_in_Port_Chester.jpg/1024px-NY_120A_in_Port_Chester.jpg)

  The few that Connecticut has put up, pointing to the route, er, not so much...as in this example, on the ramp from CT 15 south:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/CT_120A_shield_on_NY_120A.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 19, 2016, 04:04:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 18, 2016, 10:29:54 PM
I've seen circles for at least two West Virginia state routes -- WV 10 in Logan and WV 34 near Hurricane.

WV uses circles for their fractional county routes -- a numbering system I have never figured out.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 19, 2016, 04:41:56 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 19, 2016, 04:04:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 18, 2016, 10:29:54 PM
I've seen circles for at least two West Virginia state routes -- WV 10 in Logan and WV 34 near Hurricane.

WV uses circles for their fractional county routes -- a numbering system I have never figured out.

Main county routes are whole numbers. Spur or branch county routes have their "parent" state, US or county route as the numerator (in most cases) and the spur number as the denominator. For example the first branch route off US 60 in a certain county might be 60/1 and the first branch off CR 1 might be 1/1. There are some exceptions, such as a series of routes with 252 as the numerator along US 52 in Mingo County.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on May 19, 2016, 08:09:13 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 19, 2016, 04:41:56 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 19, 2016, 04:04:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 18, 2016, 10:29:54 PM
I've seen circles for at least two West Virginia state routes -- WV 10 in Logan and WV 34 near Hurricane.

WV uses circles for their fractional county routes -- a numbering system I have never figured out.

Main county routes are whole numbers. Spur or branch county routes have their "parent" state, US or county route as the numerator (in most cases) and the spur number as the denominator. For example the first branch route off US 60 in a certain county might be 60/1 and the first branch off CR 1 might be 1/1. There are some exceptions, such as a series of routes with 252 as the numerator along US 52 in Mingo County.

It has always struck me as counterproductive to call them fractional routes.  They're just two-number routes, like in Louisiana, except with a horizontal dividing line instead of a hyphen.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 22, 2016, 05:04:28 PM
This horrific...thing (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8466979,-76.2708452,3a,30y,193.84h,87.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shfefuuC5LaqP532hUFH_Dw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)...has appeared at Brambleton and Park Avenues in Norfolk, VA near I-264. Not just erroneous (VA 460?), but it might also qualify for "worst of" with its misshapen shields and Clearview digits. Street View is as of last month, the other signs at the intersection are a little more correct (i.e., they say US 460).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: HTM Duke on May 22, 2016, 05:14:49 PM
I-66 eastbound past the interchange with VA-234 south: https://goo.gl/maps/uAddNU6HRE62
While there is an HOV lane on I-66 here, it's the left lane instead of the right, and it surely does not end at this point.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on May 23, 2016, 10:56:30 AM
Quote from: HTM Duke on May 22, 2016, 05:14:49 PM
I-66 eastbound past the interchange with VA-234 south: https://goo.gl/maps/uAddNU6HRE62
While there is an HOV lane on I-66 here, it's the left lane instead of the right, and it surely does not end at this point.

Take off the HOV banner and it correctly refers to the right-hand merge lane which is ending at this point.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on May 24, 2016, 01:01:02 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 23, 2016, 10:56:30 AM
Quote from: HTM Duke on May 22, 2016, 05:14:49 PM
I-66 eastbound past the interchange with VA-234 south: https://goo.gl/maps/uAddNU6HRE62
While there is an HOV lane on I-66 here, it's the left lane instead of the right, and it surely does not end at this point.

Take off the HOV banner and it correctly refers to the right-hand merge lane which is ending at this point.

Follow the map back. That right-hand lane came from what appears to be a dedicated HOV entrance ramp.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 24, 2016, 06:23:09 AM
Quote from: jbnv on May 23, 2016, 10:56:30 AM
Quote from: HTM Duke on May 22, 2016, 05:14:49 PM
I-66 eastbound past the interchange with VA-234 south: https://goo.gl/maps/uAddNU6HRE62
While there is an HOV lane on I-66 here, it's the left lane instead of the right, and it surely does not end at this point.

Take off the HOV banner and it correctly refers to the right-hand merge lane which is ending at this point.

Yep - that ramp starts here, in this park-n-ride: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7964308,-77.5629109,17z/data=!3m1!1e3 .  While the sign is technically correct, I'm not sure there's any real reason why they need to inform motorists the right lane that's ending is also a HOV lane.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on May 28, 2016, 04:45:04 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 22, 2016, 05:04:28 PM
This horrific...thing (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8466979,-76.2708452,3a,30y,193.84h,87.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shfefuuC5LaqP532hUFH_Dw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)...has appeared at Brambleton and Park Avenues in Norfolk, VA near I-264. Not just erroneous (VA 460?), but it might also qualify for "worst of" with its misshapen shields and Clearview digits. Street View is as of last month, the other signs at the intersection are a little more correct (i.e., they say US 460).
More Hampton Roads derp signage!  :no:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 28, 2016, 06:03:30 AM
I found these PA 22 shields in Fredericksburg as seen from PA 343 SB (coming south from I-78 Exit 6)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2Fb0c6f4a6-8f0a-45c8-87ac-c17753f98597_zpshhggthzv.jpg&hash=7c5318b4596a814bcdee260f42f406043957d0b3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 30, 2016, 08:04:08 PM
Anyone from the Corridor H meet snap a pic of the MD-219 shield in Oakland?  I didn't; I was driving.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on May 30, 2016, 09:57:17 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 15, 2016, 09:09:34 PM
Yesterday I found error PA 11/PA 15 shields put in place for the US 11/US 15 detour for the current closure between I-81 and Marysville.  This is on PA 230 WB before US 22 WB turns onto Cameron St.  All of the other shields I saw for the detour were correct.

I saw PA 11/15 shields on I-81 SB at its interchange with said routes.

Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 28, 2016, 06:03:30 AM
I found these PA 22 shields in Fredericksburg as seen from PA 343 SB (coming south from I-78 Exit 6)

There are more on the old 22 east of Fredericksburg as the bypass rejoins it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 31, 2016, 12:12:15 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 30, 2016, 09:57:17 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 15, 2016, 09:09:34 PM
Yesterday I found error PA 11/PA 15 shields put in place for the US 11/US 15 detour for the current closure between I-81 and Marysville.  This is on PA 230 WB before US 22 WB turns onto Cameron St.  All of the other shields I saw for the detour were correct.
I saw PA 11/15 shields on I-81 SB at its interchange with said routes.
All the photos I took on I-81 SB showed correct shields.  I did not take the approaches from I-81 or US 11/US 15 NB though.

Quote from: Roadsguy on May 30, 2016, 09:57:17 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 28, 2016, 06:03:30 AM
I found these PA 22 shields in Fredericksburg as seen from PA 343 SB (coming south from I-78 Exit 6)
There are more on the old 22 east of Fredericksburg as the bypass rejoins it.

Are you referring to the current detour signage for the Exit 16 (Midway) closure? (in the area from Exit 13 (PA 501) to Exit 19 (PA 183))  I am unsure of where you are specifically speaking of.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on May 31, 2016, 11:01:40 AM
Here is an OH 127 shield instead of a U.S. 127 shield in Hamilton, OH:

(https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7695/27264869102_bcacf2944e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HxizG3)DSC05615 (https://flic.kr/p/HxizG3) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 31, 2016, 12:19:37 PM
Here we go.  This is US-219, not MD-219:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4134354,-79.4039084,3a,75y,287.97h,71.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2Stpf9JtbaJLFnPQmklS8A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on May 31, 2016, 12:41:38 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 31, 2016, 12:12:15 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 30, 2016, 09:57:17 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 15, 2016, 09:09:34 PM
Yesterday I found error PA 11/PA 15 shields put in place for the US 11/US 15 detour for the current closure between I-81 and Marysville.  This is on PA 230 WB before US 22 WB turns onto Cameron St.  All of the other shields I saw for the detour were correct.
I saw PA 11/15 shields on I-81 SB at its interchange with said routes.
All the photos I took on I-81 SB showed correct shields.  I did not take the approaches from I-81 or US 11/US 15 NB though.

I thought it was on I-81, but it was definitely somewhere around that interchange.

Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 31, 2016, 12:12:15 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 30, 2016, 09:57:17 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 28, 2016, 06:03:30 AM
I found these PA 22 shields in Fredericksburg as seen from PA 343 SB (coming south from I-78 Exit 6)
There are more on the old 22 east of Fredericksburg as the bypass rejoins it.

Are you referring to the current detour signage for the Exit 16 (Midway) closure? (in the area from Exit 13 (PA 501) to Exit 19 (PA 183))  I am unsure of where you are specifically speaking of.

When 22 was rebuilt through the area a couple of years ago it was this (https://goo.gl/maps/jREfZW5jk3x) sign assembly that was replaced, featuring PA 22 shields, though the street view is too old to show it. I think I have a picture but don't have it handy right now.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 31, 2016, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 30, 2016, 08:04:08 PM
Anyone from the Corridor H meet snap a pic of the MD-219 shield in Oakland?  I didn't; I was driving.

Yep!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 08, 2016, 05:40:56 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/27548209805/in/dateposted-public/

This sign may seem in order, but its location is not at all along the said Business Loop.

Sign is on W Bound US 84 between Ashley and Patterson Streets  in front of the County CH in Valdosta, GA and is visible on GSV.  However if it had a SOUTH directional on it, it would not be erroneous as after the next signal the SB BL comes in from the right and continues ahead.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on June 10, 2016, 05:53:56 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/cVmMp9Gea1K2

NB on US 11/15 north of Selinsgrove, PA, as the routes split off. Not much apparently wrong with it... until you realize that the routes' directions are backwards! 15 continues straight while 11 turns off, shown correctly on the BGSes farther up the road.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on June 11, 2016, 12:19:22 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on June 10, 2016, 05:53:56 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/cVmMp9Gea1K2

NB on US 11/15 north of Selinsgrove, PA, as the routes split off. Not much apparently wrong with it... until you realize that the routes' directions are backwards! 15 continues straight while 11 turns off, shown correctly on the BGSes farther up the road.

That's...really, really, really bad.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: peterj920 on June 11, 2016, 10:15:52 PM
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7685/27001874244_715f4915c8_h_d.jpg)

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7449/27578183586_198170b5c2_h_d.jpg)

Wis 76 south at US 10.  The signs are erroneously signed as Wis 10. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on June 12, 2016, 03:48:48 PM
Seen in the parking garage at the Franconia—Springfield Metrorail station. The error might be a bit subtle to some folks.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FMiscellaneous%2520spring%25202016%2520106_zpsrkm1xkii.jpg&hash=ada0f626bdbb4951859b49fb3cad6bc43f8814d6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on June 12, 2016, 03:50:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 12, 2016, 03:48:48 PM
Seen in the parking garage at the Franconia–Springfield Metrorail station. The error might be a bit subtle to some folks.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FMiscellaneous%2520spring%25202016%2520106_zpsrkm1xkii.jpg&hash=ada0f626bdbb4951859b49fb3cad6bc43f8814d6)
This isn't the 1th time I've seen that...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on June 13, 2016, 12:17:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 12, 2016, 03:48:48 PM
Seen in the parking garage at the Franconia—Springfield Metrorail station. The error might be a bit subtle to some folks.


June Threeth?  Really?

Well, this *is* WMATA we're talking about here...

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on June 13, 2016, 05:01:04 PM
After 2013 the US 30/PA 234 intersection had the signs replaced for...reasons. So it had the first branch route of US 34, US 234! While US 30 had the correct shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 13, 2016, 05:07:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 12, 2016, 03:48:48 PM
Seen in the parking garage at the Franconia—Springfield Metrorail station. The error might be a bit subtle to some folks.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FMiscellaneous%2520spring%25202016%2520106_zpsrkm1xkii.jpg&hash=ada0f626bdbb4951859b49fb3cad6bc43f8814d6)

The digits for the dates look like they may have been written at a different time (a darker black).  So I wonder if it might have originally had a correctly-spelled date range on it, and whoever edited it just erased the numbers and didn't think to change the TH.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on June 13, 2016, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 13, 2016, 05:07:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 12, 2016, 03:48:48 PM
Seen in the parking garage at the Franconia—Springfield Metrorail station. The error might be a bit subtle to some folks.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/Miscellaneous%20spring%202016%20106_zpsrkm1xkii.jpg

The digits for the dates look like they may have been written at a different time (a darker black).  So I wonder if it might have originally had a correctly-spelled date range on it, and whoever edited it just erased the numbers and didn't think to change the TH.

Almost certainly. Nothing else makes any sense. No moron would intentially write 3th.

This sort of nonsense is why I try to avoid using the ordinal indicator, instead writing something like, "June 13" or, more often, "13 June". Same for street names, "5385 216 St, Langley".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: BamaZeus on June 14, 2016, 11:09:25 AM
Maybe they're big fans of French Stewart on SNL Celebrity Jeopardy


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.apocalypticfail.com%2Flulz%2Fsnljeopardy-threeve.jpg&hash=f74972adbeb03c8073e704644e4f396b910b3dfa)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 19, 2016, 09:48:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FDSC01506_zpsmsila0h2.jpg&hash=ad74e1dbc14dfebb46326d1cc8436113cb69322b)

Error US 283 shield as seen on PA 72 NB in downtown Lancaster.  (I saw at least one other instance on PA 72 itself, and there may be more on US 222/PA 272 NB. I apologize if it is difficult to see.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on June 20, 2016, 10:50:18 AM
Another one for the Don't forget to remove the old mile markers when a route has its mileage (& markers) recalibrated file.

US 1 Northbound in Revere - MM 48 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4360325,-71.0202482,3a,75y,351.08h,82.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svvLLJ153XlLIGNTx4W60cQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

Not too far from the previous GSV, MM 53.8 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4363853,-71.0207731,3a,75y,334.79h,84.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHQdA6QXPuYlN0CQPG_VnUw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

The former mile marker is from the mid 80s and predates the 1989-90 US 1 rerouting (onto I-93 & 95) between Boston and Dedham while the latter was erected much later.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on June 20, 2016, 11:57:02 AM
Driving home from Connecticut yesterday...  In a state that particularly enjoys promoting state routes to the status of US Routes (New York), I noticed that US 202 got downgraded to state route status:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3862006,-73.5828049,3a,75y,296.89h,78.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbe_0lZ85QAQAs0MEvQ1iNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on June 20, 2016, 12:11:43 PM
Quote from: tckma on June 20, 2016, 11:57:02 AM
Driving home from Connecticut yesterday...  In a state that particularly enjoys promoting state routes to the status of US Routes (New York), I noticed that US 202 got downgraded to state route status:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3862006,-73.5828049,3a,75y,296.89h,78.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbe_0lZ85QAQAs0MEvQ1iNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

It seems to be most common on US 202, compared to other US routes. I don't know why.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on June 20, 2016, 12:22:15 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 20, 2016, 12:11:43 PM
Quote from: tckma on June 20, 2016, 11:57:02 AM
Driving home from Connecticut yesterday...  In a state that particularly enjoys promoting state routes to the status of US Routes (New York), I noticed that US 202 got downgraded to state route status:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3862006,-73.5828049,3a,75y,296.89h,78.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbe_0lZ85QAQAs0MEvQ1iNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

It seems to be most common on US 202, compared to other US routes. I don't know why.
Maybe somebody's trying to tell FHWA/AASHTO something.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 20, 2016, 12:43:56 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 20, 2016, 12:11:43 PM

It seems to be most common on US 202, compared to other US routes. I don't know why.

Wish I had $10 for every "NY 209" sign I've seen.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on June 20, 2016, 02:58:54 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 20, 2016, 12:43:56 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 20, 2016, 12:11:43 PM

It seems to be most common on US 202, compared to other US routes. I don't know why.

Wish I had $10 for every "NY 209" sign I've seen.

Or every NY 4/9. R5 even has a couple NY 20 signs.

For a while, US 4 had more NY shields than US shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on June 20, 2016, 03:06:44 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 20, 2016, 02:58:54 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 20, 2016, 12:43:56 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 20, 2016, 12:11:43 PM

It seems to be most common on US 202, compared to other US routes. I don't know why.

Wish I had $10 for every "NY 209" sign I've seen.

Or every NY 4/9. R5 even has a couple NY 20 signs.

For a while, US 4 had more NY shields than US shields.

I suppose they needed the US shield blanks for "US 27" on eastern Long Island...  or for "US 125" in Westchester County.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on June 21, 2016, 05:00:57 AM
^ Letting you know Cincinnati needs some of those US 27 shields.  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman on July 04, 2016, 05:54:38 PM
Cross posted from the "Signs With Design Errors" thread (although I still maintain this qualifies as both a design error as well as an erroneous sign)

Sign just installed on VFW Parkway in Boston references US Route 1.  Only problem is that US 1 Route 1 was re-routed off VFW Parkway, and other MDC/DCR roadways, in 1989 to its current routing between Dedham and Charlestown via I-95 and I-93.  Photo is at  http://www.universalhub.com/2016/what-does-dcr-know-about-vfw-parkway-we-dont
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on July 04, 2016, 10:29:39 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 04, 2016, 05:54:38 PM
Cross posted from the "Signs With Design Errors" thread (although I still maintain this qualifies as both a design error as well as an erroneous sign)

Sign just installed on VFW Parkway in Boston references US Route 1.  Only problem is that US 1 Route 1 was re-routed off VFW Parkway, and other MDC/DCR roadways, in 1989 to its current routing between Dedham and Charlestown via I-95 and I-93.  Photo is at  http://www.universalhub.com/2016/what-does-dcr-know-about-vfw-parkway-we-dont

Seems just erroneous.  If US 1 were still on the pre-1989 alignment, the sign would be perfect (no misspellings, wrong colors, square shield for 1, or other design error or erroneous information).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on July 05, 2016, 01:57:04 AM
Even though US 1 is no longer on this road, maybe MassDPW could make this a US 1A or Business US 1 (ha, ha--a business US route in the Northeast). 

Yes, I know there is a Business US 62 around Buffalo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on July 05, 2016, 01:33:03 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 04, 2016, 10:29:39 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 04, 2016, 05:54:38 PM
Cross posted from the "Signs With Design Errors" thread (although I still maintain this qualifies as both a design error as well as an erroneous sign)

Sign just installed on VFW Parkway in Boston references US Route 1.  Only problem is that US 1 Route 1 was re-routed off VFW Parkway, and other MDC/DCR roadways, in 1989 to its current routing between Dedham and Charlestown via I-95 and I-93.  Photo is at  http://www.universalhub.com/2016/what-does-dcr-know-about-vfw-parkway-we-dont

Seems just erroneous.  If US 1 were still on the pre-1989 alignment, the sign would be perfect (no misspellings, wrong colors, square shield for 1, or other design error or erroneous information).
Actually, the CAMBRIDGE listing on that LGS for US 1 northbound dates back to its pre-1971 routing (when it avoided Downtown Boston & ran along Memorial Drive (C1 ran along Storrow Drive back then)).  So all the info. on this this LGS is literally stuck in the past.

One for which mileage is correct? department in Sanatoga, (Montgomery County) PA. The larger King of Prussia sign reads 13 miles whereas the redundant smaller one (pardon the GSV view) reads 10 miles. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2409542,-75.5764974,3a,75y,225.29h,79.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPN4a8GDJ0-Tns7I3IoDNWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JMoses24 on July 05, 2016, 09:37:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 13, 2016, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 13, 2016, 05:07:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 12, 2016, 03:48:48 PM
Seen in the parking garage at the Franconia—Springfield Metrorail station. The error might be a bit subtle to some folks.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/Miscellaneous%20spring%202016%20106_zpsrkm1xkii.jpg

The digits for the dates look like they may have been written at a different time (a darker black).  So I wonder if it might have originally had a correctly-spelled date range on it, and whoever edited it just erased the numbers and didn't think to change the TH.

Almost certainly. Nothing else makes any sense. No moron would intentially write 3th.

This sort of nonsense is why I try to avoid using the ordinal indicator, instead writing something like, "June 13" or, more often, "13 June". Same for street names, "5385 216 St, Langley".

That's not the error I noticed. Look at the bottom. What's a "vechicle"?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on July 05, 2016, 11:39:15 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 05, 2016, 01:33:03 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 04, 2016, 10:29:39 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 04, 2016, 05:54:38 PM
Cross posted from the "Signs With Design Errors" thread (although I still maintain this qualifies as both a design error as well as an erroneous sign)

Sign just installed on VFW Parkway in Boston references US Route 1.  Only problem is that US 1 Route 1 was re-routed off VFW Parkway, and other MDC/DCR roadways, in 1989 to its current routing between Dedham and Charlestown via I-95 and I-93.  Photo is at  http://www.universalhub.com/2016/what-does-dcr-know-about-vfw-parkway-we-dont

Seems just erroneous.  If US 1 were still on the pre-1989 alignment, the sign would be perfect (no misspellings, wrong colors, square shield for 1, or other design error or erroneous information).
Actually, the CAMBRIDGE listing on that LGS for US 1 northbound dates back to its pre-1971 routing (when it avoided Downtown Boston & ran along Memorial Drive (C1 ran along Storrow Drive back then)).  So all the info. on this this LGS is literally stuck in the past.

One for which mileage is correct? department in Sanatoga, (Montgomery County) PA. The larger King of Prussia sign reads 13 miles whereas the redundant smaller one (pardon the GSV view) reads 10 miles. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2409542,-75.5764974,3a,75y,225.29h,79.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPN4a8GDJ0-Tns7I3IoDNWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
I'm gonna bet that King of Prussia 10 is correct, because the freeway in this area was built in 1985. My theory is that the larger sign predates that, as it's button copy, and that the expressway may have ended further north at the time of fabrication, and the 3 extra miles came from US 422 taking surface streets to end in King of Prussia at US 202.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: HTM Duke on July 06, 2016, 12:06:42 AM
Coming back up from my last roadtrip, I noticed this VA-220 sign at the north town limits of Iron Gate:
https://goo.gl/maps/wgFfYAh1Xzz
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on July 06, 2016, 12:09:46 AM
Quote from: JMoses24 on July 05, 2016, 09:37:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 13, 2016, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 13, 2016, 05:07:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 12, 2016, 03:48:48 PM
Seen in the parking garage at the Franconia—Springfield Metrorail station. The error might be a bit subtle to some folks.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/Miscellaneous%20spring%202016%20106_zpsrkm1xkii.jpg

The digits for the dates look like they may have been written at a different time (a darker black).  So I wonder if it might have originally had a correctly-spelled date range on it, and whoever edited it just erased the numbers and didn't think to change the TH.

Almost certainly. Nothing else makes any sense. No moron would intentially write 3th.

This sort of nonsense is why I try to avoid using the ordinal indicator, instead writing something like, "June 13" or, more often, "13 June". Same for street names, "5385 216 St, Langley".

That's not the error I noticed. Look at the bottom. What's a "vechicle"?

Good catch. This sign is one big fuck-up.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on July 06, 2016, 01:46:43 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 05, 2016, 11:39:15 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 05, 2016, 01:33:03 PMOne for which mileage is correct? department in Sanatoga, (Montgomery County) PA. The larger King of Prussia sign reads 13 miles whereas the redundant smaller one (pardon the GSV view) reads 10 miles. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2409542,-75.5764974,3a,75y,225.29h,79.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPN4a8GDJ0-Tns7I3IoDNWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
I'm gonna bet that King of Prussia 10 is correct, because the freeway in this area was built in 1985. My theory is that the larger sign predates that, as it's button copy, and that the expressway may have ended further north at the time of fabrication, and the 3 extra miles came from US 422 taking surface streets to end in King of Prussia at US 202.
Actually, prior to the full completion of the Pottstown Expressway; US 422 went towards Philadelphia via Germantown Pike/Ave. (which branches off of Ridge Ave.).  The portion of the Expressway from the US 202 to the PA 363/Trooper Road interchanges was initially part of PA 363.

MM 176.5 near the Sanatoga interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2406832,-75.5731441,3a,75y,314.9h,79.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHpH02v76u4aHaDJg2CzgSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

MM 192.3 between the US 202 & PA 23 interchanges (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.085077,-75.4109479,3a,75y,351.96h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suJ91dOtAEL51HO1MPGu5eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

192.3 - 176.5 = 15.8

So the larger sign (which looks more late 80s/early 90s PennDOT vintage BTW) is more (but not completely) correct; it would be helpful to know what PennDOT was using for a King of Prussia focal point (most distances to cities and towns are to their respective centers).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ekt8750 on July 06, 2016, 02:07:41 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 06, 2016, 01:46:43 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 05, 2016, 11:39:15 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 05, 2016, 01:33:03 PMOne for which mileage is correct? department in Sanatoga, (Montgomery County) PA. The larger King of Prussia sign reads 13 miles whereas the redundant smaller one (pardon the GSV view) reads 10 miles. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2409542,-75.5764974,3a,75y,225.29h,79.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPN4a8GDJ0-Tns7I3IoDNWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
I'm gonna bet that King of Prussia 10 is correct, because the freeway in this area was built in 1985. My theory is that the larger sign predates that, as it's button copy, and that the expressway may have ended further north at the time of fabrication, and the 3 extra miles came from US 422 taking surface streets to end in King of Prussia at US 202.
Actually, prior to the full completion of the Pottstown Expressway; US 422 went towards Philadelphia via Germantown Pike/Ave. (which branches off of Ridge Ave.).  The portion of the Expressway from the US 202 to the PA 363/Trooper Road interchanges was initially part of PA 363.

MM 176.5 near the Sanatoga interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2406832,-75.5731441,3a,75y,314.9h,79.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHpH02v76u4aHaDJg2CzgSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

MM 192.3 between the US 202 & PA 23 interchanges (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.085077,-75.4109479,3a,75y,351.96h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suJ91dOtAEL51HO1MPGu5eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

192.3 - 176.5 = 15.8

So the larger sign (which looks more late 80s/early 90s PennDOT vintage BTW) is more (but not completely) correct; it would be helpful to know what PennDOT was using for a King of Prussia focal point (most distances to cities and towns are to their respective centers).

Well King of Prussia's just a village in Upper Merion Twp. so there's no true center. Logically the best focal point would be the mall especially since 422 ends just west of it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on July 10, 2016, 10:37:27 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/10_10_07_16_10_36_03.jpeg)

Montana 287? taken three days ago along I-15 south of Exit 216.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on July 11, 2016, 08:01:12 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on July 06, 2016, 02:07:41 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 06, 2016, 01:46:43 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 05, 2016, 11:39:15 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 05, 2016, 01:33:03 PMOne for which mileage is correct? department in Sanatoga, (Montgomery County) PA. The larger King of Prussia sign reads 13 miles whereas the redundant smaller one (pardon the GSV view) reads 10 miles. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2409542,-75.5764974,3a,75y,225.29h,79.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPN4a8GDJ0-Tns7I3IoDNWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
I'm gonna bet that King of Prussia 10 is correct, because the freeway in this area was built in 1985. My theory is that the larger sign predates that, as it's button copy, and that the expressway may have ended further north at the time of fabrication, and the 3 extra miles came from US 422 taking surface streets to end in King of Prussia at US 202.
Actually, prior to the full completion of the Pottstown Expressway; US 422 went towards Philadelphia via Germantown Pike/Ave. (which branches off of Ridge Ave.).  The portion of the Expressway from the US 202 to the PA 363/Trooper Road interchanges was initially part of PA 363.

MM 176.5 near the Sanatoga interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2406832,-75.5731441,3a,75y,314.9h,79.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHpH02v76u4aHaDJg2CzgSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

MM 192.3 between the US 202 & PA 23 interchanges (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.085077,-75.4109479,3a,75y,351.96h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suJ91dOtAEL51HO1MPGu5eA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

192.3 - 176.5 = 15.8

So the larger sign (which looks more late 80s/early 90s PennDOT vintage BTW) is more (but not completely) correct; it would be helpful to know what PennDOT was using for a King of Prussia focal point (most distances to cities and towns are to their respective centers).

Well King of Prussia's just a village in Upper Merion Twp. so there's no true center. Logically the best focal point would be the mall especially since 422 ends just west of it.
It's still off. The Goog says that it's 2 miles from the end of US 422 to the mall. Here's what I think would be the focal point. (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.2406135,-75.5734751/40.1141991,-75.4214237/@40.1060935,-75.4312008,13.41z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FrCorySticha on July 11, 2016, 11:22:45 AM
Quote from: Alex on July 10, 2016, 10:37:27 PM
Montana 287? taken three days ago along I-15 south of Exit 216.

While that one is erroneous, there actually is a Montana 287 that connects with US 287. From Corco's site:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fmt%2F287%2F84to287%2F8.jpg&hash=181234dc39d0e342843db2c5c815b025326a68a5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 11, 2016, 01:01:27 PM
A couple from Bluefield, Va.

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13590247_10154195954701469_8569609000570120244_n.jpg?oh=c1134f821ef11b7583c1a685e0662e30&oe=5835324C)

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13645131_10154195954211469_1780929497657350103_n.jpg?oh=58fdaed96c6c9a33e72fbf127ad04d05&oe=57EE905B)

And a couple from Tazewell, where someone used the wrong blank for a US 19 marker

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13615393_10154195819341469_1241941402096751563_n.jpg?oh=3fe93f0959407a7321f96a4640f84f8d&oe=582CCF27)

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13654284_10154195819926469_7917351106219326114_n.jpg?oh=dca25c017e0e88071bda1776466fb11c&oe=57F6012D)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on July 11, 2016, 10:48:58 PM
Credit to Angelfire.com



Your font is too bold. Please stop. It's getting to me. Just stop messing around with the bold feature.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 12, 2016, 12:26:38 AM
A couple of FL 90 shields I spotted on US 90 in Gretna, FL and near Quincy, FL last week. New installs too. :no:
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8812/27640421803_fc03197d8e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7uoqB)Erroneous FL 90 Shield (https://flic.kr/p/J7uoqB) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8793/27640447834_31447342c3.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7uwaq)Erroneous FL 90 Shield (https://flic.kr/p/J7uwaq) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7345/27640447484_f5b9a36973.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7uw4o)Erroneous FL 90 Shield (https://flic.kr/p/J7uw4o) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8880/28151989582_56ec361a38.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JTGiGJ)Erroneous FL 90 Shield (https://flic.kr/p/JTGiGJ) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on July 12, 2016, 10:40:47 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 12, 2016, 12:26:38 AM
A couple of FL 90 shields I spotted on US 90 in Gretna, FL and near Quincy, FL last week. New installs too. :no:
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8812/27640421803_fc03197d8e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7uoqB)Erroneous FL 90 Shield (https://flic.kr/p/J7uoqB) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8793/27640447834_31447342c3.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7uwaq)Erroneous FL 90 Shield (https://flic.kr/p/J7uwaq) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7345/27640447484_f5b9a36973.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7uw4o)Erroneous FL 90 Shield (https://flic.kr/p/J7uw4o) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8880/28151989582_56ec361a38.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JTGiGJ)Erroneous FL 90 Shield (https://flic.kr/p/JTGiGJ) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Back in 1991 when Beach Blvd (US 90 from downtown  Jacksonville to the beach) in Jacksonville was resurfaced the signs were replaced. There were SR90 signs for a few weeks. 

I assumed it was because they did not have blue US 90 shields available
But the black and white us shields should not be a problem.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 12, 2016, 11:22:53 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 11, 2016, 10:48:58 PM
Credit to Angelfire.com

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.angelfire.com%2Frnb%2Fokroads0%2Fnb35at23540.JPG&hash=f4f43f1937949711bf56412905b2a716e006d33a)

Your font is too bold. Please stop. It's getting to me. Just stop messing around with the bold feature.

Angelfire has long disallowed hotlinking of images. You're gonna need to download the image and host it somewhere else.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on July 12, 2016, 11:25:25 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 12, 2016, 11:22:53 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 11, 2016, 10:48:58 PM
Credit to Angelfire.com

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.angelfire.com%2Frnb%2Fokroads0%2Fnb35at23540.JPG&hash=f4f43f1937949711bf56412905b2a716e006d33a)

Your font is too bold. Please stop. It's getting to me. Just stop messing around with the bold feature.

Angelfire has long disallowed hotlinking of images. You're gonna need to download the image and host it somewhere else.
Right. It's supposed to be another sign from Oklahoma, but I'll try my best with another picture. Hope this works.

Courtesy of billburmaster.com

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Foklahoma%2Fimages%2Fnb35at23540.jpg&hash=9a1be5b8b4f9898ecd7b34b4e91be2ba8222162e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on July 12, 2016, 11:44:31 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 12, 2016, 11:25:25 AMCourtesy of billburmaster.com

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Foklahoma%2Fimages%2Fnb35at23540.jpg&hash=9a1be5b8b4f9898ecd7b34b4e91be2ba8222162e)
Control-city fonts looks to be Series EE (maybe even Series F) with inadequate spacing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: texaskdog on July 12, 2016, 11:53:14 AM
The Business I-363 is still in Temple on I-35.  With construction there is nowhere to pull over to get a good picture and I can't find it on streetview.  It is on NB I-35 just before the exit ramp to Bucees.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on July 12, 2016, 12:02:58 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 12, 2016, 11:53:14 AM
The Business I-363 is still in Temple on I-35.  With construction there is nowhere to pull over to get a good picture and I can't find it on streetview.  It is on NB I-35 just before the exit ramp to Bucees.

Here it is in GMSV:

https://goo.gl/maps/GqPMZMTMC842
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on July 13, 2016, 05:52:07 PM
Sryacuse Airport?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUsdsxRk.jpg&hash=4c357312ca6571c1d77bb055479e4318b47ceeb4)

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/07/sign_on_i-481_near_syracuse_misspells_citys_name.html

Seems to be a fairly new installation, since the signage in the most recent GSV imagery of the interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/wN4QsZcVAZ42) (taken last October) is correct.

EDIT: It was installed last week, according to a comment in the linked article.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on July 13, 2016, 06:03:08 PM
Because our brains are so good unscrambling words as long as the initial and final letters are in place, I didn't catch the error the first three times I looked at the picture.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 7/8 on July 13, 2016, 06:13:19 PM
Yep, I'll admit I didn't see anything wrong until I read the URL title  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mass_citizen on July 13, 2016, 08:40:07 PM
looks like some excessive spacing between words as well?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cl94 on July 13, 2016, 11:00:57 PM
I was a bit startled when I saw this sign today (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0803627,-73.7914753,3a,47.3y,301.22h,81.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy6aWAXLXsPl5dEk2h7KxAA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in the City of Saratoga Springs on WB NY 29. Even thought the city maintains this stretch, it's on Z-bars, leading me to believe that NYSDOT installed the sign. Ironically, one of the only "city speed limit" signs in the city is a few blocks west of here, also on WB NY 29 (Saratoga Springs usually uses "area speed limit").

Of course, Saratoga is an oddity in many ways, as it's also one of the only cities where reference markers do not reset at the city line (I-87, NY 9L, and NY 50 confirmed, likely others as well) and it includes quite a bit of undeveloped land.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on July 14, 2016, 07:35:09 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on July 13, 2016, 08:40:07 PM
looks like some excessive spacing between words as well?

The plans for contract D263008 showed small representations of the signs for placement location but I couldn't find any full scale sign layouts. This leads me to believe that the contractor (Elderlee, Inc.) designed (or redesigned) the signs, leading to the misspelling and the huge amount of space between "Sryacuse" and "Airport".  The signs on D263008 for the airport are all correct (the NY 11 shields is another matter).

Mistakes happen. I get that. But someone on the installation crew must have noticed that the sign was incorrect and they chose to install it anyway. I don't know how anyone with any sort of pride in their work can do that. A sign of the current state of the United States: quick, cheap and "it ain't my job".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 7/8 on July 14, 2016, 09:44:55 PM
I believe the sign on the left on Victoria St/Hwy 7 in Kitchener is technically not correct.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgWKyOjV.jpg&hash=bc1d04f47ff3440b20ccdff1e1655b4339420e1f)

The Hwy 7 shield here is a junction shield, but I think it should instead be like this shield below.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_7_images%2Fkh_7_tch.jpg&hash=2ef5dfbb80a654d478a8679151712200442a3843)
^ Photo credit: AsphaltPlanet
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on July 15, 2016, 10:34:06 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on July 14, 2016, 09:44:55 PM
I believe the sign on the left on Victoria St/Hwy 7 in Kitchener is technically not correct.
for the purposes of these threads, this one belongs in "Design Errors" - while they definitely screwed up, it's not in a way that makes the information presented incorrect.

that being said, good find!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: chays on July 15, 2016, 09:56:13 PM
This sign is at the top of a T-intersection (see here at Wilson and Lakeview: https://www.google.com/maps/@28.7580818,-81.3357706,18.28z).  It seems to indicated to driver that both directions end at a dead end, which isn't the case at all.  This is the wrong use of a dead end sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FttOJIZ5.jpg&hash=8954f9c78f1f12f923963e3dbeeeae043f22b912)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 15, 2016, 11:17:35 PM
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13754357_10208529463106510_1901761896947016425_n.jpg?oh=48353df98be2d986bad0db998b79d7c9&oe=582D7C39)

Defiance, Missouri
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on July 16, 2016, 08:45:15 AM
Quote from: US71 on July 15, 2016, 11:17:35 PM
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13754357_10208529463106510_1901761896947016425_n.jpg?oh=48353df98be2d986bad0db998b79d7c9&oe=582D7C39)

Defiance, Missouri

I didn't notice it at first.
Well, technically, it is a state highway, so......... nope, still wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TravelingBethelite on July 17, 2016, 09:01:17 AM
So I guess that sign is in "Defiance" of the state MUTCD?  :bigass:

Anyway I saw this about a week ago about 2 miles south of Patterson, NY:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.49295,-73.5788794,3a,25y,252.54h,83.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sflOSdDsVI8lIEcbvw0dFYQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DflOSdDsVI8lIEcbvw0dFYQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D86.094238%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.49295,-73.5788794,3a,25y,252.54h,83.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sflOSdDsVI8lIEcbvw0dFYQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DflOSdDsVI8lIEcbvw0dFYQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D86.094238%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 17, 2016, 09:16:47 AM
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13659131_10208529544868554_5558666169751450891_n.jpg?oh=de91f1863b20064704e6e8f36e0b05b5&oe=58330714)

Along the KATY Trail, should be MO 94
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 7/8 on July 17, 2016, 06:05:55 PM
Signs on the 401 and 407 for Hurontario St call it "Highway 10", even though Highway 10 was decommissioned in Brampton and Mississauga for two decades now. Here's a picture I took for the 407 exit for Hurontario St. I know a lot of people still call it highway 10, but it's still incorrect.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fw3wwS1e.jpg&hash=c7c965eb7014d9103eec05e4289738471b9478ff)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on July 17, 2016, 06:17:33 PM
Not quite...

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images163/ca-163_historic_route_signage.jpg)

A bit closer, but still wrong...

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images163/ca-163_nb_exit_001a_06.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on July 17, 2016, 07:13:35 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 17, 2016, 06:17:33 PM
A bit closer, but still wrong...

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images163/ca-163_nb_exit_001a_06.jpg)
Shouldn't it be Cabrillo Freeway?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 17, 2016, 10:06:40 PM
VA 89 gets a downgrade to secondary at the Blue Ridge Parkway:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc3.staticflickr.com%2F9%2F8644%2F28344996946_b8b2100f32_o.jpg&hash=d7ec8a998279b9ded60a4fdc93bcd59febed79b2) (http://flic.kr/p/KbKw4U)

VA 639 gets a temporary upgrade for this detour sign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc1.staticflickr.com%2F9%2F8780%2F28097267960_aba706cb2a_o.jpg&hash=03fb3a854be89be75cbaca0db373f8622a2ee345) (http://flic.kr/p/JNRQSu)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mass_citizen on July 18, 2016, 11:53:32 PM
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7548/27787362553_94ebf6d947_z.jpg)

Fresh install on I-93 SB, Medford, MA just after the MA-38 exit. It is part of the RTTM statewide project, the time displays are not active yet. Based on my odometer, the Zakim bridge should read "3 MI"

As usual, the contractor that put this sign in did not stop and wonder how the Mass Ave exit which is on the complete opposite end of the artery tunnel could be the same distance as the Zakim. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bob7374 on July 21, 2016, 10:40:17 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on July 18, 2016, 11:53:32 PM
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7548/27787362553_94ebf6d947_z.jpg)

Fresh install on I-93 SB, Medford, MA just after the MA-38 exit. It is part of the RTTM statewide project, the time displays are not active yet. Based on my odometer, the Zakim bridge should read "3 MI"

As usual, the contractor that put this sign in did not stop and wonder how the Mass Ave exit which is on the complete opposite end of the artery tunnel could be the same distance as the Zakim. 
This is a contractor error, not MassDOT's, the original sign plan lists 5 miles to the Mass Ave exit. Here's the sign drawing: (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93srttsomerville.jpg&hash=388b7961cfc724bb93907351d47f47debeb03044)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on July 22, 2016, 12:02:47 PM
Maybe if cutouts were still around, this wouldn't happen as much.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on July 22, 2016, 05:13:38 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 22, 2016, 12:02:47 PM
Maybe if cutouts were still around, this wouldn't happen as much.

I completely agree with this. People have come to associate computers with mediocrity. Using computers for sign design and manufacturing has led to many more errors being discovered in the field.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 22, 2016, 07:50:32 PM
No personal photos for either, but there were circle US 29 shields (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/27630384913/) for the detours associated with the Rio Road grade-separated intersection.  (note that the linked photo is from VDOT's Flickr)

Also I saw a PA 322 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2576669,-76.3809505,3a,75y,312.65h,85.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTEhWueffgfTDSALKHILS3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) shield at the linked location this afternoon.  (in Cornwall east of the PA 72 duplex)

EDIT:  Today I saw PA 209 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tamaqua,+PA/@40.7973662,-75.968097,3a,75y,273.78h,88.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saIdYZv5AXeIFDNn6RZZL0w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DaIdYZv5AXeIFDNn6RZZL0w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D294.43176%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c5b98d87c4d169:0x2e10ff1196b8bd56!8m2!3d40.7973112!4d-75.9693707!6m1!1e1) in Tamaqua while clinching roads in PA instead of at some meet in CT.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman on July 25, 2016, 01:02:03 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 21, 2016, 10:40:17 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on July 18, 2016, 11:53:32 PM
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7548/27787362553_94ebf6d947_z.jpg)

Fresh install on I-93 SB, Medford, MA just after the MA-38 exit. It is part of the RTTM statewide project, the time displays are not active yet. Based on my odometer, the Zakim bridge should read "3 MI"

As usual, the contractor that put this sign in did not stop and wonder how the Mass Ave exit which is on the complete opposite end of the artery tunnel could be the same distance as the Zakim. 
This is a contractor error, not MassDOT's, the original sign plan lists 5 miles to the Mass Ave exit. Here's the sign drawing: (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93srttsomerville.jpg&hash=388b7961cfc724bb93907351d47f47debeb03044)
As of Monday morning, the sign has been fixed.  http://www.universalhub.com/2016/state-changes-sign-times
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on July 25, 2016, 11:07:41 PM
Is the 987 supposed to be a US route shield? It's like a double error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on July 26, 2016, 02:04:49 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 25, 2016, 11:07:41 PM
Is the 987 supposed to be a US route shield? It's like a double error.
No, it is meant to be a keystone shield for PA 987.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 26, 2016, 07:13:28 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 26, 2016, 02:04:49 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 25, 2016, 11:07:41 PM
Is the 987 supposed to be a US route shield? It's like a double error.
No, it is meant to be a keystone shield for PA 987.

Hopefully, this one was still standing:

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/281/19141484429_7a26648845.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 26, 2016, 07:45:48 AM
Quote from: Hoss6884 on July 26, 2016, 07:17:34 AM
Quote from: formulanone on July 26, 2016, 07:13:28 AM
Hopefully, this one was still standing:

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/281/19141484429_7a26648845.jpg)

Where is that one located?  I'm staying across the street from the airport and can check it out.

I think there's two access roads that leave the Allentown Airport, the main exit point which has the ugly 987, but another one (Postal Road) has the button copy sign (https://goo.gl/maps/1HPRzycb5rT2).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cbeach40 on July 28, 2016, 04:45:02 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on July 17, 2016, 06:05:55 PM
Signs on the 401 and 407 for Hurontario St call it "Highway 10", even though Highway 10 was decommissioned in Brampton and Mississauga for two decades now. Here's a picture I took for the 407 exit for Hurontario St. I know a lot of people still call it highway 10, but it's still incorrect.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fw3wwS1e.jpg&hash=c7c965eb7014d9103eec05e4289738471b9478ff)

That's not so much an error as just old.

Quote from: 7/8 on July 14, 2016, 09:44:55 PM
I believe the sign on the left on Victoria St/Hwy 7 in Kitchener is technically not correct.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgWKyOjV.jpg&hash=bc1d04f47ff3440b20ccdff1e1655b4339420e1f)
The Hwy 7 shield here is a junction shield, but I think it should instead be like this shield below.

No it's correct. Just not the ideal set-up, but still acceptable.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on July 28, 2016, 06:04:30 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 26, 2016, 02:04:49 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 25, 2016, 11:07:41 PM
Is the 987 supposed to be a US route shield? It's like a double error.
No, it is meant to be a keystone shield for PA 987.
Wow, then they failed even harder.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnati27 on August 03, 2016, 12:56:01 PM
Here's a fairly new sign fail after some recent construction on US-50 in Marathon, OH
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlBkWIS0.jpg&hash=13485b85c0c34e53e7de231a1fcc67f94d23c543)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: epzik8 on August 09, 2016, 10:50:55 AM
This Pennsylvania Route 222 shield should be a U.S. Route 222 shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0rHSqqf.jpg&hash=c2383ce9f69d39673b229ceae31d73ef330b9b3d)

This Maryland Route 29 shield should be a U.S. Route 29 shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F37pQ6lR.jpg&hash=66b8d85ab154c85309283c5dbfed3da40206f273)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 09, 2016, 06:29:11 PM
US 743 has come to Hershey (there are a few of these around the intersection on Park Ave)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FPA%2520743%2520NORTH%2520AT%2520HERSHEYPARK%2520DR_zpsa3usslo5.jpg&hash=75a9537a0603c06513b8f89a994fee60db0bde5a)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: epzik8 on August 09, 2016, 10:00:17 PM
This U.S. 322 shield in West Chester, Pennsylvania should say U.S. 322 Business. Mainline U.S. 322 bypasses West Chester to the north and east in a duplex with U.S. 202.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FV4gtoj8.jpg&hash=717c9ae118d7e98b596bcde47cc77936365fd751)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on August 10, 2016, 12:35:40 AM
No, that's not the right order. (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.933374,-120.8438986,3a,15y,333.65h,90.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seQWkRpCbvYaenj44jzXxhA!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: epzik8 on August 10, 2016, 02:41:23 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 10, 2016, 12:35:40 AM
No, that's not the right order. (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.933374,-120.8438986,3a,15y,333.65h,90.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seQWkRpCbvYaenj44jzXxhA!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656)

There's a similar sign along MD-276 north in Cecil County, Maryland. Lancaster, Pennsylvania is on this sign because this is part of Truck Route 222, and many truck drivers heading north toward Lancaster from I-95 use the truck route. However, Lancaster should be below Rising Sun.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FumS5hWT.jpg&hash=feb5004d00835b70ac06038a41db68401a866763)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on August 10, 2016, 02:47:58 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 10, 2016, 12:35:40 AM
No, that's not the right order. (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.933374,-120.8438986,3a,15y,333.65h,90.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seQWkRpCbvYaenj44jzXxhA!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656)

In this case, I think the wrong order can be attributed to San Francisco being a major traffic destination for I-5 north (but is reached via intersecting I-580 before getting near Sacramento), whereas Sacramento is the control city for I-5 north.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 7/8 on August 10, 2016, 03:52:25 PM
This "pavement ends" sign (on the right) is upside down. It incorrectly says that the pavement starts behind the sign. I took this photo today on Woolwich St at Wismer Ct in Waterloo, ON. I've let my boss know, so it should be fixed soon :)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJGCAXcQ.jpg&hash=1b22d28b71c9804c62d807bfd0cbf8ec81207da7)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on August 10, 2016, 09:26:43 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on August 10, 2016, 02:41:23 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 10, 2016, 12:35:40 AM
No, that's not the right order. (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.933374,-120.8438986,3a,15y,333.65h,90.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seQWkRpCbvYaenj44jzXxhA!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656)

There's a similar sign along MD-276 north in Cecil County, Maryland. Lancaster, Pennsylvania is on this sign because this is part of Truck Route 222, and many truck drivers heading north toward Lancaster from I-95 use the truck route. However, Lancaster should be below Rising Sun.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FumS5hWT.jpg&hash=feb5004d00835b70ac06038a41db68401a866763)
There is a mileage sign on I-71/75 southbound in Florence, KY displaying the following (in Clearview):

           Louisville      88
           Lexington     71

This is south of Exit 180 for those who may want to view it on Google Maps.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 11, 2016, 10:47:09 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 13, 2016, 05:01:04 PM
After 2013 the US 30/PA 234 intersection had the signs replaced for...reasons. So it had the first branch route of US 34, US 234! While US 30 had the correct shield.

Speaking of US 34 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8299786,-77.2310999,3a,75y,40.5h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2PKDjHtfrp7gDPDgmD6ipg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), it has shown up in Adams County as well.  (2015 GSV)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 11, 2016, 11:26:28 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 11, 2016, 10:47:09 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 13, 2016, 05:01:04 PM
After 2013 the US 30/PA 234 intersection had the signs replaced for...reasons. So it had the first branch route of US 34, US 234! While US 30 had the correct shield.

Speaking of US 34 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8299786,-77.2310999,3a,75y,40.5h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2PKDjHtfrp7gDPDgmD6ipg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), it has shown up in Adams County as well.  (2015 GSV)
This sight really spun me out, because I live near the actual junction of US30 and US34 in Oswego, IL.  I was like "US30 and US34 crossing?  What's wrong with that?" hehehh
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 11, 2016, 11:41:06 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 11, 2016, 11:26:28 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 11, 2016, 10:47:09 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 13, 2016, 05:01:04 PM
After 2013 the US 30/PA 234 intersection had the signs replaced for...reasons. So it had the first branch route of US 34, US 234! While US 30 had the correct shield.

Speaking of US 34 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8299786,-77.2310999,3a,75y,40.5h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2PKDjHtfrp7gDPDgmD6ipg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), it has shown up in Adams County as well.  (2015 GSV)
This sight really spun me out, because I live near the actual junction of US30 and US34 in Oswego, IL.  I was like "US30 and US34 crossing?  What's wrong with that?" hehehh

Actually US 30 and PA 34 do not intersect each other at all.  PA 34 begins at US 15 BUS farther north at the intersection of Lincoln Ave and Carlisle St (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8367042,-77.2311291,3a,75y,28.77h,89.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg4LeGbkzpTl36AK33JLlkg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on August 12, 2016, 01:16:29 AM
Found this in Gallatin, TN, should be a TN 109 shield:
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8769/28310359603_09540ef871.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K8FZAk)Erroneous &quot;KY&quot; 109 Shield (https://flic.kr/p/K8FZAk) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8689/28310359443_de49942ed7.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K8FZxz)Erroneous &quot;KY&quot; 109 Shield (https://flic.kr/p/K8FZxz) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr

Apparently Kentucky tried to invade Tennessee once upon a time.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on August 12, 2016, 01:16:08 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 11, 2016, 10:47:09 PM
Speaking of US 34 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8299786,-77.2310999,3a,75y,40.5h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2PKDjHtfrp7gDPDgmD6ipg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), it has shown up in Adams County as well.  (2015 GSV)

I think I'm having déjà vù... see my post from April 21...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on August 12, 2016, 01:17:14 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on August 12, 2016, 01:16:29 AM
Found this in Gallatin, TN, should be a TN 109 shield:
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8769/28310359603_09540ef871.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K8FZAk)Erroneous &quot;KY&quot; 109 Shield (https://flic.kr/p/K8FZAk) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr

Someone at TNDoT needs to avail themselves of those free counseling services, perhaps?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on August 12, 2016, 01:30:46 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 10, 2016, 09:26:43 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on August 10, 2016, 02:41:23 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 10, 2016, 12:35:40 AM
No, that's not the right order. (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.933374,-120.8438986,3a,15y,333.65h,90.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seQWkRpCbvYaenj44jzXxhA!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656)

There's a similar sign along MD-276 north in Cecil County, Maryland. Lancaster, Pennsylvania is on this sign because this is part of Truck Route 222, and many truck drivers heading north toward Lancaster from I-95 use the truck route. However, Lancaster should be below Rising Sun.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FumS5hWT.jpg&hash=feb5004d00835b70ac06038a41db68401a866763)
There is a mileage sign on I-71/75 southbound in Florence, KY displaying the following (in Clearview):

           Louisville      88
           Lexington     71

This is south of Exit 180 for those who may want to view it on Google Maps.
Maybe it's because top destination is control city for 71 ...bottom is the control city for 75
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 12, 2016, 02:35:58 PM
Quote from: tckma on August 12, 2016, 01:16:08 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 11, 2016, 10:47:09 PM
Speaking of US 34 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8299786,-77.2310999,3a,75y,40.5h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2PKDjHtfrp7gDPDgmD6ipg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), it has shown up in Adams County as well.  (2015 GSV)

I think I'm having déjà vù... see my post from April 21...

I wasn't sure if I was playing out a dream I had previously, or if I was actually repeating myself.  Indeed it was the latter.  I'm starting to feel a bit less precognitive now XD
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 12, 2016, 04:21:07 PM
Quote from: tckma on April 21, 2016, 03:21:00 PM
Here ya go.  This sign should say To PA-34, not To US-34.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8299606,-77.2311001,3a,75y,353.02h,86.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2PKDjHtfrp7gDPDgmD6ipg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

I apologize.  I tried using the search method that we are supposed to use via the guidelines and I did not get the post as I searched "PA 34" (without the dash you added).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on August 12, 2016, 04:28:11 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 12, 2016, 04:21:07 PM
I apologize.  I tried using the search method that we are supposed to use via the guidelines and I did not get the post as I searched "PA 34" (without the dash you added).

Heh, I'm not angry; no need to apologize.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on August 12, 2016, 08:59:50 PM
how do i order sign

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psnw.com%2F%7Ewalksfar%2Fsign-1.jpg&hash=42366a197ff093fc11eba9f51eb39b9203856341)

how do i do maths

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psnw.com%2F%7Ewalksfar%2Fsign-2.jpg&hash=0ff8ef06b37e34a69bdce93b81d70581c83557f8)

source: http://www.psnw.com/~walksfar/caltrans.html (http://www.psnw.com/~walksfar/caltrans.html)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on August 12, 2016, 09:05:12 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 12, 2016, 08:59:50 PM
how do i order sign

1. go to dot.ca.gov
2. enter image web address as username
3. enter credit card number as password
4. you will receive it in 3-5 days
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 12, 2016, 09:22:37 PM
I'm not sure that's what he meant.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on August 13, 2016, 10:19:26 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 12, 2016, 08:59:50 PM
how do i order sign

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psnw.com%2F%7Ewalksfar%2Fsign-1.jpg&hash=42366a197ff093fc11eba9f51eb39b9203856341)

how do i do maths

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psnw.com%2F%7Ewalksfar%2Fsign-2.jpg&hash=0ff8ef06b37e34a69bdce93b81d70581c83557f8)

source: http://www.psnw.com/~walksfar/caltrans.html (http://www.psnw.com/~walksfar/caltrans.html)

I was about to say the math could be due to rounding, but the difference is too much.  One of those distances has to be wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on August 13, 2016, 10:49:22 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 13, 2016, 10:19:26 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 12, 2016, 08:59:50 PM
how do i order sign

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psnw.com%2F%7Ewalksfar%2Fsign-1.jpg&hash=42366a197ff093fc11eba9f51eb39b9203856341)

how do i do maths

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psnw.com%2F%7Ewalksfar%2Fsign-2.jpg&hash=0ff8ef06b37e34a69bdce93b81d70581c83557f8)

source: http://www.psnw.com/~walksfar/caltrans.html (http://www.psnw.com/~walksfar/caltrans.html)

I was about to say the math could be due to rounding, but the difference is too much.  One of those distances has to be wrong.
Two of them are wrong. Los Banos is correct, both photos were taken 8 miles of each other.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SignGeek101 on August 13, 2016, 07:02:18 PM
No respect for Ontario's second most (primary) highway, as it gets demoted to secondary status:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2FCapture_zpsceiyztq7.jpg&hash=631b550a632246598a94f363c5d8f0ab60521618)

Ironic how the erroneous sign is in sight of an MTO truck inspection station  :-D
The sign going westbound is correct however; it uses a primary shield. Secondary shields are only used for the 500-600 numbers.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2F2_zpsecwzwhmt.jpg&hash=d06cbfdce227ec030f178a1af5190224d752dc63)

GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/p9y7tn3YXV12
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on August 14, 2016, 10:15:31 AM
So is it actually incorrect to place cities in the wrong distance order? I know it's uncommon, but is it actually an error?

(heh, now I'm going to start looking for these things.)

I guess the mileage is to the city's core is one measurement, so while the traveled distance on the same road might be different than the distance between the posted mileage between signs, since you have to add the additional distance to the destination once you leave the highway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on August 14, 2016, 03:36:08 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 14, 2016, 10:15:31 AM
So is it actually incorrect to place cities in the wrong distance order? I know it's uncommon, but is it actually an error?

(heh, now I'm going to start looking for these things.)

I guess the mileage is to the city's core is one measurement, so while the traveled distance on the same road might be different than the distance between the posted mileage between signs, since you have to add the additional distance to the destination once you leave the highway.

MUTCD guidance gives the following:
Quote from: MUTCD Section 2D.41The top name on the Distance sign should be that of the next place on the route having a post office or a railroad station, a route number or name of an intersected highway, or any other significant geographical identity. The bottom name on the sign should be that of the next major destination or control city. If three destinations are displayed, the middle line should be used to indicate communities of general interest along the route or important route junctions.

So I don't think it's incorrect, as long as there's a rational reason.

On the last page, I replied about a greater distance to San Francisco being listed on the middle line before Sacramento. In that case, being out of order is justified since the turnoff for San Francisco comes well before reaching Sacramento (control city for I-5). (Although probably a better solution would have been to list the intersecting interstate junction distance, instead of the distance to SF...)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on August 15, 2016, 05:08:05 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on August 12, 2016, 01:30:46 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 10, 2016, 09:26:43 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on August 10, 2016, 02:41:23 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 10, 2016, 12:35:40 AM
No, that's not the right order. (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.933374,-120.8438986,3a,15y,333.65h,90.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seQWkRpCbvYaenj44jzXxhA!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656)

There's a similar sign along MD-276 north in Cecil County, Maryland. Lancaster, Pennsylvania is on this sign because this is part of Truck Route 222, and many truck drivers heading north toward Lancaster from I-95 use the truck route. However, Lancaster should be below Rising Sun.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FumS5hWT.jpg&hash=feb5004d00835b70ac06038a41db68401a866763)
There is a mileage sign on I-71/75 southbound in Florence, KY displaying the following (in Clearview):

           Louisville      88
           Lexington     71

This is south of Exit 180 for those who may want to view it on Google Maps.
Maybe it's because top destination is control city for 71 ...bottom is the control city for 75
Yes, that is probably why it is signed that way--just looks different.

This, I believe, was one of the first mileage signs posted when I-71/I-75 originally opened in the early 1960's.  It has been carbon copied twice, I think.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bzakharin on August 16, 2016, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: MUTCD Section 2D.41The top name on the Distance sign should be that of the next place on the route having a post office or a railroad station, a route number or name of an intersected highway, or any other significant geographical identity. The bottom name on the sign should be that of the next major destination or control city. If three destinations are displayed, the middle line should be used to indicate communities of general interest along the route or important route junctions.
So this is very strange. The first item regarding to the top sign (next place on the route having a post office or a railroad station) is extremely specific followed by other items that basically say you can do whatever you want. Also, I've seen route numbers on distance signs, but was under the impression this was non-standard. Also, though there is an implication that there must be at least two destinations, and that they must be in order, it does not actually say any of that. The bottom name and the top name could be the same, i.e. one destination. The "geographical entity" could be further away than the "next major destination".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on August 16, 2016, 03:59:34 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 16, 2016, 03:53:54 PM
Also, though there is an implication that there must be at least two destinations...

I don't read that implication into the text, and there are a zillion counterexamples in the field.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on August 18, 2016, 04:13:08 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 16, 2016, 03:59:34 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 16, 2016, 03:53:54 PM
Also, though there is an implication that there must be at least two destinations...

I don't read that implication into the text, and there are a zillion counterexamples in the field.

I only quoted the part of the section relevant to my reply. The standard statement that begins section 2D.41 states that no more than three destinations/junctions/etc. be listed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on August 18, 2016, 02:00:50 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 25, 2016, 01:02:03 PMAs of Monday morning, the sign has been fixed.  http://www.universalhub.com/2016/state-changes-sign-times

I guess no one has yet caught the error on the other side of I-93.  Near the now-fixed sign, but on the northbound side, is a new and as-of-now not working travel time sign, which says, among other things:  I-95 - 7 MI.

One mile up the road is a portable VMS acting as a temporary travel time sign:  I-95 WOBURN - 8 MILES.

Since the portable sign is one mile *closer* to I-95, one of these is wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on August 19, 2016, 01:53:03 PM
It appears that Missouri got a bit confused as to which interstate this's supposed to be, resulting in a mile-marker with an I-40 shield on I-44:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5493807,-92.8060805,3a,15y,249.97h,84.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTT35sc-dsIZqB6aaE4PgsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 19, 2016, 03:18:12 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on August 19, 2016, 01:53:03 PM
It appears that Missouri got a bit confused as to which interstate this's supposed to be, resulting in a mile-marker with an I-40 shield on I-44:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5493807,-92.8060805,3a,15y,249.97h,84.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTT35sc-dsIZqB6aaE4PgsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Reminds me of the I-60 shield we had on I-64 a couple years ago...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on August 19, 2016, 04:41:08 PM
Quote from: roadfro on August 18, 2016, 04:13:08 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 16, 2016, 03:59:34 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 16, 2016, 03:53:54 PM
Also, though there is an implication that there must be at least two destinations...

I don't read that implication into the text, and there are a zillion counterexamples in the field.

I only quoted the part of the section relevant to my reply. The standard statement that begins section 2D.41 states that no more than three destinations/junctions/etc. be listed.

I still don't read that implication into the text.  I think an obvious point that can go unstated in the MUTCD is that there are places where no more than one destination can be reached by a particular route (i.e., it terminates at the next town, highway junction, etc).  In light of that, Guidance 04 merely advises what order to put the distances in if there's more than one, and also how to handle a third if there are more than two.

I also note that all of this is "should" language, not "shall" language, meaning that violating the guidance is not actually erroneous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on August 20, 2016, 04:08:50 PM
^ I should have clarified in my reply that there's nothing in the MUTCD that implies two destinations must be listed. The only standard is that there be no more than three destinations listed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bzakharin on August 22, 2016, 01:51:38 PM
Quote from: roadfro on August 20, 2016, 04:08:50 PM
^ I should have clarified in my reply that there's nothing in the MUTCD that implies two destinations must be listed. The only standard is that there be no more than three destinations listed.
I should say "seems to be an implication" because plural is used throughout, and things like "top" and "bottom" are used. You don't usually do that when there's only one destination unless it's one of those trick question brainteasers. The more interesting thing for me is the unnecessarily specific list of examples given when none of these is prescribed or even suggested once you read the whole thing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: DevalDragon on August 22, 2016, 04:00:03 PM
I wonder if there is a mile marker on I-40 with a I-44 shield?

(maybe they got swapped)

Quote from: freebrickproductions on August 19, 2016, 01:53:03 PM
It appears that Missouri got a bit confused as to which interstate this's supposed to be, resulting in a mile-marker with an I-40 shield on I-44:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5493807,-92.8060805,3a,15y,249.97h,84.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTT35sc-dsIZqB6aaE4PgsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 26, 2016, 09:21:02 PM
Just noticed this sign goof that I took a picture of in December near Peru, IN. Business U.S. 31 is signed with a Business IN 31 shield instead. It looks like how Texas signs a business state route:

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5642/23802030281_e433d49191_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/CgiCmr)DSC00007 (https://flic.kr/p/CgiCmr) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: peterj920 on August 26, 2016, 10:59:55 PM
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8362/29220403046_8c9317e6b6_k_d.jpg)

In Escanaba, MI
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 27, 2016, 03:06:12 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 26, 2016, 10:59:55 PM
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8362/29220403046_8c9317e6b6_k_d.jpg)

In Escanaba, MI

Um...how does this work, exactly? :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on August 27, 2016, 10:54:21 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 27, 2016, 03:06:12 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 26, 2016, 10:59:55 PM
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8362/29220403046_8c9317e6b6_k_d.jpg)

In Escanaba, MI

Um...how does this work, exactly? :P

You move left to go right, makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on August 28, 2016, 01:40:22 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 27, 2016, 03:06:12 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 26, 2016, 10:59:55 PM
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8362/29220403046_8c9317e6b6_k_d.jpg)

In Escanaba, MI

Um...how does this work, exactly?
Maybe the sign was imported from Australia😀
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 28, 2016, 01:52:22 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on August 28, 2016, 01:40:22 AM
Maybe the sign was imported from Australia😀

Jokes aside, I think only North America uses two-way left turn lanes (i.e. "center turn lane(s)"). Most countries (including Oz) would use crosshatching between the lanes -- you can turn from the crosshatching, but it's not a legally-designated lane for travel.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 29, 2016, 01:37:21 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on August 28, 2016, 01:40:22 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 27, 2016, 03:06:12 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 26, 2016, 10:59:55 PM
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8362/29220403046_8c9317e6b6_k_d.jpg)

In Escanaba, MI

Um...how does this work, exactly?
Maybe the sign was imported from Australia😀

I was guessing the US Virgin Islands.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on August 29, 2016, 03:00:32 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 27, 2016, 03:06:12 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on August 26, 2016, 10:59:55 PM
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8362/29220403046_8c9317e6b6_k_d.jpg)

In Escanaba, MI

Um...how does this work, exactly? :P

You've heard of the Michigan Left?  This is the Michigan Right!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 30, 2016, 09:57:09 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/28717383323/in/dateposted-public/

This diagram sign is all wrong. It shows two completely different ramps departing from the main road here, but in fact this here interchange with FL 70 and I-95 has a c/d road that both ramps exit from.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FrCorySticha on August 31, 2016, 03:39:24 PM
Dickinson, ND has a new business route: Business Loop 94B

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8403/28746485673_237ba75333_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KNefFk)94B Bypass in Dickinson (https://flic.kr/p/KNefFk) by csticha (https://www.flickr.com/photos/16167784@N00/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on August 31, 2016, 04:39:38 PM
^^Probably installed at the same time the new North Dakota marker was installed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on August 31, 2016, 10:17:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2016, 04:39:38 PM
^^Probably installed at the same time the new North Dakota marker was installed.

Date stamped from June 2016, as were the other new ND shields in Downtown. Saw these in person earlier this month
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ekt8750 on September 01, 2016, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 22, 2016, 07:50:32 PM
No personal photos for either, but there were circle US 29 shields (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/27630384913/) for the detours associated with the Rio Road grade-separated intersection.  (note that the linked photo is from VDOT's Flickr)

Also I saw a PA 322 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2576669,-76.3809505,3a,75y,312.65h,85.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTEhWueffgfTDSALKHILS3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) shield at the linked location this afternoon.  (in Cornwall east of the PA 72 duplex)

EDIT:  Today I saw PA 209 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tamaqua,+PA/@40.7973662,-75.968097,3a,75y,273.78h,88.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saIdYZv5AXeIFDNn6RZZL0w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DaIdYZv5AXeIFDNn6RZZL0w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D294.43176%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c5b98d87c4d169:0x2e10ff1196b8bd56!8m2!3d40.7973112!4d-75.9693707!6m1!1e1) in Tamaqua while clinching roads in PA instead of at some meet in CT.

That's a weird Frankenstein assembly. PennDOT made the South banner with a contractor making the 209 shield. Someone must have stolen the original shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on September 01, 2016, 12:27:14 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/MQDpX8swcmx

This is an old GSV shot, but the sign shown now has an I-86 shield with "TO" an NY 17 shield (Reads "I-86 to NY 17", essentially).  Oy vey.  So many things wrong with that to count.

Kicking myself for not getting a photo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on September 12, 2016, 09:06:23 AM
Passed this walking to work this morning on 19 Street NW between L and M in DC.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F1865E708-44AF-4089-8F85-444F2E280B30_zpsq1xiljbq.jpg&hash=3fe39c68031ad251fd1aa57ccefad2ffe76b9188)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JCinSummerfield on September 12, 2016, 12:44:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 12, 2016, 09:06:23 AM
Passed this walking to work this morning on 19 Street NW between L and M in DC.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F1865E708-44AF-4089-8F85-444F2E280B30_zpsq1xiljbq.jpg&hash=3fe39c68031ad251fd1aa57ccefad2ffe76b9188)

What am I missing?  What is the error?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on September 12, 2016, 01:29:35 PM
"In sidewalk"? How can a pedestrian be "in" the sidewalk?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on September 12, 2016, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 12, 2016, 01:29:35 PM
"In sidewalk"? How can a pedestrian be "in" the sidewalk?

If he or she ignored the "CAUTION: Wet Quick-Drying Cement" sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: UCFKnights on September 12, 2016, 08:34:24 PM
Here's a stop sign whose purpose seems to be so you read the DO NOT ENTER right below it?

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5858176,-81.3646231,3a,75y,271.91h,92.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbEHGsVbf5h4QwHXkFJkOrg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This busy 6 way intersection was recently proposed to be converted to a roundabout by a developer so it might get fixed soon
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 12, 2016, 10:14:08 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on September 12, 2016, 08:34:24 PM
Here's a stop sign whose purpose seems to be so you read the DO NOT ENTER right below it?

There's a similar situation going on here it looks like:

https://goo.gl/maps/KWRGMkfXLq22
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on September 13, 2016, 12:16:40 PM
US shields all around (https://goo.gl/maps/t8VNcR21k112) coming out of this development road into the intersection at the northern end of PA 33 near Stroudsburg.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on September 19, 2016, 02:49:17 PM
Posted in another thread but very appropriate for this one:

Erroneous WEST 129A trailblazer sign near MA 1A/129 juncture (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4686206,-70.923447,3a,75y,175.97h,72.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4s_Kji5p0JliRC9D8wfN8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) (should be marked as EAST 129).

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on September 24, 2016, 04:42:58 PM
Curve warning fail:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwPYkM5r.jpg&hash=4901819e900d41ef4f49c08bbde2c5dd4fddbb07)

(In actuality, the road does curve to the left after this curve shown) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4408612,-74.916672,3a,49.3y,273.14h,88.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srrKiQ5Fz56hCP_un1ZBEwg!2e0!5s20130901T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 26, 2016, 09:25:24 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 24, 2016, 04:42:58 PM
Curve warning fail:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwPYkM5r.jpg&hash=4901819e900d41ef4f49c08bbde2c5dd4fddbb07)

(In actuality, the road does curve to the left after this curve shown) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4408612,-74.916672,3a,49.3y,273.14h,88.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srrKiQ5Fz56hCP_un1ZBEwg!2e0!5s20130901T000000!7i13312!8i6656)

That's not a fail.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: epzik8 on September 26, 2016, 07:15:40 PM
I'm going to try something different for this thread.

I drove from my Baltimore-area home base out to southwestern Pennsylvania today so I could clinch I-68 and get my first non-concurrency portion of I-79. I also tackled U.S. 30 from Caledonia State Park to McConnellsburg (yes, noelbotevera, I drove through Chambersburg and waved hello to you) as well as U.S. 522 from McConnellsburg to Warfordsburg (that's the I-70 merge/split).

So at lunchtime I stopped at the Sheetz off I-79 in Waynesburg. The following signs are from the first exit after Waynesburg. This is the first advance sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJdT7Le6.jpg&hash=68c7157912eacdb9a2cc3f17745e67fdc8ba1826)
But then the one-mile warning rearranges the two routes and control points:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fx5EYbMs.jpg&hash=480113c5f679711d2d03ef3bebfacede40665bff)
Then there's this sign which confirms that the two-mile sign is likely an erroneous one.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkLvSw3s.jpg&hash=fcde9f815dc0f0437757105fe7f1357c26a92b87)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: GenExpwy on September 27, 2016, 05:20:06 AM
Mayville, NY (Wikipedia pic):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/New_York_State_Routes_394_and_430_in_Mayville.jpg)

I-86 and NY 17 are, of course, the same road.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on September 27, 2016, 07:15:28 PM
Quote from: GenExpwy on September 27, 2016, 05:20:06 AM
Mayville, NY (Wikipedia pic):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/New_York_State_Routes_394_and_430_in_Mayville.jpg)

I-86 and NY 17 are, of course, the same road.

Ironically, I think both the I-86 and NY 17 arrows are technically correct, as you'll eventually make it to the Southern Tier Expressway in any of those directions.  It's obviously a mistake, but there's that ironic element to it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 28, 2016, 01:35:15 PM
Found this gem while researching routes for the Birmingham meet: https://goo.gl/maps/xAtLwGMxoDB2
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on September 28, 2016, 10:09:50 PM
I-10 eastbound approaching the Baton Rouge Expressway is signed with the sign below. This is technically erroneous in that I-12 doesn't start for a few more miles from this point. Also, the logic for putting I-12 before I-10 is suspect. It should say "I-10 TO I-12" and in fact  earlier versions of the sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4390462,-91.1826378,3a,75y,92.03h,90.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5Is9cZvfbxfGR3ewE1z3RQ!2e0!5s20150501T000000!7i13312!8i6656) did just that.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8560/29368681673_bc99725550_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LKdaSz)
East I-12/10 Guide Sign (https://flic.kr/p/LKdaSz) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 29, 2016, 09:46:05 AM
US 475?

(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14469622_10103487807343176_6347602392482497265_n.jpg?oh=ec7163e993ac3d3a0328e55759c00f8c&oe=586D68C5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JCinSummerfield on September 29, 2016, 02:08:23 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 29, 2016, 09:46:05 AM
US 475?

(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14469622_10103487807343176_6347602392482497265_n.jpg?oh=ec7163e993ac3d3a0328e55759c00f8c&oe=586D68C5)

As a follow up, the other detour in that area lists US-20 & US-120.  It should be OH-120.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on September 29, 2016, 03:08:24 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on September 26, 2016, 07:15:40 PM
So at lunchtime I stopped at the Sheetz off I-79 in Waynesburg. The following signs are from the first exit after Waynesburg. This is the first advance sign:

But then the one-mile warning rearranges the two routes and control points:

Then there's this sign which confirms that the two-mile sign is likely an erroneous one.


Did you also notice the 2 mile sign says US-19 TO PA-221 versus PA-221 TO US-19 on the others?  Maybe the 2 mile sign was just put up on the wrong direction of the highway?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on September 29, 2016, 03:11:14 PM
I'll try to get a photo tomorrow -- I drove by this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0954726,-76.9377094,3a,75y,279.7h,68.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPcI84ntI3HUQUK5QXWS4kQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) today and noticed fresh directional signage for the non-existent MD-29 on US-29.  MDSHA for some reason loves to downgrade US-29 to a state highway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 29, 2016, 05:39:15 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 17, 2016, 12:01:27 PM
I think the infamous "Elimitante thru trtaffic" (?) has its origins in a plan sheet as well.

Late, but "Elimitante the truck trarffic" actually comes from the OkDOT application to AASHTO to realign US-287 through Boise City.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 30, 2016, 04:16:49 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 12, 2016, 11:25:25 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Foklahoma%2Fimages%2Fnb35at23540.jpg&hash=9a1be5b8b4f9898ecd7b34b4e91be2ba8222162e)

Stretched Series EM, most likely. These panels have been replaced and are now in Clearview.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cappicard on October 17, 2016, 10:57:15 AM
I think KDOT is jumping the gun on US 50's routing.

I noticed that for some reason along 95th Street in Lenexa, US-50 is signed as if it followed I-35 north of I-435 (as opposed to following I-435 eastbound from I-35).

This goof happened during the reconstruction of the 95th/I-35 interchange into a DDI.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cappicard on October 17, 2016, 11:01:09 AM
I noticed that the temporary US 69 shield on the eastbound C-D ramp under Quivira Rd to US-69 has a weird font. It doesn't even look like Clearview or Helvetica.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: epzik8 on October 24, 2016, 07:33:14 PM
This one near Glen Burnie, Maryland should be Maryland Route 3 Business. Mainline Route 3 ends about five miles to the south and is disconnected from MD-3 Business.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F56ukASt.jpg&hash=afb9c888bce4ed9d7ce5033f868e7a12754c8ccc)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on October 25, 2016, 11:03:01 AM
Quote from: epzik8 on October 24, 2016, 07:33:14 PM
This one near Glen Burnie, Maryland should be Maryland Route 3 Business. Mainline Route 3 ends about five miles to the south and is disconnected from MD-3 Business.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F56ukASt.jpg&hash=afb9c888bce4ed9d7ce5033f868e7a12754c8ccc)

Since you seem to be a fellow Baltimoron...

Ever notice how Business 3 is typically signed with a "BUSINESS" banner above "MARYLAND 3," whereas Business 30 is typically signed with a green "BUSINESS 30" with "BUSINESS" replacing "MARYLAND" in the state highway shield?  Any speculation as to why that is?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on October 30, 2016, 02:55:41 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2016, 12:16:40 PM
US shields all around (https://goo.gl/maps/t8VNcR21k112) coming out of this development road into the intersection at the northern end of PA 33 near Stroudsburg.
Wasnt 611 originally a US highway?

I know this assembly is too new for that, it is interesting to unknowingly acknowledge history

LGMS428

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on November 01, 2016, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on October 30, 2016, 02:55:41 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2016, 12:16:40 PM
US shields all around (https://goo.gl/maps/t8VNcR21k112) coming out of this development road into the intersection at the northern end of PA 33 near Stroudsburg.
Wasnt 611 originally a US highway?

I know this assembly is too new for that, it is interesting to unknowingly acknowledge history

LGMS428

yes, it was. there are plenty of Broad St signblades in Philly that show the US shield instead of the PA shield - pan around this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9623419,-75.1615007,3a,75y,195.73h,90.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIe030bG_emNcoWpoTfciaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for an example.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mwb1848 on November 03, 2016, 02:13:04 PM
Eastbound on US 90 (Scenic Highway) in Pensacola, Florida, near its intersection with US 90 Alternate (Nine Mile Road).

The "ALT" Banner should be below "WEST" and centered above the left US 90 shield. At this location US 90 Alternate rejoins its parent route and terminates. US 90 continues east toward Milton.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi907.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac274%2Fmartinbartlett%2FIMG_0918_zpsuklchpip.jpg&hash=d50c427a4024b2e72fb5dde837539159a1339922) (http://s907.photobucket.com/user/martinbartlett/media/IMG_0918_zpsuklchpip.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on November 04, 2016, 10:18:46 PM
Was going through pictures from May's St. Joseph County, MI Road Meet and found this sign error on M-60 West:

(https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7137/26578434743_920194debc_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GuDqET)DSC05054 (https://flic.kr/p/GuDqET) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

M-86 East begins to the left, the intersection ahead marks the western terminus of M-86, so there is no M-86 West from this intersection.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheOneKEA on November 12, 2016, 10:34:44 PM
Quote from: tckma on October 25, 2016, 11:03:01 AM
Quote from: epzik8 on October 24, 2016, 07:33:14 PM
This one near Glen Burnie, Maryland should be Maryland Route 3 Business. Mainline Route 3 ends about five miles to the south and is disconnected from MD-3 Business.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F56ukASt.jpg&hash=afb9c888bce4ed9d7ce5033f868e7a12754c8ccc)

Since you seem to be a fellow Baltimoron...

Ever notice how Business 3 is typically signed with a "BUSINESS" banner above "MARYLAND 3," whereas Business 30 is typically signed with a green "BUSINESS 30" with "BUSINESS" replacing "MARYLAND" in the state highway shield?  Any speculation as to why that is?

The former arrangement is what MDOT SHA originally used for the very, very few business routes that MD had at the time. Since then, several new bypasses have opened and the SHA has chosen to go with the latter arrangement; however, it has chosen not to replace existing signage in the field.

MD 3 Business is one of the biggest anachronisms of the state highway system in MD; it's the only floating business route in the state and has been that way for over two decades. Were it not for the looooong history of that number being assigned to that road, it would have likely been changed to a different three-digit state highway number (done for MD 5 Business in Leonardtown, MD) and potentially left unsigned entirely.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mass_citizen on November 23, 2016, 12:00:30 AM
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/22/massdot-apologizes-for-cod-cape-sign-dartmouth/bpmdTMDf96Jk7maly3BcxO/story.html?s_campaign=bdc:article:stub (http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/22/massdot-apologizes-for-cod-cape-sign-dartmouth/bpmdTMDf96Jk7maly3BcxO/story.html?s_campaign=bdc:article:stub)

:banghead:

another Mass special. although I feel like the PD could have kept it quiet and notified the DOT. especially since they were probably on paid detail when it was installed!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman on November 23, 2016, 12:19:04 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on November 23, 2016, 12:00:30 AM
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/22/massdot-apologizes-for-cod-cape-sign-dartmouth/bpmdTMDf96Jk7maly3BcxO/story.html?s_campaign=bdc:article:stub (http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/22/massdot-apologizes-for-cod-cape-sign-dartmouth/bpmdTMDf96Jk7maly3BcxO/story.html?s_campaign=bdc:article:stub)

:banghead:

another Mass special. although I feel like the PD could have kept it quiet and notified the DOT. especially since they were probably on paid detail when it was installed!
Agreed.  The contractor could have quietly overlaid a proper CAPE COD on the panel in the field at less time and expense than it took to remove the newly installed panel, take it back to the shop, and then eventually re-mount it.  And, while the legend was a embarrassment to the contractor and MassDOT, to suggest that somebody looking for I-195 east to Cape Cod - especially from a local road like Faunce Corner Road - would be so confused by seeing Cod Cape instead and miss the entrance makes me want to laugh out loud.

And the local media, in my opinion, has been having one too many slow news days lately.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2016, 12:38:10 PM
Why would the police department have anything to do with making sure the sign had the correct wording on it? They're out there for safety...if they were out there at all.  While you don't want to hear "it's not my job", honestly, it's not their job.  They don't have any jurisdiction to tell a DOT contractor not to install a sign. 

As for it being a slow news day...it's news.  What else do you want.  40 pages of stories about murders?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 23, 2016, 04:48:13 PM
So heading down US 15 last night north of Leesburg, I noticed that one of those blue signs north of Lucketts that SR 662 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2159703,-77.5345331,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sVTrUmDnVTSxA4Ke_kf2__A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i38) was referred to as SR 622 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2240477,-77.5347512,3a,37.5y,194.34h,82.04t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sEpdsnAfQv1jGI0dSpEbyIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i38).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on November 23, 2016, 10:40:10 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2016, 12:38:10 PM
Why would the police department have anything to do with making sure the sign had the correct wording on it? They're out there for safety...if they were out there at all.  While you don't want to hear "it's not my job", honestly, it's not their job.  They don't have any jurisdiction to tell a DOT contractor not to install a sign.

Egad.  Talk about over-thinking it.  What did you think they were going to do when they saw an obvious mistake on a sign that might otherwise stand for 10 or 15 years?  Ignore it completely, just because they didn't feel like compartmentalizing their jobs to your satisfaction?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mass_citizen on November 27, 2016, 11:21:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2016, 12:38:10 PM
Why would the police department have anything to do with making sure the sign had the correct wording on it? They're out there for safety...if they were out there at all.  While you don't want to hear "it's not my job", honestly, it's not their job.  They don't have any jurisdiction to tell a DOT contractor not to install a sign. 

As for it being a slow news day...it's news.  What else do you want.  40 pages of stories about murders?

well apparently they had time as well felt it was their duty to post it on social media for the world to see. As a government agency, this isn't their first rodeo and likely they would have known that it would create a good deal of public attention.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 3web on November 28, 2016, 09:45:50 AM
Take a look at this: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678706,-115.1106362,3a,15y,288.75h,97.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCDpxQLzggmBy9-IGscU4Dw!2e0!5s20160601T000000!7i13312!8i6656
I'm sure just looking at it will tell you what's wrong with it. But at least it's an improvement to when they had the exit only tab ON TOP of the sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678784,-115.1107675,3a,15y,306.28h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4gLgYZIkRqFaus5npfJVOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on November 28, 2016, 05:42:53 PM
Quote from: 3web on November 28, 2016, 09:45:50 AM
Take a look at this: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678706,-115.1106362,3a,15y,288.75h,97.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCDpxQLzggmBy9-IGscU4Dw!2e0!5s20160601T000000!7i13312!8i6656
I'm sure just looking at it will tell you what's wrong with it. But at least it's an improvement to when they had the exit only tab ON TOP of the sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678784,-115.1107675,3a,15y,306.28h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4gLgYZIkRqFaus5npfJVOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

So what's exactly wrong with the new sign?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on November 28, 2016, 05:57:49 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 28, 2016, 05:42:53 PM
Quote from: 3web on November 28, 2016, 09:45:50 AM
Take a look at this: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678706,-115.1106362,3a,15y,288.75h,97.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCDpxQLzggmBy9-IGscU4Dw!2e0!5s20160601T000000!7i13312!8i6656
I'm sure just looking at it will tell you what's wrong with it. But at least it's an improvement to when they had the exit only tab ON TOP of the sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678784,-115.1107675,3a,15y,306.28h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4gLgYZIkRqFaus5npfJVOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

So what's exactly wrong with the new sign?

It's tiny, leaving most of the gantry exposed behind it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on November 28, 2016, 06:28:23 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 28, 2016, 05:57:49 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 28, 2016, 05:42:53 PM
Quote from: 3web on November 28, 2016, 09:45:50 AM
Take a look at this: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678706,-115.1106362,3a,15y,288.75h,97.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCDpxQLzggmBy9-IGscU4Dw!2e0!5s20160601T000000!7i13312!8i6656
I'm sure just looking at it will tell you what's wrong with it. But at least it's an improvement to when they had the exit only tab ON TOP of the sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678784,-115.1107675,3a,15y,306.28h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4gLgYZIkRqFaus5npfJVOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

So what's exactly wrong with the new sign?

It's tiny, leaving most of the gantry exposed behind it.

If I'm not mistaken, overhead guide signs were placed on the gantries like that in the Las Vegas area so the lighting fixture would not obscure the bottom part of the sign.  When I first saw it, I thought it looked rather ugly because California mounts their signs flush to the bottom of the truss, but it does make sense to me now, especially if the light fixture blocks an arrow or a distance message.

Anyways, I don't consider this to be erroneous.  It may not be aesthetically pleasing but I understand why NDOT did it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on November 28, 2016, 06:39:35 PM
^ Aren't most of the overhead signs in Vegas lit from the top of the sign pointing down?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 3web on November 28, 2016, 08:12:11 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 28, 2016, 06:39:35 PM
^ Aren't most of the overhead signs in Vegas lit from the top of the sign pointing down?
Nope, they're lit from the bottom.
Also, sorry for not being clear enough. It looks erroneous to me because of the way that the arrow is above the exit only tab and not inside of it. To me, it looks erroneous, but I guess that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on November 28, 2016, 11:20:28 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 28, 2016, 06:28:23 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 28, 2016, 05:57:49 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 28, 2016, 05:42:53 PM
Quote from: 3web on November 28, 2016, 09:45:50 AM
Take a look at this: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678706,-115.1106362,3a,15y,288.75h,97.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCDpxQLzggmBy9-IGscU4Dw!2e0!5s20160601T000000!7i13312!8i6656
I'm sure just looking at it will tell you what's wrong with it. But at least it's an improvement to when they had the exit only tab ON TOP of the sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1678784,-115.1107675,3a,15y,306.28h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4gLgYZIkRqFaus5npfJVOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

So what's exactly wrong with the new sign?

It's tiny, leaving most of the gantry exposed behind it.

If I'm not mistaken, overhead guide signs were placed on the gantries like that in the Las Vegas area so the lighting fixture would not obscure the bottom part of the sign.  When I first saw it, I thought it looked rather ugly because California mounts their signs flush to the bottom of the truss, but it does make sense to me now, especially if the light fixture blocks an arrow or a distance message.

Anyways, I don't consider this to be erroneous.  It may not be aesthetically pleasing but I understand why NDOT did it.
Quote from: 3web on November 28, 2016, 08:12:11 PM
Also, sorry for not being clear enough. It looks erroneous to me because of the way that the arrow is above the exit only tab and not inside of it. To me, it looks erroneous, but I guess that's just my opinion.

Yeah, definitely not erroneous. But poor design quality for NDOT... (They could have gone with "Eastern Ave" on the top line, and put the "exit only" plaque with black on yellow arrow on the bottom line).

That stretch of freeway now has some of the oldest freeway signs in Las Vegas, many of which were faded and peeling years ago. So I'm actually glad NDOT has replaced the sign, bad design notwithstanding.


Quote from: thenetwork on November 28, 2016, 06:39:35 PM
^ Aren't most of the overhead signs in Vegas lit from the top of the sign pointing down?

No. The only signs lit from overhead in the Vegas area are along I-215 southern beltway approaching the I-15, McCarran Airport and Warm Springs Road interchanges, and original freeway signs on the McCarran Airport Connector. Overhead lit signs are limited to only those sign structures dating from the original construction of I-215 (some signs may have been replaced with conventional lighting or had lighting removed in subsequent projects), which was a project completed under the purview of Clark County and not NDOT.

NDOT as a rule does not install signs lit from overhead. The only such installations I'm aware of are in Reno-Sparks, which were installed with new signs as part of the I-80 rebuild a few years ago. These are limited to the huge APLs (headlights wouldn't light the entire signs) or a few signs installed on curves (headlights don't light these signs sufficiently for long enough); most signs from this project are unlit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TravelingBethelite on November 29, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure :nod: this is a goof:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTlN9Ey2.jpg&hash=c0baa9041031d9d679bcdaf458213240d68d965c)

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on November 29, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Quote from: 3web on November 28, 2016, 08:12:11 PM
Also, sorry for not being clear enough. It looks erroneous to me because of the way that the arrow is above the exit only tab and not inside of it. To me, it looks erroneous, but I guess that's just my opinion.

Placing an arrow above the exit-only plaque is somewhat common here in California...

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images280/i-280_nb_exit_002_01.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images280/i-280_nb_exit_003a_04.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images280/i-280_nb_exit_005c_01.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images280/i-280_nb_exit_009_03.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images280/i-280_nb_exit_010_05.jpg)

All of the above photos are courtesy of the AARoads Gallery taken on northbound I-280 through San Jose and Cupertino.  The last sign (Wolfe Road exit) was recently replaced with a reflective one that keeps the same layout but includes an exit "tab".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on November 30, 2016, 08:09:36 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 29, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure :nod: this is a goof:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTlN9Ey2.jpg&hash=c0baa9041031d9d679bcdaf458213240d68d965c)

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

OK, I give, what's wrong with that sign?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TravelingBethelite on November 30, 2016, 08:12:44 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on November 30, 2016, 08:09:36 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 29, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure :nod: this is a goof:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTlN9Ey2.jpg&hash=c0baa9041031d9d679bcdaf458213240d68d965c)

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

OK, I give, what's wrong with that sign?

I believe OK's shields are not square.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on November 30, 2016, 08:39:35 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 30, 2016, 08:12:44 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on November 30, 2016, 08:09:36 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 29, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure :nod: this is a goof:

http://i.imgur.com/TlN9Ey2.jpg

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

OK, I give, what's wrong with that sign?

I believe OK's shields are not square.

That's a design error (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.0).

Erroneous signs have incorrect information on them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on November 30, 2016, 09:43:19 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2016, 08:39:35 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 30, 2016, 08:12:44 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on November 30, 2016, 08:09:36 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 29, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure :nod: this is a goof:

http://i.imgur.com/TlN9Ey2.jpg

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

OK, I give, what's wrong with that sign?

I believe OK's shields are not square.

That's a design error (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.0).

Erroneous signs have incorrect information on them.

It is erroneous. The sign says it is MA 51, ME 51, or possibly CT 51 or WV 51. It is none of those.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on November 30, 2016, 10:20:57 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 30, 2016, 09:43:19 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2016, 08:39:35 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 30, 2016, 08:12:44 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on November 30, 2016, 08:09:36 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 29, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure :nod: this is a goof:

http://i.imgur.com/TlN9Ey2.jpg

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

OK, I give, what's wrong with that sign?

I believe OK's shields are not square.

That's a design error (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.0).

Erroneous signs have incorrect information on them.

It is erroneous. The sign says it is MA 51, ME 51, or possibly CT 51 or WV 51. It is none of those.

While I agree that it is the wrong state route marker and I hope that folks driving in Oklahoma are smart enough to figure out that the message conveyed is "SR 51", I doubt that there is enough confusion generated by this sign to create a safety issue. Honestly, aside from the erroneous route marker, I find the sign to be incredibly well-designed. The exit tab is slightly off center instead of right justified but other than that it's a well done sign. Aside from the route marker.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2016, 12:42:00 AM
Found this on Google Maps. Located at TN 385 and Interstate 269 interchange heading south:

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0336704,-89.6402844,3a,15y,206.68h,98.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKldFfNO3_-doDHHwBeNEPQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

What's wrong with this sign?
1. The "L" is tilted DOWN
2. APL is too squished on one side

EDIT: On the same road, APL is too squished on one side, except a half-mile back:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0391913,-89.6383092,3a,37.5y,181.35h,98.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVgZLpCagRB9P6sjFvH7cIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on December 04, 2016, 11:33:59 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2016, 12:42:00 AM
Found this on Google Maps. Located at TN 385 and Interstate 269 interchange heading south:

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0336704,-89.6402844,3a,15y,206.68h,98.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKldFfNO3_-doDHHwBeNEPQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

What's wrong with this sign?
1. The "L" is tilted DOWN
2. APL is too squished on one side

EDIT: On the same road, APL is too squished on one side, except a half-mile back:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0391913,-89.6383092,3a,37.5y,181.35h,98.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVgZLpCagRB9P6sjFvH7cIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Another issue with these is that they used the wrong split arrow.

It's interesting that they squished the line, arrows and text to the exiting side of the panel. They had the space to spread that out, which would've fixed the arrow spacing issue.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jay8g on December 04, 2016, 03:10:39 PM
The street is NE Campus Pkwy (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6561827,-122.3143421,3a,15.2y,5.94h,97.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdGYL-HsFTMzuDBviHo9MkA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en).

It is not Campus Pk Way (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.655991,-122.3143702,3a,22.4y,3.1h,104.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEwog0mpuiNm15RntG7DWbQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en).

It is definitely not Campus Park Wy (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6562387,-122.3133094,3a,22y,192.58h,97.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snOAoW_Bp1K1utwVoRQvSRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theline on December 05, 2016, 03:29:36 PM
Does this count as erroneous or just a bad installation? Reassurance marker along the Chicago Skyway: https://goo.gl/maps/UPcYeU2S5Gv (https://goo.gl/maps/UPcYeU2S5Gv).

I-90 is on the Skyway and the route leads to I-94.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on December 05, 2016, 06:29:23 PM
From what has been said in previous threads, technically I-90 is not on the Chicago Skyway, as the Skyway itself is not up to interstate standards.  A lot of it has to do with insufficient narrow shoulders and the big bridge over the Calumet River, IIRC.  So most installations along and near the Skyway should read TO I-90 (& 94) like the photo above.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on December 06, 2016, 08:45:38 AM


Quote from: thenetwork on December 05, 2016, 06:29:23 PM
From what has been said in previous threads, technically I-90 is not on the Chicago Skyway, as the Skyway itself is not up to interstate standards.

Hm.  There are lots of old sections of signed interstates that are still interstates despite not being up to standard.

Reminds me of the section of I-278 in NYC that was not eligible for the now-defunct Interstate Maintenance fund source (yet is eligible for NHPP, which IM was folded into).  Just because it wasn't eligible for IM due to a legislative quirk doesn't mean it wasn't considered part of the Interstate Highway System.



Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on December 06, 2016, 09:32:40 AM
Also looks like the Skyway is part of FHWA's interstate route log? Looks like it matches the length of I-90 through Illinois including the Skyway?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on December 06, 2016, 04:34:28 PM
As was mentioned before in our forum (and from thenetwork above), at one time I-90 was not officially on the Chicago Skyway.  It was supposedly determined that I-90 should never have been signed on it.  That is why TO banners were added above the WEST I-90 (and EAST I-90) signs.  However, in the last few years, it is now understood that the Skyway is a part of I-90.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on December 06, 2016, 04:43:11 PM
The Skyway was acquired by a private entity in 2005, and they inexplicably decided they didn't want the I-90 designation on their road.  They took down all the I-90 signs, then because of public dissent put up "TO I-90" signs in their place.  Then a few years after that, the I-90 signs came back, presumably because the powers that be found it appalling that the Skyway Concession Company would want to create a discontinuity in the longest coast-to-coast Interstate in the country.  Someone at FHWA or AASHTO must have said "Hah!  Bless your heart.  No."  And I'm glad they did.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 07, 2016, 11:40:14 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 06, 2016, 04:43:11 PM
The Skyway was acquired by a private entity in 2005, and they inexplicably decided they didn't want the I-90 designation on their road.  They took down all the I-90 signs, then because of public dissent put up "TO I-90" signs in their place.  Then a few years after that, the I-90 signs came back, presumably because the powers that be found it appalling that the Skyway Concession Company would want to create a discontinuity in the longest coast-to-coast Interstate in the country.  Someone at FHWA or AASHTO must have said "Hah!  Bless your heart.  No."  And I'm glad they did.

Make I-90 a coast-to-coast interstate!!!!

Oh, wait...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on December 08, 2016, 10:25:29 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 07, 2016, 11:40:14 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 06, 2016, 04:43:11 PM
The Skyway was acquired by a private entity in 2005, and they inexplicably decided they didn't want the I-90 designation on their road.  They took down all the I-90 signs, then because of public dissent put up "TO I-90" signs in their place.  Then a few years after that, the I-90 signs came back, presumably because the powers that be found it appalling that the Skyway Concession Company would want to create a discontinuity in the longest coast-to-coast Interstate in the country.  Someone at FHWA or AASHTO must have said "Hah!  Bless your heart.  No."  And I'm glad they did.

Make I-90 a coast-to-coast interstate!!!!

Oh, wait...

:banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theline on December 08, 2016, 04:26:37 PM
Well that was educational! I had no idea what I would learn by noticing that TO I-90 sign on the Skyway. Thanks for the all info, guys.  :clap:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on December 17, 2016, 05:28:53 PM
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/1/416/31669561426_712caaaa26_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/QfwMg9)20161217_142915 (https://flic.kr/p/QfwMg9) by Jess Kilgore (https://www.flickr.com/photos/130771900@N08/), on Flickr

Only possible if you are Dr. Who travelling in the TARDIS.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on December 17, 2016, 08:54:29 PM
I stayed on I-70 East for 88 more miles, but never arrived in "Columbns".  Taken August 2, 2016.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Ffromstl-20160801-02%2F02%2FDSCF0054-800.jpg&hash=bf4c3c923d0af005dd13226ea456b6cf8e606808)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on December 18, 2016, 04:23:35 PM
QuotePage 64

Yep, this is why I stopped checking this thread a while ago.  Little design errors being called "erroneous road signs."  Back to the other threads I go...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on December 20, 2016, 09:39:50 AM
Quote from: Jim on December 17, 2016, 08:54:29 PM
I stayed on I-70 East for 88 more miles, but never arrived in "Columbns".  Taken August 2, 2016.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Ffromstl-20160801-02%2F02%2FDSCF0054-800.jpg&hash=bf4c3c923d0af005dd13226ea456b6cf8e606808)

That sign was correct as of September 2015 so I wonder why it was replaced with the incorrect sign.

(https://c6.staticflickr.com/1/749/21453810029_661d9b1a4f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/yFNohn)DSC07398 (https://flic.kr/p/yFNohn) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on December 20, 2016, 03:09:41 PM
^ It looks as if the "u" was put on upside down--as if that letter had fallen off and was put back on the sign incorrectly.  Notice that the "u" and the "n" is basically the same shape.  Rather interchangeable, right?

This, of course, is assuming the sign is the same exact one in both the above photos.  To me, it looks like it is.

Hold it, the second (new) sign looks like it has been put up about 10-15 feet behind the first sign.  Notice where the small tree is in relation to the sign in both photos.  Judging by the first photo it looks like the posts are barely holding that sign up and Ohio DOT more than likely replaced the sign with the incorrect "Columbus" spelling.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on December 20, 2016, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on December 20, 2016, 03:09:41 PM^ It looks as if the "u" was put on upside down--as if that letter had fallen off and was put back on the sign incorrectly.  Notice that the "u" and the "n" is basically the same shape.  Rather interchangeable, right?

This, of course, is assuming the sign is the same exact one in both the above photos.  To me, it looks like it is.

Hold it, the second (new) sign looks like it has been put up about 10-15 feet behind the first sign.  Notice where the small tree is in relation to the sign in both photos.  Judging by the first photo it looks like the posts are barely holding that sign up and Ohio DOT more than likely replaced the sign with the incorrect "Columbus" spelling.

I think your first explanation (field repair of the same sign) is more likely to be correct.  The apparent difference in position of posts WRT vegetation looks to me entirely like an artifact of different camera position and angle.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 20, 2016, 10:32:04 PM
Pranksters, perhaps? I think Ohio uses demountable copy. Some miscreants with a rivet gun could accomplish the inversion of the subject letter.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on December 20, 2016, 11:24:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 20, 2016, 10:32:04 PM
Pranksters, perhaps? I think Ohio uses demountable copy. Some miscreants with a rivet gun could accomplish the inversion of the subject letter.

About the only place in Ohio where large amounts of true De-mountable (non-button copy) text was on the Ohio Turnpike, but they did away with that in the early 90s about the same time ODOT was phasing out button copy.

Neighboring Kentucky still uses de-mountable copy on most of their BGSs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 27, 2016, 08:07:50 PM
So for some reason, heading to the Midtown Tunnel on US 58 WB from Norfolk has more references to the I-264 Toll than the US 58 Toll.  The latter one is the true error since the Midtown Tunnel is not I-264.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS%252058%2520WEST%2520NEAR%2520MIDTOWN%2520TUNNEL_zpsmxdo4thv.jpg&hash=73553b51b713736a6bb01443b8bea3cce820d9db)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS%252058%2520WEST%2520NEAR%2520MIDTOWN%2520TUNNEL%25202_zpshjfeftxp.jpg&hash=e06e25d5b807a582852958d73df0602b3ccd75fd)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 09, 2017, 01:28:50 PM
Found this one in the Arcata Marsh a few days back:

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/121901/Pictures/Highways/IMG_1723.jpg)

CA-299 begins north of the city and runs east. The route through Samoa should be CA-255. And miner spades are white-on-green, reflected on another sign not far from this one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on February 10, 2017, 12:38:42 PM
This assembly has been up for a couple months now. It has all the right pieces but arranged incorrectly - while US 23 does indeed join from the left, US 29/78 do not; they continue straight across the intersection along with GA 8.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2F2017%2Fsign_photos%2Fga155n_us29.jpg&hash=89d83d8ef5d46ab75079fc5be425bd7cb622685d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TravelingBethelite on February 12, 2017, 10:46:11 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on December 17, 2016, 05:28:53 PM
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/1/416/31669561426_712caaaa26_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/QfwMg9)20161217_142915 (https://flic.kr/p/QfwMg9) by Jess Kilgore (https://www.flickr.com/photos/130771900@N08/), on Flickr

Only possible if you are Dr. Who travelling in the TARDIS.

What is erroneous about this sign?  :hmmm: Either there's nothing wrong or I'm missing something.  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on February 12, 2017, 10:51:23 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on February 12, 2017, 10:46:11 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on December 17, 2016, 05:28:53 PM
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/1/416/31669561426_712caaaa26_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/QfwMg9)20161217_142915 (https://flic.kr/p/QfwMg9) by Jess Kilgore (https://www.flickr.com/photos/130771900@N08/), on Flickr

Only possible if you are Dr. Who travelling in the TARDIS.

What is erroneous about this sign?  :hmmm: Either there's nothing wrong or I'm missing something.  :pan:

US 167 goes both straight and right. US 167 North does not.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on February 12, 2017, 02:02:03 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 12, 2017, 10:51:23 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on February 12, 2017, 10:46:11 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on December 17, 2016, 05:28:53 PM
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/1/416/31669561426_712caaaa26_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/QfwMg9)20161217_142915 (https://flic.kr/p/QfwMg9) by Jess Kilgore (https://www.flickr.com/photos/130771900@N08/), on Flickr

Only possible if you are Dr. Who travelling in the TARDIS.

What is erroneous about this sign?  :hmmm: Either there's nothing wrong or I'm missing something.  :pan:

US 167 goes both straight and right. US 167 North does not.

Even worse...167 north goes to the right. Southbound 167 is at the next signal running to the left, which is also where US 80 west turns to join US 167/LA 146 thru downtown Ruston.

This is one of many fine examples of how Louisiana sucks big time at signing routes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on February 18, 2017, 11:24:50 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 27, 2016, 08:07:50 PM
So for some reason, heading to the Midtown Tunnel on US 58 WB from Norfolk has more references to the I-264 Toll than the US 58 Toll.  The latter one is the true error since the Midtown Tunnel is not I-264.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS%252058%2520WEST%2520NEAR%2520MIDTOWN%2520TUNNEL_zpsmxdo4thv.jpg&hash=73553b51b713736a6bb01443b8bea3cce820d9db)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS%252058%2520WEST%2520NEAR%2520MIDTOWN%2520TUNNEL%25202_zpshjfeftxp.jpg&hash=e06e25d5b807a582852958d73df0602b3ccd75fd)

Not only that, coming from Hampton Blvd SB (VA 337 WB) there's the BGS's that also says I-264 instead of TO I-264... also, Norfolk left out the fact that VA 337 WB follows US 58 EB on Brambleton Ave from that point (of course one of several Virginia wrong-way concurrencies) and VA 337 ALT begins and follows US 58 WB through the Midtown Tunnel
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on February 18, 2017, 01:31:56 PM
Quote from: plain on February 18, 2017, 11:24:50 AM
... VA 337 ALT begins and follows US 58 WB through the Midtown Tunnel

There is no evidence, official or otherwise, that this is actually the case.  I used to think this based on logic but it would be conjecture (and contradictory of last route log and traffic logs) to conclude it.

Curious to see what the do with this route given the VA 164 freeway extension (last report I got was that it was physically closed along Turnpike in this area so it is unknown),
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on February 18, 2017, 01:40:08 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 18, 2017, 01:31:56 PM
Quote from: plain on February 18, 2017, 11:24:50 AM
... VA 337 ALT begins and follows US 58 WB through the Midtown Tunnel

There is no evidence, official or otherwise, that this is actually the case.  I used to think this based on logic but it would be conjecture (and contradictory of last route log and traffic logs) to conclude it.

Curious to see what the do with this route given the VA 164 freeway extension (last report I got was that it was physically closed along Turnpike in this area so it is unknown),

Well now that you say that I'm confused too... I wonder how they even intended it to run if it doesn't run through the Midtown? It would have to connect back to mainline VA 337 somehow..
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on February 18, 2017, 02:41:48 PM
Quote from: plain on February 18, 2017, 01:40:08 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 18, 2017, 01:31:56 PM
Quote from: plain on February 18, 2017, 11:24:50 AM
... VA 337 ALT begins and follows US 58 WB through the Midtown Tunnel

There is no evidence, official or otherwise, that this is actually the case.  I used to think this based on logic but it would be conjecture (and contradictory of last route log and traffic logs) to conclude it.

Curious to see what the do with this route given the VA 164 freeway extension (last report I got was that it was physically closed along Turnpike in this area so it is unknown),

Well now that you say that I'm confused too... I wonder how they even intended it to run if it doesn't run through the Midtown? It would have to connect back to mainline VA 337 somehow..

While logical to do so, there is nothing that says it has to connect back up.  VA 258 ALT does not connect to US 258 Bus on both ends.  US 13 ALT in Cape Charles did not connect back up either for a time.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on February 18, 2017, 03:30:18 PM
Oh ok gotcha. Then again I've seen stranger routings I guess lmao.
By the way, did you mean US 258 TRUCK? Not even sure why VDOT signed it that way as I'm pretty sure this is mainline US 258 anyway (Google Maps has it labeled as US 258 BYP; the old alignment through Franklin is clearly signed by VDOT as US 258 BUS... even though Franklin itself failed to do so, no surprise here).

Poking around the area on Street View I noticed several sign errors... this has to be one
https://goo.gl/maps/8Ku3H9Gmtr32
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on February 18, 2017, 04:01:01 PM
Quote from: plain on February 18, 2017, 03:30:18 PM
Oh ok gotcha. Then again I've seen stranger routings I guess lmao.
By the way, did you mean US 258 TRUCK? Not even sure why VDOT signed it that way as I'm pretty sure this is mainline US 258 anyway (Google Maps has it labeled as US 258 BYP; the old alignment through Franklin is clearly signed by VDOT as US 258 BUS... even though Franklin itself failed to do so, no surprise here).

Poking around the area on Street View I noticed several sign errors... this has to be one
https://goo.gl/maps/8Ku3H9Gmtr32

I do mean 258 Alternate:  https://goo.gl/maps/TBWLXvQ2zLG2

Posted in error as US 258 ALT universally for years but did have some VA 258 shields when I lived in Tidewater in early 90s.

See http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va241-260.htm#va258a
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on February 18, 2017, 04:48:25 PM
Oh wow I didn't realize that was even there. It's been a long time since I've been in central Smithfield. I don't know why that was created either.. but Main Street does have what looks to be old pavement in that area so maybe that has something to do with it.

And right around the corner on SB VA 10 BUS is what I believe to be yet another signing error smh
https://goo.gl/maps/qFRsyi5CK122

EDIT: I just realized this assembly is mounted on the street. What the hell VDOT
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 18, 2017, 04:51:54 PM
Not around anymore, but here's one I only recently caught...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2Fuploads%2F7%2F5%2F0%2F3%2F75032313%2F911244792_orig.jpg&hash=04d64b85b381a7305925039b08bdb86e4fdd38e2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 05:26:30 PM
Quote from: Quillz on February 18, 2017, 04:51:54 PM
Not around anymore, but here's one I only recently caught...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2Fuploads%2F7%2F5%2F0%2F3%2F75032313%2F911244792_orig.jpg&hash=04d64b85b381a7305925039b08bdb86e4fdd38e2)

Is this in response to something? I don't get it...

101 north towards the Oregon Coast -- good;
199 towards the 5/Grants Pass -- accurate....

Unless there's something in the background, things seem good to me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 18, 2017, 05:30:27 PM
"CALIFORNIA" in the I-5 shield... US-199 only junctions with I-5 in Oregon.

The replacement BGS has a neutered I-5 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on February 18, 2017, 11:24:33 PM
NY 9W at Wemple Road near Glenmont, NY.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2323/32601297850_1850b48982_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RESb3f)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 11:41:49 PM
Quote from: Quillz on February 18, 2017, 05:30:27 PM
"CALIFORNIA" in the I-5 shield... US-199 only junctions with I-5 in Oregon.

The replacement BGS has a neutered I-5 shield.

Ahh, I see. Not a particularly surprising error, though. I doubt they had access to an I-5 shield with the word "Oregon" on it; perhaps the standards of the day called for state named interstate shields on overhead signs?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on February 23, 2017, 10:54:05 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 27, 2016, 08:07:50 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS%252058%2520WEST%2520NEAR%2520MIDTOWN%2520TUNNEL%25202_zpshjfeftxp.jpg&hash=e06e25d5b807a582852958d73df0602b3ccd75fd)

RWY is runway, not railway.  I've seen railway as RY.  But it's Norfolk Southern Corp., not railroad or railway.

Or is the sign directing people to a north-south runway and I'm complaining about nothing?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on March 05, 2017, 08:42:45 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 11:41:49 PM
Quote from: Quillz on February 18, 2017, 05:30:27 PM
"CALIFORNIA" in the I-5 shield... US-199 only junctions with I-5 in Oregon.

The replacement BGS has a neutered I-5 shield.

Ahh, I see. Not a particularly surprising error, though. I doubt they had access to an I-5 shield with the word "Oregon" on it; perhaps the standards of the day called for state named interstate shields on overhead signs?

I don't consider this to be an error.  Yes, US 199 leads to I-5 in Oregon, but the sign itself is in California.

On another equivalent, think of the Chicago Skyway.  Technically, this is not part of I-90, yet of course it is the proper connection of I-90 between the Dan Ryan Expy and Indiana.  For most of its length it is supposed to be signed as "TO I-90".  Should the eastbound Skyway be signed with Indiana I-90 decals even though the whole road is in Illinois?  (On a technical basis the Interstate designation resumes at the state line.)

See

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7560458,-87.5860072,3a,75y,176.54h,94.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shlhoTbb3KEONwohEkyrl3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Granted, the sign doesn't have a state designation anyway, but it would be ridiculous to have it be Indiana.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on March 05, 2017, 02:56:31 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 05, 2017, 08:42:45 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 11:41:49 PM
Quote from: Quillz on February 18, 2017, 05:30:27 PM
"CALIFORNIA" in the I-5 shield... US-199 only junctions with I-5 in Oregon.

The replacement BGS has a neutered I-5 shield.

Ahh, I see. Not a particularly surprising error, though. I doubt they had access to an I-5 shield with the word "Oregon" on it; perhaps the standards of the day called for state named interstate shields on overhead signs?

I don't consider this to be an error.  Yes, US 199 leads to I-5 in Oregon, but the sign itself is in California.

On another equivalent, think of the Chicago Skyway.  Technically, this is not part of I-90, yet of course it is the proper connection of I-90 between the Dan Ryan Expy and Indiana.  For most of its length it is supposed to be signed as "TO I-90".  Should the eastbound Skyway be signed with Indiana I-90 decals even though the whole road is in Illinois?  (On a technical basis the Interstate designation resumes at the state line.)

See

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7560458,-87.5860072,3a,75y,176.54h,94.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shlhoTbb3KEONwohEkyrl3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Granted, the sign doesn't have a state designation anyway, but it would be ridiculous to have it be Indiana.

Didn't FHWA say unequivocally that the Skyway was I-90?  There was supposedly a memo (http://web.archive.org/web/20120309034919/http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/1170) to that effect.  That and the posting of I-90 exit numbers to the Skyway exits in 2015 seem to put the issue to bed unless Illinois wanted to raise it and cause trouble themselves!

I'd have to search the hard drive, but I know that somewhere I have saved a photo from within Chicago with TO I-80/I-90/I-94/I-65 shields that all had INDIANA inside them...whether that was oversight or deliberate, who knows.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theline on March 31, 2017, 12:05:16 AM
It seems that this type of error has been mentioned here before, but my search didn't find it.  The error occurs where a highway goes from undivided to divided. There should be a BEGIN divided highway warning sign, but an END divided highway sign is posted instead. (I suspect that the proper sign was provided, but it was erected upside down.) My example is at the east end of the short section of divided US 6, near the US 31 interchange.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi66.tinypic.com%2Fa47sap.png&hash=1de15c42902c17eeb5b689cd7974e1813ba940d7)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on March 31, 2017, 09:49:06 AM
Quote from: theline on March 31, 2017, 12:05:16 AM
It seems that this type of error has been mentioned here before, but my search didn't find it.  The error occurs where a highway goes from undivided to divided. There should be a BEGIN divided highway warning sign, but an END divided highway sign is posted instead. (I suspect that the proper sign was provided, but it was erected upside down.) My example is at the east end of the short section of divided US 6, near the US 31 interchange.

One is just an upside-down version of the other, isn't it?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: theline on March 31, 2017, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: tckma on March 31, 2017, 09:49:06 AM
Quote from: theline on March 31, 2017, 12:05:16 AM
It seems that this type of error has been mentioned here before, but my search didn't find it.  The error occurs where a highway goes from undivided to divided. There should be a BEGIN divided highway warning sign, but an END divided highway sign is posted instead. (I suspect that the proper sign was provided, but it was erected upside down.) My example is at the east end of the short section of divided US 6, near the US 31 interchange.

One is just an upside-down version of the other, isn't it?
Yep, that's why I suspect that the worker just installed it upside down. If I get back down there, I'll look at the back of the sign to see if I can figure it out.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on April 10, 2017, 10:29:00 PM
I've pointed out this error before, both in locations I'm personally familiar with and in other people's pictures.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on April 16, 2017, 08:21:52 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/asw5v4I.jpg)

US 743 reassurance shield in Hershey, PA, heading SB on Cocoa Ave just south of Hersheypark Drive. Should be PA 743.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on April 16, 2017, 11:02:19 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 11:41:49 PM
Quote from: Quillz on February 18, 2017, 05:30:27 PM"CALIFORNIA" in the I-5 shield... US-199 only junctions with I-5 in Oregon.

The replacement BGS has a neutered I-5 shield.

Ahh, I see. Not a particularly surprising error, though. I doubt they had access to an I-5 shield with the word "Oregon" on it; perhaps the standards of the day called for state named interstate shields on overhead signs?

Not in California, which was among the first states (if not actually the very first) to specify guide-sign shields without the state name.  There is another bona-fide error:  "To" instead of "TO."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 23, 2017, 11:35:50 PM
I think there is an errenous mass 2 sign near concord, but it might be gone.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on April 23, 2017, 11:38:31 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 23, 2017, 11:35:50 PM
I think there is an errenous mass 2 sign near concord, but it might be gone.
You should check and report back.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on May 01, 2017, 10:53:41 AM
This should be "Eighth." Lafayette, LA.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2850/33529032174_e4a2ab99a3.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T5R48C)
Eight (https://flic.kr/p/T5R48C) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2017, 11:19:53 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 23, 2017, 11:38:31 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 23, 2017, 11:35:50 PM
I think there is an errenous mass 2 sign near concord, but it might be gone.
You should check and report back.

It's around here. Somewhere.  Unless it's gone.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FCapture_1.jpg&hash=fd498073dcc05a0761ece076c12070b08cae6514) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/Capture_1.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 01, 2017, 12:16:51 PM
Spotted this at the west end of the overlap between I-70 and US 40 at Exit 121 near Midway, Missouri:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9712299,-92.430362,3a,75y,52.05h,89.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU1Wv0CmR2o3gps5YDCJ57A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

The arrow shield for US 40 really should point in two directions, rather than just one.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 01, 2017, 01:47:14 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 01, 2017, 10:53:41 AM
This should be "Eighth." Lafayette, LA.

As a matter of style, yes. But I bet the legal street name is still "8 Street". At least around here, legal street names don't include the ordinal indication (even if written with one).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on May 01, 2017, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 01, 2017, 01:47:14 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 01, 2017, 10:53:41 AM
This should be "Eighth." Lafayette, LA.

As a matter of style, yes. But I bet the legal street name is still "8 Street". At least around here, legal street names don't include the ordinal indication (even if written with one).

No, the name of the street is "Eighth (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2256536,-92.0098376,3a,37.5y,348.7h,88.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVbnaULW-0XeearFJ3FVLig!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DVbnaULW-0XeearFJ3FVLig%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D80.78923%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)." Lafayette has a set of numbered streets, and spells out the names. The ordinal form is correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 01, 2017, 03:20:09 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 01, 2017, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 01, 2017, 01:47:14 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 01, 2017, 10:53:41 AM
This should be "Eighth." Lafayette, LA.

As a matter of style, yes. But I bet the legal street name is still "8 Street". At least around here, legal street names don't include the ordinal indication (even if written with one).

No, the name of the street is "Eighth (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2256536,-92.0098376,3a,37.5y,348.7h,88.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVbnaULW-0XeearFJ3FVLig!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DVbnaULW-0XeearFJ3FVLig%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D80.78923%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)." Lafayette has a set of numbered streets, and spells out the names. The ordinal form is correct.

Ahh, I see. So if you go to look up parcel information on Lafayette Parish's website, you'd type in the house number followed by "Eighth Street"? Definitely not the norm for my county's website. I have to type in "3 Street" for my house.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on May 01, 2017, 04:41:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 01, 2017, 03:20:09 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 01, 2017, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 01, 2017, 01:47:14 PM
Quote from: jbnv on May 01, 2017, 10:53:41 AM
This should be "Eighth." Lafayette, LA.

As a matter of style, yes. But I bet the legal street name is still "8 Street". At least around here, legal street names don't include the ordinal indication (even if written with one).

No, the name of the street is "Eighth (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2256536,-92.0098376,3a,37.5y,348.7h,88.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVbnaULW-0XeearFJ3FVLig!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DVbnaULW-0XeearFJ3FVLig%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D80.78923%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)." Lafayette has a set of numbered streets, and spells out the names. The ordinal form is correct.

Ahh, I see. So if you go to look up parcel information on Lafayette Parish's website, you'd type in the house number followed by "Eighth Street"? Definitely not the norm for my county's website. I have to type in "3 Street" for my house.

Yes. I just tried it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: machias on May 01, 2017, 05:28:33 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 23, 2017, 11:35:50 PM
I think there is an errenous mass 2 sign near concord, but it might be gone.

Are you referring to the circle marker that looks like NJ 2 just east of the Concord Rotary? It's still there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on May 02, 2017, 08:32:13 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on May 01, 2017, 05:28:33 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 23, 2017, 11:35:50 PM
I think there is an errenous mass 2 sign near concord, but it might be gone.

Are you referring to the circle marker that looks like NJ 2 just east of the Concord Rotary? It's still there.

This? https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4630578,-71.3862397,3a,75y,143.28h,96.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6_lTLVg5BM3lpv8mZrwM1w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Voyager75 on May 08, 2017, 10:10:59 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1376.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fah18%2Fbshuguley%2FMobile%2520Uploads%2FDDC967E0-E1D3-4893-89EF-33E8062BE47A_zpsp2gwn4il.jpg&hash=edcf5fc3323b7856cece6ac8ab8c4e7055ddccdf) (http://s1376.photobucket.com/user/bshuguley/media/Mobile%20Uploads/DDC967E0-E1D3-4893-89EF-33E8062BE47A_zpsp2gwn4il.jpg.html)

US 11 has been temporarily demoted to AL 11 at Exit 166 in Ashville, AL as it's been rerouted on I-59 for construction. I say demoted even though there are a few US 11 Detour signs mixed in. Guess the guy caught his mistake toward the end.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 10, 2017, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 02, 2017, 08:32:13 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on May 01, 2017, 05:28:33 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 23, 2017, 11:35:50 PM
I think there is an errenous mass 2 sign near concord, but it might be gone.

Are you referring to the circle marker that looks like NJ 2 just east of the Concord Rotary? It's still there.

This? https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4630578,-71.3862397,3a,75y,143.28h,96.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6_lTLVg5BM3lpv8mZrwM1w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

And does the Middlesex County 27 route marker in Acton still exist?  (Not only is it MA-27, but counties in Massachusetts only exist for the purposes of the court system and property ownership records.)  It's been several years since I lived in New England.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: elsmere241 on May 12, 2017, 09:55:53 AM
I don't have a picture, but one of the temporary construction signs on DE 141 north is for Exit 3B, I-95 and I-495 south to Newark and Baltimore.  I-495 ends just above DE 141.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on May 12, 2017, 04:05:00 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 10, 2017, 03:19:39 PM
And does the Middlesex County 27 route marker in Acton still exist?  (Not only is it MA-27, but counties in Massachusetts only exist for the purposes of the court system and property ownership records.)  It's been several years since I lived in New England.

It does. Went by it a couple of weeks ago. However, it is in very rough shape, peeling badly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 7/8 on May 18, 2017, 09:47:30 PM
As pointed out by SignGeek101, the sign on the left should be MB 75 south instead of TCH 100 south.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3WFRgDh.jpg&hash=d7e00eef1d5428988a72acb85deaa421be4ec7c2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 18, 2017, 09:52:49 PM
I have always wondered why all these signs get messed up. Like that erroneous mass 2 sign near concord. Massachusetts has a whopping number of 3 types of shields used on roads in the state. Shouldn't people who's job is to put up these signs know the proper type?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 18, 2017, 10:24:03 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 18, 2017, 09:52:49 PM
I have always wondered why all these signs get messed up. Like that erroneous mass 2 sign near concord. Massachusetts has a whopping number of 3 types of shields used on roads in the state. Shouldn't people who's job is to put up these signs know the proper type?

One would think.  Apparently, however, common sense isn't all that common:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_10#History

It's not the highway departments (usually) who put up the signs.  The state highway departments hire contractors, and usually they are required by law to select the lowest bidder.  Also, usually, you get what you pay for.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 18, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 18, 2017, 10:24:03 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 18, 2017, 09:52:49 PM
I have always wondered why all these signs get messed up. Like that erroneous mass 2 sign near concord. Massachusetts has a whopping number of 3 types of shields used on roads in the state. Shouldn't people who's job is to put up these signs know the proper type?

One would think.  Apparently, however, common sense isn't all that common:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_10#History

It's not the highway departments (usually) who put up the signs.  The state highway departments hire contractors, and usually they are required by law to select the lowest bidder.  Also, usually, you get what you pay for.
But this is not rocket science! All you need is a gps and knowledge of 3 signs!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on May 19, 2017, 09:01:42 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 18, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 18, 2017, 10:24:03 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 18, 2017, 09:52:49 PM
I have always wondered why all these signs get messed up. Like that erroneous mass 2 sign near concord. Massachusetts has a whopping number of 3 types of shields used on roads in the state. Shouldn't people who's job is to put up these signs know the proper type?

One would think.  Apparently, however, common sense isn't all that common:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_10#History

It's not the highway departments (usually) who put up the signs.  The state highway departments hire contractors, and usually they are required by law to select the lowest bidder.  Also, usually, you get what you pay for.
But this is not rocket science! All you need is a gps and knowledge of 3 signs!
For items like route signs; many contractors choose independent suppliers/fabricators that may be located outside the state and/or issue products (in this case signs) for many other states (i.e. more than 3 sign types).  That said, it's possible that the supplier mistakenly fabricated & delivered state route shield signs designed for another state.

Prior to fabrication, shop drawings/cut sheets (detailing the signs) are supposed to be issued to both the contractor and the design engineer with the latter reviewing & giving final approval.  Usually, errors like these are supposed to be corrected during the shop drawing review process & prior to fabrication/delivery.

Why these & other erroneous route shields ultimately get erected may be due to time constraints (how long the area is a construction site/work zone & the wait for correct signs to be fabricated/delivered); a contractor may be only allowed access to the site for a certain/short period of time.  For many of these construction projects; erecting road signs are only a small piece of the overall job.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on May 19, 2017, 10:40:25 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 19, 2017, 09:01:42 AM
it's possible that the supplier mistakenly fabricated & delivered state route shield signs designed for another state.

Well, we've certainly been down that "road" before.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Mass_Alabama_10.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on May 19, 2017, 11:50:55 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 19, 2017, 10:40:25 AMWell, we've certainly been down that "road" before.
Nice play with the pun. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 12:03:25 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 19, 2017, 11:50:55 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 19, 2017, 10:40:25 AMWell, we've certainly been down that "road" before.
Nice play with the pun. :thumbsup:
Maybe the contractors were from Alabama and were feeling homesick.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 19, 2017, 12:24:11 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 19, 2017, 10:40:25 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 19, 2017, 09:01:42 AM
it's possible that the supplier mistakenly fabricated & delivered state route shield signs designed for another state.

So, what of cases where you're putting signs up near a state line or national border?  Do post your own shield, a la Connecticut?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3921809,-71.8450241,3a,75y,333.06h,76.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1GbIHsDeu3UpxOTdS5fs2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Do you modify your own shield, a la Vermont (and post the other state's shield too, because you can't decide)?

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1373288,-72.4498494,3a,75y,114.92h,68.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNKkwZAx_jMf42iyfvWntKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Or, do you use the neighboring jurisdiction's shield, a la Connecticut (again), Vermont, and New Hampshire?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0392453,-73.6740878,3a,75y,238.11h,81.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxDOdGFUMbzohepZkdal7wA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
http://assets.atlasobscura.com/article_images/31494/image.jpg
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9945556,-71.5315511,3a,48.9y,332.95h,88.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBqfaMFsomZsmMQKrdCzCww!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

Or, how about modifying the neighboring state's shield a bit to make it explicit, a la New York?

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3493146,-73.4150715,3a,49y,361.04h,73.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s41fWMGUFAA7UMwD8MkwNRQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


Hm?

My opinion is to use the other state's shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on May 19, 2017, 03:02:00 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 12:03:25 PMMaybe the contractors were from Alabama and were feeling homesick.

ISTR the illustration in the MUTCD for state highway shields (as distinguished from the interstate and US shields) showed only the Alabama one, so maybe the contractor thought the Alabama design was used for all state highways.  I dunno, just a theory.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 03:03:12 PM
:
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 19, 2017, 03:02:00 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 12:03:25 PMMaybe the contractors were from Alabama and were feeling homesick.

ISTR the illustration in the MUTCD for state highway shields (as distinguished from the interstate and US shields) showed only the Alabama one, so maybe the contractor thought the Alabama design was used for all state highways.  I dunno, just a theory.
Well, the shield is sorta kinda shaped like Alabama.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 19, 2017, 04:14:34 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 19, 2017, 03:02:00 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 12:03:25 PMMaybe the contractors were from Alabama and were feeling homesick.

ISTR the illustration in the MUTCD for state highway shields (as distinguished from the interstate and US shields) showed only the Alabama one, so maybe the contractor thought the Alabama design was used for all state highways.  I dunno, just a theory.

That was the consensus at the time it happened.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 03:03:12 PMWell, the shield is sorta kinda shaped like Alabama.

Kinda? Those ARE Alabama markers. They'd be right at home in Tuscaloosa or Birmingham or Gadsden.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 04:18:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 19, 2017, 04:14:34 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 19, 2017, 03:02:00 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 12:03:25 PMMaybe the contractors were from Alabama and were feeling homesick.

ISTR the illustration in the MUTCD for state highway shields (as distinguished from the interstate and US shields) showed only the Alabama one, so maybe the contractor thought the Alabama design was used for all state highways.  I dunno, just a theory.

That was the consensus at the time it happened.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 03:03:12 PMWell, the shield is sorta kinda shaped like Alabama.

Kinda? Those ARE Alabama markers. They'd be right at home in Tuscaloosa or Birmingham or Gadsden.
Well, that makes the mistake even worse.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on May 19, 2017, 06:06:46 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 04:18:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 19, 2017, 04:14:34 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 19, 2017, 03:02:00 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 12:03:25 PMMaybe the contractors were from Alabama and were feeling homesick.

ISTR the illustration in the MUTCD for state highway shields (as distinguished from the interstate and US shields) showed only the Alabama one, so maybe the contractor thought the Alabama design was used for all state highways.  I dunno, just a theory.

That was the consensus at the time it happened.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 03:03:12 PMWell, the shield is sorta kinda shaped like Alabama.

Kinda? Those ARE Alabama markers. They'd be right at home in Tuscaloosa or Birmingham or Gadsden.
Well, that makes the mistake even worse.

Probably opened the book, saw the first state shield in there, and thought good enough, given Alabama is #1*

*Well, in that respect.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 09:57:55 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 19, 2017, 06:06:46 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 04:18:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 19, 2017, 04:14:34 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 19, 2017, 03:02:00 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 12:03:25 PMMaybe the contractors were from Alabama and were feeling homesick.

ISTR the illustration in the MUTCD for state highway shields (as distinguished from the interstate and US shields) showed only the Alabama one, so maybe the contractor thought the Alabama design was used for all state highways.  I dunno, just a theory.

That was the consensus at the time it happened.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 03:03:12 PMWell, the shield is sorta kinda shaped like Alabama.

Kinda? Those ARE Alabama markers. They'd be right at home in Tuscaloosa or Birmingham or Gadsden.
Well, that makes the mistake even worse.

Probably opened the book, saw the first state shield in there, and thought good enough, given Alabama is #1*

*Well, in that respect.
Did they even stop to think that a shield shaped like Alabama would not be correct in Massachusetts?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 19, 2017, 10:37:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 09:57:55 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 19, 2017, 06:06:46 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 04:18:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 19, 2017, 04:14:34 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 19, 2017, 03:02:00 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 12:03:25 PMMaybe the contractors were from Alabama and were feeling homesick.

ISTR the illustration in the MUTCD for state highway shields (as distinguished from the interstate and US shields) showed only the Alabama one, so maybe the contractor thought the Alabama design was used for all state highways.  I dunno, just a theory.

That was the consensus at the time it happened.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 03:03:12 PM
Well, the shield is sorta kinda shaped like Alabama.

Kinda? Those ARE Alabama markers. They'd be right at home in Tuscaloosa or Birmingham or Gadsden.

Well, that makes the mistake even worse.

Probably opened the book, saw the first state shield in there, and thought good enough, given Alabama is #1*

*Well, in that respect.

Did they even stop to think that a shield shaped like Alabama would not be correct in Massachusetts?

I think that was the problem. They weren't really thinking at all.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 10:56:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 19, 2017, 10:37:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 09:57:55 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 19, 2017, 06:06:46 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 04:18:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 19, 2017, 04:14:34 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 19, 2017, 03:02:00 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 12:03:25 PMMaybe the contractors were from Alabama and were feeling homesick.

ISTR the illustration in the MUTCD for state highway shields (as distinguished from the interstate and US shields) showed only the Alabama one, so maybe the contractor thought the Alabama design was used for all state highways.  I dunno, just a theory.

That was the consensus at the time it happened.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 03:03:12 PM
Well, the shield is sorta kinda shaped like Alabama.

Kinda? Those ARE Alabama markers. They'd be right at home in Tuscaloosa or Birmingham or Gadsden.

Well, that makes the mistake even worse.

Probably opened the book, saw the first state shield in there, and thought good enough, given Alabama is #1*

*Well, in that respect.

Did they even stop to think that a shield shaped like Alabama would not be correct in Massachusetts?

I think that was the problem. They weren't really thinking at all.
I hope they got fired.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 19, 2017, 11:26:40 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 10:56:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 19, 2017, 10:37:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 09:57:55 PM
Did they even stop to think that a shield shaped like Alabama would not be correct in Massachusetts?

I think that was the problem. They weren't really thinking at all.

I hope they got fired.

It was a relatively minor blunder. I suspect those involved had a good laugh and moved on.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on May 21, 2017, 11:07:32 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 10:56:32 PMI hope they got fired.

Presumably not before constructing and erecting the correct shields.  IIRC (roadman, please correct me if I'm wrong) mistakes made by a contractor for MassDOT must be corrected by that contractor at no additional cost to the Commonwealth, as in the fiasco a few years back with a number of erroneous shields being erected in the city of Boston by a contractor...hopefully not the same one who botched the Easthampton shields in the picture above.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: spooky on May 22, 2017, 09:34:49 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 21, 2017, 11:07:32 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2017, 10:56:32 PMI hope they got fired.

Presumably not before constructing and erecting the correct shields.  IIRC (roadman, please correct me if I'm wrong) mistakes made by a contractor for MassDOT must be corrected by that contractor at no additional cost to the Commonwealth, as in the fiasco a few years back with a number of erroneous shields being erected in the city of Boston by a contractor...hopefully not the same one who botched the Easthampton shields in the picture above.

The erroneous shields in Boston was not a MassDOT project, but yes in that instance I believe the contractor corrected the signs at no cost to the City of Boston.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on May 30, 2017, 12:07:16 PM
I took this photo somewhere near Eastern Market in Washington, DC in 2008, according to the date shown on the photo on my Facebook photos page.

What's the error?  I-95 does not go through DC! (well, except for a very small section of the bridge between VA and MD that crosses a corner of DC, anyway)  So, why the "state" named shield?  That is, in fact, the reason I took the photo.

(https://i.imgur.com/IfS06My.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on May 30, 2017, 12:28:39 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 30, 2017, 12:07:16 PMWhat's the error?  I-95 does not go through DC! (well, except for a very small section of the bridge between VA and MD that crosses a corner of DC, anyway)  So, why the "state" named shield?  That is, in fact, the reason I took the photo.

(https://i.imgur.com/IfS06My.jpg)
That sign dates back to when I-95 indeed went into DC (via current I-395).  It's probably from the early 70s.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: HTM Duke on May 30, 2017, 08:42:16 PM
Not only is this bridge closed to truck traffic, it was removed about three years ago:
Lorton Rd westbound at Gunston Cove Rd: https://goo.gl/maps/nWNMspxsZUn

And this one is problematic if one were to follow it explicitly, given that Canal Rd is one-way westbound during the PM rush:
Canal Rd approaching Arizona Ave: https://goo.gl/maps/ZiVTBxeiyNy
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on May 31, 2017, 06:03:33 PM
Stanley Roberts of KRON-4 in San Francisco tweeted this from San Leandro.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F1CFB8EAF-99BF-40B5-AAE8-DAAB2046CD0D_zpsuqlr4mzn.jpg&hash=68e29160279f55b381944d46a6d3fc3ef02ca21e)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 7/8 on May 31, 2017, 07:44:39 PM
This photo was taken on Simcoe St approaching Vienna St in Tillsonburg, ON. The sign on the left implies that turning left puts you on county road 19, but technically that section is still highway 19 until it ends at highway 3. It's also an ugly sign to boot! :pan:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSOuwFKm.jpg&hash=a2644139bc32485af7c9cd87f0b696c65af1727d)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bob7374 on May 31, 2017, 11:39:06 PM
Two of three from a 1/4 mile stretch of the same route (MA 58) in Carver. The first southbound, just after the interchange with US 44. One has to do a double take that they are not in New Jersey or Delaware:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma58signs517nj.JPG&hash=79d92668b195c3455ba468da55050da8bc96a4f1)

One-quarter mile further south, but heading back toward US 44, you come across these recently installed guide (paddle) signs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma58signs517c.JPG&hash=66ceeef20add52a83a98065f4730809568a3f4ef)

There's also another one at the intersection seen in the distance (not pictured). The guide signs closer to the US 44 interchange are older and correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on June 01, 2017, 09:27:00 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 31, 2017, 11:39:06 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma58signs517c.JPG&hash=66ceeef20add52a83a98065f4730809568a3f4ef)
In addition; note the odd location/position of the upright arrow, placed in-between the 44 & 58 shields on the lower D8 LGS.  Typically, MassDOT places the upright arrow either to the left or right of the route shield(s).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on June 01, 2017, 05:21:42 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 31, 2017, 11:39:06 PM
Two of three from a 1/4 mile stretch of the same route (MA 58) in Carver. The first southbound, just after the interchange with US 44. One has to do a double take that they are not in New Jersey or Delaware:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma58signs517nj.JPG&hash=79d92668b195c3455ba468da55050da8bc96a4f1)

One-quarter mile further south, but heading back toward US 44, you come across these recently installed guide (paddle) signs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma58signs517c.JPG&hash=66ceeef20add52a83a98065f4730809568a3f4ef)

There's also another one at the intersection seen in the distance (not pictured). The guide signs closer to the US 44 interchange are older and correct.

Such a complete mess - they made US 44 a state route plus put up brand new signs routing people down old 44 and not the freeway portion that's been there for over a decade.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on June 02, 2017, 08:53:51 PM
IL 24 shield on U.S. 24 just west of IL 103, taken 5/28/17:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4219/34139803594_3a5074ff7d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/U1Pqcm)DSC01032 (https://flic.kr/p/U1Pqcm) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 09, 2017, 09:35:39 AM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4272/35118031696_388174fe53_d.jpg)
US 10 for AR 10 in Little Rock.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on June 09, 2017, 09:51:55 AM
Just so you know, I created a separate thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607) for state/US mixups to go in, so that this thread would not grow as quickly. (You don't have to, but if you want, you can delete the post here and put it in the other one. This applies to anyone who has posted a state/US mixup in this thread.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on June 09, 2017, 11:13:19 AM
Not quite sure if this is an error or of LADOTD made 3003 a southbound route for only 100 feet.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4250/35149083126_a02f755351_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Vy1eQA)
South 3003 or East 3003? (https://flic.kr/p/Vy1eQA) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on June 14, 2017, 11:47:14 AM
Quote from: jbnv on June 09, 2017, 11:13:19 AM
Not quite sure if this is an error or of LADOTD made 3003 a southbound route for only 100 feet.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4250/35149083126_a02f755351_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Vy1eQA)
South 3003 or East 3003? (https://flic.kr/p/Vy1eQA) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr

I've noticed some short-ish Louisiana routes don't easily follow the east-west/north-south pattern, so they avoid the directional banner altogether, like Texas.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on June 16, 2017, 05:30:48 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 31, 2017, 06:03:33 PM
Stanley Roberts of KRON-4 in San Francisco tweeted this from San Leandro.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F1CFB8EAF-99BF-40B5-AAE8-DAAB2046CD0D_zpsuqlr4mzn.jpg&hash=68e29160279f55b381944d46a6d3fc3ef02ca21e)

D'oh!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on June 16, 2017, 11:40:52 PM
Like those OLNY pavement markings.  :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 17, 2017, 12:16:15 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 16, 2017, 11:40:52 PM
Like those OLNY pavement markings.  :D

Or SHCOOL...not cool!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on June 17, 2017, 07:54:35 AM
Or the SOTP ones. And these have happened in both sides of the pond :sombrero:.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on June 17, 2017, 03:40:36 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 17, 2017, 07:54:35 AM
Or the SOTP ones. And these have happened in both sides of the pond :sombrero:.

A bit more understandable in España, though. Do stop signs or pavement markings ever read "Alto"?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 27, 2017, 08:45:06 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/35506093406/
This one here has CR 39 shown for the guide to the right ahead while the following c/d ramp is shown as FL 39.  However, once off the first ramp the signs at the end of the ramp show it as FL 39!  In fact all of what is to be Hillsorough County Road 39 is signed as FL 39 throughout Plant City.

Apparently someone at FDOT did a big goof as there was no official move of State Road 39 onto Alexander Street and no commissioning of a Hillsborough County Road 39 in Plant City using what was always FL 39.

So until both FDOT and Plant City decide which alignment is going to be FL 39, it is safe to say that it never moved and all signs still show FL 39 as is on Buchman Highway and all other city streets is uses within Plant City is the real Route 39 and the county designation is not really applied as well as Alexander Street being officially SR 39A.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on July 02, 2017, 09:17:29 AM
Quote from: HTM Duke on May 30, 2017, 08:42:16 PM


And this one is problematic if one were to follow it explicitly, given that Canal Rd is one-way westbound during the PM rush:
Canal Rd approaching Arizona Ave: https://goo.gl/maps/ZiVTBxeiyNy

This sign is actually correct.  Keep one lane through this section during the afternoon rush.  And then up ahead at Arizona, all traffic must turn left in the afternoon because Canal is one-way the wrong way at this point.

But it is confusing enough that I believe electronic signs are warranted for this stretch.

Another aspect I hate is that there should be a warning about this on the Beltway.   Traffic heading into the city during the afternoon rush should only take the GW Pkwy as the Clara Barton becomes one-way, the wrong way, a short distance south of the Beltway to match the reversible nature of Canal Rd.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on July 03, 2017, 10:55:57 PM
I was unable to get a picture of this, but if anyone here drives on southbound 14 Street in DC passing the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, see if you can get a picture of the new sign that says "PEDESTIRANS" are prohibited.




Quote from: jakeroot on June 17, 2017, 03:40:36 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 17, 2017, 07:54:35 AM
Or the SOTP ones. And these have happened in both sides of the pond :sombrero:.

A bit more understandable in España, though. Do stop signs or pavement markings ever read "Alto"?

I've seen "ALTO" signs on Cozumel.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on July 03, 2017, 11:44:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 03, 2017, 10:55:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 17, 2017, 03:40:36 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 17, 2017, 07:54:35 AM
Or the SOTP ones. And these have happened in both sides of the pond :sombrero:.

A bit more understandable in España, though. Do stop signs or pavement markings ever read "Alto"?

I've seen "ALTO" signs on Cozumel.

My understanding was that Mexico used "ALTO" for all stop signs. Vienna signatories seem to use STOP, regardless of primary language (although I imagine some countries use their primary language anyways).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on July 03, 2017, 11:50:24 PM
Turkey uses DUR (durmak = to stop).  I think PARE is the norm in South America.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on July 19, 2017, 10:40:19 PM
Not a road sign, but I'm sure this billboard's been noticed before by one of you.  Straight ahead at a T intersection?

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4299/35226085583_00e15da78d_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VENTZa)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 19, 2017, 11:27:02 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 19, 2017, 10:40:19 PM
Not a road sign, but I'm sure this billboard's been noticed before by one of you.  Straight ahead at a T intersection?

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4299/35226085583_00e15da78d_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VENTZa)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 23, 2017, 02:40:17 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F66RfWdd.jpg%3F1&hash=0d5d41d2cfc5070160c93426b015fc5936797973)

The I-35 and SH-9 shields are swapped, leading to an interesting "west I-35" error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on July 23, 2017, 11:12:05 AM
LOL West on I-35...That's pretty funny.  I enjoyed that last post haha
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 25, 2017, 10:48:37 PM
Ooops?  lol. :bigass:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M4HyRTd7Ps
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ColossalBlocks on July 25, 2017, 11:34:11 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 25, 2017, 10:48:37 PM
Ooops?  lol. :bigass:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M4HyRTd7Ps

How the hell does the DOT crew not notice it?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 29, 2017, 09:58:41 PM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on July 25, 2017, 11:34:11 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 25, 2017, 10:48:37 PM
Ooops?  lol. :bigass:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M4HyRTd7Ps

How the hell does the DOT crew not notice it?

I'm honestly gawking more at those left turn arrows. They look horrible, and are the wrong colors!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on July 30, 2017, 08:42:39 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 29, 2017, 09:58:41 PM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on July 25, 2017, 11:34:11 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 25, 2017, 10:48:37 PM
Ooops?  lol. :bigass:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M4HyRTd7Ps

How the hell does the DOT crew not notice it?

I'm honestly gawking more at those left turn arrows. They look horrible, and are the wrong colors!

For those who did not click through to watch the news report, this is a bridge of I-25 over Central Ave in Albuquerque.  So it is not merely the problem of labeling I-40 as N/S instead of E/W, it is putting in the wrong highway symbol altogether.

But, if you take this ramp on I-25 north, the next exit is for I-40.  So an appropriate sign would say I-25 North (Santa Fe) to I-40.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 30, 2017, 09:57:54 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 25, 2017, 10:48:37 PM
Ooops?  lol. :bigass:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M4HyRTd7Ps

Street View managed to capture it. (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.082625,-106.6371248,3a,47.8y,79.69h,99.86t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUQpqIXwqU1yHDnoBC2KI6g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DUQpqIXwqU1yHDnoBC2KI6g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D280.64755%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 30, 2017, 10:38:04 AM
Was THIS the left turn Bugs Bunny should have took in Albuquerque?  :awesomeface:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on July 30, 2017, 10:32:32 PM
Seen this afternoon walking along M Street SW in DC en route to the Metro after the first game of a doubleheader. Someone needs a spell-checker.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170731/53fc8c7c1cca80f585d1432719dc00f4.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 31, 2017, 02:12:54 AM
Unless it's the "SW Waterfront", or I'm completely blind, then I ain't seeing the issue there...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on July 31, 2017, 03:08:30 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 31, 2017, 02:12:54 AM
Unless it's the "SW Waterfront", or I'm completely blind, then I ain't seeing the issue there...

*Wharf

Took me a second as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 31, 2017, 07:16:50 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2Ftgw6rmfun%2Fparallels.jpg&hash=dcbf12e6dc04f84d842d1c414ce0982d31c552b2)
Wait, that wouldn't be spelled right either...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on July 31, 2017, 07:22:50 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2017, 03:08:30 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 31, 2017, 02:12:54 AM
Unless it's the "SW Waterfront", or I'm completely blind, then I ain't seeing the issue there...

*Wharf

Took me a second as well.

Correct.

I sent that to my mother, who was an English teacher and who spots typos everywhere, and she didn't see it either. I think it's an example of the mind seeing what it knows the sign is supposed to say.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on July 31, 2017, 09:57:43 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2017, 07:22:50 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2017, 03:08:30 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 31, 2017, 02:12:54 AM
Unless it's the "SW Waterfront", or I'm completely blind, then I ain't seeing the issue there...

*Wharf

Took me a second as well.

Correct.

I sent that to my mother, who was an English teacher and who spots typos everywhere, and she didn't see it either. I think it's an example of the mind seeing what it knows the sign is supposed to say.

You expect the typos in the longest words, that's why you look at those words first.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on July 31, 2017, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 31, 2017, 07:16:50 AM
Wait, that wouldn't be spelled right either...

What do you mean?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on July 31, 2017, 02:26:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 30, 2017, 10:32:32 PM
Seen this afternoon walking along M Street SW in DC en route to the Metro after the first game of a doubleheader. Someone needs a spell-checker.

I'm picturing the Star Trek character, but a quick Google search for a picture tells me that that name is spelled with an O, not an A.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 01, 2017, 05:51:15 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2017, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 31, 2017, 07:16:50 AM
Wait, that wouldn't be spelled right either...

What do you mean?

The guy in the picture is named Worf, which is pronounced the same as "Wharf".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 01, 2017, 06:49:48 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 01, 2017, 05:51:15 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2017, 02:20:07 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 31, 2017, 07:16:50 AM
Wait, that wouldn't be spelled right either...

What do you mean?

The guy in the picture is named Worf, which is pronounced the same as "Wharf".

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPKwyw.gif&hash=47a264dad734e3d840bd84ed1c8f7f78409f7173)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on August 04, 2017, 04:45:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 30, 2017, 10:32:32 PM
Seen this afternoon walking along M Street SW in DC en route to the Metro after the first game of a doubleheader. Someone needs a spell-checker.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170731/53fc8c7c1cca80f585d1432719dc00f4.jpg)

The DC DOT tweeted me this afternoon with a picture of the corrected sign. Typo fixed and apparently SEU must be defunct since it's been removed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on August 04, 2017, 07:46:29 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 04, 2017, 04:45:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 30, 2017, 10:32:32 PM
Seen this afternoon walking along M Street SW in DC en route to the Metro after the first game of a doubleheader. Someone needs a spell-checker.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170731/53fc8c7c1cca80f585d1432719dc00f4.jpg)

The DC DOT tweeted me this afternoon with a picture of the corrected sign. Typo fixed and apparently SEU must be defunct since it's been removed.
According to Wikipedia (yeah I know unreliable source), SEU closed in 2009, and Waterfront got renamed in late 2011.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 23, 2017, 09:21:08 PM
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2044/32134620714_c89727248a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/QXCkbJ)DSC00803 (https://flic.kr/p/QXCkbJ) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

Usually you'd see this message on a black-on-white square sign...taken in Greenville, OH on 2/18/17.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 23, 2017, 09:45:13 PM
Quote from: okroads on August 23, 2017, 09:21:08 PM
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2044/32134620714_c89727248a_c.jpg

Usually you'd see this message on a black-on-white square sign...taken in Greenville, OH on 2/18/17.

For ground-mounted signs, yes. Overhead signs, for some reason, use yellow banners/plaques ("EXIT ONLY") to indicate these "ONLY" or "MUST" regulations. Couldn't possibly tell you why.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on August 24, 2017, 10:01:46 AM
Quote from: okroads on August 23, 2017, 09:21:08 PM
Usually you'd see this message on a black-on-white square sign...taken in Greenville, OH on 2/18/17.

You also don't generally see this message on Interstate highways, but, last time I drove by it early last week, this sign is still present on eastbound I-70 at the interchange with I-695 near I-70's Baltimore terminus:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3075052,-76.7551311,3a,24.9y,144.02h,80.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szFm0hZvbMR2k2c1GTWz7eQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 06, 2017, 01:46:22 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8886416,-74.6986125,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s15QiVS-IPuA6yoJzS2tC4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Does US 46 concur with NJ 183?  Does US 46 go north too?  I know its supposed to be implying that NJ 183 leads to US 46, but that is really not what the sign says.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 06, 2017, 06:09:28 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 06, 2017, 01:46:22 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8886416,-74.6986125,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s15QiVS-IPuA6yoJzS2tC4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Does US 46 concur with NJ 183?  Does US 46 go north too?  I know its supposed to be implying that NJ 183 leads to US 46, but that is really not what the sign says.

NJ has never been much of a fan of the "TO" plate on signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CYoder on September 07, 2017, 06:57:56 PM
Back to misspellings, I think I passed by this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6219558,-82.1586325,3a,22.3y,335.11h,86.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMK4VVwgEOz-sA6FttBbfxw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for a year before noticing it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on September 11, 2017, 11:39:52 AM
Didn't this happen on I-270 at Hamilton a while back? Should be SR 317.


(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170911/1fdde705b255fd0abfda78ce78f09a7f.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 11, 2017, 03:25:20 PM
^^ We have an entire stinkin' thread for these types of errors.  See for yourself! https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeekteen on September 12, 2017, 07:19:10 PM
Quote from: Hoss6884 on September 12, 2017, 08:04:51 AM
PennDOT has been doing extensive construction on I-376 between Robinson Township and PIT.  This went up the other week along with another one at MM 57.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Kr6YsxHBuQWFePcxjTxm1zU_eW7yqoFmeuPVAICfTF0GYqWTQN8yqFWuz7DvnvmW3Zieyf21PawoLgIk3Vx4wBjyf3t1icqRiWwCz_Qb8AduMILEaeWMDssnRiQEnU5RF7uYxDl7sIoBqe_GbWFpr8Wh2TRj3ZdbhnHoUgOZZvebTsuyo_1Uw0RqHNHWVWW0NE1WQ9l3AUv3vxs0xCWKbfKOhTh3e3KhSHiwX-z5HMq4noVsuUgXmKBagvdR0pJEIs48_x8q0z95XGNUgg-PZktsDXxPNyE-pteW2A7LPmVWZta2NLNQvGcfNShkI_Y6tyAk-vrCPbdEOpCzLT64rFZ3SHJXFfjNy8v8hsHaKOxn4MbBYg77mszsEBuiMBks_WsV9mm2nzKxHoKz9vTS4TBqiUfKvBPR74iSgrcXr5cSXpO_IOH4mT8BD-RC7o5Wfa9UeC4nV_6BWGqV7OrwNTGKaaRcQe4mEFMmThRNnJMU_qs8riFiXoGZIKszKoog49atjNgM0tExmY-mCKA6lgYVtmozka3vd0pb_tZV8mDe_LXuBkMBIkPpXTPjJeuNFccUzThFl0RhULWbApfH-y-k634OO1tmR6RNVmkJbSzqTzIfGv7WbTJ-_HJMcVgLGYx5tleOwPMNcoBQh-JvyLHLw0xZhK6m-wZt4_lo4-cvwYY=w791-h1054-no)
Is there a us 376?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on September 12, 2017, 07:32:58 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 12, 2017, 07:19:10 PM
Quote from: Hoss6884 on September 12, 2017, 08:04:51 AM
PennDOT has been doing extensive construction on I-376 between Robinson Township and PIT.  This went up the other week along with another one at MM 57.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Kr6YsxHBuQWFePcxjTxm1zU_eW7yqoFmeuPVAICfTF0GYqWTQN8yqFWuz7DvnvmW3Zieyf21PawoLgIk3Vx4wBjyf3t1icqRiWwCz_Qb8AduMILEaeWMDssnRiQEnU5RF7uYxDl7sIoBqe_GbWFpr8Wh2TRj3ZdbhnHoUgOZZvebTsuyo_1Uw0RqHNHWVWW0NE1WQ9l3AUv3vxs0xCWKbfKOhTh3e3KhSHiwX-z5HMq4noVsuUgXmKBagvdR0pJEIs48_x8q0z95XGNUgg-PZktsDXxPNyE-pteW2A7LPmVWZta2NLNQvGcfNShkI_Y6tyAk-vrCPbdEOpCzLT64rFZ3SHJXFfjNy8v8hsHaKOxn4MbBYg77mszsEBuiMBks_WsV9mm2nzKxHoKz9vTS4TBqiUfKvBPR74iSgrcXr5cSXpO_IOH4mT8BD-RC7o5Wfa9UeC4nV_6BWGqV7OrwNTGKaaRcQe4mEFMmThRNnJMU_qs8riFiXoGZIKszKoog49atjNgM0tExmY-mCKA6lgYVtmozka3vd0pb_tZV8mDe_LXuBkMBIkPpXTPjJeuNFccUzThFl0RhULWbApfH-y-k634OO1tmR6RNVmkJbSzqTzIfGv7WbTJ-_HJMcVgLGYx5tleOwPMNcoBQh-JvyLHLw0xZhK6m-wZt4_lo4-cvwYY=w791-h1054-no)
Is there a us 376?

No, but use Google first next time.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on September 12, 2017, 07:50:51 PM
I've driven by this sign more times than I can count, but only now did I bother to get a photo. I think this fits "erroneous" because the design is correct, but it supplies incorrect information.

The "no right turn" sign (bottom of photo) should be a "no left turn" sign. On the left is an authorized-only entrance to Seattle Center. Notice the "no straight" sign on the mast-arm. Turning right here is very legal and normal (leading to a typical city street). It's possible that the sign was meant to face traffic continuing south along 5 Ave N, but it's not facing the right way.

GSV: https://goo.gl/uHdkqY (sign not yet installed, FYI).

(https://i.imgur.com/oZlB5f9.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on September 12, 2017, 07:59:42 PM
This sign error is probably the most obvious to an Ontarian, but this blue sign for Halls Road is an anomaly.  Signs like this should be green, however this sign was erected as part of the work that saw the neighbouring Hwy 412 interchange constructed, which as a toll road should and does have blue road signage.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_2_images%2F2_sign_HallsRoad_Blue_west_Aug17.jpg&hash=0acf1c4a46f1a2f70525266c06f695f558431d07)
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_2_images/2_sign_HallsRoad_Blue_west_Aug17_24x16.jpg
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 28, 2017, 12:16:32 PM
During a sign installation project a couple of years ago, West Virginia's contractor installed the wrong route markers on all the new signs for Exit 5 on I-79. The exit is actually for WV 114, but the new signage indicates US 119, which WV 114 intersects a few miles south of this interchange.

This is how the signage originally appeared.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2FWashington_CD_2004%2FPICT1228.JPG&hash=b24fe52380eb3bb3a822c23abeb588fb760685b9)

Now...

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3792/33450362382_a26de2f2cf_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SXTRkU)2016 Corridor H Meet Trip Day 1-128 (https://flic.kr/p/SXTRkU) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

It should be noted that the first picture is southbound and the second one is northbound, but both directions now read US 119 instead of WV 114.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on September 28, 2017, 01:25:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 28, 2017, 12:16:32 PM
It should be noted that the first picture is southbound and the second one is northbound, but both directions now read US 119 instead of WV 114.

Well, easily fixed by slapping the word "TO" on the BGS signs, right?  The WV 114 shield is optional, as long as there's also "TO US 119 --->" signs at the ends of the ramps.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 28, 2017, 04:09:57 PM
Quote from: tckma on September 28, 2017, 01:25:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 28, 2017, 12:16:32 PM
It should be noted that the first picture is southbound and the second one is northbound, but both directions now read US 119 instead of WV 114.

Well, easily fixed by slapping the word "TO" on the BGS signs, right?  The WV 114 shield is optional, as long as there's also "TO US 119 --->" signs at the ends of the ramps.

There always were "To US 119" signs at the ends of the ramps. They, too, were replaced in the project. And there are WV 114 signs at the bottoms of the ramps.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 06, 2017, 04:54:46 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4450/23685783048_1bcb02a58c_c.jpg)
Definitely erroneous, but only the installation is.  The sign is correct, but the installer was not paying attention.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 07, 2017, 02:22:29 PM
This one's a double error. It says US 75 when it should be VA 75, and in reality the marker here should be US 58 (the road is a concurrency of Alternate US 58 and VA 75).

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4387/36559481043_dafc779157_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XGCU14)2017 NC route-clinching trip Day 1 - 073 (https://flic.kr/p/XGCU14) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on October 07, 2017, 02:28:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 07, 2017, 02:22:29 PM
This one's a double error. It says US 75 when it should be VA 75, and in reality the marker here should be US 58 (the road is a concurrency of Alternate US 58 and VA 75).

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4387/36559481043_dafc779157_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XGCU14)2017 NC route-clinching trip Day 1 - 073 (https://flic.kr/p/XGCU14) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

Getting closer, though...here is what was posted there:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fva75alterror.jpg&hash=e590440a28404a619096ba4381afb63db1ef37d2)
photo by Nicholas Mooneyhan 2006
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on October 07, 2017, 03:57:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2017, 04:54:46 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4450/23685783048_1bcb02a58c_c.jpg)
Definitely erroneous, but only the installation is.  The sign is correct, but the installer was not paying attention.

Only error free if posted alongside a railroad mainline that is CTC controlled.  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on October 07, 2017, 05:05:13 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on October 07, 2017, 03:57:13 PM
Only error free if posted alongside a railroad mainline that is CTC controlled.  :biggrin:
Or in Tipperary Hill in Syracuse NY
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mapman1071 on October 07, 2017, 09:00:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2017, 04:54:46 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4450/23685783048_1bcb02a58c_c.jpg)
Definitely erroneous, but only the installation is.  The sign is correct, but the installer was not paying attention.

I think there is a green on top in upstate NY
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 07, 2017, 09:18:23 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 07, 2017, 02:28:40 PM

Getting closer, though...here is what was posted there:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fva75alterror.jpg&hash=e590440a28404a619096ba4381afb63db1ef37d2)
photo by Nicholas Mooneyhan 2006

I have more than one photo of that old assembly myself.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 08, 2017, 03:44:36 AM
Quote from: mapman1071 on October 07, 2017, 09:00:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2017, 04:54:46 PM
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4450/23685783048_1bcb02a58c_c.jpg

Definitely erroneous, but only the installation is.  The sign is correct, but the installer was not paying attention.

I think there is a green on top in upstate NY

Tipperary Hill in Syracuse. I'm stunned that the signal still remains green-over-red. You'd think the source of the trouble (Irish youth) had since moved on. I don't think kids throw stones at traffic lights anymore.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 28, 2017, 06:01:01 PM
Part of the new sign replacement project  on I-84 in CT.  Geniuses at ConnDOT got the exit number wrong on one, but right on the other


(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4499/37286140544_6e36771f05_z.jpg)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4451/26219655469_9d652100fc_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jmd41280 on November 08, 2017, 09:55:01 PM
Error PA Turnpike 76 trailblazer in Warrendale, PA (should be I-76)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4533/37563640304_039bd694bf_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZentyL)
PA Turnpike 76 (sign goof) (https://flic.kr/p/ZentyL) by Jon Dawson (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmd41280/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on November 09, 2017, 01:10:14 PM
meh.

It's highway 76, and it's the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeekteen on November 09, 2017, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: jmd41280 on November 08, 2017, 09:55:01 PM
Error PA Turnpike 76 trailblazer in Warrendale, PA (should be I-76)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4533/37563640304_039bd694bf_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZentyL)
PA Turnpike 76 (sign goof) (https://flic.kr/p/ZentyL) by Jon Dawson (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmd41280/), on Flickr
What does that red belt sign mean?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on November 10, 2017, 11:21:26 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 09, 2017, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: jmd41280 on November 08, 2017, 09:55:01 PM
Error PA Turnpike 76 trailblazer in Warrendale, PA (should be I-76)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4533/37563640304_039bd694bf_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZentyL)
PA Turnpike 76 (sign goof) (https://flic.kr/p/ZentyL) by Jon Dawson (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmd41280/), on Flickr
What does that red belt sign mean?
It's a system in the Pittsburgh area for navigational purposes.  It essentially helps people get around the county by use of surface streets. 

Here is a link for more info:

http://popularpittsburgh.com/pittsburghs-belt-system-perfect-accessory/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_County_belt_system

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeekteen on November 10, 2017, 11:39:11 AM
Quote from: mrsman on November 10, 2017, 11:21:26 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 09, 2017, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: jmd41280 on November 08, 2017, 09:55:01 PM
Error PA Turnpike 76 trailblazer in Warrendale, PA (should be I-76)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4533/37563640304_039bd694bf_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZentyL)
PA Turnpike 76 (sign goof) (https://flic.kr/p/ZentyL) by Jon Dawson (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmd41280/), on Flickr
What does that red belt sign mean?
It's a system in the Pittsburgh area for navigational purposes.  It essentially helps people get around the county by use of surface streets. 

Here is a link for more info:

http://popularpittsburgh.com/pittsburghs-belt-system-perfect-accessory/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_County_belt_system
Cool, but I would give the belts numbers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on November 10, 2017, 12:47:30 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 10, 2017, 11:39:11 AM
Quote from: mrsman on November 10, 2017, 11:21:26 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 09, 2017, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: jmd41280 on November 08, 2017, 09:55:01 PM
Error PA Turnpike 76 trailblazer in Warrendale, PA (should be I-76)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4533/37563640304_039bd694bf_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZentyL)
PA Turnpike 76 (sign goof) (https://flic.kr/p/ZentyL) by Jon Dawson (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmd41280/), on Flickr
What does that red belt sign mean?
It's a system in the Pittsburgh area for navigational purposes.  It essentially helps people get around the county by use of surface streets. 

Here is a link for more info:

http://popularpittsburgh.com/pittsburghs-belt-system-perfect-accessory/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_County_belt_system
Cool, but I would give the belts numbers.

Probably couldn't use numbers as these are not state highways.  I don't know if PA recognizes numbered county roads.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on November 10, 2017, 04:04:23 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 10, 2017, 12:47:30 PM
Probably couldn't use numbers as these are not state highways.  I don't know if PA recognizes numbered county roads.

While a "County" belt system, the routes utilize all sorts of roads.  They're routed on some state roads, some county roads, and some municipal roads. 
I'm pretty sure, but not totally sure, that only the county maintains the signs for them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on November 10, 2017, 04:18:51 PM
Branson (MO) also has a system of colored routes that are intended to be a network of alternate routes to the always-clogged Strip.  They are shown prominently on tourist maps and signed in the field like this (https://goo.gl/maps/nxraWtc8mzR2).

(https://www.bransontourismcenter.com/wp-content-articles/uploads/2012/07/120725_BTC-Branson-Color-Coded-Route-Maps.jpg)

Back when I first met my wife in 2003 or so, you could still kind of get around Branson by using side streets.  By now, though, even the tourists have learned the side streets.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: briantroutman on November 10, 2017, 07:20:02 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 10, 2017, 12:47:30 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 10, 2017, 11:39:11 AM
Cool, but I would give the belts numbers.
Probably couldn't use numbers as these are not state highways.  I don't know if PA recognizes numbered county roads.

This was brought up in another thread, but the concept of "county roads"  is almost foreign in Pennsylvania. In many counties, the only county-owned roadways are essentially driveways or access roads on county-owned facilities (county parks, county-owned reservoirs, county prisons, etc.). Allegheny is one of the few counties (perhaps the only one) to have any general purpose streets/roads under county ownership and maintenance.

I think the use of colors is appropriate since the belts traverse a patchwork of state and local roads, some of which are already numbered. I have to wonder how much the colored belt system is actually being utilized, though. I remember seeing one AAA city map for Pittsburgh that had the colored belts highlighted (and explained), but I imagine that most out-of-towners have no idea what the colored belts are and don't use them. And I assume locals wouldn't need them for the most part.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on November 11, 2017, 08:25:08 AM
The best thing Missouri ever did for Branson was make US 65 a fast way to get through that madhouse.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on November 12, 2017, 03:14:14 PM
U.S. 122 in Middletown, OH:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4541/26571766679_7b739306f7_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Gu4fug)DSC05224 (https://flic.kr/p/Gu4fug) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

U.S. 4 in Marion, OH:

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4503/37838504122_62cbef119d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZDEe17)DSC05092 (https://flic.kr/p/ZDEe17) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4481/37160732614_5aae21bf19_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YBLt9s)DSC05103 (https://flic.kr/p/YBLt9s) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:48:02 PM
I have an email from TDOT that says this sign does not exist. They also assure me non motorized traffic is allowed on all portions of the highway 100. Notice photo has GPS. Highway departments do put up illegal signs that result in false arrests. https://flic.kr/p/Kob6C8
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on November 12, 2017, 08:42:19 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:48:02 PM
I have an email from TDOT that says this sign does not exist. They also assure me non motorized traffic is allowed on all portions of the highway 100. Notice photo has GPS. Highway departments do put up illegal signs that result in false arrests. https://flic.kr/p/Kob6C8

Hmm. I'm used to seeing bicycles allowed on certain freeways in my area, but generally speaking, pedestrians are not allowed on freeways, apart from parallel recreational paths. Of course, I'm not sure whether or not this is a freeway. Looks like it from the photo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on November 13, 2017, 09:17:42 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2017, 08:42:19 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:48:02 PM
I have an email from TDOT that says this sign does not exist. They also assure me non motorized traffic is allowed on all portions of the highway 100. Notice photo has GPS. Highway departments do put up illegal signs that result in false arrests. https://flic.kr/p/Kob6C8

Hmm. I'm used to seeing bicycles allowed on certain freeways in my area, but generally speaking, pedestrians are not allowed on freeways, apart from parallel recreational paths. Of course, I'm not sure whether or not this is a freeway. Looks like it from the photo.

In Andover, MA, where MA 125 and MA 28 junction, the 'ramps' between them have the standard Mass no bikes/peds/horses sign, despite the fact that both roads in question allow such traffic. Always wondered about the legality of it, especially since it's right next to a state police barrack on 125. There is a small street that connects the two without using the ramps in the junction, so maybe that was there polite yet quasi-legal way of asking people to use that road instead.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Andover,+MA/@42.6063512,-71.1310316,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e308597f9a4cf5:0x28f59c5c00d57256!8m2!3d42.6583356!4d-71.1367953

The junction in question. Note Gould Rd to north is the road that cyclists/peds/horses can use.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.606035,-71.1205405,3a,75y,103.43h,88.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFqh_GRMB4p8LLl2fV3-7xg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Streetview of one of the ramps, from MA 125 to MA 28 N/B.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on November 13, 2017, 03:51:00 PM
My understanding has always been that many traffic laws can be overridden by signs posted by a competent authority. Would these "no pedestrian" signs not count?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bicyclehazard on November 14, 2017, 08:12:02 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2017, 03:51:00 PM
My understanding has always been that many traffic laws can be overridden by signs posted by a competent authority. Would these "no pedestrian" signs not count?
The highway is an ordinary highway with businesses and postal boxes. This is what I mean by highway departments getting too aggressive and banning non motorized traffic from roads they have a legal right to be on. If it has a post office box it is a postal road as defined under the postal clause of the United States Constitution. Road law generally derives it's authority from this clause. Highway departments can not ban horses wagons and pedestrians from such roads. Highway departments can not change the status of such roads without permission of the post master general. Doing so could lead to arrests for interfering with the delivery of the mail. What do you think are the chances any one bothers to do the paper work on this?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on November 14, 2017, 08:58:45 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 14, 2017, 08:12:02 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2017, 03:51:00 PM
My understanding has always been that many traffic laws can be overridden by signs posted by a competent authority. Would these "no pedestrian" signs not count?

The highway is an ordinary highway with businesses and postal boxes. This is what I mean by highway departments getting too aggressive and banning non motorized traffic from roads they have a legal right to be on. If it has a post office box it is a postal road as defined under the postal clause of the United States Constitution. Road law generally derives it's authority from this clause. Highway departments can not ban horses wagons and pedestrians from such roads. Highway departments can not change the status of such roads without permission of the post master general. Doing so could lead to arrests for interfering with the delivery of the mail. What do you think are the chances any one bothers to do the paper work on this?

I think you'll have a hard time pulling the "post road" clause in court. As roads grew dramatically in the 20th century, the line between "post road" and everything else blurred substantially, to the point where you could define any stretch of road with a post box as a post road. Freeways don't have post boxes, so I don't think they're bound by the same rules as post roads.

Additionally, I do believe local jurisdictions are allowed to parse sections of roads, in such a way that individual parts can have different rules. Judging by Google Maps, TN-100 between Simmons Road and Mifflin Ave is pretty clearly a freeway. There are no driveways or post boxes abutting the roadway, and the speed limit is 50 (low for a freeway but higher than most roads). Judging by this, the road should not be considered a post road, and therefore should be exempt from the rules that govern post roads.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: lordsutch on November 14, 2017, 09:19:24 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 14, 2017, 08:12:02 PM
The highway is an ordinary highway with businesses and postal boxes. This is what I mean by highway departments getting too aggressive and banning non motorized traffic from roads they have a legal right to be on. If it has a post office box it is a postal road as defined under the postal clause of the United States Constitution. Road law generally derives it's authority from this clause. Highway departments can not ban horses wagons and pedestrians from such roads. Highway departments can not change the status of such roads without permission of the post master general. Doing so could lead to arrests for interfering with the delivery of the mail. What do you think are the chances any one bothers to do the paper work on this?

The section of the U.S. code you cite in the photo 23 USC 109, paragraph m, states:

Quote(m)Protection of Nonmotorized Transportation Traffic.–
The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists.

TDOT provided a reasonable alternate route when constructing the TN 100 Henderson bypass: the former alignment of TN 100 along Main Street, which remains accessible to pedestrians and other non-motorized traffic. There was never a right of passage along the new alignment before, so the state didn't sever or adversely impact any existing traffic by constructing a limited access facility that bypassed the old road.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 15, 2017, 11:40:24 AM
The U.S. Constitution only gives the federal government the authority to establish post offices and post roads. The Constitution does not establish what constitutes a "post road" nor does it give the postmaster general any authority over highways.

Interstates can be considered post roads because intercity and interstate mail is carried on them. I frequently saw intercity mail trucks on the Mountain Parkway back when it was a Kentucky toll road, and pedestrians and horse-drawn vehicles (and bicycles) are expressly prohibited on that route -- and still are, even now with the tolls removed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman on November 15, 2017, 12:01:37 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 13, 2017, 09:17:42 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2017, 08:42:19 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:48:02 PM
I have an email from TDOT that says this sign does not exist. They also assure me non motorized traffic is allowed on all portions of the highway 100. Notice photo has GPS. Highway departments do put up illegal signs that result in false arrests. https://flic.kr/p/Kob6C8

Hmm. I'm used to seeing bicycles allowed on certain freeways in my area, but generally speaking, pedestrians are not allowed on freeways, apart from parallel recreational paths. Of course, I'm not sure whether or not this is a freeway. Looks like it from the photo.

In Andover, MA, where MA 125 and MA 28 junction, the 'ramps' between them have the standard Mass no bikes/peds/horses sign, despite the fact that both roads in question allow such traffic. Always wondered about the legality of it, especially since it's right next to a state police barrack on 125. There is a small street that connects the two without using the ramps in the junction, so maybe that was there polite yet quasi-legal way of asking people to use that road instead.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Andover,+MA/@42.6063512,-71.1310316,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e308597f9a4cf5:0x28f59c5c00d57256!8m2!3d42.6583356!4d-71.1367953

The junction in question. Note Gould Rd to north is the road that cyclists/peds/horses can use.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.606035,-71.1205405,3a,75y,103.43h,88.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFqh_GRMB4p8LLl2fV3-7xg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Streetview of one of the ramps, from MA 125 to MA 28 N/B.

I'm not so sure I'd want to ride a bicycle on those ramps.  Or any part of Route 125 between Route 114 and I-93 for that matter.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JasonOfORoads on November 16, 2017, 02:21:22 AM
Found one last month while out along Willamette Falls Drive/old Oregon 212 in West Linn:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beaverstateroads.net%2Fassets%2Faaroads%2Fsign-errors%2Fus-43-west-linn.jpg&hash=918a20a3868afd10edc534e7e5fb0df354f8a069)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on November 16, 2017, 02:56:08 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 15, 2017, 11:40:24 AM
The U.S. Constitution only gives the federal government the authority to establish post offices and post roads. The Constitution does not establish what constitutes a "post road" nor does it give the postmaster general any authority over highways.

Interstates can be considered post roads because intercity and interstate mail is carried on them. I frequently saw intercity mail trucks on the Mountain Parkway back when it was a Kentucky toll road, and pedestrians and horse-drawn vehicles (and bicycles) are expressly prohibited on that route -- and still are, even now with the tolls removed.

Considering that the states (or lower-level jurisdictions) own and maintain the roads, I'm not so sure the Constitution even applies directly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: GenExpwy on November 16, 2017, 04:17:13 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 15, 2017, 11:40:24 AM
The U.S. Constitution only gives the federal government the authority to establish post offices and post roads. The Constitution does not establish what constitutes a "post road" nor does it give the postmaster general any authority over highways.

Interstates can be considered post roads because intercity and interstate mail is carried on them. I frequently saw intercity mail trucks on the Mountain Parkway back when it was a Kentucky toll road, and pedestrians and horse-drawn vehicles (and bicycles) are expressly prohibited on that route -- and still are, even now with the tolls removed.

Perhaps relevant to the Post Road concept: until the 1840s, the Post Office Department only carried mail from one post office to another; there was no local delivery. So when the Constitution was written, and for half a century after, a "post road"  would have only meant a road connecting communities large enough to have post offices (there were 75 post offices in 1789).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bicyclehazard on November 16, 2017, 07:20:53 PM
Quote from: GenExpwy on November 16, 2017, 04:17:13 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 15, 2017, 11:40:24 AM
The U.S. Constitution only gives the federal government the authority to establish post offices and post roads. The Constitution does not establish what constitutes a "post road" nor does it give the postmaster general any authority over highways.

Interstates can be considered post roads because intercity and interstate mail is carried on them. I frequently saw intercity mail trucks on the Mountain Parkway back when it was a Kentucky toll road, and pedestrians and horse-drawn vehicles (and bicycles) are expressly prohibited on that route -- and still are, even now with the tolls removed.

Perhaps relevant to the Post Road concept: until the 1840s, the Post Office Department only carried mail from one post office to another; there was no local delivery. So when the Constitution was written, and for half a century after, a "post road"  would have only meant a road connecting communities large enough to have post offices (there were 75 post offices in 1789).
Correct. Postal roads were designed to prevent the charging of tolls for postal vehicles. Then governments demanded the post office deliver the mail to government buildings. The courts had to get involved and they ruled a postal road is any road a postal worker needs to deliver the mail. There are postal addresses on interstates. These so far as I know are owned by the highway departments. These include rest areas. A postal worker can if he chooses walk to these and deliver the mail. There are rest areas within a few blocks of ordinary highways. A postal worker might choose to walk against traffic to do this rather that drive the long way around. An act of congress also made all railroads postal roads. A postal worker can drive his vehicle on a railroad service road and the railroad police can't stop them. They would generally do this only if a regular toad is blocked.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on November 17, 2017, 09:27:29 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 16, 2017, 07:20:53 PM
They would generally do this only if a regular toad is blocked.
If a regular toad is blocked, I'm pretty sure that the postal worker should see about getting a veterinarian out to the toad. :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 7/8 on November 19, 2017, 08:07:29 PM
US 81 is erroneously signed on I-29 northbound before exit 203. US 81 doesn't become concurrent with I-29 until north of the exit.

(https://i.imgur.com/vHyES8Al.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on November 20, 2017, 12:18:53 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 17, 2017, 09:27:29 PMIf a regular toad is blocked, I'm pretty sure that the postal worker should see about getting a veterinarian out to the toad. :bigass:

Diagnosis and treatment of constipated toads (http://www.frogforum.net/showthread.php/12105-Constipated-toad)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 7/8 on November 27, 2017, 07:44:48 PM
Here's an example on Grey Road 14 facing south at Grey Road 9 in Southgate, ON. The Highway 6 and 10 shields suggest that turning left would put you on Highway 10 and turning right would put you on Highway 6, but these really should be white-on-green "TO" shields. Judging from the odd numerals (clearview I think?), I'm guessing this is a Grey County installation.

(https://i.imgur.com/uLpltbTl.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: adventurernumber1 on December 04, 2017, 02:15:05 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 20, 2017, 12:18:53 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 17, 2017, 09:27:29 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 16, 2017, 07:20:53 PM
They would generally do this only if a regular toad is blocked.

If a regular toad is blocked, I'm pretty sure that the postal worker should see about getting a veterinarian out to the toad. :bigass:

Diagnosis and treatment of constipated toads (http://www.frogforum.net/showthread.php/12105-Constipated-toad)

:clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :rofl:  :rofl:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on December 11, 2017, 12:26:38 PM
This one's not so much an erroneous sign as an erroneous map:

The city of Atlanta recently approved an annexation including the area around Emory University, which the AJC reported on here (http://www.myajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/city-atlanta-expansion-emory-and-cdc-approved/kMYzghHbvzD6THTyWpN1zH/). But apparently, as a condition of the annexation, the entire region is being moved to Louisiana or Arkansas, according to this map in the article.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2F2017%2Fmaps%2Fus79-atlanta.png&hash=6ef8c3cd96acafca5dbeed68732acb082b6df62b)

That's supposed to be US 23/GA 155. How in the world they came up with 79, I have absolutely no idea.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: adventurernumber1 on December 12, 2017, 07:09:42 PM
Quote from: Eth on December 11, 2017, 12:26:38 PM
This one's not so much an erroneous sign as an erroneous map:

The city of Atlanta recently approved an annexation including the area around Emory University, which the AJC reported on here (http://www.myajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/city-atlanta-expansion-emory-and-cdc-approved/kMYzghHbvzD6THTyWpN1zH/). But apparently, as a condition of the annexation, the entire region is being moved to Louisiana or Arkansas, according to this map in the article.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2F2017%2Fmaps%2Fus79-atlanta.png&hash=6ef8c3cd96acafca5dbeed68732acb082b6df62b)

That's supposed to be US 23/GA 155. How in the world they came up with 79, I have absolutely no idea.

Dadgummit, that's pretty messed up.  :eyebrow:  :crazy:

I don't know how the hell they got "US Highway 79" either. Georgia Highway 79 is way over here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_State_Route_79) (not even close), and I can't find anything else that could possibly explain it.

Very strange.  :hmm:

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on December 18, 2017, 05:26:39 PM
...Transferred from Signs with Design Errors...

This one is long gone, but when the McCallum Road Roundabouts were first installed in Abbotsford, BC, the southbound roundabout diagrammatic accidentally labelled both entrances to Hwy 1 as "WEST". I noticed the greenout on the current sign just a couple days ago, so I was curious to see what this relatively-new sign had wrong. Not an error I'm used to seeing. Gone since 2011.

https://goo.gl/jvJ2AZ

(https://i.imgur.com/JFGTnbL.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on January 03, 2018, 12:41:43 AM
Photographed these in Virgilina, VA this afternoon ( Jan 2, 2018 ), on my way home from NC.

(https://i.imgur.com/xFJ4UJQ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/vQYOf07.jpg)

It reads "96."  Must be installed correctly, then!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on January 03, 2018, 11:40:32 AM
Quote from: tckma on January 03, 2018, 12:41:43 AM
Photographed these in Virgilina, VA this afternoon ( Jan 2, 2018 ), on my way home from NC.

(https://i.imgur.com/xFJ4UJQ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/vQYOf07.jpg)

It reads "96."  Must be installed correctly, then!
VDOT's take on CA's route shield.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2018, 11:46:01 AM
See...you stick with the basic circle and TOP and BOTTOM don't matter!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on January 03, 2018, 01:11:06 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 03, 2018, 11:40:32 AM
Quote from: tckma on January 03, 2018, 12:41:43 AM
Photographed these in Virgilina, VA this afternoon ( Jan 2, 2018 ), on my way home from NC.

(https://i.imgur.com/xFJ4UJQ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/vQYOf07.jpg)

It reads "96."  Must be installed correctly, then!
VDOT's take on CA's route shield.  :sombrero:

I was thinking Utah instead of Caltrans.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on January 03, 2018, 02:17:53 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on January 03, 2018, 01:11:06 PMI was thinking Utah instead of Caltrans.
Utah's shield is shaped more like a beehive than an upward spade.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on January 08, 2018, 02:22:21 PM
Quote from: jmd41280 on January 07, 2018, 10:44:28 PM
Erroneous PA 119 sign along US 119 in Point Marion, PA

GAAAAHHHH!!!
There is a thread for those, and it's not this one.




US/State mixup shield error signs go here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.0)

Quote from: 1 on August 17, 2016, 07:04:09 AM
As of this post, the Erroneous Road Signs thread has 161 pages (I use the default of 25 posts per page), and it will just continue to grow. To reduce its rate of growth, errors that are solely US/state route mixups go here instead of in the Erroneous Road Signs and Worst of Road Signs threads. ... If you recently posted in any of these threads with a US/state mixup, you may move the post to here by deleting the other one and pasting the content in this thread.

Quote from: NE2 on August 17, 2016, 10:05:08 AM
Thank you! Please use this ghetto.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on January 22, 2018, 03:47:28 PM
Want to see if people agree with me on this being erroneous, https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5710692,-71.275931,3a,20.9y,277.92h,93.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8gXRDCzlmFI-8MlFDUiDKg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D8gXRDCzlmFI-8MlFDUiDKg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D320.88898%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

The sign pointing to 'North Billerica' has the N bigger than the other letters, which is to indicate directionality, like the larger S in south for 3A. Meaning, in a way, it's randomly stating the road goes 'north' to Billerica, not a road to 'North Billerica', therefore making the sign erroneous.

There are enough examples, none that I can think of at this moment, where a town or section of a town is noted properly without the larger first letter.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on January 22, 2018, 04:42:49 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 22, 2018, 03:47:28 PM
There are enough examples, none that I can think of at this moment, where a town or section of a town is noted properly without the larger first letter.

That seems more like a design error.  As is the local pronunciation of "Billerica."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on January 22, 2018, 06:29:35 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 22, 2018, 03:47:28 PM
Want to see if people agree with me on this being erroneous, https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5710692,-71.275931,3a,20.9y,277.92h,93.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8gXRDCzlmFI-8MlFDUiDKg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D8gXRDCzlmFI-8MlFDUiDKg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D320.88898%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

The sign pointing to 'North Billerica' has the N bigger than the other letters, which is to indicate directionality, like the larger S in south for 3A. Meaning, in a way, it's randomly stating the road goes 'north' to Billerica, not a road to 'North Billerica', therefore making the sign erroneous.

There are enough examples, none that I can think of at this moment, where a town or section of a town is noted properly without the larger first letter.

"BILL3RICA" is more of an error, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on January 22, 2018, 06:42:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 22, 2018, 06:29:35 PM
"BILL3RICA" is more of an error, in my opinion.

Well, sure, but I wouldn't consider "BILLRICKEH"  to be an error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 23, 2018, 12:58:53 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 22, 2018, 03:47:28 PM
Want to see if people agree with me on this being erroneous, https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5710692,-71.275931,3a,20.9y,277.92h,93.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8gXRDCzlmFI-8MlFDUiDKg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D8gXRDCzlmFI-8MlFDUiDKg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D320.88898%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

The sign pointing to 'North Billerica' has the N bigger than the other letters, which is to indicate directionality, like the larger S in south for 3A. Meaning, in a way, it's randomly stating the road goes 'north' to Billerica, not a road to 'North Billerica', therefore making the sign erroneous.

There are enough examples, none that I can think of at this moment, where a town or section of a town is noted properly without the larger first letter.

Well that is interesting... the random three there, all caps with what you said
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on January 23, 2018, 08:24:34 AM
Quote from: kphoger on January 22, 2018, 06:29:35 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 22, 2018, 03:47:28 PM
Want to see if people agree with me on this being erroneous, https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5710692,-71.275931,3a,20.9y,277.92h,93.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8gXRDCzlmFI-8MlFDUiDKg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D8gXRDCzlmFI-8MlFDUiDKg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D320.88898%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

The sign pointing to 'North Billerica' has the N bigger than the other letters, which is to indicate directionality, like the larger S in south for 3A. Meaning, in a way, it's randomly stating the road goes 'north' to Billerica, not a road to 'North Billerica', therefore making the sign erroneous.

There are enough examples, none that I can think of at this moment, where a town or section of a town is noted properly without the larger first letter.

"BILL3RICA" is more of an error, in my opinion.

Just plain vandalism in this case.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on January 23, 2018, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 22, 2018, 03:47:28 PM
Want to see if people agree with me on this being erroneous
...
The sign pointing to 'North Billerica' has the N bigger than the other letters, which is to indicate directionality, like the larger S in south for 3A. Meaning, in a way, it's randomly stating the road goes 'north' to Billerica, not a road to 'North Billerica', therefore making the sign erroneous.
Given the location and the fact that BILLERICA is signed for the opposite direction, I would say that the larger N in the NORTH BILLERICA sign is indeed erroneous and that the NORTH is in reference to the unincorporated village of North Billerica.

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 23, 2018, 12:58:53 AM...all caps with what you said
Such was standard MassDPW/Highway/DOT practice for D-type signage until very recently.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on January 23, 2018, 09:32:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 23, 2018, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 22, 2018, 03:47:28 PM
Want to see if people agree with me on this being erroneous
...
The sign pointing to 'North Billerica' has the N bigger than the other letters, which is to indicate directionality, like the larger S in south for 3A. Meaning, in a way, it's randomly stating the road goes 'north' to Billerica, not a road to 'North Billerica', therefore making the sign erroneous.
Given the location and the fact that BILLERICA is signed for the opposite direction, I would say that the larger N in the NORTH BILLERICA sign is indeed erroneous and that the NORTH is in reference to the unincorporated village of North Billerica.

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 23, 2018, 12:58:53 AM...all caps with what you said
Such was standard MassDPW/Highway/DOT practice for D-type signage until very recently.

When I saw the NORTH with larger first letter and no route number, I immediately thought of the paddle signs on former US 1 in Boston (dating back to before 1990, which were doctored to cover the numeral 1--remember, this was before shields on paddle signs).  Those signs that just said "NORTH / BOSTON" with 1 covered over clearly were hiding something.  The NORTH BILLERICA sign seems to want a 3A shield, or at least text.  :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on January 24, 2018, 09:46:42 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on January 23, 2018, 09:32:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 23, 2018, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 22, 2018, 03:47:28 PM
Want to see if people agree with me on this being erroneous
...
The sign pointing to 'North Billerica' has the N bigger than the other letters, which is to indicate directionality, like the larger S in south for 3A. Meaning, in a way, it's randomly stating the road goes 'north' to Billerica, not a road to 'North Billerica', therefore making the sign erroneous.
Given the location and the fact that BILLERICA is signed for the opposite direction, I would say that the larger N in the NORTH BILLERICA sign is indeed erroneous and that the NORTH is in reference to the unincorporated village of North Billerica.

When I saw the NORTH with larger first letter and no route number, I immediately thought of the paddle signs on former US 1 in Boston (dating back to before 1990, which were doctored to cover the numeral 1--remember, this was before shields on paddle signs).  Those signs that just said "NORTH / BOSTON" with 1 covered over clearly were hiding something.  The NORTH BILLERICA sign seems to want a 3A shield, or at least text.  :)
For the benefit of those not familiar with this area or intersection, this is one case where 1 Picture = 1000 Words
(https://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/staticmap?center=42.5711243,-71.2772209&zoom=17&size=700x700)

The D6/D8 LGS in question is along MA 129 (Floyd St.) just east of Pollard St.  Shortly after Pollard St.; Floyd St. ends at Boston Rd. (where MA 129 meets & multiplexes w/MA 3A northward).  The NORTH BILLERICA legend with the right arrow is intended for Pollard St. not Boston Rd. (MA 3A).

If one looks at the Boston Rd./MA 3A intersection itself, one sees these D6/D8 LGS' for MA 3A & 129 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5708906,-71.2767095,3a,75y,243.06h,86.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI1kwD6oGpaR1_XZ_uH9DzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

With regards to those old signs along former-US 1 from Boston to Dedham: I believe you're referring to the MDC-spec'd signage near Fenway Park.  Such featured mixed-case lettering for the direction cardinals.  Given that those & all other signs near/at the former-US 1 corridor well predated the MUTCD standard requiring the first letter of the direction cardinals to be taller than the rest (but still be in ALL CAPS); there were no signs along that corridor that featured ALL CAPS direction cardinals with the taller first letter per this source (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/old_1/).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on January 24, 2018, 02:14:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 24, 2018, 09:46:42 AM
With regards to those old signs along former-US 1 from Boston to Dedham: I believe you're referring to the MDC-spec'd signage near Fenway Park.  Such featured mixed-case lettering for the direction cardinals.  Given that those & all other signs near/at the former-US 1 corridor well predated the MUTCD standard requiring the first letter of the direction cardinals to be taller than the rest (but still be in ALL CAPS); there were no signs along that corridor that featured ALL CAPS direction cardinals with the taller first letter per this source (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/old_1/).

Indeed I am not talking about larger first letter ones, but there were MDC spec signs as well as some DPW-type paddle signs with 1 covered over.  The paddles are much more DPW style than MDC (now DCR) style.  What I was thinking of was the directional word NORTH being all alone with what appears to be a missing number, like on the 3A sign.  The larger first letter there leaves open the possibility of a missing 3A shield or text, along with "North Billerica" being intended and the designer just making the first letter larger out of habit.

You see larger first letter in TO and JCT sometimes as well, which isn't supposed to be, but would be akin to the larger N in North Billerica if that's what they intended.  Not that it seems to be what was intended.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on February 09, 2018, 06:51:50 AM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4709/39455086804_d4156893e2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/237vCHj)Extraneous apostrophe on road sign (https://flic.kr/p/237vCHj) by me (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hotdogpi/), on Flickr

Oop's!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: GenExpwy on February 09, 2018, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2018, 06:51:50 AM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4709/39455086804_d4156893e2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/237vCHj)Extraneous apostrophe on road sign (https://flic.kr/p/237vCHj) by me (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hotdogpi/), on Flickr

Oop's!

Definitely belongs in the Worst thread.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman on February 09, 2018, 02:04:54 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on January 24, 2018, 02:14:22 PM
Indeed I am not talking about larger first letter ones, but there were MDC spec signs as well as some DPW-type paddle signs with 1 covered over.  The paddles are much more DPW style than MDC (now DCR) style.

Note that all the 'paddle' signs on former Route 1 between Dedham and Boston with the '1' covered over (which were done to MassDPW spec) were installed in the mid to late 1970s, and thus predate the practice of using an elongated first letter on cardinal directions by about fifteen years.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrcmc888 on February 18, 2018, 07:04:33 PM
This sign stood at the Cherry Street exit from I-40 in Knoxville for many years.  It's gone now, but I managed to catch it in an archived photo from Google.

"US 25" doesn't actually run on Magnolia Avenue, nor does it run anywhere in Tennessee.  It's split until about the NC border.  US 25W is concurring with I-640 about 3 miles north of Magnolia at the point the sign is posted, and US 25E just flat out misses Knoxville.

US 25W doesn't even concur with US 11; by the time it hops off the interstate to join US 70, 11 has split, and goes from Magnolia Avenue into Rutledge Pike/Asheville Highway.

The sign makes no note of the 11W/E split despite it being in less than a mile, leaving tourists pretty confused on how they actually get to 25W.

(https://i.imgur.com/opy8Mrz.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on February 18, 2018, 07:30:03 PM
Quote from: mrcmc888 on February 18, 2018, 07:04:33 PM
This sign stood at the Cherry Street exit from I-40 in Knoxville for many years.  It's gone now, but I managed to catch it in an archived photo from Google.


They must have just removed it...was there in late January.

There is/was also one on the off ramp from the other direction of I-40
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on February 19, 2018, 10:57:25 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on February 09, 2018, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2018, 06:51:50 AM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4709/39455086804_d4156893e2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/237vCHj)Extraneous apostrophe on road sign (https://flic.kr/p/237vCHj) by me (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hotdogpi/), on Flickr

Oop's!

Definitely belongs in the Worst thread.

  • Apostrophe
  • Compressed Helvetica font
  • Non-MUTCD arrow
  • Black on white, not white on green
  • On same post as STOP sign
  • Sign on back of post hides the octagon shape of STOP sign

I fully concur.  This is a good candidate for the "worst of" thread.  No way in hell this should've escaped the sign shop.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 20, 2018, 11:55:46 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on February 09, 2018, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2018, 06:51:50 AM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4709/39455086804_d4156893e2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/237vCHj)Extraneous apostrophe on road sign (https://flic.kr/p/237vCHj) by me (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hotdogpi/), on Flickr

Oop's!

Definitely belongs in the Worst thread.

  • Apostrophe
  • Compressed Helvetica font
  • Non-MUTCD arrow
  • Black on white, not white on green
  • On same post as STOP sign
  • Sign on back of post hides the octagon shape of STOP sign

Yeah, this is definitely pure, unadulterated suck.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 09, 2018, 04:48:34 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on June 17, 2012, 01:28:15 AM
Sign recycling gone wrong:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/KY/KY19470001i1.jpg)
Oh GAWD.....BURN IT WITH FIRE!!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on March 11, 2018, 10:18:01 AM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 09, 2018, 04:48:34 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on June 17, 2012, 01:28:15 AM
Sign recycling gone wrong:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/KY/KY19470001i1.jpg)
Oh GAWD.....BURN IT WITH FIRE!!

Though it's long gone, it's the very opposite of the overused phrase "kill with fire".

An old US blank shield was used, but then painted over, tilted 90 degrees, and then used as a Kentucky Route 7 shield. The fasteners on the assembly came apart, so the sign then moved 180 degrees.

So it was never really erroneous, it was recycled. An ancient sign got a new life, and an interesting story (well, for sign spotters).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on March 11, 2018, 02:57:53 PM
Given that I took the picture, i thought it was a neat find. It was also on an old alignment of KY 7 that's now a city-maintained street, but the state signage was never removed. That sign's long gone now.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 15, 2018, 02:26:03 PM
Quote from: Buck87 on December 05, 2014, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: vtk on December 05, 2014, 06:16:34 PM
Which piece is facing the right way?

I've seen in northern Ohio where temporary detour signs have been attached to the back of the U-channel when not in effect.  That's not what's going on here, is it?

The "South" tab is facing the right way. This is a permanent sign location just beyond 61's intersection with US 250/OH 13.
Yeah,But,What TURNED the Ohio 61 Sign?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 15, 2018, 02:32:59 PM
Quote from: vtk on September 26, 2016, 09:25:24 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 24, 2016, 04:42:58 PM
Curve warning fail:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwPYkM5r.jpg&hash=4901819e900d41ef4f49c08bbde2c5dd4fddbb07)

(In actuality, the road does curve to the left after this curve shown) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4408612,-74.916672,3a,49.3y,273.14h,88.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srrKiQ5Fz56hCP_un1ZBEwg!2e0!5s20130901T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
:pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 15, 2018, 02:35:08 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on October 24, 2016, 07:33:14 PM
This one near Glen Burnie, Maryland should be Maryland Route 3 Business. Mainline Route 3 ends about five miles to the south and is disconnected from MD-3 Business.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F56ukASt.jpg&hash=afb9c888bce4ed9d7ce5033f868e7a12754c8ccc)
They Should've put 2 Plaques,One for the Buissness Plate,And the other for the JCT Sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 15, 2018, 02:37:54 PM
Quote from: mjb2002 on December 09, 2012, 05:54:40 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on November 02, 2012, 11:05:11 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek2500 on November 02, 2012, 10:09:40 PM
Oh, and if you have one, I would like to see one of the blank shields with the arrow inside it.

...and another from the same town on the US 250 page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/va/us_250/)...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fva%2Fus_250%2Farrow.jpg&hash=262a024e9f80a7843d26600e38962e213095dc07)
whelp...........we're screwed...

I am just cracking up now. An arrow inside of an interstate shield. Wow.  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 15, 2018, 02:42:06 PM
Quote from: Michael on August 05, 2009, 01:31:20 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 30, 2009, 10:33:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2259%2F2283115720_f6dd49d17d.jpg&hash=ed7e4b23daac1f490e255fef35a4952e8dcf427a)
Route sign fail.

Quote from: AARoads on August 05, 2009, 07:50:14 AM
...I wish U.S. 15 still traveled to Rochester...
What in the Actual Fuck? Does that Arkansas Shield say...Hwy 62? OH SHIT IT DOES,BURN IT!!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 15, 2018, 02:44:22 PM
Quote from: US71 on August 14, 2009, 06:59:50 PM
I found this one yesterday
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2649%2F3821093303_2aed3a12a7.jpg&hash=5a822acc274a64328d180ab0e14d8bda332bbaa0)

It's actually 2 errors   :nod:
HOW THE HELL IS NORTH LEFT AND RIGHT....  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 15, 2018, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: 6a on May 10, 2014, 03:20:23 PM

Quote from: vtk on April 13, 2014, 09:16:01 AM
This button copy sign [street view link] (https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=39.152337,-84.443919&spn=0.004551,0.007081&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=39.152337,-84.443919&panoid=l0I2fbWgd_EyC9YUSfJNzg&cbp=12,320.91,,2,1.6) has apparently been replaced recently.  The replacement has an OH 71 shield.  It can be seen from the freeway if you're looking at the right moment.

On the subject of things guiding you to I-71,

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F05%2F11%2F6etyqy9a.jpg&hash=3b354ef9e58f1370b9707efb2e0eec709d597831)
Are theese people Fucking DUMB? THATS A T,YOU CANT GO FUCKING STRAIGHT
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 15, 2018, 02:52:15 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on February 18, 2016, 10:08:10 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 18, 2016, 10:00:08 PM
Quote from: yakra on February 18, 2016, 09:56:14 PM
Before (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9971814,-64.1595316,3a,15y,145.21h,90.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sV_GVS-uQEmXeSrXM3oOjUw!2e0!5s20120801T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
After (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9971848,-64.1595434,3a,15y,140.33h,90.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqEQi7-AlD4y2QwqC39bG3Q!2e0!5s20140801T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
Since when was US 1 in Nova Scotia?

That's (one of) their shields. That's not US 1. The error is with the cardinal direction.
That is ACTUALLY A Nova Scotia TRUNK HIGHWAY! :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 16, 2018, 08:20:01 PM
Found this on I-10 In New Orleans. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9961126,-90.0459636,3a,39.3y,211.52h,93.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D222.7441%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 The I-10 Shield on the Far Left sign is missing!  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on March 17, 2018, 09:01:55 AM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 16, 2018, 08:20:01 PM
Found this on I-10 In New Orleans. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9961126,-90.0459636,3a,39.3y,211.52h,93.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D222.7441%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Where's the error?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on March 17, 2018, 09:03:43 AM
Quote from: jbnv on March 17, 2018, 09:01:55 AM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 16, 2018, 08:20:01 PM
Found this on I-10 In New Orleans. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9961126,-90.0459636,3a,39.3y,211.52h,93.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D222.7441%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Where's the error?

"WEST" without a corresponding shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 17, 2018, 09:06:43 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 17, 2018, 09:03:43 AM
Quote from: jbnv on March 17, 2018, 09:01:55 AM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 16, 2018, 08:20:01 PM
Found this on I-10 In New Orleans. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9961126,-90.0459636,3a,39.3y,211.52h,93.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D222.7441%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Where's the error?

"WEST" without a corresponding shield.

Not to mention squeezing 610 onto a 2-di shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on March 17, 2018, 09:09:21 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 17, 2018, 09:03:43 AM
Quote from: jbnv on March 17, 2018, 09:01:55 AM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 16, 2018, 08:20:01 PM
Found this on I-10 In New Orleans. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9961126,-90.0459636,3a,39.3y,211.52h,93.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D222.7441%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Where's the error?

"WEST" without a corresponding shield.

That is more like maybe "damaged" sign. Perhaps ugly & old. The sign is right as it takes you to the NOLA business district.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 02:17:52 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 17, 2018, 09:06:43 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 17, 2018, 09:03:43 AM
Quote from: jbnv on March 17, 2018, 09:01:55 AM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 16, 2018, 08:20:01 PM
Found this on I-10 In New Orleans. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9961126,-90.0459636,3a,39.3y,211.52h,93.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D222.7441%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Where's the error?

"WEST" without a corresponding shield.

Not to mention squeezing 610 onto a 2-di shield.

That's more of a design error, since the information is still correct. I do see 2di shields with 3di numbers on them often enough in Washington. Here's a couple examples:

https://goo.gl/c8Ynif

https://goo.gl/K9PSKA
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Tom958 on March 17, 2018, 04:37:15 PM
GDOT strikes again.  :clap:
(https://i.imgur.com/V6IEqLd.jpg?1)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on March 17, 2018, 05:23:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 02:17:52 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 17, 2018, 09:06:43 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 17, 2018, 09:03:43 AM
Quote from: jbnv on March 17, 2018, 09:01:55 AM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 16, 2018, 08:20:01 PM
Found this on I-10 In New Orleans. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9961126,-90.0459636,3a,39.3y,211.52h,93.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D222.7441%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Where's the error?

"WEST" without a corresponding shield.

Not to mention squeezing 610 onto a 2-di shield.

That's more of a design error, since the information is still correct. I do see 2di shields with 3di numbers on them often enough in Washington. Here's a couple examples:

https://goo.gl/c8Ynif

https://goo.gl/K9PSKA

As I've often stated, I hate the wide markers and prefer the square (or equivalent) ones such as this.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rlb2024 on March 17, 2018, 05:48:59 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 17, 2018, 05:23:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 02:17:52 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 17, 2018, 09:06:43 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 17, 2018, 09:03:43 AM
Quote from: jbnv on March 17, 2018, 09:01:55 AM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 16, 2018, 08:20:01 PM
Found this on I-10 In New Orleans. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9961126,-90.0459636,3a,39.3y,211.52h,93.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnUUqaQSrnusIj6mv-A56jw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D222.7441%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Where's the error?

"WEST" without a corresponding shield.

Not to mention squeezing 610 onto a 2-di shield.

That's more of a design error, since the information is still correct. I do see 2di shields with 3di numbers on them often enough in Washington. Here's a couple examples:

https://goo.gl/c8Ynif

https://goo.gl/K9PSKA

As I've often stated, I hate the wide markers and prefer the square (or equivalent) ones such as this.
That's just an old sign.  The I-10 shield fell off.  It may have even been blown off during one of the hurricanes and never was replaced.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 18, 2018, 05:51:14 PM

This Monstrosity in Fargo on an I-29 Exit Ramp. https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8324795,-96.8377222,3a,26.8y,57.65h,93.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMZ8s5SddEXw-m7K2yQo8Iw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DMZ8s5SddEXw-m7K2yQo8Iw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D62.58203%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on March 18, 2018, 07:06:23 PM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 18, 2018, 05:51:14 PM

This Monstrosity in Fargo on an I-29 Exit Ramp. https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8324795,-96.8377222,3a,26.8y,57.65h,93.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMZ8s5SddEXw-m7K2yQo8Iw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DMZ8s5SddEXw-m7K2yQo8Iw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D62.58203%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

I think it's time for someone to step away from the keyboard. Your link shows a random traffic light.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on March 19, 2018, 08:04:50 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 18, 2018, 07:06:23 PM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 18, 2018, 05:51:14 PM

This Monstrosity in Fargo on an I-29 Exit Ramp. https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8324795,-96.8377222,3a,26.8y,57.65h,93.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMZ8s5SddEXw-m7K2yQo8Iw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DMZ8s5SddEXw-m7K2yQo8Iw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D62.58203%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

I think it's time for someone to step away from the keyboard. Your link shows a random traffic light.

I think he means the non-erroneous No Right Turn arrow, which presumably means that traffic on 32nd Ave should avoid heading the wrong way down the ramp to I-29.

Take a deep breath and calm down, ThatTenneseeRoadgeek. The random SHOUTING isn't helping anyone.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 19, 2018, 11:17:51 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 19, 2018, 08:04:50 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 18, 2018, 07:06:23 PM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 18, 2018, 05:51:14 PM

This Monstrosity in Fargo on an I-29 Exit Ramp. https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8324795,-96.8377222,3a,26.8y,57.65h,93.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMZ8s5SddEXw-m7K2yQo8Iw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DMZ8s5SddEXw-m7K2yQo8Iw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D62.58203%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

I think it's time for someone to step away from the keyboard. Your link shows a random traffic light.

I think he means the non-erroneous No Right Turn arrow, which presumably means that traffic on 32nd Ave should avoid heading the wrong way down the ramp to I-29.

Take a deep breath and calm down, ThatTenneseeRoadgeek. The random SHOUTING isn't helping anyone.

I'm not following. Who's shouting? I don't see any edited posts.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on March 20, 2018, 06:11:20 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 19, 2018, 11:17:51 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 19, 2018, 08:04:50 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 18, 2018, 07:06:23 PM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 18, 2018, 05:51:14 PM

This Monstrosity in Fargo on an I-29 Exit Ramp. https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8324795,-96.8377222,3a,26.8y,57.65h,93.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMZ8s5SddEXw-m7K2yQo8Iw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DMZ8s5SddEXw-m7K2yQo8Iw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D62.58203%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

I think it's time for someone to step away from the keyboard. Your link shows a random traffic light.

I think he means the non-erroneous No Right Turn arrow, which presumably means that traffic on 32nd Ave should avoid heading the wrong way down the ramp to I-29.

Take a deep breath and calm down, ThatTenneseeRoadgeek. The random SHOUTING isn't helping anyone.

I'm not following. Who's shouting? I don't see any edited posts.

Replies 4305-4308 are the ones shouting, not 4318.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 20, 2018, 06:35:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 20, 2018, 06:11:20 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 19, 2018, 11:17:51 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 19, 2018, 08:04:50 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 18, 2018, 07:06:23 PM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 18, 2018, 05:51:14 PM

This Monstrosity in Fargo on an I-29 Exit Ramp. https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8324795,-96.8377222,3a,26.8y,57.65h,93.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMZ8s5SddEXw-m7K2yQo8Iw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DMZ8s5SddEXw-m7K2yQo8Iw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D62.58203%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

I think it's time for someone to step away from the keyboard. Your link shows a random traffic light.

I think he means the non-erroneous No Right Turn arrow, which presumably means that traffic on 32nd Ave should avoid heading the wrong way down the ramp to I-29.

Take a deep breath and calm down, ThatTenneseeRoadgeek. The random SHOUTING isn't helping anyone.

I'm not following. Who's shouting? I don't see any edited posts.

Replies 4305-4308 are the ones shouting, not 4318.

Oh, I see. I was mostly away from the site for a few days and didn't see the posts when I returned. My bad.

Upon reading, I do find the posts rather funny. I'm not easily bothered by some things.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on March 20, 2018, 04:44:47 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/39116501690/in/dateposted-public/
The contractor goofed on the SB US 17 shield.  Intersection of Main Street at Vine Street. Both routes turn right from Main to Vine to form a brief concurrency with US 192.

Intersection was just recently redone here and new signage on SB Main (US 17, 92, and 441) and WB Vine (US 192).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on April 12, 2018, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 19, 2018, 10:57:25 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on February 09, 2018, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2018, 06:51:50 AM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4709/39455086804_d4156893e2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/237vCHj)Extraneous apostrophe on road sign (https://flic.kr/p/237vCHj) by me (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hotdogpi/), on Flickr

Oop's!

Definitely belongs in the Worst thread.

  • Apostrophe
  • Compressed Helvetica font
  • Non-MUTCD arrow
  • Black on white, not white on green
  • On same post as STOP sign
  • Sign on back of post hides the octagon shape of STOP sign

I fully concur.  This is a good candidate for the "worst of" thread.  No way in hell this should've escaped the sign shop.

This sign is at the exit to Lowell General Hospital, Saints Campus, Lowell, MA.  Very likely it is not under state or municipal jurisdiction but rather a sign that the hospital put up.  Private signs tend to not have such good standards.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on April 12, 2018, 09:30:50 PM
Low standard's, maybe, but they should still know where to put their apostrophe's.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on April 19, 2018, 08:39:29 AM
Posted by Jim in the Daily Picture Challenge thread:

Quote from: Jim on April 18, 2018, 07:52:52 PMOn US 23 and US 441 in Georgia.  May 22, 2005.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20050522%2Fus123ga17ga365us23us441-close.jpg&hash=89746784e222a2683939da2e01e3303a28362cf0)

No, GA 365 is not pulling a US 321 and reversing direction here. That sign on the left should read GA 365 NORTH (and also US 123 NORTH, for that matter; GA 17 SOUTH is correct, though).

(Well, okay, if you want to get super technical, you could say it should be TO 123/365 NORTH. And you actually can get to 123/365 SOUTH by turning left here and then turning right at the next intersection, but that has the same effect as just going straight, and 123 SOUTH immediately ends at the merge back onto 23/441 anyway. Still, it's safe to say that's not what's meant.)

The photo is from 2005, but Street View shows it still in place as of 2011.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: adventurernumber1 on April 19, 2018, 10:19:18 AM
Quote from: Eth on April 19, 2018, 08:39:29 AM
Posted by Jim in the Daily Picture Challenge thread:

Quote from: Jim on April 18, 2018, 07:52:52 PMOn US 23 and US 441 in Georgia.  May 22, 2005.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20050522%2Fus123ga17ga365us23us441-close.jpg&hash=89746784e222a2683939da2e01e3303a28362cf0)

No, GA 365 is not pulling a US 321 and reversing direction here. That sign on the left should read GA 365 NORTH (and also US 123 NORTH, for that matter; GA 17 SOUTH is correct, though).

(Well, okay, if you want to get super technical, you could say it should be TO 123/365 NORTH. And you actually can get to 123/365 SOUTH by turning left here and then turning right at the next intersection, but that has the same effect as just going straight, and 123 SOUTH immediately ends at the merge back onto 23/441 anyway. Still, it's safe to say that's not what's meant.)

The photo is from 2005, but Street View shows it still in place as of 2011.

Good catch! I saw that very picture in the thread yesterday, but I did not catch the mistake. I'm surprised it has gone that long without being fixed (and may still not be).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ThatRandomOshawott on April 20, 2018, 10:45:09 PM
I believe they may have since replaced this sign (IDK for sure), but here is a Street View image from September 2012 at the intersection of US Route 641 and KY 80. You'll see the reason why I bolded "US Route". https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6521477,-88.3076174,3a,15y,143.35h,86.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT1MbG2hKJm6YvhdEOlB0Mg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on April 21, 2018, 11:42:48 PM
This was there in November when I did my western Kentucky meet.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ftballfan on May 05, 2018, 09:55:31 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8719764,-84.0430285,3a,75y,201.67h,90.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sadzhw-EpCuWjeO9cdovYwA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Just drove past this today. It isn't 20 miles from this sign (M-52 just south of US-223) to US-20. It's "only" 14 miles. The 11 miles to the state line is correct. However, it is 20 miles from that sign to the Ohio Turnpike
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: fillup420 on May 08, 2018, 08:44:45 PM
US 87 definitely does not exist in North Carolina

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.434995,-79.1223627,3a,75y,203h,81.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIMonOEMTj_13nZGblW0nsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on May 08, 2018, 09:31:14 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on May 08, 2018, 08:44:45 PM
US 87 definitely does not exist in North Carolina
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.434995,-79.1223627,3a,75y,203h,81.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIMonOEMTj_13nZGblW0nsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


Yet technically true, as it does bypass US-87 to the east -- by a couple of thousands of miles!!!   :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on May 10, 2018, 05:53:17 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/947/42025835991_b364b70a21_c.jpg)

This sign is on MA 108, not on MA 110. MA 108 ends at the intersection ahead; MA 110 west is straight, and MA 110 east is to the left.

By the way, I just clinched MA 108 today by walking.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: HTM Duke on May 11, 2018, 08:34:56 PM
I don't think VA-244 east ever went this way (it should be VA-27):
https://goo.gl/maps/8ELTMaMG2FD2
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on May 12, 2018, 03:10:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 10, 2018, 05:53:17 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/947/42025835991_b364b70a21_c.jpg)

This sign is on MA 108, not on MA 110. MA 108 ends at the intersection ahead; MA 110 west is straight, and MA 110 east is to the left.
An M6-3 (upward arrow) panel placed below the MA 110 shield would correct the error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 19, 2018, 03:50:22 AM
Don't know if this one was reported, but I just found this in GSV in Williamsport, PA

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/968/40398412240_4098974bcd_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on May 19, 2018, 04:10:42 AM
I assume I-100 is the error?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: GenExpwy on May 19, 2018, 04:47:08 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 19, 2018, 03:50:22 AM
Don't know if this one was reported, but I just found this in GSV in Williamsport, PA

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/968/40398412240_4098974bcd_n.jpg)
(This is US 15 southbound)
Quote from: freebrickproductions on May 19, 2018, 04:10:42 AM
I assume I-100 is the error?
That's just a GSV photo-stitching glitch. The photo seam goes horizontally through the Interstate shield, and the top of the 8 got cut off. Move back one step,and it's I-180.

Edit: I do see an issue. The lane marked "Maynard St EXIT ONLY"  actually ends at the US 220 junction; it's the left lane here that becomes the Maynard St ramp. Thru traffic on US 15 southbound has to merge left at US 220.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 19, 2018, 08:25:42 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 19, 2018, 03:50:22 AM
Don't know if this one was reported, but I just found this in GSV in Williamsport, PA

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/968/40398412240_4098974bcd_n.jpg)

This is why you have to tell people what the issue is. Most of us aren't familiar with the sign or area and would have no clue what's wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on May 19, 2018, 12:36:35 PM
Quote from: GenExpwy on May 19, 2018, 04:47:08 AM
Edit: I do see an issue. The lane marked "Maynard St EXIT ONLY"  actually ends at the US 220 junction; it's the left lane here that becomes the Maynard St ramp. Thru traffic on US 15 southbound has to merge left at US 220.

So the two leftmost signs are transposed?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on May 22, 2018, 05:19:55 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on May 19, 2018, 04:10:42 AM
I assume I-100 is the error?

It's all part of Fritzowl's plan.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on May 23, 2018, 09:03:33 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 22, 2018, 05:19:55 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on May 19, 2018, 04:10:42 AM
I assume I-100 is the error?

It's all part of Fritzowl's plan.


Those are called "Extrastates".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on June 04, 2018, 12:49:59 AM
In the fall of 2002, I had a commute through Tacoma, and was reading about Washington's much disliked Interstate 705.  I noticed that the road gets so little respect that even the state signed it as SR 705 on one of the approaches from South I-5.  The sign was later covered up with a narrow, non-TGS I-705 shield.  Google Street View (https://goo.gl/maps/5JcGBUuVC5r)

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1738/41828223254_32c5a845d7_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26Jdzv1)Sign blooper: I-705 signed as SR-705 (https://flic.kr/p/26Jdzv1) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on June 04, 2018, 01:03:28 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on June 04, 2018, 12:49:59 AM
In the fall of 2002, I had a commute through Tacoma, and was reading about Washington's much disliked Interstate 705.  I noticed that the road gets so little respect that even the state signed it as SR 705 on one of the approaches from South I-5.  The sign was later covered up with a narrow, non-TGS I-705 shield.  Google Street View (https://goo.gl/maps/5JcGBUuVC5r)

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1738/41828223254_32c5a845d7_c.jpg

Oh that's awesome! I always wondered if there was a photo of that sign. I drive under that sign at least five times a week, and I was always pretty sure (either because someone on this website mentioned it, or I read it somewhere else read below) that under the weird I-705 shield was a WA-705 shield. So cool to see a photo of it uncovered. WSDOT still refers to the highway as anything from Hwy 705 to WA-705 to SR-705 on various matrix displays and temporary construction signage. Hell, this survey (http://bit.ly/2shfCUX) (from WSDOT) online right now repeatedly refers to the roadway as "SR 705" (IIRC; I can't see the survey now that I've taken it). I don't mind legal documents using the term "SR 705" because, well, that's what it legally is. But anything that the general public might read should use I-705.

This sign was discussed prior in the unique/odd/interesting thread with some uncertainty as to what was behind the I-705 shield. Kacie Jane guessed correctly, however.

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on January 19, 2015, 07:40:27 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on January 19, 2015, 01:55:46 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on January 19, 2015, 12:04:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 05, 2015, 07:07:58 PM
For what it's worth, this sign has been installed for a long time. I'm still not sure what the green-out covers.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEN4zh0j.jpg&hash=c4eef26c1792c13a381d89220a57dcef7f45b553)

I believe it was an SR 509 shield.

While 509 isn't that far away, and certainly might have been signed at this interchange before I-705 was a thing, now that we know the sign dates only to 2002, I find that highly unlikely.

While I have no proof (and I'm not sure how we might now be able legally obtain proof), I'd be willing to bet a small sum of money that it covers an erroneous SR 705 shield.

If the sign dates to 2002, then I agree with you it's probably not 509.  My basis for assuming so was how they've signed this gantry on I-705.  I was guessing that while they were completing the freeway they had portions of it signed as 509.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/I-705_approaching_WA-509.jpg/1920px-I-705_approaching_WA-509.jpg
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on June 04, 2018, 02:10:19 AM
Maybe not a "road" sign per-say, but this video from a UK railfan that I'm subscribed to on YouTube shows two signs for a railroad crossing with two different names on them (for those not in the know: the UK gives each crossing over there their own name, but only one name, not two!):
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: akotchi on June 10, 2018, 03:05:49 PM
Construction sign in the Scudder Falls Bridge replacement work zone (now I-295), Exiting traffic to C.R. 579 detoured from Exit 75 to Route 29 (Exit 76).  The county, however, is Mercer.  the only Strafford County I know of (and only because of looking it up) is in New Hampshire . . .

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1753/40908020440_850ae14698_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on July 05, 2018, 03:23:45 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 12, 2018, 09:30:50 PM
Low standard's, maybe, but they should still know where to put their apostrophe's.

Could be worse.  They could have used quotation marks, and purposely misdirected people to routes "38" and "495."  Muhahahahahaaaaaaaa...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jbnv on July 15, 2018, 08:03:09 PM
I found this shield gaffe in Ohio's Amish country.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1781/43386597992_10d506a22d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/296VE1Y)
"Ohio" 250 (should be US 250) (https://flic.kr/p/296VE1Y) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on July 15, 2018, 09:02:51 PM
Quote from: jbnv on July 15, 2018, 08:03:09 PM
I found this shield gaffe in Ohio's Amish country.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1781/43386597992_10d506a22d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/296VE1Y)
"Ohio" 250 (should be US 250) (https://flic.kr/p/296VE1Y) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 17, 2018, 09:08:32 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/RjTkSr223MN2
From NJ 82 W Bound you do not use the NB Garden State Parkway to access US 22.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: HazMatt on July 17, 2018, 09:16:50 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/hJ8hZ1wvvKB2 (https://goo.gl/maps/hJ8hZ1wvvKB2)
Saw this last weekend but wasn't able to get a picture.  I-95 business loop in Fayetteville signed as a Spur route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 17, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: HazMatt on July 17, 2018, 09:16:50 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/hJ8hZ1wvvKB2 (https://goo.gl/maps/hJ8hZ1wvvKB2)
Saw this last weekend but wasn't able to get a picture.  I-95 business loop in Fayetteville signed as a Spur route.
Getting to be like New Hampshire with the concurrencies signed on a green panel.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on July 18, 2018, 08:24:06 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 17, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: HazMatt on July 17, 2018, 09:16:50 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/hJ8hZ1wvvKB2 (https://goo.gl/maps/hJ8hZ1wvvKB2)
Saw this last weekend but wasn't able to get a picture.  I-95 business loop in Fayetteville signed as a Spur route.
Getting to be like New Hampshire with the concurrencies signed on a green panel.

Sometimes single routes too, like on this sign coming into Charlotte (not erroneous, just an example of this):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2Froadphotos%2F20180422_104506.jpg&hash=477660090826c2c2274cbdd09e5c041fef428638)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on July 28, 2018, 12:18:08 AM
Quote from: HazMatt on July 17, 2018, 09:16:50 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/hJ8hZ1wvvKB2 (https://goo.gl/maps/hJ8hZ1wvvKB2)
Saw this last weekend but wasn't able to get a picture.  I-95 business loop in Fayetteville signed as a Spur route.
It is also signed as I-95 Business Spur on the Elk Rd BGS's that have been recently put up.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tckma on July 30, 2018, 12:57:54 PM
Quote from: hirothehero on July 24, 2018, 01:20:28 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.335714,-71.1008042,3a,85.9y,271.51h,90.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2347h-U2oFyONI2NeDDyyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.335714,-71.1008042,3a,85.9y,271.51h,90.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2347h-U2oFyONI2NeDDyyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
DE/IA/KY/NJ/MS highway shield erroneously used instead of MA shield on MA-9/Huntington Ave in Boston.  GSV says it's been there since at least 2007.

I think it's been there longer than that.  I remember that one as far back as 2003.  Might have been a circle that they replaced with another circle?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 01, 2018, 12:27:42 PM
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1794/43738059732_3f060d306d_z.jpg)
Not an error in design but in placement of an overall cardinal direction.  I-470 does not run north-south but east-west.  I-470 should be WEST and not SOUTH with N-S MO 291.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: briantroutman on August 02, 2018, 04:25:55 PM
Quote from: GenExpwy on May 19, 2018, 04:47:08 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 19, 2018, 03:50:22 AM
Don't know if this one was reported, but I just found this in GSV in Williamsport, PA

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/968/40398412240_4098974bcd_n.jpg)
(This is US 15 southbound)
Quote from: freebrickproductions on May 19, 2018, 04:10:42 AM
I assume I-100 is the error?
That's just a GSV photo-stitching glitch. The photo seam goes horizontally through the Interstate shield, and the top of the 8 got cut off. Move back one step,and it's I-180.

Edit: I do see an issue. The lane marked "Maynard St EXIT ONLY"  actually ends at the US 220 junction; it's the left lane here that becomes the Maynard St ramp. Thru traffic on US 15 southbound has to merge left at US 220.

Sorry for dredging up an old post, but I just saw this, and it was the topic of a thread I posted a number of years ago (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10832).

About a mile beyond the picture above–at the point where the two southbound lanes of US 15 merge with the two eastbound lanes of I-180/US 220 and reduce to three lanes total–PennDOT posted a YIELD sign with a panel underneath reading LEFT LANE (https://goo.gl/maps/xBsM9xZzf852). So apparently, the implication is that the left lane ends (and is therefore required to yield and merge with the through I-180 lanes) while the right lane continues through to become the exit only lane for Maynard Street. The problem with this in reality is that the pavement and striping configuration doesn't adequately support this.

I would imagine, though, that there are situations where a two-lane ramp merges with two through lanes of a freeway, forming three lanes post-merge, but the striping clearly indicates that it's the inner lane (i.e. left lane) that ends and is forced to merge, while outer lane continues continues through non-stop.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: chays on August 06, 2018, 04:52:43 PM
Not a sign, but an error nonethess.

(https://scontent-mia3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/38672472_10212340278045967_5141540903780876288_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=ccddaa0cff7a546f639105de4cefda7e&oe=5C14242F)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on August 08, 2018, 05:19:19 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 17, 2018, 09:08:32 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/RjTkSr223MN2
From NJ 82 W Bound you do not use the NB Garden State Parkway to access US 22.

No, but that ramp does lead to both the NB Parkway and US 22 (both directions). The "TO" is questionably necessary, but the sign is not erroneous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on August 08, 2018, 06:46:59 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/ABW9tTNqFTu

Should there be a TO next to the US 12 outline because I keep thinking "US 12 doesn't go onto Van Buren." You have to get to East Broadway to get to US 12, then go to Madison where it will head towards 5th and Arthur.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rarnold on August 11, 2018, 04:50:21 PM
US 12 Westbound exits I-90 on to Van Buren at Exit 105, and travels south for a block or so to East Broadway, and has for at least the last 25 years I have been through Missoula. East Broadway was a possible former alignment of US 12 before Interstate 90 came through.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 11, 2018, 06:53:54 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 08, 2018, 05:19:19 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 17, 2018, 09:08:32 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/RjTkSr223MN2
From NJ 82 W Bound you do not use the NB Garden State Parkway to access US 22.

No, but that ramp does lead to both the NB Parkway and US 22 (both directions). The "TO" is questionably necessary, but the sign is not erroneous.
The signs says the NB Parkway leads to Route 22 not that the ramp goes there along with US 22.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/23843541278/in/album-72157649711684990/
This one has the mileage distances in reverse.  Mango is only 1 mile to the left while the FL State Fairgrounds is 2 miles to the right.  The numbers need to be switched out or the destination names.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 15, 2018, 06:50:36 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/29122204227/in/dateposted-public/
Should be South US 52 TO US 301.  Located in Florence, SC along US 52 after US 301 got realigned to bypass the business district.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on August 18, 2018, 11:08:08 AM
Note the white sign at the bottom. It was still there this past Monday when I came around that loop ramp on the right. Too difficult a spot to get my own picture and my dashcam isn't working correctly.

http://goo.gl/maps/rnKbX1ydu1Q2
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 18, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 18, 2018, 11:08:08 AM
Note the white sign at the bottom. It was still there this past Monday when I came around that loop ramp on the right. Too difficult a spot to get my own picture and my dashcam isn't working correctly.

http://goo.gl/maps/rnKbX1ydu1Q2

Spelling errors are one of my favorite errors. Everyone knows when something is spelled wrong, yet somehow, the errors still make it to installation. Not everyone understands sign standards, but most know that "PEDESTRIANS" is not spelled the way it is there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on August 18, 2018, 12:29:21 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 18, 2018, 11:53:08 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 18, 2018, 11:08:08 AM
Note the white sign at the bottom. It was still there this past Monday when I came around that loop ramp on the right. Too difficult a spot to get my own picture and my dashcam isn't working correctly.

http://goo.gl/maps/rnKbX1ydu1Q2

Spelling errors are one of my favorite errors. Everyone knows when something is spelled wrong, yet somehow, the errors still make it to installation. Not everyone understands sign standards, but most know that "PEDESTRIANS" is not spelled the way it is there.

It's the second sign I've seen in DC with "Pedestrian(s)"  misspelled. There used to be a sign on South Capitol Street near where Nationals Park is now that said "PEDESTRAIN PROHIBITED."  It was at the southern end of where the street dips under M Street. I don't have a picture, though, and the sign is long gone.

At least the sign in the Google link has "Bicycles"  spelled correctly. Earlier in this thread I posted a photo of signs on Vermont Avenue NW that spell it "BICYLCES."  I tweeted that picture to the DC government several months ago, but as of two weeks ago nothing had been done about it.

Edited: It was actually in the "Worst of"  thread. Two signs with the same error: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3521.msg2304034#msg2304034
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 31, 2018, 12:34:52 PM
Not sure if the goof is the signal or the sign, but the off-ramp from westbound US-36 to northbound McCaslin Blvd in Superior, CO has two signals which indicate the off-ramp to be a straight movement (all the signals are up arrows), but there's both an R3-5R (right turn only) sign, as well as NTOR sign:

https://goo.gl/vaP5H3

(https://i.imgur.com/iuDNvLf.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on August 31, 2018, 12:38:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 31, 2018, 12:34:52 PM
(Imgur was over capacity, so I had to link to my Google Drive...someone let me know if there's no image displayed)

No image displaying, and I'm logged in to Google.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on September 01, 2018, 12:04:01 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2018, 12:38:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 31, 2018, 12:34:52 PM
(Imgur was over capacity, so I had to link to my Google Drive...someone let me know if there's no image displayed)

No image displaying, and I'm logged in to Google.

Thanks for the info. Finally got Imgur to work.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on September 04, 2018, 11:05:23 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 31, 2018, 12:34:52 PM
Not sure if the goof is the signal or the sign, but the off-ramp from westbound US-36 to northbound McCaslin Blvd in Superior, CO has two signals which indicate the off-ramp to be a straight movement (all the signals are up arrows), but there's both an R3-5R (right turn only) sign, as well as NTOR sign:

https://goo.gl/vaP5H3

(https://i.imgur.com/iuDNvLf.png)

Just went by there yesterday -- but the opposite way.  :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kc8yqq on September 25, 2018, 09:17:03 AM
I drive by these signs daily as they surround metro Detroit.  Sirius and XM merged over 10 years ago and now it's SXM 135.  This one (GSV) is located EB M-14 in Plymouth Township.

https://goo.gl/maps/9xbmbJ1xJAJ2 (https://goo.gl/maps/9xbmbJ1xJAJ2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 25, 2018, 01:33:34 PM
^ That's the first time I've seen a road sign referencing satellite radio, instead of AM/FM.

Going though my 2016 photos, and noticed this "TN 155" shield on the state-line mile marker for I-155:

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1862/30784301348_f2ae196232_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NUiAhm)

SR 155 is already in use on the Briley Parkway, over in Nashville.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on October 05, 2018, 05:27:52 PM
http://twitter.com/stanleyroberts/status/1048269822633553925?s=21
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 05, 2018, 07:41:28 PM
Is there a crosswalk behind the photographer? Something seems fishy here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on October 05, 2018, 08:40:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2018, 07:41:28 PM
Is there a crosswalk behind the photographer? Something seems fishy here.

Yeah, as far as I know no-crossing signs always face out into the road.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 05, 2018, 09:51:02 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 05, 2018, 08:40:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2018, 07:41:28 PM
Is there a crosswalk behind the photographer? Something seems fishy here.

Yeah, as far as I know no-crossing signs always face out into the road.

Looking a bit more closely, there is no curb cut for a crossing behind the photographer. The crosswalks cross to this corner, but you are required to continue beyond it, just not in the direction of the slip lane.

Never did like Stanley Roberts. :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: GenExpwy on October 06, 2018, 04:44:41 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2018, 09:51:02 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 05, 2018, 08:40:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2018, 07:41:28 PM
Is there a crosswalk behind the photographer? Something seems fishy here.

Yeah, as far as I know no-crossing signs always face out into the road.

Looking a bit more closely, there is no curb cut for a crossing behind the photographer. The crosswalks cross to this corner, but you are required to continue beyond it, just not in the direction of the slip lane.

Never did like Stanley Roberts. :D

Street View with better context (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4735739,-112.1091903,3a,54.5y,150.02h,79.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-K4-p0a5u7RJTT5zKEGbFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Aerial View (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4733762,-112.1087659,142m/data=!3m1!1e3)

What I don't quite get is, what pedestrians are supposed to see this particular sign in the first place? It's facing along the west side of Grand Avenue, where any pedestrian would already be walking in the road.

The No Peds sign in the opposite direction (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4734252,-112.1090105,3a,37.5y,289.43h,80.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX0GehLg7g8s-oyNNl7bzTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), coming from the porkchop island, makes sense, but I don't see the purpose of the one on Twitter.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 06, 2018, 12:30:57 PM
Quote from: GenExpwy on October 06, 2018, 04:44:41 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2018, 09:51:02 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 05, 2018, 08:40:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2018, 07:41:28 PM
Is there a crosswalk behind the photographer? Something seems fishy here.

Yeah, as far as I know no-crossing signs always face out into the road.

Looking a bit more closely, there is no curb cut for a crossing behind the photographer. The crosswalks cross to this corner, but you are required to continue beyond it, just not in the direction of the slip lane.

Never did like Stanley Roberts. :D

Street View with better context (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4735739,-112.1091903,3a,54.5y,150.02h,79.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-K4-p0a5u7RJTT5zKEGbFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Aerial View (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4733762,-112.1087659,142m/data=!3m1!1e3)

What I don't quite get is, what pedestrians are supposed to see this particular sign in the first place? It's facing along the west side of Grand Avenue, where any pedestrian would already be walking in the road.

The No Peds sign in the opposite direction (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4734252,-112.1090105,3a,37.5y,289.43h,80.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX0GehLg7g8s-oyNNl7bzTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), coming from the porkchop island, makes sense, but I don't see the purpose of the one on Twitter.

As far as I know, "no pedestrian" signs are used in pairs, not just by themselves, so in the event that a pedestrian arrives at the location from the unintended approach, there's still a sign telling them what they can't do.

I don't have a problem with the signs, as it's a bit unusual for a crossing to go to a corner, where you are not allowed to go beyond the corner in any direction except the other crossing. I don't know why the crossing doesn't just stay on the south side of Encanto.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on October 06, 2018, 12:42:31 PM
The aerial view makes that a lot clearer. Maybe they felt a crossing on the south side is too far? But they could have built a pedestrian island there to alleviate that issue.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 06, 2018, 02:30:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 06, 2018, 12:42:31 PM
The aerial view makes that a lot clearer. Maybe they felt a crossing on the south side is too far? But they could have built a pedestrian island there to alleviate that issue.

The easiest way to make the crossing shorter would have been to have the crossing about another 100 feet S-E, so the crossing over the highway (Grand Ave?) was more perpendicular than diagonal.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 08, 2018, 01:50:49 PM
My first thought was that pedestrians next to the road would be trespassing on railroad ROW.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 08, 2018, 02:46:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 08, 2018, 01:50:49 PM
My first thought was that pedestrians next to the road would be trespassing on railroad ROW.

I would think that public ROW would extend past the road curbing by at least a few feet.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on October 09, 2018, 06:07:11 PM
This diagrammatic (https://goo.gl/maps/YqS5bwr9ZYC2) is not how the lanes are set up. There's no option lane; a fifth lane starts on the right. Meanwhile, in the other direction, the opposite sign (https://goo.gl/maps/UWqkxzyzNpn) has the opposite problem. I-81 SB isn't four lanes at all before the split.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on October 09, 2018, 09:04:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 08, 2018, 02:46:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 08, 2018, 01:50:49 PM
My first thought was that pedestrians next to the road would be trespassing on railroad ROW.

I would think that public ROW would extend past the road curbing by at least a few feet.

GMSV shows a crosswalk used to be at the now-prohibited spot until 2013-14.  Similar changes occurred at other intersections along this railway.  A study of this corridor mentions pedestrian access along Grand Ave but does not get into specifically AFAIK that there shouldn't be access on that side of the road.

https://www.azdot.gov/docs/projects/chapter-3-existing-44-programmed-and-planned-facilities.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 30, 2018, 07:57:51 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/GvUeiQxnKpq
US 17 is now in NY.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 31, 2018, 12:38:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 30, 2018, 07:57:51 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/GvUeiQxnKpq
US 17 is now in NY.

Wrong thread.

Quote from: 1 on August 17, 2016, 07:04:09 AM
As of this post, the Erroneous Road Signs thread has 161 pages (I use the default of 25 posts per page), and it will just continue to grow. To reduce its rate of growth, errors that are solely US/state route mixups go here instead of in the Erroneous Road Signs and Worst of Road Signs threads.

Something similar was done a few years ago when "Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs" was created to reduce the number that went into the Worst of Road Signs thread.

If you recently posted in any of these threads with a US/state mixup, you may move the post to here by deleting the other one and pasting the content in this thread. (It doesn't have to be recent, but I'm assuming that the more recent ones will be more easily found.)

In addition to posting US/state mixups, you can post your opinion on whether this thread is necessary, at least for the first few pages.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 31, 2018, 02:25:07 PM
It is still erroneous whether goof ups like this are very common (especially with NYSDOT and usually making a US route a state route etc).  Yes it would be an opinion if it were posted in the unique odd and Interesting, and I thought about posting it there.  I felt this was more specific and felt that criteria and therefore I posted it here.

Because so many screw ups like this exist, I find it a hot topic to find which one next will get the designations mixed up especially in PA and NY who love to be careless when printing signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 31, 2018, 02:30:03 PM
Just to clarify...  the thread I quoted from is called "US/State mixup shield error signs go here".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 31, 2018, 03:55:47 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 31, 2018, 12:38:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 30, 2018, 07:57:51 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/GvUeiQxnKpq
US 17 is now in NY.

Wrong thread.

Quote from: 1 on August 17, 2016, 07:04:09 AM
As of this post, the Erroneous Road Signs thread has 161 pages (I use the default of 25 posts per page), and it will just continue to grow. To reduce its rate of growth, errors that are solely US/state route mixups go here instead of in the Erroneous Road Signs and Worst of Road Signs threads.

Something similar was done a few years ago when "Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs" was created to reduce the number that went into the Worst of Road Signs thread.

If you recently posted in any of these threads with a US/state mixup, you may move the post to here by deleting the other one and pasting the content in this thread. (It doesn't have to be recent, but I'm assuming that the more recent ones will be more easily found.)

In addition to posting US/state mixups, you can post your opinion on whether this thread is necessary, at least for the first few pages.

So the creator of that thread decreed that all such posts should go in his thread, and we're all supposed to follow his directive like he's God or something? That's not a decree from a moderator, it's a statement from a user. That "they go here" statement is pretty arrogant, if you ask me.

People can put pictures wherever they want and the mods can move them if they want. As for me, because of the nature of that post, I'm more inclined to put state/US goofs here, just because.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 31, 2018, 04:07:01 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 31, 2018, 03:55:47 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 31, 2018, 12:38:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 30, 2018, 07:57:51 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/GvUeiQxnKpq
US 17 is now in NY.

Wrong thread.

Quote from: 1 on August 17, 2016, 07:04:09 AM
As of this post, the Erroneous Road Signs thread has 161 pages (I use the default of 25 posts per page), and it will just continue to grow. To reduce its rate of growth, errors that are solely US/state route mixups go here instead of in the Erroneous Road Signs and Worst of Road Signs threads.

Something similar was done a few years ago when "Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs" was created to reduce the number that went into the Worst of Road Signs thread.

If you recently posted in any of these threads with a US/state mixup, you may move the post to here by deleting the other one and pasting the content in this thread. (It doesn't have to be recent, but I'm assuming that the more recent ones will be more easily found.)

In addition to posting US/state mixups, you can post your opinion on whether this thread is necessary, at least for the first few pages.

So the creator of that thread decreed that all such posts should go in his thread, and we're all supposed to follow his directive like he's God or something? That's not a decree from a moderator, it's a statement from a user. That "they go here" statement is pretty arrogant, if you ask me.

People can put pictures wherever they want and the mods can move them if they want. As for me, because of the nature of that post, I'm more inclined to put state/US goofs here, just because.

That is true.  But if people are going to resume flooding this thread with shields of the wrong shape, then you can count me as someone who will stop visiting this thread (again).  I'm probably not the only one.  So, if you want people to actually see the signs you post, then consider putting them in the other threads.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: webny99 on October 31, 2018, 09:29:48 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 31, 2018, 03:55:47 PM
So the creator of that thread decreed that all such posts should go in his thread, and we're all supposed to follow his directive? That's not a decree from a moderator, it's a statement from a user. That "they go here" statement is pretty arrogant, if you ask me.

People can put pictures wherever they want and the mods can move them if they want. As for me, because of the nature of that post, I'm more inclined to put state/US goofs here, just because.

He raised a valid point, explained his reasoning for starting the thread, and encouraged others to post their opinion on whether the thread was necessary (which you are still welcome to do - in that thread). No need to get all worked up about it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: HTM Duke on November 09, 2018, 09:11:34 PM
I was heading back from Harrisonburg, VA last night, and spotted this unintentional primary route upgrade for SR-687:
https://goo.gl/maps/uwLwyS56nYv
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on December 15, 2018, 12:05:14 PM
On NB OH 4 in Fairfield (https://goo.gl/maps/LFsaQhSQW1A2):  So I'm allowed to treat the shoulder as part of the lane?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 18, 2018, 03:14:10 PM
Not sure if this should be posted here or in the US/SR shield mix-up thread, but this street blade along US 79 in Tennessee claims the highway is "State Route 79":
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0234805,-88.6115991,3a,15y,311.72h,86.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suUDcaziw-XPhyn4CS8JzOg!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
However, as it's in text and not a shield, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be here or in the other thread. Feel free to yell at me and/or move the post if it is the other thread that this should be in.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on December 18, 2018, 04:07:00 PM
A signing error got some media attention around here in recent days:

https://dailygazette.com/article/2018/12/17/it-s-glenville-not-glenfield-dot-admits-sign-mistake
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on December 18, 2018, 04:15:39 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 18, 2018, 03:14:10 PM
Not sure if this should be posted here or in the US/SR shield mix-up thread, but this street blade along US 79 in Tennessee claims the highway is "State Route 79":
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0234805,-88.6115991,3a,15y,311.72h,86.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suUDcaziw-XPhyn4CS8JzOg!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
However, as it's in text and not a shield, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be here or in the other thread. Feel free to yell at me and/or move the post if it is the other thread that this should be in.

I'm even more confused as Street View insists the road is "State Highway 76".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 18, 2018, 04:21:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 18, 2018, 04:15:39 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 18, 2018, 03:14:10 PM
Not sure if this should be posted here or in the US/SR shield mix-up thread, but this street blade along US 79 in Tennessee claims the highway is "State Route 79":
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0234805,-88.6115991,3a,15y,311.72h,86.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suUDcaziw-XPhyn4CS8JzOg!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
However, as it's in text and not a shield, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be here or in the other thread. Feel free to yell at me and/or move the post if it is the other thread that this should be in.

I'm even more confused as Street View insists the road is "State Highway 76".
TN 76 and US 79 do have a concurrency (sounds like a pretty long one at that), though I'm not sure if that part of the road is part of the concurrency or not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Route_76#Haywood_County

I've noticed that if a state route is concurrent with a US route, Google will more oftenly refer to it by the state route rather than the US route (or even Interstate). This is especially annoying in Alabama, where every US route has a hidden state designation.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on December 18, 2018, 04:48:42 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 18, 2018, 04:21:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 18, 2018, 04:15:39 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 18, 2018, 03:14:10 PM
Not sure if this should be posted here or in the US/SR shield mix-up thread, but this street blade along US 79 in Tennessee claims the highway is "State Route 79":
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0234805,-88.6115991,3a,15y,311.72h,86.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suUDcaziw-XPhyn4CS8JzOg!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
However, as it's in text and not a shield, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be here or in the other thread. Feel free to yell at me and/or move the post if it is the other thread that this should be in.

I'm even more confused as Street View insists the road is "State Highway 76".
TN 76 and US 79 do have a concurrency (sounds like a pretty long one at that), though I'm not sure if that part of the road is part of the concurrency or not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Route_76#Haywood_County

I've noticed that if a state route is concurrent with a US route, Google will more oftenly refer to it by the state route rather than the US route (or even Interstate). This is especially annoying in Alabama, where every US route has a hidden state designation.

Yes, that sounds annoying. Kind of makes me wonder why more states don't have rules where everything is automatically a state route, even if it says "US" or "INTERSTATE".

For example, that US-79 example in TN would be WA-79 in WA, even if the shields all say "US". Everything is basically a hidden state route (I-5 is WA-5, US-2 is WA-2, etc). So, in a sense, there is no way to mix up "SR" and "US" or "I", since legally, "SR" is always correct at the most basic level.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US 89 on December 18, 2018, 09:16:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 18, 2018, 04:48:42 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 18, 2018, 04:21:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 18, 2018, 04:15:39 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 18, 2018, 03:14:10 PM
Not sure if this should be posted here or in the US/SR shield mix-up thread, but this street blade along US 79 in Tennessee claims the highway is "State Route 79":
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0234805,-88.6115991,3a,15y,311.72h,86.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suUDcaziw-XPhyn4CS8JzOg!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
However, as it's in text and not a shield, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be here or in the other thread. Feel free to yell at me and/or move the post if it is the other thread that this should be in.

I'm even more confused as Street View insists the road is "State Highway 76".
TN 76 and US 79 do have a concurrency (sounds like a pretty long one at that), though I'm not sure if that part of the road is part of the concurrency or not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Route_76#Haywood_County

I've noticed that if a state route is concurrent with a US route, Google will more oftenly refer to it by the state route rather than the US route (or even Interstate). This is especially annoying in Alabama, where every US route has a hidden state designation.

Yes, that sounds annoying. Kind of makes me wonder why more states don't have rules where everything is automatically a state route, even if it says "US" or "INTERSTATE".

For example, that US-79 example in TN would be WA-79 in WA, even if the shields all say "US". Everything is basically a hidden state route (I-5 is WA-5, US-2 is WA-2, etc). So, in a sense, there is no way to mix up "SR" and "US" or "I", since legally, "SR" is always correct at the most basic level.

Utah is interesting in that all routes are legislatively defined as the same type of route, so I-15 is legislatively defined as SR-15, US 89 as SR-89, etc. However, US 89 is actually referenced as US 89, not SR 89. That goes for all interstate and US routes: all are defined as SR, but referenced as I or US.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on December 19, 2018, 01:29:41 AM
Quote from: US 89 on December 18, 2018, 09:16:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 18, 2018, 04:48:42 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 18, 2018, 04:21:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 18, 2018, 04:15:39 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 18, 2018, 03:14:10 PM
Not sure if this should be posted here or in the US/SR shield mix-up thread, but this street blade along US 79 in Tennessee claims the highway is "State Route 79":
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0234805,-88.6115991,3a,15y,311.72h,86.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suUDcaziw-XPhyn4CS8JzOg!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
However, as it's in text and not a shield, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be here or in the other thread. Feel free to yell at me and/or move the post if it is the other thread that this should be in.

I'm even more confused as Street View insists the road is "State Highway 76".
TN 76 and US 79 do have a concurrency (sounds like a pretty long one at that), though I'm not sure if that part of the road is part of the concurrency or not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Route_76#Haywood_County

I've noticed that if a state route is concurrent with a US route, Google will more oftenly refer to it by the state route rather than the US route (or even Interstate). This is especially annoying in Alabama, where every US route has a hidden state designation.

Yes, that sounds annoying. Kind of makes me wonder why more states don't have rules where everything is automatically a state route, even if it says "US" or "INTERSTATE".

For example, that US-79 example in TN would be WA-79 in WA, even if the shields all say "US". Everything is basically a hidden state route (I-5 is WA-5, US-2 is WA-2, etc). So, in a sense, there is no way to mix up "SR" and "US" or "I", since legally, "SR" is always correct at the most basic level.

Utah is interesting in that all routes are legislatively defined as the same type of route, so I-15 is legislatively defined as SR-15, US 89 as SR-89, etc. However, US 89 is actually referenced as US 89, not SR 89. That goes for all interstate and US routes: all are defined as SR, but referenced as I or US.

I certainly prefer the UT/WA way, where everything is state route but sometimes dressed up as something else, to the AL approach where US routes are concurrent with an entirely different state route number. The former easily prevents duplicate numbers, which is something I believe should be avoided.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 19, 2018, 02:30:34 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 19, 2018, 01:29:41 AM
Quote from: US 89 on December 18, 2018, 09:16:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 18, 2018, 04:48:42 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 18, 2018, 04:21:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 18, 2018, 04:15:39 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 18, 2018, 03:14:10 PM
Not sure if this should be posted here or in the US/SR shield mix-up thread, but this street blade along US 79 in Tennessee claims the highway is "State Route 79":
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0234805,-88.6115991,3a,15y,311.72h,86.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suUDcaziw-XPhyn4CS8JzOg!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
However, as it's in text and not a shield, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be here or in the other thread. Feel free to yell at me and/or move the post if it is the other thread that this should be in.

I'm even more confused as Street View insists the road is "State Highway 76".
TN 76 and US 79 do have a concurrency (sounds like a pretty long one at that), though I'm not sure if that part of the road is part of the concurrency or not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Route_76#Haywood_County

I've noticed that if a state route is concurrent with a US route, Google will more oftenly refer to it by the state route rather than the US route (or even Interstate). This is especially annoying in Alabama, where every US route has a hidden state designation.

Yes, that sounds annoying. Kind of makes me wonder why more states don't have rules where everything is automatically a state route, even if it says "US" or "INTERSTATE".

For example, that US-79 example in TN would be WA-79 in WA, even if the shields all say "US". Everything is basically a hidden state route (I-5 is WA-5, US-2 is WA-2, etc). So, in a sense, there is no way to mix up "SR" and "US" or "I", since legally, "SR" is always correct at the most basic level.

Utah is interesting in that all routes are legislatively defined as the same type of route, so I-15 is legislatively defined as SR-15, US 89 as SR-89, etc. However, US 89 is actually referenced as US 89, not SR 89. That goes for all interstate and US routes: all are defined as SR, but referenced as I or US.

I certainly prefer the UT/WA way, where everything is state route but sometimes dressed up as something else, to the AL approach where US routes are concurrent with an entirely different state route number. The former easily prevents duplicate numbers, which is something I believe should be avoided.
I'd prefer that for Alabama as well, especially since it'd free up some low numbers for important state route corridors (and get rid of the state routes that duplicate the interstate's numbers), as well as making any mismatched US/SR shields for the US routes technically correct.

Florida also does their hidden designations the same way as Alabama, though they at least have the excuse of using a grid system that requires them to use a different number for the US routes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on December 19, 2018, 08:41:08 AM
Georgia does it the same way as AL/FL/TN, where the US routes are essentially just an overlay on top of the existing state route system, but just doesn't see the point in hiding it. :) (And occasionally a route is better known by its state route number than its US number; it's always "highway 42" in the McDonough/Stockbridge area, for instance, not "highway 23".)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 19, 2018, 10:12:54 AM
Every US route in Tennessee has a separate state route designation. Most of the time, the state route designation is unsigned, except for the mile markers that bear the state route number. In some places, the concurrency is signed, but not very many.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on December 19, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 18, 2018, 04:48:42 PM
Kind of makes me wonder why more states don't have rules where everything is automatically a state route, even if it says "US" or "INTERSTATE".

For example, that US-79 example in TN would be WA-79 in WA, even if the shields all say "US". Everything is basically a hidden state route (I-5 is WA-5, US-2 is WA-2, etc). So, in a sense, there is no way to mix up "SR" and "US" or "I", since legally, "SR" is always correct at the most basic level.

That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications.  I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on December 19, 2018, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications. I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee

I don't see why this is ever desirable, even if duplicate route numbers are miles apart.

Why does Cicero Ave have to have a "route 50" designation?

The way the UK does it, I can sort of understand. It's one route, with one number. It can either be (for example) "A3", "M3", or "A3(M)", depending on the road, but it's still a single line on a map. That's not the case in some US states, where there could be three of the same route numbers, without any connection between them. Needlessly confusing when there's literally thousands of options for numbers...you just have to avoid the one's designated for interstates and US routes.

Is there really a chance for confusion? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how close the routes are to each other. I seem to recall some pretty bad examples in LA and NC. Regardless, it's best to just not allow it. Don't let people confuse "route X" for "US X" or "I-X". Just make everything "route X" with a fancy shield if need-be.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on December 19, 2018, 04:27:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 19, 2018, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications. I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee

I don't see why this is ever desirable, even if duplicate route numbers are miles apart.

Why does Cicero Ave have to have a "route 50" designation?

I don't see why it's undesirable.

One reason it might be desirable is to use as many lower numbers as possible, as those are arguably easier for people to read and remember.  No sense in using larger numbers when there are smaller numbers going unused.

Take, for example, MO-49.  No chance in hell it could ever be mistaken for I-49, yet you'd have the state write legislation to change the route number, the highway department put up new signage, residents and businesses change their address, etc, etc...  All for what gain?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on December 19, 2018, 04:29:15 PM
Posted either sometime this morning or very early afternoon, the perhaps first-ever documentation of a white sunflower shield.
(https://scontent.fmci1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48397009_10161180316200331_2343610868555579392_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent.fmci1-2.fna&oh=492718e44f4f2dd5b53a3f90dab951bd&oe=5C9FBFE0)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on December 19, 2018, 04:42:34 PM
Quote from: apeman33 on December 19, 2018, 04:29:15 PM
Posted either sometime this morning or very early afternoon, the perhaps first-ever documentation of a white sunflower shield.
(https://scontent.fmci1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48397009_10161180316200331_2343610868555579392_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent.fmci1-2.fna&oh=492718e44f4f2dd5b53a3f90dab951bd&oe=5C9FBFE0)

This should probably have been posted in the "Signs with Design Errors" thread, but...

Do you know if any of the other approaches have similar white sunflowers?  I'll be passing through that junction in a few days.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US 89 on December 19, 2018, 05:42:17 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 18, 2018, 04:48:42 PM
Kind of makes me wonder why more states don't have rules where everything is automatically a state route, even if it says "US" or "INTERSTATE".

For example, that US-79 example in TN would be WA-79 in WA, even if the shields all say "US". Everything is basically a hidden state route (I-5 is WA-5, US-2 is WA-2, etc). So, in a sense, there is no way to mix up "SR" and "US" or "I", since legally, "SR" is always correct at the most basic level.

That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications.  I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee.

When Utah changed to its modern system in 1977 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Utah_state_route_renumbering), it renumbered SR-50 to SR-26 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_State_Route_26) simply due to the existence of US-50 200 miles to the south. Of course, it should be noted that there were several examples from that renumbering that were far more confusing: SR-15 actually intersected I-15, as did I-84 and SR-84 (which actually was largely a parallel route to I-15/84).

As it is today, I see no problem with Utah's system. Under the old system, you could have one US highway falling under multiple legislative designations (as an example, the independent portions of US-89 were officially a combination of SR-259, 11, 258, 118, 24, 28, 32, 8, 271, 169, 49, 50, 84, 13, and 16 before 1977). And to make it more complicated, lots of those routes had independent portions signed as such that weren't part of a legislative designation.

Instead of a situation like the one above, every independent segment of US-89 is now simply designated SR-89. Keeps things much simpler.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on December 19, 2018, 07:33:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2018, 04:27:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 19, 2018, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications. I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee

I don't see why this is ever desirable, even if duplicate route numbers are miles apart.

Why does Cicero Ave have to have a "route 50" designation?

I don't see why it's undesirable.

One reason it might be desirable is to use as many lower numbers as possible, as those are arguably easier for people to read and remember.  No sense in using larger numbers when there are smaller numbers going unused.

Take, for example, MO-49.  No chance in hell it could ever be mistaken for I-49, yet you'd have the state write legislation to change the route number, the highway department put up new signage, residents and businesses change their address, etc, etc...  All for what gain?

(had to give this a bit of thought, because you make good points)

If a state currently does not use a system like Utah or Washington, where all routes are legislatively state routes, I can see why conversion to this style might not be worth the change. When CA and WA adopted this numbering style in 1964 (OR chose not to), the state highway networks were still expanding (making it the best time for a numbering change). It made sense at the time to reduce the chance of confusion for drivers, especially if the state's grid aligned too closely with the national grid, and to simplify route numbering for legislative purposes (to avoid having to use hidden or duplicate routes, a la FL or AL, to keep track of routes for maintenance, etc).

Using WA as an example, if I understand WA route numbering correctly, "SR 5" (if it weren't assigned to I-5) would have been very close to I-5, perhaps even overlapping it, due to how our grid aligns with the Interstate grid. Back in 1967, when US-12 was expanded into WA, it aligned almost exactly with existing SR-12, which (I believe) was then renumbered to SR-14, or SR-14 was expanded to cover former sections of SR-12...not sure which.

From a purely colloquial point of view, states like WA, CA, and UT get to say "route X" without having to specify further. Here in WA, using the term "US" is rather unusual; we tend to prefer "Highway" (so, "Highway 2" or "Highway 12"). The nice thing is, we're not even wrong saying that, since US-2 and US-12 are legally state highways with fancy shields. Does this make a huge difference long term? Perhaps. I guess, in the eyes of 60s/70s lawmakers, the change to the "federal route as state route" style of numbering seemed to make more sense in almost everyone's point of view.

EDIT: forgot to mention. Here in Seattle, we have our "500 series" freeways. It's possible this numbering style was chosen so that "5xx" usually meant freeway or very important Seattle-area route, because our numbering style does sometimes eliminate the ability to use lower numbers. That said, not that many interstates or US routes exist in WA to begin with, so there's probably more to it than that. But that's an option for this style of numbering, to improve route number recognition when lower numbers are taken.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on December 20, 2018, 01:01:09 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2018, 04:42:34 PM
Quote from: apeman33 on December 19, 2018, 04:29:15 PM
Posted either sometime this morning or very early afternoon, the perhaps first-ever documentation of a white sunflower shield.
(https://scontent.fmci1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48397009_10161180316200331_2343610868555579392_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent.fmci1-2.fna&oh=492718e44f4f2dd5b53a3f90dab951bd&oe=5C9FBFE0)

This should probably have been posted in the "Signs with Design Errors" thread, but...

Do you know if any of the other approaches have similar white sunflowers?  I'll be passing through that junction in a few days.

I looked around. Just this one at the time. They appeared to still be in the process of installing signs, so there might be a possibility that they could have put up at least one other.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on December 20, 2018, 06:50:34 AM
Quote from: apeman33 on December 19, 2018, 04:29:15 PM
Posted either sometime this morning or very early afternoon, the perhaps first-ever documentation of a white sunflower shield.
(https://scontent.fmci1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48397009_10161180316200331_2343610868555579392_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent.fmci1-2.fna&oh=492718e44f4f2dd5b53a3f90dab951bd&oe=5C9FBFE0)

This is hopefully not the beginning of KS shields losing their unique quality that makes it a KS shield....similar to LA losing the green from its state shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 20, 2018, 11:09:04 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2018, 04:27:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 19, 2018, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications. I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee

I don't see why this is ever desirable, even if duplicate route numbers are miles apart.

Why does Cicero Ave have to have a "route 50" designation?

I don't see why it's undesirable.

One reason it might be desirable is to use as many lower numbers as possible, as those are arguably easier for people to read and remember.  No sense in using larger numbers when there are smaller numbers going unused.

Take, for example, MO-49.  No chance in hell it could ever be mistaken for I-49, yet you'd have the state write legislation to change the route number, the highway department put up new signage, residents and businesses change their address, etc, etc...  All for what gain?

I don't know if Kentucky has given any thought to changing the number of KY 69 because of the presence of I-69 in the state now. If so, it could be done here administratively, as route numbers are not written into statute.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on December 20, 2018, 12:26:52 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on December 20, 2018, 06:50:34 AM
This is hopefully not the beginning of KS shields losing their unique quality that makes it a KS shield....similar to LA losing the green from its state shields.

Road construction signage variances should never be taken as indicative of actual future changes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mccojm on December 20, 2018, 02:46:15 PM
Found this error on wb ny-25a just east on ny-110 in Huntington.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181220/a1e493af0b61e8eef52a499a58dbeeea.jpg)


iPhone
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on December 20, 2018, 03:23:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 20, 2018, 12:26:52 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on December 20, 2018, 06:50:34 AM
This is hopefully not the beginning of KS shields losing their unique quality that makes it a KS shield....similar to LA losing the green from its state shields.

Road construction signage variances should never be taken as indicative of actual future changes.

It wouldn't make sense for Kansas to change to white. At least, not for the reasons Louisiana did.

Green Louisiana shields were made by printing with green ink on white sheeting. This green ink was more expensive, and tended to fade faster than black ink does. Thus, LaDOTD decided it was more economical to go to black and white.

K-shields are printed with black ink on yellow sheeting. They already have to have yellow sheeting around for warning signs, so it's not any more expensive than it would be to print on white, and they use the same black ink they use for warnings, US route shields, regulatory signs, etc. So the only reason Kansas would abandon the yellow sunflower is if they just thought it looked better. And that would be silly, because if a flower is white, it's not a sunflower.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on December 20, 2018, 05:00:43 PM
Quote from: Mccojm on December 20, 2018, 02:46:15 PM
Found this error on wb ny-25a just east on ny-110 in Huntington.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181220/a1e493af0b61e8eef52a499a58dbeeea.jpg)

On loan from West Virginia?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on December 20, 2018, 05:12:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 19, 2018, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications. I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee

I don't see why this is ever desirable, even if duplicate route numbers are miles apart.

Why does Cicero Ave have to have a "route 50" designation?

Because it was designated as State Bond Issue (SBI) Route 50 prior to the US highway system being designated in Illinois.  It's also an entirely different route (as Illinois 50) than US-50 downstate.  No one would ever confuse the two.

Here's a closer example, M-96 and I-96 in Michigan.  Again, even though these are much closer together than the Illinois example (IL-50 and US-50), no one ever gets them confused as one is "M-96" and the other is "I-96" or "96".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on December 20, 2018, 05:33:30 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 20, 2018, 05:12:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 19, 2018, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications. I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee

I don't see why this is ever desirable, even if duplicate route numbers are miles apart.

Why does Cicero Ave have to have a "route 50" designation?

Because it was designated as State Bond Issue (SBI) Route 50 prior to the US highway system being designated in Illinois.  It's also an entirely different route (as Illinois 50) than US-50 downstate.  No one would ever confuse the two.

Here's a closer example, M-96 and I-96 in Michigan.  Again, even though these are much closer together than the Illinois example (IL-50 and US-50), no one ever gets them confused as one is "M-96" and the other is "I-96" or "96".

Read my post above, Brandon. And don't give people too much credit. I was just talking to somebody the other day who was confused by the existence of signals on the corners of intersections. People are really fucking stupid. WA (and other states) were in a position in the 1960s to overhaul their route number systems to eliminate even the slightest chance of confusion, but as states slow down highway construction, I see no reason to change things these days.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on December 20, 2018, 05:44:04 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 20, 2018, 05:00:43 PM
Quote from: Mccojm on December 20, 2018, 02:46:15 PM
Found this error on wb ny-25a just east on ny-110 in Huntington.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181220/a1e493af0b61e8eef52a499a58dbeeea.jpg)

On loan from West Virginia?

Or pointing to Connecticut 110 across the sound.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on January 18, 2019, 10:52:09 AM
Quote from: jbnv on March 18, 2018, 07:06:23 PM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 18, 2018, 05:51:14 PM

This Monstrosity in Fargo on an I-29 Exit Ramp. https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8324795,-96.8377222,3a,26.8y,57.65h,93.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMZ8s5SddEXw-m7K2yQo8Iw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DMZ8s5SddEXw-m7K2yQo8Iw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D62.58203%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

I think it's time for someone to step away from the keyboard. Your link shows a random traffic light.


Yeah when I was little there was a Green Light coming from a seperate light, and I thought the Green was with the red signal.  :pan: :banghead:  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on January 18, 2019, 11:27:35 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2018, 03:23:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 20, 2018, 12:26:52 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on December 20, 2018, 06:50:34 AM
This is hopefully not the beginning of KS shields losing their unique quality that makes it a KS shield....similar to LA losing the green from its state shields.

Road construction signage variances should never be taken as indicative of actual future changes.

It wouldn't make sense for Kansas to change to white. At least, not for the reasons Louisiana did.

Green Louisiana shields were made by printing with green ink on white sheeting. This green ink was more expensive, and tended to fade faster than black ink does. Thus, LaDOTD decided it was more economical to go to black and white.

K-shields are printed with black ink on yellow sheeting. They already have to have yellow sheeting around for warning signs, so it's not any more expensive than it would be to print on white, and they use the same black ink they use for warnings, US route shields, regulatory signs, etc. So the only reason Kansas would abandon the yellow sunflower is if they just thought it looked better. And that would be silly, because if a flower is white, it's not a sunflower.

I have never seen a green Louisiana shield fade. Do you have pics of any?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on February 24, 2019, 11:39:02 AM
This stop ahead sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7932548,-74.7732945,3a,75y,227.55h,80.9t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1st0xar-nUonJvyQasSMJo2Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dt0xar-nUonJvyQasSMJo2Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D89.85793%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100) along CR 534 in BurlCo, NJ states the stop sign is 857 feet. Not only is the distance an oddball amount, it's incorrect. The centerline distance to the stop bar is about 764 feet while the actual 857-foot measurement puts it past the intersection to the stop bar on the opposite side of the intersection.
(https://i.imgur.com/CGkRlys.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 02, 2019, 07:41:18 PM
This assembly in Crestline, KS https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/47472796512/ has it showing both N Bound US 69 and E Bound US 160 going left and straight.  In reality both implied directions are straight and to the left is SB US 69 and WB US 160.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on May 06, 2019, 04:09:53 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190506/67d4fe9a29e18f2d09e6b4efa7397083.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on May 07, 2019, 05:23:32 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 06, 2019, 04:09:53 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190506/67d4fe9a29e18f2d09e6b4efa7397083.jpg)

Is Mt. Nuie in Hawaii?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on May 07, 2019, 08:38:38 AM
Quote from: formulanone on May 07, 2019, 05:23:32 AM
Is Mt. Nuie in Hawaii?

Could be, but that particular reference is in Phoenix.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on May 27, 2019, 12:01:39 AM
I think you've got the wrong 390 there, fellas: https://goo.gl/maps/QCrWRUSgbhsB61Mp6
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on June 01, 2019, 09:54:11 AM
Lexington, MA. If it was construction orange, it would be fine, but it is warning yellow. (I didn't see anything that would require it to be orange, so it should be white.)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47978807262_4f8b4af2e3_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 01, 2019, 11:49:09 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 01, 2019, 09:54:11 AM
Lexington, MA. If it was construction orange, it would be fine, but it is warning yellow. (I didn't see anything that would require it to be orange, so it should be white.)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47978807262_4f8b4af2e3_c.jpg)

Must not be regulatory in nature, then.  Ignore it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on June 01, 2019, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 01, 2019, 11:49:09 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 01, 2019, 09:54:11 AM
Lexington, MA. If it was construction orange, it would be fine, but it is warning yellow. (I didn't see anything that would require it to be orange, so it should be white.)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47978807262_4f8b4af2e3_c.jpg)

Must not be regulatory in nature, then.  Ignore it.

:-D  :-D  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on June 01, 2019, 09:21:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 01, 2019, 11:49:09 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 01, 2019, 09:54:11 AM
Lexington, MA. If it was construction orange, it would be fine, but it is warning yellow. (I didn't see anything that would require it to be orange, so it should be white.)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47978807262_4f8b4af2e3_c.jpg)

Must not be regulatory in nature, then.  Ignore it.
Unless you see this: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7083.msg181768#msg181768
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ce929wax on June 03, 2019, 06:56:03 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/181820210@N04/47996752912/in/dateposted-public/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/181820210@N04/47996752912/in/dateposted-public/)

Saw this in Shelbyville, IN last Thursday.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 04, 2019, 01:06:52 PM
Quote from: ce929wax on June 03, 2019, 06:56:03 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/181820210@N04/47996752912/in/dateposted-public/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/181820210@N04/47996752912/in/dateposted-public/)

Saw this in Shelbyville, IN last Thursday.

Those have been there for ages. I'm surprised they haven't been fixed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on June 06, 2019, 03:51:13 PM
Saw this an hour ago.

The arrow under VA 33 should be pointing left. This is at the top of the ramp from I-64 WB at Exit 205

Image from GSV(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190606/8346140e2234d4bf344b600d37cfce99.jpg)

SM-S820L

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on June 06, 2019, 04:16:33 PM
https://twitter.com/stanleyroberts/status/1136704254880600064?s=21
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman on June 06, 2019, 04:40:10 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 06, 2019, 04:16:33 PM
https://twitter.com/stanleyroberts/status/1136704254880600064?s=21

South America, take it away!  One of my all-time favorite Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on June 06, 2019, 05:13:24 PM
Stanley Roberts really showing his age with that joke. Had to look it up myself.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 07, 2019, 08:13:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 06, 2019, 05:13:24 PM
Stanley Roberts really showing his age with that joke. Had to look it up myself.

Chris Lokken (not sure if he's a member here or not, but most roadgeeks should recognize the name) regularly uses that GIF when someone posts a stupid news story originating in Florida.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 11, 2019, 10:43:38 AM
Quote from: plain on June 06, 2019, 03:51:13 PM
Saw this an hour ago.

The arrow under VA 33 should be pointing left. This is at the top of the ramp from I-64 WB at Exit 205

Image from GSV(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190606/8346140e2234d4bf344b600d37cfce99.jpg)

SM-S820L



This interchange has a lot of problems - the EB offramp from I-64 has a US 33 shield instead of a VA 33 shield, and it's been there for quite a while.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US 89 on June 11, 2019, 02:10:15 PM
Here are a few from eastern Idaho. If these have been posted before, I didn't see them.

(https://i.imgur.com/IC8U7Nk.jpg)

(sorry about picture quality, it had just started to rain.) The right sign is incorrect, as this isn't Business 26 or even mainline 26. If there's a 26 up there at all, there should be a "TO", since Business 15/20 doesn't reach US 26 until downtown in a mile or so.

(https://i.imgur.com/T8FVE6x.jpg)

Along the same lines as the previous sign, but this one seems to imply this road is Business 20 to US 26 and BL-15. This time the 26 is correct, but this road actually is BL-15. A simple rearrangement of the shields would fix this.

(https://i.imgur.com/YiEQyEZ.jpg)

More inconsistent than wrong but I feel it deserved to be posted here. If the "TO" on the left sign also applies to US 20 (which it should), then the "BUSINESS" on the right sign would apply to US 26 (which it shouldn't, as that's mainline 26).

(https://i.imgur.com/vzqSWi5.jpg)

This is just a shield error but it's an uncommon one with a lot of potential for confusion. The I-15 shield on Exit 71 should be a Business Loop 15.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 14, 2019, 09:31:34 AM
US 87 in Texas?  Yes the US route does go through Texas, but it does not travel into Galveston.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48061021698_af76e3746b_k_d.jpg)
This is one of two errors as another US 87 shield is along Seawall Blvd. and Ferry Road.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 14, 2019, 03:25:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 14, 2019, 09:31:34 AM
US 87 in Texas? 

Aaaarrrrrgggghhhhhh! (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.msg2167371#msg2167371)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 15, 2019, 12:10:26 AM
It is erroneous!  Who really cares where it goes?  This is why you have many come and go from here, because of the technical stuff.  I will tell you what, when I post the other US 87 shield on Seawall, I will post it there to make you happy.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: David Jr. on June 15, 2019, 01:38:05 PM
This is in Springfield, IL, BL-55/Peoria Rd at Taintor Road.  As per Jerry McClanahan's EZ 66 Guide, the Historic Route 66 sign is wrong:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8426448,-89.6327978,3a,15y,223.21h,88.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMJmsHhc4lr_PEsgWQbikeA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8426448,-89.6327978,3a,15y,223.21h,88.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMJmsHhc4lr_PEsgWQbikeA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on June 15, 2019, 06:46:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2019, 12:10:26 AM
It is erroneous!  Who really cares where it goes?  This is why you have many come and go from here, because of the technical stuff.  I will tell you what, when I post the other US 87 shield on Seawall, I will post it there to make you happy.

It's erroneous but it's an extremely common error. Which is why it has its own thread. Otherwise this thread would be a veritable dumping ground for mix-ups, with only the occasional truly odd error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Verlanka on June 16, 2019, 06:43:46 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 15, 2019, 06:46:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2019, 12:10:26 AM
It is erroneous!  Who really cares where it goes?  This is why you have many come and go from here, because of the technical stuff.  I will tell you what, when I post the other US 87 shield on Seawall, I will post it there to make you happy.

It's erroneous but it's an extremely common error. Which is why it has its own thread. Otherwise this thread would be a veritable dumping ground for mix-ups, with only the occasional truly odd error.
I agree.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on June 20, 2019, 08:46:45 PM
Two Farm-to-Market roads that are posted as state highways along I-35:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48100335608_9ae1b94281_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ghsMZb)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48100335723_010299cf4e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ghsN2a)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on June 23, 2019, 09:44:51 AM
I'm very tolerant of ugly temporary signs during roadwork projects, but it ticks me off no end when existing signs aren't properly covered or altered when traffic patterns are changed.  My current rant is this one on northbound I-75 approaching I-94 in Detroit.  The ramps to 94 westbound are closed for most of this year.  A sign crew covered the westbound control city (Chicago) but not the Exit Only banner, which points to a lane that is closed just a couple hundred feet beyond.  I drive this most weekday afternoons and constantly see vehicles move into the right lane only to have to immediately merge back to the left.  Same situation on the southbound side.  Stupid.

(https://i.imgur.com/f4ULjxX.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on June 23, 2019, 03:47:16 PM
^ I've never seen a sign covered with a floating panel like this before. In Nevada, a cover obscuring sign element like this would be affixed directly to the main sign by rivets or using tarp taped to the sign.

If they went through the trouble to cover an element of the sign like this for a long-term closure, they could have found a way to cover the exit only message to say something like "Exit 1/2 mile" (or whatever) to reflect the lane condition due to said closure.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on June 23, 2019, 05:34:36 PM
^^  Michigan used to attach temporary panels with rivets or even what appeared to be duct tape, but these damaged the signs.  MDOT's standard for many years has been to attach "floating" covering panels with brackets.

My point (in agreement with your statement) is that the Exit Only banner should have been covered, maybe with a non-yellow backed dancing arrow.  In retrospect, I suppose I can't fault the sign crew.  It's almost a certainty the temporary sign plans were part of the contract specs issued by MDOT.  It would have been nice had the contractor pointed out the idiocy of this particular one, but no doubt it was hardly high on his list of concerns.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 23, 2019, 09:49:15 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 23, 2019, 05:34:36 PM
^^  Michigan used to attach temporary panels with rivets or even what appeared to be duct tape, but these damaged the signs.  MDOT's standard for many years has been to attach "floating" covering panels with brackets.

My point (in agreement with your statement) is that the Exit Only banner should have been covered, maybe with a non-yellow backed dancing arrow.  In retrospect, I suppose I can't fault the sign crew.  It's almost a certainty the temporary sign plans were part of the contract specs issued by MDOT.  It would have been nice had the contractor pointed out the idiocy of this particular one, but no doubt it was hardly high on his list of concerns.


I seem to remember back in the mid 80s, during a family cross-country vacation trip, one state in the center of the country (Iowa? Nebraska?) installed wooden "hurdles" in front of the ground-mounted BGSs to 'block out' the line(s) of text/control city that was not able to be accessed from that particular exit (likely due to a closed road/signed route). 

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on June 30, 2019, 09:35:57 AM
Crap like this is what happens when there are multiple roadwork projects and no coordination of signing.


(https://i.imgur.com/g4DSLji.jpg)


(https://i.imgur.com/0K00NiG.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 30, 2019, 10:26:03 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 30, 2019, 09:35:57 AM
Crap like this is what happens when there are multiple roadwork projects and no coordination of signing.


(https://i.imgur.com/g4DSLji.jpg)


(https://i.imgur.com/0K00NiG.jpg)


Unfortunately, the closeup of the pics lends itself to not seeing the big picture.  For the first pic, if there was a ramp split, the detour sign could be used to show motorists to keep to the left, then immediately after is the detour sign showing people to take the next exit.

The bottom pic is certainly two different projects, and while one ends just before the next one begins, the projects are on different schedules and signage used for one project is independent of another project.  When it comes to contracts and signing responsibilities, it's surprisingly difficult to coordinate two different projects.  Many contractors don't want to be involved with another project in any way as if an incident or accident were to happen, suddenly both contractors are going to find themselves under investigation for liability.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TEG24601 on June 30, 2019, 10:28:04 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 30, 2019, 09:35:57 AM
Crap like this is what happens when there are multiple roadwork projects and no coordination of signing.


(https://i.imgur.com/g4DSLji.jpg)
I have no faith in this one, as they couldn't even afford the M on the route marker (the digital sign says M 8, so I can assume by that and the traffic signals, that this is Detroit).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on June 30, 2019, 07:30:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 30, 2019, 10:26:03 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 30, 2019, 09:35:57 AM
Crap like this is what happens when there are multiple roadwork projects and no coordination of signing.


(https://i.imgur.com/g4DSLji.jpg)


(https://i.imgur.com/0K00NiG.jpg)


Unfortunately, the closeup of the pics lends itself to not seeing the big picture.  For the first pic, if there was a ramp split, the detour sign could be used to show motorists to keep to the left, then immediately after is the detour sign showing people to take the next exit.

The bottom pic is certainly two different projects, and while one ends just before the next one begins, the projects are on different schedules and signage used for one project is independent of another project.  When it comes to contracts and signing responsibilities, it's surprisingly difficult to coordinate two different projects.  Many contractors don't want to be involved with another project in any way as if an incident or accident were to happen, suddenly both contractors are going to find themselves under investigation for liability.

Top photo:  There was no ramp split; these are signs belonging to two separate projects along different stretches of M-8 in Detroit (one sign for each).  This was on northbound M-10 approaching M-8; the interchange has a left exit to westbound M-8 and a right exit to eastbound M-8.  This one perhaps is not so much erroneous as it is careless with each respective contractor not covering its signs when its detour was not in effect.  I'm sure most contractors don't want to be involved in any way with other projects, so let's call it an MDOT fail for not requiring its contractors to properly maintain signs including covering those not applicable at a particular time.  Bottom line is that's little consolation for the northbound motorist wishing to exit to westbound M-8 and completely confused as to whether he may do so. 

Bottom photo:  Both projects are happening simultaneously, on the same city road, overseen by the same city road engineering department.  This one at least doesn't send motorists down the wrong road, but again let's call it an overseeing agency fail.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 16, 2019, 10:26:22 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/QGFiQh96wAywVv9j7
This should read WEST US 30 and not TO as its on US 30 W Bound.   US 30 turns left onto Girard Avenue from 34th Street.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: fwydriver405 on August 17, 2019, 04:34:22 AM
Until around 2017-18 ish, there was a speed limit sign à la Oregon on East Avenue in Lewiston, Maine. I last saw this sign on 30 September 2016, but recent Street View images suggest the sign was taken down. 

Oregon styled SPEED 30 sign in Lewiston, Maine (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0874206,-70.200542,3a,42.5y,275.82h,70.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZOWA8vwG9vTlF4jzLnMj9g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on August 17, 2019, 01:30:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 16, 2019, 10:26:22 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/QGFiQh96wAywVv9j7
This should read WEST US 30 and not TO as its on US 30 W Bound.   US 30 turns left onto Girard Avenue from 34th Street.

the signs are aimed at NB traffic on 34th St, not the people who just merged onto 34th St from I-76 WB exit 342 (carrying US 30 WB as well). if you consider this sign from that perspective, it would be incorrect as you suggest; it would imply you DON'T get to US 30 EB by turning left there (which you do).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 17, 2019, 06:09:09 PM
Quote from: odditude on August 17, 2019, 01:30:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 16, 2019, 10:26:22 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/QGFiQh96wAywVv9j7
This should read WEST US 30 and not TO as its on US 30 W Bound.   US 30 turns left onto Girard Avenue from 34th Street.

the signs are aimed at NB traffic on 34th St, not the people who just merged onto 34th St from I-76 WB exit 342 (carrying US 30 WB as well). if you consider this sign from that perspective, it would be incorrect as you suggest; it would imply you DON'T get to US 30 EB by turning left there (which you do).
Yeah a catch 22 here, but still for those exiting at Exit 342 and following US 30 W Bound its incorrect.  Even though like you say for 34th Street N Bound its not incorrect as that is US 13 junctioning with US 30 there it still be better if a West sign be there and a TO East for the other direction. 

At least they got this signed. I must admit, as the rest of US 13 is poorly signed.  Go across the river from here on Girard and see how the 33rd Street intersection is signed where US 13 North turns left again.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 12, 2019, 04:15:19 PM
A new one, found completely via Google Street View:
Check out the "P" in "IndianaPolis".  Demountable copy Clearview to boot.
https://goo.gl/maps/Cc1DzxYvog3c4bD97
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CardInLex on September 14, 2019, 10:49:53 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 12, 2019, 04:15:19 PM
A new one, found completely via Google Street View:
Check out the "P" in "IndianaPolis".  Demountable copy Clearview to boot.
https://goo.gl/maps/Cc1DzxYvog3c4bD97

This whole stretch is embarrassing.

Muhammad Ali Blvd
1/2 MILE (upside down W for an M and some handcrafted numerals)
https://goo.gl/maps/o4Z1fUyXaMtSFeQTA

Dr. M.L. King, Jr.
EXpreSSway
https://goo.gl/maps/p4G4NLyfTXsZ67fb6

These signs were altered for MOT during the Ohio River Bridges Project and were put back poorly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on September 15, 2019, 12:31:32 AM
Quote from: CardInLex on September 14, 2019, 10:49:53 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 12, 2019, 04:15:19 PM
A new one, found completely via Google Street View:
Check out the "P" in "IndianaPolis".  Demountable copy Clearview to boot.
https://goo.gl/maps/Cc1DzxYvog3c4bD97

This whole stretch is embarrassing.

Muhammad Ali Blvd
1/2 MILE (upside down W for an M and some handcrafted numerals)
https://goo.gl/maps/o4Z1fUyXaMtSFeQTA

Dr. M.L. King, Jr.
EXpreSSway
https://goo.gl/maps/p4G4NLyfTXsZ67fb6

These signs were altered for MOT during the Ohio River Bridges Project and were put back poorly.

These aren't erroneous; just sloppy.  There are other threads for ugly signs.
Title: Erroneous road signs
Post by: fillup420 on September 15, 2019, 07:45:49 AM
upside down sign for the beginning of a median. was like that for at least 5 years. one night i passed it and had enough, so i flipped it right myself. Google maps hasn't yet updated to reflect my guerrilla public service.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/3240+Blowing+Rock+Blvd,+Lenoir,+NC+28645/@36.0091592,-81.5713453,3a,75y,164.31h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s61d7STmLFk2nQtUkt6XLEQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x8850e0e2ba72b963:0xab6e2778a14823af

edit: you gotta turn around on the street view. its the yellow diamond sign before the median begins.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 15, 2019, 10:30:19 AM
Quote from: CardInLex on September 14, 2019, 10:49:53 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 12, 2019, 04:15:19 PM
A new one, found completely via Google Street View:
Check out the "P" in "IndianaPolis".  Demountable copy Clearview to boot.
https://goo.gl/maps/Cc1DzxYvog3c4bD97

This whole stretch is embarrassing.

Muhammad Ali Blvd
1/2 MILE (upside down W for an M and some handcrafted numerals)
https://goo.gl/maps/o4Z1fUyXaMtSFeQTA

Dr. M.L. King, Jr.
EXpreSSway
https://goo.gl/maps/p4G4NLyfTXsZ67fb6

These signs were altered for MOT during the Ohio River Bridges Project and were put back poorly.

That ML King one is a candidate for the Worst thread.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 11:23:17 AM
Heh. My wife normally rolls her eyes if I show her a bad road sign, but even she grimaced at that MLK sign and said, "Some people have NO quality control."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US 89 on September 15, 2019, 02:17:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 11:23:17 AM
Heh. My wife normally rolls her eyes if I show her a bad road sign, but even she grimaced at that MLK sign and said, "Some people have NO quality control."

That's arguably worse than the old CrAiG cOuNtY sign. It's an overhead BGS on an interstate, which should really be held to a higher standard than everyday road signs. And then it has Clearview thrown in for good measure.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CardInLex on September 16, 2019, 04:56:20 PM
Quote from: US 89 on September 15, 2019, 02:17:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 11:23:17 AM
Heh. My wife normally rolls her eyes if I show her a bad road sign, but even she grimaced at that MLK sign and said, "Some people have NO quality control."

That's arguably worse than the old CrAiG cOuNtY sign. It's an overhead BGS on an interstate, which should really be held to a higher standard than everyday road signs. And then it has Clearview thrown in for good measure.

Yes. I believe during construction the word "expressway"  was removed so two arrows could be installed to point to lanes for maintenance of traffic. I wish KYTC would go ahead and replace both signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 16, 2019, 07:44:16 PM
Report them here:

https://bpm.kytc.ky.gov/ApplicationBuilder/eFormRender.html?code=810A005056A2147711773A3B03F6EFEF&Process=PA-DV-ReportAPothole

The link says "Report a Pothole" but you can select a "Sign" button to report the problematic signage.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 26, 2019, 06:15:47 PM
Looking through last year's Calgary photos, I found that the 566 shield on this overhead should be a Secondary shield (an oval), not an Alberta Primary. Northbound on AB2 - Deerfoot Trail:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48796610777_b2311e4b12_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hkZokt)

I also like the "LANE ENDS", with the diagrammatic above it. Kind of pointless, but it makes you take note of it on a wide gantry.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on September 27, 2019, 01:30:17 AM
Quote from: formulanone on September 26, 2019, 06:15:47 PM
I also like the "LANE ENDS", with the diagrammatic above it. Kind of pointless, but it make you take note of it on a wide gantry.

I've seen similar signs in Vancouver (https://goo.gl/maps/wkRhg6qjyUEZzcEN8), although the symbol was black on yellow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MNHighwayMan on September 27, 2019, 05:58:31 AM
I wonder if the residents of Balzac know what the name of their town sounds like.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 27, 2019, 01:15:51 PM
Well Connecticut has Cockaponset State Forest, so it could be worse. It's near CT Route 9 in the Haddam area (Middlesex County). ;)

https://goo.gl/maps/n9jhBVe4PBa5a2xD7

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on September 27, 2019, 02:33:54 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on September 27, 2019, 05:58:31 AM
I wonder if the residents of Balzac know what the name of their town sounds like.

I'll bet members of competing towns' sports teams do!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 30, 2019, 11:07:41 AM
I was not able to get a picture, but some signs on VA 6 in Goochland County were replaced, and some of the VA 310 shields ended up becoming SR 310 shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.647836,-77.8274843,3a,75y,135.06h,86.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swT0LdFf-CLyWB6PZqofD_g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) instead.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 02, 2019, 09:23:58 AM
Just found this nice install while perusing around a Street View link (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9424338,-85.6517257,3a,31.9y,134.66h,88.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snAtrEq61avcamjDJPEt02w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en):

(https://i.imgur.com/iwyHO8b.png)

Curious as to how someone would even make that maneuver.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MNHighwayMan on October 02, 2019, 09:31:14 AM
Clearly, it's just warning oncoming traffic that U-turns are prohibited from the other direction. :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 02, 2019, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 02, 2019, 09:31:14 AM
Clearly, it's just warning oncoming traffic that U-turns are prohibited from the other direction. :)

No, no, it's regulatory.  It's telling you not to do a U-turn there on your way back.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 03, 2019, 03:11:17 AM
Is that regulatory sign common in MI? The one about completing turns after traffic clears?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MNHighwayMan on October 03, 2019, 09:01:27 AM
Do people really just sit in the middle of the intersection if the light turns red? I mean, I can believe that someone would be that dumb, but... enough people dumb enough to require a sign?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 03, 2019, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2019, 03:11:17 AM
Is that regulatory sign common in MI? The one about completing turns after traffic clears?

I've been around MI a lot, and can't say I've ever seen that top sign. This should be used instead:

(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0591%2F4033%2Ffiles%2Fleft_turn_yield_on_green_large.PNG%3F6886981329834249898&f=1&nofb=1)

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 03, 2019, 09:01:27 AM
Do people really just sit in the middle of the intersection if the light turns red? I mean, I can believe that someone would be that dumb, but... enough people dumb enough to require a sign?

Sometimes, yes, it takes people a while to figure out that the light actually changed. Better yet, there's always the people who sit at the line while the light's green when they should be pulling forward looking for an opportunity to turn, or at the very least claiming a spot for them (and sometimes someone behind) to turn once the light does change.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on October 04, 2019, 09:54:24 PM
Seen on my travels a couple weeks ago: this sign on westbound OK 32 near Lebanon informs the driver that it's 12 miles to OK 775. But there is no such route; that should read SH-77S – the letter S, not the digit 5.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2Froadphotos%2Foksh775.jpg&hash=b36c8ccec65ac496cda83698e1356ac21232c2b2)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 05, 2019, 02:25:05 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 03, 2019, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2019, 03:11:17 AM
Is that regulatory sign common in MI? The one about completing turns after traffic clears?

I've been around MI a lot, and can't say I've ever seen that top sign. This should be used instead:

[clipped]

I'm guessing that sign may have been used at one point, but they swapped it out? Either way, pretty cool sign, and might be helpful in areas where drivers don't always pull forward (and hang out behind the line).

Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 03, 2019, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 03, 2019, 09:01:27 AM
Do people really just sit in the middle of the intersection if the light turns red? I mean, I can believe that someone would be that dumb, but... enough people dumb enough to require a sign?

Sometimes, yes, it takes people a while to figure out that the light actually changed. Better yet, there's always the people who sit at the line while the light's green when they should be pulling forward looking for an opportunity to turn, or at the very least claiming a spot for them (and sometimes someone behind) to turn once the light does change.

Michigan could benefit from some more left-side post-mounted signals. Sometimes when you pull forward, you can't see the signal. You're obviously watching oncoming traffic, so the overhead light is mostly out of your peripheral vision. This isn't a problem in MN but would be an issue in other states like MI.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kendancy66 on October 05, 2019, 11:25:19 PM
Can anyone explain why a divided highway sign would be placed in this location on the shoulder on I-405 South?

https://goo.gl/maps/AsiqjnXjsfijC7Co9
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Occidental Tourist on October 05, 2019, 11:37:46 PM
Quote from: kendancy66 on October 05, 2019, 11:25:19 PM
Can anyone explain why a divided highway sign would be placed in this location on the shoulder on I-405 South?

https://goo.gl/maps/AsiqjnXjsfijC7Co9

Because the people who work for District 12 are bad at their jobs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on October 06, 2019, 12:02:23 AM
Quote from: kendancy66 on October 05, 2019, 11:25:19 PM
Can anyone explain why a divided highway sign would be placed in this location on the shoulder on I-405 South?

https://goo.gl/maps/AsiqjnXjsfijC7Co9
And what are they enforcing by radar?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 06, 2019, 01:32:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2019, 02:25:05 AM
Michigan could benefit from some more left-side post-mounted signals. Sometimes when you pull forward, you can't see the signal. You're obviously watching oncoming traffic, so the overhead light is mostly out of your peripheral vision. This isn't a problem in MN but would be an issue in other states like MI.

I would very much agree. In cases where the signal is not visible if you pull up, I can understand people staying back. However, where I'm at in Illinois (the land of slapping up 6 or more signal heads for each direction), people don't have that excuse.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 06, 2019, 11:39:50 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 06, 2019, 01:32:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2019, 02:25:05 AM
Michigan could benefit from some more left-side post-mounted signals. Sometimes when you pull forward, you can't see the signal. You're obviously watching oncoming traffic, so the overhead light is mostly out of your peripheral vision. This isn't a problem in MN but would be an issue in other states like MI.

I would very much agree. In cases where the signal is not visible if you pull up, I can understand people staying back. However, where I'm at in Illinois (the land of slapping up 6 or more signal heads for each direction), people don't have that excuse.

Totally. And in BC, it's a not a problem either. Very similar standards to Illinois, minus the near-side stop-line signal that is common in most of Illinois. No matter how far you pull forward, there's always a signal on the left. BC puts theirs at the same level as the pedestrian head, so it's even more visible:

(https://i.imgur.com/4YoxCoM.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheGrassGuy on December 01, 2019, 04:44:56 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 02, 2019, 09:31:14 AM
Clearly, it's just warning oncoming traffic that U-turns are prohibited from the other direction. :)
For real, or sarcasm?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MNHighwayMan on December 02, 2019, 01:52:08 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 01, 2019, 04:44:56 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 02, 2019, 09:31:14 AM
Clearly, it's just warning oncoming traffic that U-turns are prohibited from the other direction. :)
For real, or sarcasm?

Perhaps take a hint from the smiley.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MarkF on December 02, 2019, 02:04:38 AM
Quote from: kendancy66 on October 05, 2019, 11:25:19 PM
Can anyone explain why a divided highway sign would be placed in this location on the shoulder on I-405 South?

https://goo.gl/maps/AsiqjnXjsfijC7Co9

That sign went up when it was a construction area, and was left there after it completed.  Made no sense to have it there then or now.  My guess is a speed limit sign is supposed to be there.  You wonder how this stuff happens, maybe they see it as a joke?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on December 02, 2019, 10:56:00 PM
Quote from: MarkF on December 02, 2019, 02:04:38 AM
Quote from: kendancy66 on October 05, 2019, 11:25:19 PM
Can anyone explain why a divided highway sign would be placed in this location on the shoulder on I-405 South?

https://goo.gl/maps/AsiqjnXjsfijC7Co9

That sign went up when it was a construction area, and was left there after it completed.  Made no sense to have it there then or now.  My guess is a speed limit sign is supposed to be there.  You wonder how this stuff happens, maybe they see it as a joke?

Idk, most states enforce their divided highways by radar. /s
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on December 03, 2019, 12:04:58 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 02, 2019, 10:56:00 PM

Quote from: MarkF on December 02, 2019, 02:04:38 AM

Quote from: kendancy66 on October 05, 2019, 11:25:19 PM
Can anyone explain why a divided highway sign would be placed in this location on the shoulder on I-405 South?

https://goo.gl/maps/AsiqjnXjsfijC7Co9

That sign went up when it was a construction area, and was left there after it completed.  Made no sense to have it there then or now.  My guess is a speed limit sign is supposed to be there.  You wonder how this stuff happens, maybe they see it as a joke?

Idk, most states enforce their divided highways by radar. /s

White rectangles = Regulatory signs.

Therefore I can only assume that people are not allowed to drive on the left side of the freeway there, and such is enforced by radar detection.  It's the only answer that makes sense.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JMoses24 on December 10, 2019, 02:12:41 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 29, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure :nod: this is a goof:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTlN9Ey2.jpg&hash=c0baa9041031d9d679bcdaf458213240d68d965c)

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

Still there in 2019.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadsguy on December 12, 2019, 12:54:42 PM
Eastbound US 30 in Lancaster, PA has a concurrency with itself if this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/WDMPSuxAdPJKkvCp6) is to be believed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on December 12, 2019, 06:12:01 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 12, 2019, 12:54:42 PM
Eastbound US 30 in Lancaster, PA has a concurrency with itself if this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/WDMPSuxAdPJKkvCp6) is to be believed.

Actually, in some states, that is a common signing practice.  Michigan, for example:
 
https://goo.gl/maps/w4udFm1JKDMR8sJz6
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheGrassGuy on December 13, 2019, 04:57:46 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on December 10, 2019, 02:12:41 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 29, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure :nod: this is a goof:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTlN9Ey2.jpg&hash=c0baa9041031d9d679bcdaf458213240d68d965c)

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

Still there in 2019.
There used to be a LOT of signs like that on the GSP down in NJ. Thank goodness they renumbered the exits a few years ago.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on December 13, 2019, 05:07:25 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 13, 2019, 04:57:46 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on December 10, 2019, 02:12:41 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 29, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure :nod: this is a goof:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTlN9Ey2.jpg&hash=c0baa9041031d9d679bcdaf458213240d68d965c)

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

Still there in 2019.
There used to be a LOT of signs like that on the GSP down in NJ. Thank goodness they renumbered the exits a few years ago.

Renumbering the exits wouldn't get rid of MA 51 (or ME 51) in Oklahoma any more than just replacing the signs would.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheGrassGuy on December 13, 2019, 07:16:22 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 13, 2019, 05:07:25 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 13, 2019, 04:57:46 PM
Quote from: JMoses24 on December 10, 2019, 02:12:41 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 29, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure :nod: this is a goof:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTlN9Ey2.jpg&hash=c0baa9041031d9d679bcdaf458213240d68d965c)

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma
Oh, I thought that you were referring to the tab in the middle, cause tabs are supposed to be on the right, you know? But maybe that used to be a circle? OK used to use a circle for its state routes. There is a similarly faded sign on NJ-181.
Still there in 2019.
There used to be a LOT of signs like that on the GSP down in NJ. Thank goodness they renumbered the exits a few years ago.

Renumbering the exits wouldn't get rid of MA 51 (or ME 51) in Oklahoma any more than just replacing the signs would.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on January 02, 2020, 02:13:45 PM
Not an actual sign, but...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49317797942_b85a4cb312_c.jpg)

Newport Beach must have fewer NIMBYs than I thought if they want to make CA 1 an Interstate.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheGrassGuy on January 02, 2020, 04:43:19 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4750871,-78.6294163,3a,16.1y,36.41h,81.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFpkH2drn2HbJ7RtVaUY3vQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

Are the numbers on this height sign too small?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on January 02, 2020, 05:00:55 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 02, 2020, 04:43:19 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4750871,-78.6294163,3a,16.1y,36.41h,81.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFpkH2drn2HbJ7RtVaUY3vQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

Are the numbers on this height sign too small?

Not an erroneous road sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on January 02, 2020, 06:27:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 02, 2020, 05:00:55 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 02, 2020, 04:43:19 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4750871,-78.6294163,3a,16.1y,36.41h,81.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFpkH2drn2HbJ7RtVaUY3vQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

Are the numbers on this height sign too small?

Not an erroneous road sign.

I bet it's off by a few inches. :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on January 02, 2020, 07:04:12 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 02, 2020, 06:27:05 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 02, 2020, 05:00:55 PM

Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 02, 2020, 04:43:19 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4750871,-78.6294163,3a,16.1y,36.41h,81.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFpkH2drn2HbJ7RtVaUY3vQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

Are the numbers on this height sign too small?

Not an erroneous road sign.

I bet it's off by a few inches. :D

I believe that's standard practice.  Nobody signs overpasses at exactly the correct height.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on January 02, 2020, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 13, 2019, 07:16:22 PM
Oh, I thought that you were referring to the tab in the middle, cause tabs are supposed to be on the right, you know? But maybe that used to be a circle? OK used to use a circle for its state routes. There is a similarly faded sign on NJ-181.

Very avant-garde quote placement.

No, there was never a circle here. This sign was erected after a construction project well into the meat-cleaver era.

Fading couldn't cause a CT 51 shield to appear in Oklahoma in most cases anyway–Oklahoma cut out their circles, unlike NJ.
(https://i.imgur.com/hT2Wxs7.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman on January 03, 2020, 01:00:02 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 02, 2020, 07:04:12 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 02, 2020, 06:27:05 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 02, 2020, 05:00:55 PM

Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 02, 2020, 04:43:19 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4750871,-78.6294163,3a,16.1y,36.41h,81.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFpkH2drn2HbJ7RtVaUY3vQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

Are the numbers on this height sign too small?

Not an erroneous road sign.

I bet it's off by a few inches. :D

I believe that's standard practice.  Nobody signs overpasses at exactly the correct height.
The MUTCD allows heights posted on clearance signs to be up to 3 inches less than the actual clearance.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on January 03, 2020, 05:05:33 PM
Don't know if this has been posted. It can also go in worst of, too.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5641475,-71.448436,3a,18.2y,242.24h,87.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUo38plkL2KxxTL4O3oj8yA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on January 03, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 03, 2020, 05:05:33 PM
Don't know if this has been posted. It can also go in worst of, too.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5641475,-71.448436,3a,18.2y,242.24h,87.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUo38plkL2KxxTL4O3oj8yA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Beautiful shape, nice font, great layout, but it's just plain fucking wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Tom958 on January 10, 2020, 11:26:50 PM
I came through Snellville on GA 124 northbound yesterday and noticed an LGS lying on the ground, apparently awaiting installation. Then a friend posted some other stuff about signage at the US 78-GA 124 intersection, so I decided to go back and have another look, and... wow. Another bud says that the LGS has been installed, taken down, and now installed again, and that people often try to make that dangerous, illegal right turn. We both notified GDOT District 1  about this, so hopefully it'll be corrected promptly.
(https://i.imgur.com/xiKZKCM.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on January 12, 2020, 10:24:55 AM
Quote from: Tom958 on January 10, 2020, 11:26:50 PM
I came through Snellville on GA 124 northbound yesterday and noticed an LGS lying on the ground, apparently awaiting installation. Then a friend posted some other stuff about signage at the US 78-GA 124 intersection, so I decided to go back and have another look, and... wow. Another bud says that the LGS has been installed, taken down, and now installed again, and that people often try to make that dangerous, illegal right turn. We both notified GDOT District 1  about this, so hopefully it'll be corrected promptly.
(https://i.imgur.com/xiKZKCM.jpg)

GDOT shouldn't direct people to a location if the turn is not permitted, so the sign should be adjusted.

But what makes this turn dangerous?  This is a right turn at a traffic signal.  Even if sight lines aren't desirable, the usual fix would be No turn on red, not outlawing the right turn altogether.

Perhaps you can elaborate.  I'm not from the area, and old GSV images indicate the right turn being permitted, with a right turn only lane.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 12, 2020, 11:42:44 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48338512362_4794352f75_z_d.jpg)
Should be TO I-40 along US 67/167

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47994971526_504eb1d725_z_d.jpg)
Error on a technicality: I-540 ends at US 271. They do not run concurrent.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Tom958 on January 12, 2020, 12:26:33 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 12, 2020, 10:24:55 AMBut what makes this turn dangerous?  This is a right turn at a traffic signal.  Even if sight lines aren't desirable, the usual fix would be No turn on red, not outlawing the right turn altogether.

Perhaps you can elaborate.  I'm not from the area, and old GSV images indicate the right turn being permitted, with a right turn only lane.

Yes, I can. The intersection ahead is a displaced left turn intersection (sometimes confusingly referred to as a continuous flow intersection). Only the left turns from the intersecting road are displaced, and... to reduce the footprint, no bypass roadway was built for the prohibited right turn movement in my photo. That means that anyone turning right there would be head-on to left-turning traffic from the direction of Loganville. Any driver who's unfamiliar with the situation will likely believe, as you did, that there's no compelling reason for the right turn prohibition, and that they'll just sneak on through. In fact, I'm told by someone who frequents the area that it happens all the time.

The correct way to head toward Loganville or Stone Mountain is to turn at the previous intersection. The sign in my photo needs to be relocated there, if there's not one there already.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on January 12, 2020, 04:09:08 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on January 12, 2020, 12:26:33 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 12, 2020, 10:24:55 AMBut what makes this turn dangerous?  This is a right turn at a traffic signal.  Even if sight lines aren't desirable, the usual fix would be No turn on red, not outlawing the right turn altogether.

Perhaps you can elaborate.  I'm not from the area, and old GSV images indicate the right turn being permitted, with a right turn only lane.

Yes, I can. The intersection ahead is a displaced left turn intersection (sometimes confusingly referred to as a continuous flow intersection). Only the left turns from the intersecting road are displaced, and... to reduce the footprint, no bypass roadway was built for the prohibited right turn movement in my photo. That means that anyone turning right there would be head-on to left-turning traffic from the direction of Loganville. Any driver who's unfamiliar with the situation will likely believe, as you did, that there's no compelling reason for the right turn prohibition, and that they'll just sneak on through. In fact, I'm told by someone who frequents the area that it happens all the time.

The correct way to head toward Loganville or Stone Mountain is to turn at the previous intersection. The sign in my photo needs to be relocated there, if there's not one there already.

That sounds reasonable.  Clear directions should be provided on how one is supposed to reach Loganville to avoid the illegal right turn.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheGrassGuy on January 14, 2020, 08:51:08 AM
Quote from: Tom958 on January 12, 2020, 12:26:33 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 12, 2020, 10:24:55 AMBut what makes this turn dangerous?  This is a right turn at a traffic signal.  Even if sight lines aren't desirable, the usual fix would be No turn on red, not outlawing the right turn altogether.

Perhaps you can elaborate.  I'm not from the area, and old GSV images indicate the right turn being permitted, with a right turn only lane.

Yes, I can. The intersection ahead is a displaced left turn intersection (sometimes confusingly referred to as a continuous flow intersection). Only the left turns from the intersecting road are displaced, and... to reduce the footprint, no bypass roadway was built for the prohibited right turn movement in my photo. That means that anyone turning right there would be head-on to left-turning traffic from the direction of Loganville. Any driver who's unfamiliar with the situation will likely believe, as you did, that there's no compelling reason for the right turn prohibition, and that they'll just sneak on through. In fact, I'm told by someone who frequents the area that it happens all the time.

The correct way to head toward Loganville or Stone Mountain is to turn at the previous intersection. The sign in my photo needs to be relocated there, if there's not one there already.
According to Google Maps, there seems to be some sort of construction going on; in particular, it seems that there is some widening work being done to US 78. Could you please elaborate on this by any chance?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on January 14, 2020, 01:28:16 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 03, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 03, 2020, 05:05:33 PM
Don't know if this has been posted. It can also go in worst of, too.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5641475,-71.448436,3a,18.2y,242.24h,87.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUo38plkL2KxxTL4O3oj8yA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Beautiful shape, nice font, great layout, but it's just plain fucking wrong.

They even have a reassurance marker down the road from the upcoming intersection:

1353 Union Ave
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zvwd2L8EnUqVSaTPA
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on January 14, 2020, 04:26:14 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 14, 2020, 08:51:08 AM
Quote from: Tom958 on January 12, 2020, 12:26:33 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 12, 2020, 10:24:55 AMBut what makes this turn dangerous?  This is a right turn at a traffic signal.  Even if sight lines aren't desirable, the usual fix would be No turn on red, not outlawing the right turn altogether.

Perhaps you can elaborate.  I'm not from the area, and old GSV images indicate the right turn being permitted, with a right turn only lane.

Yes, I can. The intersection ahead is a displaced left turn intersection (sometimes confusingly referred to as a continuous flow intersection). Only the left turns from the intersecting road are displaced, and... to reduce the footprint, no bypass roadway was built for the prohibited right turn movement in my photo. That means that anyone turning right there would be head-on to left-turning traffic from the direction of Loganville. Any driver who's unfamiliar with the situation will likely believe, as you did, that there's no compelling reason for the right turn prohibition, and that they'll just sneak on through. In fact, I'm told by someone who frequents the area that it happens all the time.

The correct way to head toward Loganville or Stone Mountain is to turn at the previous intersection. The sign in my photo needs to be relocated there, if there's not one there already.
According to Google Maps, there seems to be some sort of construction going on; in particular, it seems that there is some widening work being done to US 78. Could you please elaborate on this by any chance?

Intersection reconfiguration. The general mess Tom refers to is a new state of affairs here. I haven't been through it myself yet, but OSM is updated (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/33.85753/-84.01994) with what this all looks like now.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Tom958 on January 15, 2020, 05:11:35 AM
Quote from: Eth on January 14, 2020, 04:26:14 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 14, 2020, 08:51:08 AMAccording to Google Maps, there seems to be some sort of construction going on; in particular, it seems that there is some widening work being done to US 78. Could you please elaborate on this by any chance?

Intersection reconfiguration. The general mess Tom refers to is a new state of affairs here. I haven't been through it myself yet, but OSM is updated (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/33.85753/-84.01994) with what this all looks like now.

Indeed. Thanks, Eth!  Construction of the DLT is complete except for moving that sign to south of Clower Boulevard where it goes, which multiple sources say will happen. Yay, me!

I went down there yet again on Sunday to assess whether it'd be feasible to add that bypass lane to re-legalize that right turn if the displaced left turn roadway was narrowed to one lane instead of two ("not really" is my assessment). On my way out of town, I saw a cop perched on a rise over US 78, looking for hands-free law violators, so I approached her and asked her how the new intersection was working out. She said that it'd had a rocky start, but that things had calmed down now. Her big concern now is with the two-lane right turn movement from Clower Boulevard onto US 78 east, which is under construction in the current Google satellite view. Right turns on red are allowed after a stop, but apparently a problematic number of motorists execute a rolling stop or no stop at all, causing crashes. She said that GDOT says that they'll be banning right turns except on green arrows there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on January 23, 2020, 03:08:59 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on January 14, 2020, 01:28:16 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 03, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 03, 2020, 05:05:33 PM
Don't know if this has been posted. It can also go in worst of, too.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5641475,-71.448436,3a,18.2y,242.24h,87.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUo38plkL2KxxTL4O3oj8yA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Beautiful shape, nice font, great layout, but it's just plain fucking wrong.

They even have a reassurance marker down the road from the upcoming intersection:

1353 Union Ave
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zvwd2L8EnUqVSaTPA

So I posted mine 1/3, the day I was last up there. We either shamed NHDOT or I had interesting timing, because today (20 days later) both signs have been replaced with the correct signs. No other apparent signs in the area were replaced.

Based on Streetview, the signs went up between 2013 and 2018.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on January 28, 2020, 08:10:05 AM
Minor banner mix-up in Pendelton, Indiana...US36 and IN67 switched directions for a moment:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49454149603_3dd6607f3d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2im6rHM)

It's corrected later throughout the route...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49454151838_78b601ffbe_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2im6soj)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MNHighwayMan on January 28, 2020, 05:34:44 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 28, 2020, 08:10:05 AM
Minor banner mix-up in Pendelton, Indiana...US36 and IN67 switched directions for a moment:

That's one of those kind of mistakes where I'd be really tempted to get a ladder and socket set and fix it for them. ;-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ModernDayWarrior on March 07, 2020, 07:19:48 PM
An erroneous sign I spotted today: Sainte Genevieve County, MO, Route O at MO-32. A right turn will actually take you to "Weingarten," one word.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49631952693_d8a1906ff3_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MarkF on March 24, 2020, 01:23:51 AM
Quote from: MarkF on December 02, 2019, 02:04:38 AM
Quote from: kendancy66 on October 05, 2019, 11:25:19 PM
Can anyone explain why a divided highway sign would be placed in this location on the shoulder on I-405 South?

https://goo.gl/maps/AsiqjnXjsfijC7Co9

That sign went up when it was a construction area, and was left there after it completed.  Made no sense to have it there then or now.  My guess is a speed limit sign is supposed to be there.  You wonder how this stuff happens, maybe they see it as a joke?

I drove through that stretch of 405 south of Culver last weekend.  The sign was laying on the shoulder, someone hit it.  Wonder if Caltrans will blindly put it back up?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on March 24, 2020, 11:03:26 AM
ARDOT finally fixed this a couple months ago. Should be US 412.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4688/25677122278_6999fefbfe_z_d.jpg)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CovalenceSTU on April 05, 2020, 02:09:25 AM
Here's the weirdest one I've seen: a Left Lane Ends sign was installed upside-down and used instead of an Added Lane sign.

(https://i.imgur.com/EmREIit.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on April 05, 2020, 02:20:41 PM
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on April 05, 2020, 02:09:25 AM
Here's the weirdest one I've seen: a Left Lane Ends sign was installed upside-down and used instead of an Added Lane sign.

(https://i.imgur.com/EmREIit.jpg)

Kelso, WA (https://goo.gl/maps/EY84JxpAHSZtNoreA) for anyone interested.

This one is kind of interesting. I'm not sure if it's a "goof". It's not in the MUTCD, so there really is no error being committed in how it was installed, since it was clearly installed this way on purpose. Maybe more unique/odd/interesting? I could see both arguments.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on April 05, 2020, 02:24:13 PM
^^^^^

I've seen that sort of thing in several places over the years, though off the top of my head I couldn't tell you where. Never really struck me as all that weird because it is accurate.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on April 05, 2020, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on April 05, 2020, 02:09:25 AM
Here's the weirdest one I've seen: a Left Lane Ends sign was installed upside-down and used instead of an Added Lane sign.

(https://i.imgur.com/EmREIit.jpg)
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 05, 2020, 02:24:13 PM
^^^^^

I've seen that sort of thing in several places over the years, though off the top of my head I couldn't tell you where. Never really struck me as all that weird because it is accurate.

The depiction here is still incorrect. The road simply expands to two lanes beyond the intersection, and there's not a standard sign to depict that--and I don't think it's something that needs a warning sign.

An added lane sign isn't appropriate here, because it's not two roadways converging (e.g. a freeway mainline and onramp).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on April 05, 2020, 02:35:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 05, 2020, 02:24:13 PM
^^^^^

I've seen that sort of thing in several places over the years, though off the top of my head I couldn't tell you where. Never really struck me as all that weird because it is accurate.

Same here. I think some rural roads in Arkansas may have these.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on April 05, 2020, 02:39:44 PM
Apologies if I've posted this before. Indian Nation Turnpike. Sort of a best (or worst) of both worlds ;)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/1786/42204534835_42a6cd6a6c_z_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: renegade on April 05, 2020, 04:18:24 PM
Quote from: US71 on April 05, 2020, 02:39:44 PM
Apologies if I've posted this before. Indian Nation Turnpike. Sort of a best (or worst) of both worlds ;)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/1786/42204534835_42a6cd6a6c_z_d.jpg)
... but still, I like it!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Verlanka on April 06, 2020, 04:56:20 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 05, 2020, 02:39:44 PM
Apologies if I've posted this before. Indian Nation Turnpike. Sort of a best (or worst) of both worlds ;)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/1786/42204534835_42a6cd6a6c_z_d.jpg)
Seems like they were too lazy to get a replacement shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 06, 2020, 07:22:13 AM
Quote from: Verlanka on April 06, 2020, 04:56:20 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 05, 2020, 02:39:44 PM
Apologies if I've posted this before. Indian Nation Turnpike. Sort of a best (or worst) of both worlds ;)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/1786/42204534835_42a6cd6a6c_z_d.jpg)
Seems like they were too lazy to get a replacement shield.

The 9 is off-centered, so looks like entire sign was created at one time.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on April 06, 2020, 10:23:16 AM
Gatlingburg, TN? This is on the off-ramp from I-40 EB to U.S. 321.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49653829596_a22bb733b2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iDJRCh)DSC04348 (https://flic.kr/p/2iDJRCh) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on April 06, 2020, 06:17:02 PM
Quote from: okroads on April 06, 2020, 10:23:16 AM
Gatlingburg, TN? This is on the off-ramp from I-40 EB to U.S. 321.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49653829596_a22bb733b2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iDJRCh)DSC04348 (https://flic.kr/p/2iDJRCh) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
They even signed the mistake at the bottom. Tenn DOT


iPhone
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on April 26, 2020, 02:10:26 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on January 01, 2015, 12:54:58 PM
In a short stretch of US 22 EB outside of Phillipsburg, NJ, US 173 is born and US 122 is born again. 
GSV is crummy here, but here goes for 173:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.675189,-75.139921&spn=0.000004,0.00327&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.675115,-75.140357&panoid=v_wVjOGdWxZDma2IeqFOuw&cbp=12,150.89,,0,6.19 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.675189,-75.139921&spn=0.000004,0.00327&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.675115,-75.140357&panoid=v_wVjOGdWxZDma2IeqFOuw&cbp=12,150.89,,0,6.19)
A short distance from these signs, US 122 popped up as well.

Five years later, US 122 still exists towards Alpha and US 173 also still remains.
(https://i.imgur.com/NZNIP8o.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 26, 2020, 03:33:41 PM
Quote from: US71 on April 05, 2020, 02:39:44 PM
Apologies if I've posted this before. Indian Nation Turnpike. Sort of a best (or worst) of both worlds ;)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/1786/42204534835_42a6cd6a6c_z_d.jpg)

Nothing on that sign is actually erroneous information, though, is it?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CoreySamson on April 27, 2020, 11:42:51 AM
US-58 now exists in Lufkin:

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.3168581,-94.7036115,3a,75y,284h,83.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMJHQtHnpyMEI4je-fVJC4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PHLBOS on May 19, 2020, 05:40:47 PM
Update on the continuously erroneous/non-current MA 1A guide/through sign along MA 16 in Revere:

Such was replaced a few years ago with a Paddle-style LGS that now features a US 1 shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4036718,-71.0144282,3a,75y,292.91h,74.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKGukmMDQeGC_qINGZqYLHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  Such is still not correct; but a TO legend could be placed to the left of the US 1 shield would make it correct.

Why does DCR/MassDOT refuse to list the proper route number (MA 16) on this signs?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ketchup99 on May 19, 2020, 07:58:53 PM
I was driving around central PA earlier today and found this near Tusseyville:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8200965,-77.6929248,3a,15y,337.87h,88.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4_rf9TCqn9TSdagYVmX2Bg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D4_rf9TCqn9TSdagYVmX2Bg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D210.0249%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
What even is this? Looks like it's trying to say US-45, but it's not even a correct US route shield. It should, for the record, be PA-45.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on May 19, 2020, 08:03:21 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 19, 2020, 07:58:53 PM
I was driving around central PA earlier today and found this near Tusseyville:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8200965,-77.6929248,3a,15y,337.87h,88.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4_rf9TCqn9TSdagYVmX2Bg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D4_rf9TCqn9TSdagYVmX2Bg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D210.0249%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
What even is this? Looks like it's trying to say US-45, but it's not even a correct US route shield. It should, for the record, be PA-45.

Pennsylvania "acorn" shield
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: STLmapboy on May 19, 2020, 08:46:43 PM
Quote from: ModernDayWarrior on March 07, 2020, 07:19:48 PM
An erroneous sign I spotted today: Sainte Genevieve County, MO, Route O at MO-32. A right turn will actually take you to "Weingarten," one word.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49631952693_d8a1906ff3_k.jpg)

Gutten feinde!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on May 19, 2020, 08:58:38 PM
Quote from: ModernDayWarrior on March 07, 2020, 07:19:48 PM
An erroneous sign I spotted today: Sainte Genevieve County, MO, Route O at MO-32. A right turn will actually take you to "Weingarten," one word.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49631952693_d8a1906ff3_k.jpg)

Is there a Wine Garden there? ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J3ebrules on May 20, 2020, 12:08:23 AM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 19, 2020, 07:58:53 PM
I was driving around central PA earlier today and found this near Tusseyville:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8200965,-77.6929248,3a,15y,337.87h,88.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4_rf9TCqn9TSdagYVmX2Bg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D4_rf9TCqn9TSdagYVmX2Bg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D210.0249%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
What even is this? Looks like it's trying to say US-45, but it's not even a correct US route shield. It should, for the record, be PA-45.

I'm a terrible artist. That said, the sign looks like I tried to draw a US highway shield freehand.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: index on May 22, 2020, 10:04:56 AM
Quote from: US71 on May 19, 2020, 08:58:38 PM
Quote from: ModernDayWarrior on March 07, 2020, 07:19:48 PM
An erroneous sign I spotted today: Sainte Genevieve County, MO, Route O at MO-32. A right turn will actually take you to "Weingarten," one word.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49631952693_d8a1906ff3_k.jpg)

Is there a Wine Garden there? ;)
Maybe it's one of those unincorporated communities with an inconsistent/disagreed-upon spelling for its name? Lee vining/Leevining, CA is one example.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on May 22, 2020, 10:27:02 AM
Quote from: US71 on April 05, 2020, 02:39:44 PM
Apologies if I've posted this before. Indian Nation Turnpike. Sort of a best (or worst) of both worlds ;)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/1786/42204534835_42a6cd6a6c_z_d.jpg)

Interestingly, this one has appeared over in the "worst-of" thread.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 22, 2020, 05:21:43 PM
West Springfield, MA, over US Route 5 at MA Route 147.
(https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/ad/88/PPoZi7Mg_t.jpg) (http://imgbox.com/PPoZi7Mg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ozarkman417 on May 22, 2020, 05:40:35 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 19, 2020, 08:46:43 PM
Quote from: ModernDayWarrior on March 07, 2020, 07:19:48 PM
An erroneous sign I spotted today: Sainte Genevieve County, MO, Route O at MO-32. A right turn will actually take you to "Weingarten," one word.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49631952693_d8a1906ff3_k.jpg)

Gutten feinde!
Translate the sign text to German and you get "Vienna Garden". Switch the I and the E (like it's supposed to be) and you get the correct spelling of "Wine" in German.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 16, 2020, 09:09:33 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/50012491601/in/photostream/

This should be KEEP LEFT as US 1 & 23 take the left ramp a split 0.5 miles ahead.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on June 16, 2020, 10:14:26 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 16, 2020, 09:09:33 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/50012491601/in/photostream/

This should be KEEP LEFT as US 1 & 23 take the left ramp a split 0.5 miles ahead.

This is horrible. 

The keep right sign is to denote staying to the right of a divided highway. It has no place here.

THe upcoming left turn should be denoted with an arrow pointed to the left in some way without the keep right sign.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on June 17, 2020, 06:34:37 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 05, 2020, 02:20:41 PM
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on April 05, 2020, 02:09:25 AM
Here's the weirdest one I've seen: a Left Lane Ends sign was installed upside-down and used instead of an Added Lane sign.

(https://i.imgur.com/EmREIit.jpg)

Kelso, WA (https://goo.gl/maps/EY84JxpAHSZtNoreA) for anyone interested.

This one is kind of interesting. I'm not sure if it's a "goof". It's not in the MUTCD, so there really is no error being committed in how it was installed, since it was clearly installed this way on purpose. Maybe more unique/odd/interesting? I could see both arguments.

I've seen the inverted "lane ends" diagram used a handful times in this way, but not with any consistent application or location.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 17, 2020, 11:42:05 AM
Quote from: formulanone on June 17, 2020, 06:34:37 AM
I've seen the inverted "lane ends" diagram used a handful times in this way, but not with any consistent application or location.

I'm quite familiar with this example in Mexico (https://goo.gl/maps/kPbAfLgaE9Wd2EJB7), having driven that stretch of highway eleven times.  However, such a sign does not exist in the SCT manual, so it must simply be an upside-down SP-21 sign.  GSV indicates it was there in 2014 (and even had a twin back then) but was not there in 2009.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: STLmapboy on June 17, 2020, 03:43:47 PM
In Texas, an I-35 NB sign south of San Antonio mistakenly labels FM 462 as Texas SH 462:
https://www.google.pl/maps/@29.0473984,-99.0240243,3a,75y,79.22h,78.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6S870ALB3GogKyl_TIP0zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 17, 2020, 03:50:57 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 17, 2020, 03:43:47 PM
In Texas, an I-35 NB sign south of San Antonio mistakenly labels FM 462 as Texas SH 462:
https://www.google.pl/maps/@29.0473984,-99.0240243,3a,75y,79.22h,78.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6S870ALB3GogKyl_TIP0zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It didn't use to (https://goo.gl/maps/HKyPTCzQ6dHyXHHc8).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: csw on June 28, 2020, 04:26:14 PM
Here's one...spot the error.
(https://i.imgur.com/3tgGYci.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bing101 on June 28, 2020, 04:51:43 PM
Quote from: csw on June 28, 2020, 04:26:14 PM
Here's one...spot the error.
(https://i.imgur.com/3tgGYci.jpg)

TN-140 is a Triangle if the sign was done correctly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Route_140 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Route_140)


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bing101 on June 28, 2020, 04:59:13 PM
Quote from: V'Ger on April 11, 2009, 06:37:25 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20040518081812%2Fmdo20.0catch.com%2Froute%2Fwa%2Fiwa530.JPG&hash=ff2fd154b4cfaec3e9e8dd9e827f873bff73cfd3)




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_530 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_530)


UMM I know there is a I-530 in Arkansas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_530 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_530)


WA-530??

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: csw on June 28, 2020, 04:59:57 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 28, 2020, 04:51:43 PM
Quote from: csw on June 28, 2020, 04:26:14 PM
Here's one...spot the error.
https://i.imgur.com/3tgGYci.jpg

TN-140 is a Triangle if the sign was done correctly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Route_140 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Route_140)
Yeah you're essentially correct. This photo was taken in Abgindon, VA, so no Tennessee triangle, but the 140 should be in the Virginia shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on June 28, 2020, 05:15:49 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 28, 2020, 04:59:13 PM
Quote from: V'Ger on April 11, 2009, 06:37:25 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20040518081812%2Fmdo20.0catch.com%2Froute%2Fwa%2Fiwa530.JPG&hash=ff2fd154b4cfaec3e9e8dd9e827f873bff73cfd3)




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_530 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_530)


UMM I know there is a I-530 in Arkansas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_530 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_530)


WA-530??

Why are you quoting an 11-year-old broken image, and also, how are you able to see it and respond?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ozarkman417 on June 28, 2020, 05:41:07 PM
The image was broken a few minutes ago but now I can see it just fine.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on July 01, 2020, 01:05:00 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6UJjZdZFpaEpSg8V8
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 01, 2020, 01:22:43 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 01, 2020, 01:05:00 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6UJjZdZFpaEpSg8V8
Great street name...very imaginative.  English teachers will love the apostrophe too.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 01, 2020, 08:40:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 17, 2020, 03:50:57 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 17, 2020, 03:43:47 PM
In Texas, an I-35 NB sign south of San Antonio mistakenly labels FM 462 as Texas SH 462:
https://www.google.pl/maps/@29.0473984,-99.0240243,3a,75y,79.22h,78.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6S870ALB3GogKyl_TIP0zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It didn't use to (https://goo.gl/maps/HKyPTCzQ6dHyXHHc8).

About five pages back, I'd found this one:

Quote from: formulanone on June 20, 2019, 08:46:45 PM
...Farm-to-Market roads that are posted as state highways along I-35:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48100335723_010299cf4e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ghsN2a)

Texas tends to do this a bunch more on guide signs rather than reassurance, probably because most of that signage are simple rectangles.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: STLmapboy on July 01, 2020, 10:15:27 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 01, 2020, 08:40:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 17, 2020, 03:50:57 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 17, 2020, 03:43:47 PM
In Texas, an I-35 NB sign south of San Antonio mistakenly labels FM 462 as Texas SH 462:
https://www.google.pl/maps/@29.0473984,-99.0240243,3a,75y,79.22h,78.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6S870ALB3GogKyl_TIP0zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It didn't use to (https://goo.gl/maps/HKyPTCzQ6dHyXHHc8).


Texas tends to do this a bunch more on guide signs rather than reassurance, probably because most of that signage are simple rectangles.

There's another set on I-40 in the Panhandle for FM 295 (labelled TX295)
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.211373,-101.1246778,3a,37.4y,109.48h,91.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6vTHYzXdQxqhfPqTfS7Ycg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on July 02, 2020, 04:30:13 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 01, 2020, 01:05:00 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6UJjZdZFpaEpSg8V8

Please include a description of what your GSV link shows. This url conveys no context.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on July 02, 2020, 06:44:24 AM
Quote from: Alex on July 02, 2020, 04:30:13 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 01, 2020, 01:05:00 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6UJjZdZFpaEpSg8V8

Please include a description of what your GSV link shows. This url conveys no context.

The extra apostrophe.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on July 02, 2020, 07:59:10 AM
https://twitter.com/StanleyRoberts/status/1278556459249184768?s=20
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on July 02, 2020, 10:13:33 AM
Quote from: formulanone on July 01, 2020, 08:40:30 PM

Quote from: kphoger on June 17, 2020, 03:50:57 PM

Quote from: STLmapboy on June 17, 2020, 03:43:47 PM
In Texas, an I-35 NB sign south of San Antonio mistakenly labels FM 462 as Texas SH 462:
https://www.google.pl/maps/@29.0473984,-99.0240243,3a,75y,79.22h,78.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6S870ALB3GogKyl_TIP0zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It didn't use to (https://goo.gl/maps/HKyPTCzQ6dHyXHHc8).

About five pages back, I'd found this one:

Quote from: formulanone on June 20, 2019, 08:46:45 PM
...Farm-to-Market roads that are posted as state highways along I-35:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48100335723_010299cf4e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ghsN2a)

Texas tends to do this a bunch more on guide signs rather than reassurance, probably because most of that signage are simple rectangles.

Somewhere between Laredo and San Antonio, I even once saw a white square with 'COUNTY' at the top instead of 'TEXAS' or 'FM'.  However, since then, I've been unable to determine what exit it was.  That was probably nine or ten years ago now.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: StogieGuy7 on July 02, 2020, 03:34:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 02, 2020, 10:13:33 AM
Quote from: formulanone on July 01, 2020, 08:40:30 PM

Quote from: kphoger on June 17, 2020, 03:50:57 PM

Quote from: STLmapboy on June 17, 2020, 03:43:47 PM
In Texas, an I-35 NB sign south of San Antonio mistakenly labels FM 462 as Texas SH 462:
https://www.google.pl/maps/@29.0473984,-99.0240243,3a,75y,79.22h,78.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6S870ALB3GogKyl_TIP0zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It didn't use to (https://goo.gl/maps/HKyPTCzQ6dHyXHHc8).

About five pages back, I'd found this one:

Quote from: formulanone on June 20, 2019, 08:46:45 PM
...Farm-to-Market roads that are posted as state highways along I-35:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48100335723_010299cf4e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ghsN2a)

Texas tends to do this a bunch more on guide signs rather than reassurance, probably because most of that signage are simple rectangles.

Somewhere between Laredo and San Antonio, I even once saw a white square with 'COUNTY' at the top instead of 'TEXAS' or 'FM'.  However, since then, I've been unable to determine what exit it was.  That was probably nine or ten years ago now.

I always thought that the TxDOT should just use the state-shaped shield for FM/RM roads on BGS', as nature intended.  And it's way more aesthetically pleasing than an Illinois-style square.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on July 02, 2020, 03:36:28 PM
Much harder to read at a distance, though, unless you do those funky cutout things they used in a handful of locations.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on July 02, 2020, 05:02:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 02, 2020, 10:13:33 AMSomewhere between Laredo and San Antonio, I even once saw a white square with 'COUNTY' at the top instead of 'TEXAS' or 'FM'.  However, since then, I've been unable to determine what exit it was.  That was probably nine or ten years ago now.

Found it, and this time (for a change) I didn't have to page all the way through hundreds of possibly relevant sheets to find it--it turned out to be page 109 out of 739 that plausibly cover I-35 between Laredo and San Antonio.

I-35 Exit 125 near Natalia, Texas (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.1626279,-98.8636663,3a,75y,23.09h,88.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPk0Vl8BnSbz7ycIEcdm89g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

This sign was (probably) installed as part of TxDOT CCSJ 0017-05-073, the relevant plan sheet being sealed March 5, 2009.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: M3100 on July 02, 2020, 07:48:23 PM
South Bay Galleria (mall) in Redondo Beach, CA.  California SR 91 (Artesia Blvd.) borders the north edge of the property; this segment was never US 91 back in the day.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50070518702_38ff25c15e.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: webny99 on July 03, 2020, 11:30:27 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 02, 2020, 06:44:24 AM
Quote from: Alex on July 02, 2020, 04:30:13 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 01, 2020, 01:05:00 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6UJjZdZFpaEpSg8V8

Please include a description of what your GSV link shows. This url conveys no context.

The extra apostrophe.

Imagine if this rule applied to NE2.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on July 04, 2020, 01:41:13 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 02, 2020, 05:02:07 PM

Quote from: kphoger on July 02, 2020, 10:13:33 AM
Somewhere between Laredo and San Antonio, I even once saw a white square with 'COUNTY' at the top instead of 'TEXAS' or 'FM'.  However, since then, I've been unable to determine what exit it was.  That was probably nine or ten years ago now.

Found it, and this time (for a change) I didn't have to page all the way through hundreds of possibly relevant sheets to find it--it turned out to be page 109 out of 739 that plausibly cover I-35 between Laredo and San Antonio.

I-35 Exit 125 near Natalia, Texas (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.1626279,-98.8636663,3a,75y,23.09h,88.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPk0Vl8BnSbz7ycIEcdm89g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

This sign was (probably) installed as part of TxDOT CCSJ 0017-05-073, the relevant plan sheet being sealed March 5, 2009.

Awesome!  Yes, it was definitely northbound.  I'm surprised it's still there.  The next couple of times I drove the stretch of highway, I looked but didn't notice it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 04, 2020, 04:53:04 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 02, 2020, 03:34:05 PM
I always thought that the TxDOT should just use the state-shaped shield for FM/RM roads on BGS', as nature intended.  And it's way more aesthetically pleasing than an Illinois-style square.

Like this?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/315/31508393075_780b142016_z_d.jpg)
or this?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7259/7423581282_abcb608bff_z_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: STLmapboy on July 05, 2020, 12:17:18 AM
Quote from: US71 on July 04, 2020, 04:53:04 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 02, 2020, 03:34:05 PM
I always thought that the TxDOT should just use the state-shaped shield for FM/RM roads on BGS', as nature intended.  And it's way more aesthetically pleasing than an Illinois-style square.

Like this?

(images clipped)

If you took the "farm road" out it wouldn't look too bad.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: StogieGuy7 on July 08, 2020, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 04, 2020, 04:53:04 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 02, 2020, 03:34:05 PM
I always thought that the TxDOT should just use the state-shaped shield for FM/RM roads on BGS', as nature intended.  And it's way more aesthetically pleasing than an Illinois-style square.

Like this?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/315/31508393075_780b142016_z_d.jpg)
or this?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7259/7423581282_abcb608bff_z_d.jpg)

Hey, I like those! They just need a little tweaking to be easier to read at a distance.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bassoon1986 on July 08, 2020, 09:48:41 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 04, 2020, 04:53:04 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 02, 2020, 03:34:05 PM
I always thought that the TxDOT should just use the state-shaped shield for FM/RM roads on BGS', as nature intended.  And it's way more aesthetically pleasing than an Illinois-style square.

Like this?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/315/31508393075_780b142016_z_d.jpg)
or this?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7259/7423581282_abcb608bff_z_d.jpg)
I like that idea, too, but remember Texas has many 4 digit FM and RM routes. Many in the 2000's and 3000's.


iPhone
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 09, 2020, 04:12:55 AM
Texas presumably also has copies of Series C and B, even if they don't seem to use them much.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on July 09, 2020, 09:15:04 PM
Oregon uses a sign similar to a "Divided Highway Ahead" sign to indicate a no passing zone, except the barrier in the sign is a cross hatch like this. (https://goo.gl/maps/4om5i9dSpMzEcfX98)  (I've looked for confirmation in the latest Oregon Driver's Manual, but they didn't mention it.  Maybe they're phasing it out.)  However, at least a couple of times they've gotten careless and used a regular Divided Highway Ahead sign (https://goo.gl/maps/k4akJryArYUWHwMp6) when there is no divided highway ahead.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 14, 2020, 11:32:58 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/50112175101/in/dateposted-public/

Should be just GA Hwy. 35.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ozarkman417 on August 04, 2020, 04:47:34 PM
When you can't rotate text in MS Paint
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200804/8d9306d50178d966d961070d6771e516.jpg)

SM-G965U

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CoreySamson on August 04, 2020, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 04, 2020, 04:47:34 PM
When you can't rotate text in MS Paint
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200804/8d9306d50178d966d961070d6771e516.jpg)

SM-G965U

This has got to be one of the worst signs I've ever seen. Looks like a malformed Ohio with a short, squared-off tail.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on August 04, 2020, 04:57:38 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 04, 2020, 04:47:34 PM
When you can't rotate text in MS Paint
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200804/8d9306d50178d966d961070d6771e516.jpg)

Well that's one for the ages.  :-o
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: noelbotevera on August 04, 2020, 05:35:04 PM
So close yet so far...what they've created is a near replica of Connecticut.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 04, 2020, 06:27:06 PM
Okay, I get how US-69 markers can end up being posted upside down. But...

Is MoDOT hiring PEs from Oklahoma now?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: csw on August 04, 2020, 06:52:33 PM
Generally posts in this thread and the Worst Of thread are overblown. But this, this is a masterpiece. Bravo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: GaryA on August 04, 2020, 07:10:44 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 04, 2020, 05:35:04 PM
So close yet so far...what they've created is a near replica of Connecticut.

I think it looks more like Ohio with a bad lower-left corner.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on August 04, 2020, 07:30:43 PM
welcome to the state of MOhio.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on August 04, 2020, 09:45:45 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 04, 2020, 05:35:04 PM
So close yet so far...what they've created is a near replica of Connecticut.

Normally I'll tell someone "don't give them any ideas", but in this case... by all means, give them some ideas!!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: STLmapboy on August 04, 2020, 11:27:57 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 04, 2020, 04:47:34 PM
When you can't rotate text in MS Paint
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200804/8d9306d50178d966d961070d6771e516.jpg)

SM-G965U

Fuck! On behalf of my state I apologize. Where is that sign so I can do a bit of...rotation?  :hmmm:

Edit--nvm, I found the current iteration (https://www.google.pl/maps/@37.6659995,-92.6530021,3a,19y,49.74h,90.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgQekAcxyEqzQ9jwNwAa_Mw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) on Farty-Far in Lebanon, but even that doesn't look great (why does the 5 stand out?).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ozarkman417 on August 05, 2020, 12:00:08 AM
/\

The order of the routes is different, too. This time around, they just did it in order but normally it has to do with the direction of the route from the interchange. All but Rte 64 go both ways, so 64 should be to the very left.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: StogieGuy7 on August 05, 2020, 01:07:38 PM
That's amazing! Never would have thought that MO's shape could be mistaken for OH or CT (each of which I now see), but some knuckleheads just proved me wrong...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on August 05, 2020, 01:11:58 PM
I had to cock my head sideways to realize that's Missouri after the next big one at New Madrid.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on August 06, 2020, 04:56:28 PM

Hey, be greatful that you can still read the sign.  Imagine if they got the state shiled oriented correctly, but placed the numbers on sideways.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ozarkman417 on August 07, 2020, 06:15:14 PM
The contractor also forgot to replace one of the signs altogether.

This one (https://www.google.pl/maps/@37.6735067,-92.646982,3a,15y,220.84h,91.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRQwt6FbAFFz9zfcn2aQRJg!2e0!5s20180801T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rarnold on August 07, 2020, 07:07:12 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on August 04, 2020, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 04, 2020, 04:47:34 PM
When you can't rotate text in MS Paint
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200804/8d9306d50178d966d961070d6771e516.jpg)


SM-G965U

This has got to be one of the worst signs I've ever seen. Looks like a malformed Ohio with a short, squared-off tail.

A badly shapen Connecticut, times three.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on August 08, 2020, 06:08:45 PM
Quote from: rarnold on August 07, 2020, 07:07:12 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on August 04, 2020, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 04, 2020, 04:47:34 PM
When you can't rotate text in MS Paint
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200804/8d9306d50178d966d961070d6771e516.jpg)


SM-G965U

This has got to be one of the worst signs I've ever seen. Looks like a malformed Ohio with a short, squared-off tail.

A badly shapen Connecticut, times three.

Or if the shapes of Indiana and Ohio had triplets...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CovalenceSTU on August 28, 2020, 07:11:51 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on July 09, 2020, 09:15:04 PM
Oregon uses a sign similar to a "Divided Highway Ahead" sign to indicate a no passing zone, except the barrier in the sign is a cross hatch like this. (https://goo.gl/maps/4om5i9dSpMzEcfX98)  (I've looked for confirmation in the latest Oregon Driver's Manual, but they didn't mention it.  Maybe they're phasing it out.)  However, at least a couple of times they've gotten careless and used a regular Divided Highway Ahead sign (https://goo.gl/maps/k4akJryArYUWHwMp6) when there is no divided highway ahead.

I drive that highway regularly, the crosshatch sign is just an oddly designed Divided Highway sign that's being phased out (they're replacing a lot of old signs on the highway and that's one of them). Here's one with a poorly designed crosshatch (http://"https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&isi=293622097&ius=googleearth&link=https%3a%2f%2fearth.google.com%2fweb%2f%4046.17271516,-123.75657087,5.6791172a,0d,59.16365998y,179.74271374h,86.74105758t,0r%2fdata%3dIhoKFkZqcXBWaWVPS2VyWndHRTQyQllEc0EQAg") - no passing lanes anywhere nearby, but if you go a bit forward there's a turning lane.

The first one you linked is an old picture taken a few years ago (I can tell because there's no sign for the market ahead), that sign has since been taken down and replaced with a normal Divided Highway sign. The second one has a center turning lane ahead, but it's over 1800 feet away - whoever placed the sign did a terrible job and should have placed it at least 1000 feet ahead.

The actual "no passing zone" sign is a bit further up on the first link - it's a giant version of the white "DO NOT PASS" sign (it's 36x48 instead of 18x24).

Offtopic: clicking the first link confused me, because that stretch of highway is so close to my house  :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 05, 2020, 11:12:59 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50305119966_f35d16625b_4k_d.jpg)This is very wrong. US 75 is no where near Houston.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: STLmapboy on September 05, 2020, 11:36:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 05, 2020, 11:12:59 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50305119966_f35d16625b_4k_d.jpg)This is very wrong. US 75 is no where near Houston.
It was down there until its truncation in 1987. That may be a very old sign or just a modern screwup.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ozarkman417 on September 05, 2020, 08:41:33 PM
I would put this in the state/US mixup thread, but I don't think Virginia uses square shields.

US 60 & 220, Covington, VA (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.782491,-79.9854073,3a,15y,324.3h,86.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAsuZXglx17l70SjSbHRpGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 05, 2020, 09:29:49 PM
If it were TX SH 75 I would, but this is not any kind of Route 75 here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US 89 on September 06, 2020, 01:27:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 05, 2020, 09:29:49 PM
If it were TX SH 75 I would, but this is not any kind of Route 75 here.

But as was mentioned above, US 75 used to extend past Dallas, through Houston, and on to Galveston. So that was likely correct when it was put up, and now it's a cool relic.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rte66man on September 07, 2020, 04:28:28 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on September 05, 2020, 11:36:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 05, 2020, 11:12:59 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50305119966_f35d16625b_4k_d.jpg)This is very wrong. US 75 is no where near Houston.
It was down there until its truncation in 1987. That may be a very old sign or just a modern screwup.

Where in Houston did you see this? As mentioned already, US 75 used to terminate at Galveston.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rte66man on September 07, 2020, 04:31:49 PM
Some may not spot the error.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50317516722_1e38e4a406_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jEoqFL)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 08, 2020, 09:21:47 AM
Major error: you're on 64, but approaching AR 5

(https://live.staticflickr.com/3115/2474629519_49b84c263b_z_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 08, 2020, 09:57:43 AM
Quote from: rte66man on September 07, 2020, 04:31:49 PM
Some may not spot the error.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50317516722_1e38e4a406_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jEoqFL)

It met 3/4-way between "meat cleaver" shield and empty circle.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bruce on September 09, 2020, 05:32:20 PM
A new-ish sign spotted in Seattle while driving around a few nights ago:

(https://i.imgur.com/gb3KQlq.jpg)

(Will have to do a re-take on my next trip down)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: STLmapboy on September 09, 2020, 09:29:20 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 09, 2020, 05:32:20 PM
A new-ish sign spotted in Seattle while driving around a few nights ago:

(https://i.imgur.com/gb3KQlq.jpg)

(Will have to do a re-take on my next trip down)
Maybe the CHAZ (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27050.0/) department of transportation (CHAZDOT) has influenced the signage of SDOT? :-o
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 09, 2020, 10:20:09 PM

Should be south AR 59. US 59 is 7 miles away in Oklahoma :)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/3213/2943867931_63e80bc6c0_z_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on September 10, 2020, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 09, 2020, 05:32:20 PM
A new-ish sign spotted in Seattle while driving around a few nights ago:

(https://i.imgur.com/gb3KQlq.jpg)

(Will have to do a re-take on my next trip down)

Forgive my ignorance, but what's erroneous?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on September 10, 2020, 11:05:20 AM
weirdly shaped interstate shield
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on September 10, 2020, 11:10:57 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 10, 2020, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 09, 2020, 05:32:20 PM
A new-ish sign spotted in Seattle while driving around a few nights ago:

(https://i.imgur.com/gb3KQlq.jpg)

(Will have to do a re-take on my next trip down)

Forgive my ignorance, but what's erroneous?

I-90
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on September 10, 2020, 11:15:47 AM
Oh.  Just another 'wrong shield blank' error.

meh
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rte66man on September 10, 2020, 02:04:33 PM
Quote from: formulanone on September 08, 2020, 09:57:43 AM
Quote from: rte66man on September 07, 2020, 04:31:49 PM
Some may not spot the error.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50317516722_1e38e4a406_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jEoqFL)

It met 3/4-way between "meat cleaver" shield and empty circle.

And they centered the exit tab. A twofer.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on September 10, 2020, 02:05:41 PM
I personally love the look of centered exit tabs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rte66man on September 10, 2020, 02:08:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 10, 2020, 02:05:41 PM
I personally love the look of centered exit tabs.

Agreed. Plus you don't have to deal with an interim post sticking up for a right justified tab.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on September 10, 2020, 04:19:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 10, 2020, 11:15:47 AM
Oh.  Just another 'wrong shield blank' error.

meh

Yeah, but relatively speaking, this is pretty weird in WA. Last time I can think of an Interstate/State Route mix-up was in the early 2000s, when I-705 was shown as WA-705 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/41828223254/).

I think US/State Route mixups are far more common.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on September 10, 2020, 10:39:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 10, 2020, 04:19:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 10, 2020, 11:15:47 AM
Oh.  Just another 'wrong shield blank' error.

meh

Yeah, but relatively speaking, this is pretty weird in WA. Last time I can think of an Interstate/State Route mix-up was in the early 2000s, when I-705 was shown as WA-705 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/41828223254/).

I think US/State Route mixups are far more common.

about 1986 I read in the paper that Washington was planning on upgrading Highway 18 to Interstate standards.  And then I saw an Interstate 18 shield posted a few blocks north of Green River Community College when I was riding in a car.  It was quickly replaced, and I didn't have a digital camera then anyway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on September 11, 2020, 11:11:24 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on September 10, 2020, 10:39:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 10, 2020, 04:19:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 10, 2020, 11:15:47 AM
Oh.  Just another 'wrong shield blank' error.

meh

Yeah, but relatively speaking, this is pretty weird in WA. Last time I can think of an Interstate/State Route mix-up was in the early 2000s, when I-705 was shown as WA-705 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/41828223254/).

I think US/State Route mixups are far more common.

about 1986 I read in the paper that Washington was planning on upgrading Highway 18 to Interstate standards.  And then I saw an Interstate 18 shield posted a few blocks north of Green River Community College when I was riding in a car.  It was quickly replaced, and I didn't have a digital camera then anyway.

Was it a joke I-18 put up by someone in the community in support of the upgrade, or an actual I-18 shield installed erroneously?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: STLmapboy on September 11, 2020, 04:02:06 PM
This left exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6458361,-90.5090599,3a,43.2y,199.7h,97.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9jwwR1dVHuhHYOF7XpT7ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656/) sign and this exit only (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6433128,-90.5100749,3a,41.6y,197.66h,99.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCOcICk5JPs_99Lnz5-QJ_g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656/) sign should not be used for a signalized left turn! And these signs are only 5 years old. Great job MoDOT.

What they had before (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6433446,-90.5100768,3a,42.7y,193.04h,93.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVgCIU_VN5_0jw_CaxCxQ9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656/) was better, even if it didn't mention I-64.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on September 12, 2020, 12:25:37 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2020, 11:11:24 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on September 10, 2020, 10:39:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 10, 2020, 04:19:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 10, 2020, 11:15:47 AM
Oh.  Just another 'wrong shield blank' error.

meh

Yeah, but relatively speaking, this is pretty weird in WA. Last time I can think of an Interstate/State Route mix-up was in the early 2000s, when I-705 was shown as WA-705 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/41828223254/).

I think US/State Route mixups are far more common.

about 1986 I read in the paper that Washington was planning on upgrading Highway 18 to Interstate standards.  And then I saw an Interstate 18 shield posted a few blocks north of Green River Community College when I was riding in a car.  It was quickly replaced, and I didn't have a digital camera then anyway.

Was it a joke I-18 put up by someone in the community in support of the upgrade, or an actual I-18 shield installed erroneously?

It looked very authentic for the two seconds that I saw it.  This was years before Photoshop.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Katavia on September 12, 2020, 10:48:41 PM
On I-85 in Charlotte, NC:

Exit 46B doesn't exist heading southbound. It does exist northbound, but that sign uses an ampersand rather than a hyphen. So it's probably not a case of "just copy the other sign".

Southbound sign:
(https://i.ibb.co/mBbv8JP/Screenshot-2020-09-12-at-10-38-20-PM.png)

Northbound sign:
(https://i.ibb.co/mh3VLqM/Screenshot-2020-09-12-at-10-40-00-PM.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on September 15, 2020, 12:34:17 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50345110013_d43c598c45_c.jpg)

A stop sign is supposed to mean that there's a cross street (or pedestrian/bike path) that you have to stop for. There is no cross street here. This dirt road is part of a semi-private property shortcut from one area to another part of the same residential area. Apple Maps thinks it's a real road but not Google Maps, and OSM has it as a thin line, thinner than regular streets. What are you supposed to stop for here? It should probably say "Do not enter – residents only", except that it's too late to comply if you're already on the street and not a resident.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on September 15, 2020, 02:48:27 PM
Along the same lines as above, this is a full stop sign that is required not to stop for cross traffic, but to come to a complete stop to ensure that you will then downshift and ride as slow as possible.  This is a STEEP downhill.  Loma Vista Dr Beverly Hills, CA

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1084934,-118.3921293,3a,75y,179.16h,85.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB7NQ3enikApC5uZWJxOkwQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Not a mistake.  But a rare example of a stop sign without a cross street.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on September 15, 2020, 02:56:16 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 15, 2020, 02:48:27 PM
Along the same lines as above, this is a full stop sign that is required not to stop for cross traffic, but to come to a complete stop to ensure that you will then downshift and ride as slow as possible.  This is a STEEP downhill.  Loma Vista Dr Beverly Hills, CA

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1084934,-118.3921293,3a,75y,179.16h,85.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB7NQ3enikApC5uZWJxOkwQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Not a mistake.  But a rare example of a stop sign without a cross street.

That's a wicked downhill stretch there. I have never seen a residential street with a runaway truck ramp (https://goo.gl/maps/KnzFzShhLhWMZrvf6).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on September 15, 2020, 04:58:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 15, 2020, 02:56:16 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 15, 2020, 02:48:27 PM
Along the same lines as above, this is a full stop sign that is required not to stop for cross traffic, but to come to a complete stop to ensure that you will then downshift and ride as slow as possible.  This is a STEEP downhill.  Loma Vista Dr Beverly Hills, CA

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1084934,-118.3921293,3a,75y,179.16h,85.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB7NQ3enikApC5uZWJxOkwQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Not a mistake.  But a rare example of a stop sign without a cross street.

That's a wicked downhill stretch there. I have never seen a residential street with a runaway truck ramp (https://goo.gl/maps/KnzFzShhLhWMZrvf6).

The street gets a lot more traffic than you would think, because there are so few connections between Mullholland Drive and Sunset.  There are a handful of major ones like the freeways, Laurel Canyon, Coldwater Canyon, Beverly Glen.  If Coldwater Canyon gets busy, enough traffic makes a left onto Cherokee Ln that leads to Loma Vista as an alternate way to reach Sunset Blvd.

Given the downhill, the city believes that the best shot of people driving this stretch safely is if people start the downhill at the speed of 0 MPH (with a full stop).  Arguably, this stop sign is probably not needed any more as there is now a full stop and roundabout at Carla Ridge about 500 feet behind the stop sign at the crest of the hill.  [Don't know when that was put in, but I know it didn't exist when I explored the area in the 1990's.]
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CovalenceSTU on September 19, 2020, 11:10:25 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 15, 2020, 02:48:27 PM
Along the same lines as above, this is a full stop sign that is required not to stop for cross traffic, but to come to a complete stop to ensure that you will then downshift and ride as slow as possible.  This is a STEEP downhill.  Loma Vista Dr Beverly Hills, CA

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1084934,-118.3921293,3a,75y,179.16h,85.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB7NQ3enikApC5uZWJxOkwQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Not a mistake.  But a rare example of a stop sign without a cross street.

14% grade?  :wow:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on September 20, 2020, 09:40:06 PM
On WB I-80 in Iowa, there are detour assemblies for a closure of the loop ramp to the unsigned Business 61 through Davenport.  Except these detour assemblies are missing the business banner, so the detour assemblies are conflicting with the signs for SB US 61 which continues along I-80 to I-280.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J3ebrules on September 25, 2020, 01:54:37 PM
I posted this over in the NJ thread, but it's much more appropriate here.

This pic was taken at Airport Circle in Pennsauken. The incorrect sign is the street name blade. On Armistice Day (Nov 11) in 1929, the boulevard to the Ben Franklin Bridge was renamed from Bridge Boulevard to Admiral Wilson Boulevard to commemorate a Camden native and WWI naval hero.

Except that they forgot to make it official. Fine, in 1937, they finally codified the name change with an official ordinance.

This sign was installed LONG after either of these events, so not entirely sure what the heck happened here.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bNrFg89y/D8885-AB3-6-FAF-4-D60-BE52-F0-B781-DD51-B5.jpg)


Source of historical info: DVRBS.com, (c)2014, Phillip Cohen. Site's a bit of a mess, but he's got a ton of fascinating info on Camden area history.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on October 03, 2020, 10:03:59 PM
Oops!

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50413917658_5bbb7eccc4_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jNUvjS)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: STLmapboy on October 03, 2020, 10:48:29 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 03, 2020, 10:03:59 PM
Oops!

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50413917658_5bbb7eccc4_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jNUvjS)
Washington still going strong on Botts' dots, eh?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 04, 2020, 12:57:13 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 03, 2020, 10:03:59 PM
Oops!

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50413917658_5bbb7eccc4_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jNUvjS)

Reminds me of when someone from IDOT installed a Left Turn Only sign for a Right Turn Only lane. High quality workmanship indeed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 04, 2020, 02:34:41 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on October 03, 2020, 10:48:29 PM
Washington still going strong on Botts' dots, eh?

Just a couple cities, but yes they're still regularly installed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ari-s-drives on October 04, 2020, 10:21:12 AM
I'm not sure which one is right, but one of these two signs has to be wrong because they designate the same road with two different suffixes.

"North Point Drive" (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8889234,-117.2419265,3a,15.2y,218.86h,86.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saS5YaIW6VVtSA_w68GDjZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

"UCSD Northpoint Drwy" (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8893651,-117.2427766,3a,15y,82.39h,101.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szfO8a9JKv6czUKRkHPsBDA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bwana39 on October 05, 2020, 10:41:11 AM
Marshall Street EB (SH154) @ US 271 Gilmer TX.  Really messed up sign. SH154 Should have a straight arrow. Note the big green sign on 271SB that shows 154 crossing both ways.

There is too much on that single masthead even if the signage were right.

The signs on GSV not the current ones. I have a photo, but can't post it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on October 06, 2020, 10:12:47 PM
Oregon's shields are supposed to have the wide part of the shield at least a little above the vertical midpoint, like a dog's nose.  The person who made this sign must be from New Jersey.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50428887093_eb6a3df361_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jQeedz)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on October 07, 2020, 01:15:11 AM
^^  Maybe it's the missing New Jersey Highway 99 from "Tweeter and the Monkey Man."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on October 18, 2020, 12:24:26 AM
A two-fer here.  The sign is upside down.  And besides, it is supposed to be white, rectangular and show a single forward arrow passing around a barrier.  This sign when oriented properly is supposed to show a divided highway ahead.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50500425997_561c7fdba5_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jWxTeX)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 18, 2020, 12:59:44 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/2143/2266384794_3ba80d1aca_z_d.jpg)

Should be US 62
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 18, 2020, 02:24:14 PM
It looks like they fixed it when the route changed from I-540 to I-49.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0550595,-94.196223,3a,75y,167.9h,95.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_RP40f6e5r_ZwI3oAhEK2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0550595,-94.196223,3a,75y,167.9h,95.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_RP40f6e5r_ZwI3oAhEK2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 18, 2020, 05:58:37 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 18, 2020, 02:24:14 PM
It looks like they fixed it when the route changed from I-540 to I-49.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0550595,-94.196223,3a,75y,167.9h,95.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_RP40f6e5r_ZwI3oAhEK2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0550595,-94.196223,3a,75y,167.9h,95.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_RP40f6e5r_ZwI3oAhEK2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Didn't stop them from changing those over-sized banners though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ned Weasel on October 20, 2020, 06:54:54 AM
This wasn't erroneous before, but now it is: https://goo.gl/maps/kkf8qiqKqsGz36UQ9 .  Funny how that works.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 20, 2020, 11:50:37 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 20, 2020, 06:54:54 AM
This wasn't erroneous before, but now it is: https://goo.gl/maps/kkf8qiqKqsGz36UQ9 .  Funny how that works.

You could make the argument it was also initially erroneous, due to that left-turn lane there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ned Weasel on October 20, 2020, 11:56:09 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 20, 2020, 11:50:37 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 20, 2020, 06:54:54 AM
This wasn't erroneous before, but now it is: https://goo.gl/maps/kkf8qiqKqsGz36UQ9 .  Funny how that works.

You could make the argument it was also initially erroneous, due to that left-turn lane there.

Maybe, but I think they just forgot to change the sign.  https://goo.gl/maps/AYWX3zkSZWHPAnM9A
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 02:37:19 PM
If I'm not mistaken, advanced intersection lane control signs (R3-8 series) can exclude lanes not on the side of the road that they are posted on.

For example, a one-way street with several lanes, but the sign only shows a right turn and an optional right/through movement (https://goo.gl/maps/tHNsQJpMq7pVnbm97).

According to MUTCD Chapter 2B, it would seem that lane control signs can be omitted when option lanes are not used; as long as dedicated turn bays are provided, they can be omitted. This could alternatively be implying that roads where a through lane becomes a turn lane do require them. I'm not sure what qualifies as a turn bay: any dedicated turn lane? Only those lanes where there is a "jog" to enter them?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 20, 2020, 04:18:40 PM
Quote from: US71 on October 18, 2020, 12:59:44 PM

(https://live.staticflickr.com/2143/2266384794_3ba80d1aca_z_d.jpg)

Should be US 62

US/State mixup shield error signs (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.msg2167371#msg2167371)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 20, 2020, 05:48:42 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 20, 2020, 04:18:40 PM
Quote from: US71 on October 18, 2020, 12:59:44 PM

(https://live.staticflickr.com/2143/2266384794_3ba80d1aca_z_d.jpg)

Should be US 62

US/State mixup shield error signs (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.msg2167371#msg2167371)

Too many pages to keep track of
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 20, 2020, 09:29:12 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 20, 2020, 04:18:40 PM
Quote from: US71 on October 18, 2020, 12:59:44 PM

(https://live.staticflickr.com/2143/2266384794_3ba80d1aca_z_d.jpg)

Should be US 62

US/State mixup shield error signs (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.msg2167371#msg2167371)

I was going to say the same thing... but honestly, it's whatever at this point. You find the right thread, good for you. If you don't, it is what it is. It's mildly annoying (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26000.0), but I'm not going to around policing what goes where anymore.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ned Weasel on October 21, 2020, 06:57:23 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 02:37:19 PM
If I'm not mistaken, advanced intersection lane control signs (R3-8 series) can exclude lanes not on the side of the road that they are posted on.

For example, a one-way street with several lanes, but the sign only shows a right turn and an optional right/through movement (https://goo.gl/maps/tHNsQJpMq7pVnbm97).

According to MUTCD Chapter 2B, it would seem that lane control signs can be omitted when option lanes are not used; as long as dedicated turn bays are provided, they can be omitted. This could alternatively be implying that roads where a through lane becomes a turn lane do require them. I'm not sure what qualifies as a turn bay: any dedicated turn lane? Only those lanes where there is a "jog" to enter them?

I might have had the false assumption that if you sign one of the dedicated through lanes, then you have to sign all of them, but to be honest, that's one of those sections of the MUTCD that I have to keep looking up because it's too much for me to commit to memory.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 02:04:45 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 21, 2020, 06:57:23 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 02:37:19 PM
If I'm not mistaken, advanced intersection lane control signs (R3-8 series) can exclude lanes not on the side of the road that they are posted on.

For example, a one-way street with several lanes, but the sign only shows a right turn and an optional right/through movement (https://goo.gl/maps/tHNsQJpMq7pVnbm97).

According to MUTCD Chapter 2B, it would seem that lane control signs can be omitted when option lanes are not used; as long as dedicated turn bays are provided, they can be omitted. This could alternatively be implying that roads where a through lane becomes a turn lane do require them. I'm not sure what qualifies as a turn bay: any dedicated turn lane? Only those lanes where there is a "jog" to enter them?

I might have had the false assumption that if you sign one of the dedicated through lanes, then you have to sign all of them, but to be honest, that's one of those sections of the MUTCD that I have to keep looking up because it's too much for me to commit to memory.

Oh, don't worry, I had to Google it myself. I only thought to look up the actual rules because I recall a lot of partial versions in my area, especially for when there is an option lane. Good example here (https://goo.gl/maps/CuA91rK6tebdboyg8) for a double left turn. I think it's pretty normal to sign all through lanes if one is shown, but they are often excluded if one of the through lanes is shown purely to indicate that turns are also allowed from that lane (such as in my first example).

It seems more than fair to think all lanes could be included. It wouldn't take up that much extra space. Still, it doesn't seem to be a requirement, even if it is the common practice.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on October 21, 2020, 04:32:36 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2020, 02:04:45 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 21, 2020, 06:57:23 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 02:37:19 PM
If I'm not mistaken, advanced intersection lane control signs (R3-8 series) can exclude lanes not on the side of the road that they are posted on.

For example, a one-way street with several lanes, but the sign only shows a right turn and an optional right/through movement (https://goo.gl/maps/tHNsQJpMq7pVnbm97).

According to MUTCD Chapter 2B, it would seem that lane control signs can be omitted when option lanes are not used; as long as dedicated turn bays are provided, they can be omitted. This could alternatively be implying that roads where a through lane becomes a turn lane do require them. I'm not sure what qualifies as a turn bay: any dedicated turn lane? Only those lanes where there is a "jog" to enter them?

I might have had the false assumption that if you sign one of the dedicated through lanes, then you have to sign all of them, but to be honest, that's one of those sections of the MUTCD that I have to keep looking up because it's too much for me to commit to memory.

Oh, don't worry, I had to Google it myself. I only thought to look up the actual rules because I recall a lot of partial versions in my area, especially for when there is an option lane. Good example here (https://goo.gl/maps/CuA91rK6tebdboyg8) for a double left turn. I think it's pretty normal to sign all through lanes if one is shown, but they are often excluded if one of the through lanes is shown purely to indicate that turns are also allowed from that lane (such as in my first example).

It seems more than fair to think all lanes could be included. It wouldn't take up that much extra space. Still, it doesn't seem to be a requirement, even if it is the common practice.

This seems to be correct, and IMO a good practice.  If you are denoting turn lanes (including option lanes) only include the lanes that turn.  If you see right turn and an optional right/through movement (https://goo.gl/maps/tHNsQJpMq7pVnbm97) that sign is meant to denote only the rightmost lanes from the curb, not all of the lanes for the street.  The presumption is that a right turn sign that denotes right turning is only showing the lanes closest to the curb.  Ditto for left turning signs only showing the lanes from the median (or left curb for a one-way street).  The signs do not need to show what every lane is doing, especially if they follow the general convention, which is that all lanes can go straight, right most lane may go straight or right, left most lane may go straight or left.  An exception to that are the left turn pockets, which actually used to feature in some places left lane must turn left signs, but are so common that signage is no longer necessary (but arrows still should be painted to denote a left turn only lane).

The right turn/optional right sign is so well understood in the surface street context.  It's corollary for freeways are the partial APLs, only delineating the exiting lanes (and optional exiting lanes) not every lane of the freeway.  They work well in Ontario Canada, but it is a shame that they are not replicated in more places.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7604961,-79.3960385,3a,75y,54.65h,81.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svmd4Jb-LqhQF9a_Y0sLUfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on October 22, 2020, 12:27:04 AM
Along those lines, these signs seem to contradict each other, (https://goo.gl/maps/oGTykTECtt8s3Kp1A) until you consider that they are correct from each lane's point of view.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 25, 2020, 09:57:19 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/50526795356

Not erroneous in design but arrow is wrong. Turning left is into a one way road. The arrow should be consistent with WB GA 204 as that is where I-95 really is.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 26, 2020, 03:35:06 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 22, 2020, 12:27:04 AM
Along those lines, these signs seem to contradict each other, (https://goo.gl/maps/oGTykTECtt8s3Kp1A) until you consider that they are correct from each lane's point of view.

That seems pretty screwy. I'm not 100% sold on that being allowed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on October 27, 2020, 10:40:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2020, 03:35:06 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 22, 2020, 12:27:04 AM
Along those lines, these signs seem to contradict each other, (https://goo.gl/maps/oGTykTECtt8s3Kp1A) until you consider that they are correct from each lane's point of view.

That seems pretty screwy. I'm not 100% sold on that being allowed.
Yeah, that is super screwy. The sign on the left should've been duplicated on the right, as it seems to be most accurate to the conditions.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on October 27, 2020, 11:34:24 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 27, 2020, 10:40:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2020, 03:35:06 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 22, 2020, 12:27:04 AM
Along those lines, these signs seem to contradict each other, (https://goo.gl/maps/oGTykTECtt8s3Kp1A) until you consider that they are correct from each lane's point of view.

That seems pretty screwy. I'm not 100% sold on that being allowed.
Yeah, that is super screwy. The sign on the left should've been duplicated on the right, as it seems to be most accurate to the conditions.

I would agree. The pavement arrows suggest that both lanes continue "straight" at the first intersection, but the right lane then turns at the second intersection. The sign on the left is more reflective of this.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2020, 11:12:35 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/RpRKmG3eYUt5Pfn78

George Washington Bridge directs you onto CR 505 rather than the PIP south in Englewood, NJ. Should be to the right as well as Fort Lee.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 09, 2020, 11:24:27 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/2581/3678840046_a2a8066ed9_z_d.jpg)

Business Loop 40 at Henryetta, OK
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on November 09, 2020, 09:39:10 PM
Not exactly an error in the wild, but in the MUTCD:

"The first illustration shows a horizontal rectangular sign with the words "BLUE SPRINGS" on the top line and, on the bottom line, three symbols showing a tent, gasoline pump, and trailer, ..."

Uh, that's a lighthouse. (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part2/fig2h-02_longdesc.htm)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 16, 2020, 08:15:28 PM
Last week, I found the following at the west end of Bypass US-70 (Cornelius Street at Faucette Mill Road) in Hillsborough, North Carolina:
   
                East        East
  West    Business    Truck
  US-70    US-70     NC-86
     ^         <--           ^

Of course, Truck NC-86 is supposed to be southbound here (but the road is running almost due west).  Also not thrilled with the placement of the bannered route in the middle of the trio.  This must have gone up recently, since I go through there at least one a week.  (Sorry, but still using a flip phone).
     
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: dfilpus on November 17, 2020, 10:42:56 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on November 16, 2020, 08:15:28 PM
Last week, I found the following at the west end of Bypass US-70 (Cornelius Street at Faucette Mill Road) in Hillsborough, North Carolina:
   
                East        East
  West    Business    Truck
  US-70    US-70     NC-86
     ^         <--           ^

Of course, Truck NC-86 is supposed to be southbound here (but the road is running almost due west).  Also not thrilled with the placement of the bannered route in the middle of the trio.  This must have gone up recently, since I go through there at least one a week.  (Sorry, but still using a flip phone).
     
Looking at StreetView over time, this sign complex has been there since at least 2011. However, in 2011, the banner sign for NC 86 read "TRUCKS" plural. By 2015, it was replaced with "TRUCK". The directional sign for NC 86 has been EAST all along.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on November 17, 2020, 11:30:09 PM
"US 555" marked on an overpass for South Carolina's Highway 555 over I-77:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50585868453_1e73b1373a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2k56NiK)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on November 20, 2020, 03:58:07 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/NXpuezk.png)

This is a bit too far south for US-30.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 27, 2020, 04:55:37 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on November 20, 2020, 03:58:07 AM

This is a bit too far south for US-30.

The sign placement leaves a lot to be desired.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Occidental Tourist on November 30, 2020, 12:57:59 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on November 20, 2020, 03:58:07 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/NXpuezk.png)

This is a bit too far south for US-30.

Hmmm, US federal shield and what looks like a US state highway shield, but they're driving on the left side.  I'm stumped.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on November 30, 2020, 02:23:21 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on November 30, 2020, 12:57:59 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on November 20, 2020, 03:58:07 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/NXpuezk.png)

This is a bit too far south for US-30.

Hmmm, US federal shield and what looks like a US state highway shield, but they're driving on the left side.  I'm stumped.

Has to be US Virgin Islands from the driving on the left but US-style signage (the US shield an error; the circle OK).  I found the location on St. Thomas:  https://goo.gl/maps/CmJLR5TESAyU28g1A

(If you pan around, the "Bridge to Nowhere" (actually labeled as such on the map) is interesting.  Aborted highway project, presumably?)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on November 30, 2020, 09:15:55 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on November 30, 2020, 02:23:21 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on November 30, 2020, 12:57:59 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on November 20, 2020, 03:58:07 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/NXpuezk.png)

This is a bit too far south for US-30.

Hmmm, US federal shield and what looks like a US state highway shield, but they're driving on the left side.  I'm stumped.

Has to be US Virgin Islands from the driving on the left but US-style signage (the US shield an error; the circle OK).  I found the location on St. Thomas:  https://goo.gl/maps/CmJLR5TESAyU28g1A

(If you pan around, the "Bridge to Nowhere" (actually labeled as such on the map) is interesting.  Aborted highway project, presumably?)

They drive on the left, but all the steering wheels I can see are also on the left.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on December 01, 2020, 01:14:13 AM
USVI drives on the left as a hold-over from Danish rule, but because its part of North America, and particularly because it's part of the United States, RHD vehicles are extremely hard to come by. Unless you want to drive a converted car, which is probably crap, or want to drive something from the UK or Japan that's 25 years old, you're stuck with LHD and LHT. Crappy combo. I'm surprised they still drive on the left.

As to the "Bridge to Nowhere", that's now the main road. It opened a couple years ago. The US-30 shield is history.

Original story (http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/news/after-20-years-work-to-make-bridge-to-nowhere-a-bridge-to-somewhere-is-underway/article_da7c871f-95c0-5c94-b7b2-c5f1c0a6eed2.html) on the recent construction from 2017. The bridge was built before ROW was purchased.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: fwydriver405 on December 01, 2020, 12:47:13 PM
I never knew I-95 exited at Exit 43 on the Connecticut Turnpike... this one has the state name on the Interstate shield...

https://www.google.com/maps/place/520+M.L.K.+Jr.+Blvd,+New+Haven,+CT+06519,+USA/@41.2849175,-72.9295118,3a,66y,260.76h,95.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8XugsFCrF9XFkXi61Jg_eg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e7d84c516920c1:0xddd2d0f4d0e77b4d!8m2!3d41.304256!4d-72.930803
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on December 01, 2020, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 01, 2020, 01:14:13 AM
USVI drives on the left as a hold-over from Danish rule, but because its part of North America, and particularly because it's part of the United States, RHD vehicles are extremely hard to come by. Unless you want to drive a converted car, which is probably crap, or want to drive something from the UK or Japan that's 25 years old, you're stuck with LHD and LHT. Crappy combo. I'm surprised they still drive on the left.

As to the "Bridge to Nowhere", that's now the main road. It opened a couple years ago. The US-30 shield is history.

Original story (http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/news/after-20-years-work-to-make-bridge-to-nowhere-a-bridge-to-somewhere-is-underway/article_da7c871f-95c0-5c94-b7b2-c5f1c0a6eed2.html) on the recent construction from 2017. The bridge was built before ROW was purchased.

I wondered if it was like the "Bridge To Nowhere" in Newark, Delaware at 273 and 4 that eventually became used but sat for years like the one in question here, although there are enough abandoned never-completed things out there that you wonder.

One time a number of years ago our then-mailman visited the USVI and said how he was right at home somehow driving on the left in a rental car that had the wheel on the left, after driving his work postal vehicle (a Jeep, remember those?, then the current truck model) which had the wheel on the right on the right side of the road at home so much.  Somehow not being on the side of the vehicle closer to the center line "felt right" to him even though he was driving on the left instead of the right.  Sounded weird, but I got it...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jmd41280 on December 01, 2020, 05:51:32 PM
I wasn't able to take any photos, but the new mile markers on the recently-reconstructed stretch of I-70 in Washington, PA have US 70 shields on them instead of I-70 ones.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Caps81943 on December 03, 2020, 06:13:14 PM
Quote from: jmd41280 on December 01, 2020, 05:51:32 PM
I wasn't able to take any photos, but the new mile markers on the recently-reconstructed stretch of I-70 in Washington, PA have US 70 shields on them instead of I-70 ones.

Wow, that's a screw-up. About how many markers are we talking here? Like every 0.1 mile?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 03, 2020, 07:21:51 PM
Quote from: jmd41280 on December 01, 2020, 05:51:32 PM
I wasn't able to take any photos, but the new mile markers on the recently-reconstructed stretch of I-70 in Washington, PA have US 70 shields on them instead of I-70 ones.

But isn't the notion of US-70 an upgrade to any concept of I-70 in Pennsylvania?  Whether it be Town Hill or Breezewood or Speers Bridge or Little Washington, it was like I-70 was a stepchild to everything else in Pennsylvania.  My old car that got all scratched up from the tar-and-chip repairs on I-70 somewhere around Belle Vernon in the late 1980s just died in a puff of smoke a few weeks ago.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ozarkman417 on December 04, 2020, 11:58:03 AM
The opposite of the error above: US 65 became I-65. I can't say I'm too surprised, given that even the local media has called the freeway as such. Only two mile markers were affected by this error.

GSV from 2017 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1136301,-93.2337453,3a,15y,4.37h,88.29t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYgBpTspgwvULeoJzPqTq3A!2e0!5s20170701T000000!7i13312!8i6656)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on December 04, 2020, 12:04:07 PM
^^^^

I don't know why it's so hard for people who supposedly understand these things to get it right, especially when there are two signs in close proximity and they don't match. See below from Gainesville, Virginia. The error shield is gone now.

https://goo.gl/maps/iYNmQ5ZXWwEdCSrKA
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on December 04, 2020, 12:12:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 04, 2020, 12:04:07 PM
^^^^

I don't know why it's so hard for people who supposedly understand these things to get it right, especially when there are two signs in close proximity and they don't match. See below from Gainesville, Virginia. The error shield is gone now.

https://goo.gl/maps/iYNmQ5ZXWwEdCSrKA

Well, I kind of doubt it was the decision of the crew putting up the sign as to which shield to use.  They install what's given them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on December 04, 2020, 11:09:39 PM
I mean, I'd at least call the supervisor and say "Hey, I think this might be the wrong sign." But I've also worked with enough people that would say "Eh, that's what they gave us", put it up, and move on.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jmd41280 on January 29, 2021, 05:26:10 PM
Quote from: Caps81943 on December 03, 2020, 06:13:14 PMWow, that's a screw-up. About how many markers are we talking here? Like every 0.1 mile?

It actually was every 0.1 mile. That being said, I just noticed today that the markers in question have been replaced with the correct version.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 03, 2020, 07:21:51 PMBut isn't the notion of US-70 an upgrade to any concept of I-70 in Pennsylvania?  Whether it be Town Hill or Breezewood or Speers Bridge or Little Washington, it was like I-70 was a stepchild to everything else in Pennsylvania.  My old car that got all scratched up from the tar-and-chip repairs on I-70 somewhere around Belle Vernon in the late 1980s just died in a puff of smoke a few weeks ago.

Forget US 70. (Insert state here) Highway 70 would be an upgrade. I have the misfortune of having the substandard portion of I-70 as my daily commute. That being said, there have been projects along that stretch (from I-79 in Washington to I-76 in New Stanton) to upgrade it to modern standards. They still have a very long way to go to finish that stretch, though. In the meantime, we still have stop signs on the onramps from both North Belle Vernon and PA 51.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on January 30, 2021, 12:24:18 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on December 04, 2020, 11:58:03 AM
The opposite of the error above: US 65 became I-65. I can't say I'm too surprised, given that even the local media has called the freeway as such. Only two mile markers were affected by this error.

GSV from 2017 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1136301,-93.2337453,3a,15y,4.37h,88.29t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYgBpTspgwvULeoJzPqTq3A!2e0!5s20170701T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
I know it's the wrong route, but it's weird seeing an I-65 shield on a green enhanced mile markers. The states I-65 goes through I drove on (IN, KY, TN) all uses blue mile markers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bwana39 on January 30, 2021, 12:48:38 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 04, 2020, 11:09:39 PM
I mean, I'd at least call the supervisor and say "Hey, I think this might be the wrong sign." But I've also worked with enough people that would say "Eh, that's what they gave us", put it up, and move on.

The subs who do this work only get paid if they hang the signs. If the people who made / inspected the signs were responsible to pay the crews who are out there hanging them (and the hourly workers should get paid for being there), pay for the equipment rented to hang them, etc.  Ie indemnify the losses, I would support them not hanging signs they know are somehow incorrect.

I can tell you all the ways this doesn't work, but....
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 02, 2021, 12:08:08 PM
This one on US 21 Business in Beaufort, SC states that SC 281 is to the right at the light ahead.  False as the SC designation is the second signal.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50902176082_49d8f01ccf_4k_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on February 02, 2021, 12:18:07 PM
This one has since been removed, but anyone interested driving on this unknown freeway in Ohio called State Route 71? (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1524368,-84.4443269,3a,31.1y,291.74h,88.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFwwUjS3Dg3GWcudCDDxfAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 01:36:59 PM
Please, for the love of Doug...

US/State mixup shield error signs (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.0)

Quote from: 1 on August 17, 2016, 07:04:09 AM
As of this post, the Erroneous Road Signs thread has 161 pages (I use the default of 25 posts per page), and it will just continue to grow. To reduce its rate of growth, errors that are solely US/state route mixups go here instead of in the Erroneous Road Signs and Worst of Road Signs threads.

Something similar was done a few years ago when "Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs" was created to reduce the number that went into the Worst of Road Signs thread.

If you recently posted in any of these threads with a US/state mixup, you may move the post to here by deleting the other one and pasting the content in this thread. (It doesn't have to be recent, but I'm assuming that the more recent ones will be more easily found.)

In addition to posting US/state mixups, you can post your opinion on whether this thread is necessary, at least for the first few pages.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on February 02, 2021, 06:51:56 PM
That's not a US/State mixup, it's an Interstate/State mixup. So it doesn't go in that thread. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on February 02, 2021, 09:00:03 PM
Speaking of: that thread really ought to be for all mix-ups.

Title it: Route Designation Mixups

I'd post my suggestion in that thread directly, but I couldn't possibly care about these mixups enough to permanently attach myself to that reply chain.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on February 02, 2021, 09:08:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 02, 2021, 09:00:03 PM
Speaking of: that thread really ought to be for all mix-ups.

Title it: Route Designation Mixups

I'd post my suggestion in that thread directly, but I couldn't possibly care about these mixups enough to permanently attach myself to that reply chain.

I'll change it, but I want to make sure there isn't opposition first.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 03, 2021, 10:16:46 AM
One of them has to be erroneous.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/8177/29293043890_438c5005bd_4k_d.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8461/29213725011_1e76eec18f_5k_d.jpg)

Both on US 441 several miles apart.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on February 03, 2021, 10:37:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 03, 2021, 10:16:46 AM
One of them has to be erroneous.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/8177/29293043890_438c5005bd_4k_d.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8461/29213725011_1e76eec18f_5k_d.jpg)

Both on US 441 several miles apart.
First one is. From some measuring, Okeechobee is 35 miles north of Canal Point on 441, and that sign is south of Canal Point by a mile, so should be 36.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on February 03, 2021, 12:13:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 01:36:59 PM
Please, for the love of Doug...

US/State mixup shield error signs (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.0)

Quote from: 1 on August 17, 2016, 07:04:09 AM
As of this post, the Erroneous Road Signs thread has 161 pages (I use the default of 25 posts per page), and it will just continue to grow. To reduce its rate of growth, errors that are solely US/state route mixups go here instead of in the Erroneous Road Signs and Worst of Road Signs threads.

Something similar was done a few years ago when "Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs" was created to reduce the number that went into the Worst of Road Signs thread.

If you recently posted in any of these threads with a US/state mixup, you may move the post to here by deleting the other one and pasting the content in this thread. (It doesn't have to be recent, but I'm assuming that the more recent ones will be more easily found.)

In addition to posting US/state mixups, you can post your opinion on whether this thread is necessary, at least for the first few pages.


Quote from: Scott5114 on February 02, 2021, 06:51:56 PM
That's not a US/State mixup, it's an Interstate/State mixup. So it doesn't go in that thread. :P

/me slinks away with his tail between his legs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: interstatefan990 on February 03, 2021, 12:22:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 02, 2021, 12:08:08 PM
This one on US 21 Business in Beaufort, SC states that SC 281 is to the right at the light ahead.  False as the SC designation is the second signal.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50902176082_49d8f01ccf_4k_d.jpg)

I almost thought the top part of that sign was fluorescent yellow-green upon first sight.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on February 03, 2021, 01:00:51 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50503081478_90c42b570a_z_d.jpg)
Yellville, AR along US 62

(https://live.staticflickr.com/3213/2943867931_63e80bc6c0_z_d.jpg)
2002 (should be AR 59)

MO 176
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1802/43321452791_841b6550be_z_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on February 03, 2021, 01:12:24 PM
:facepalm:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on February 03, 2021, 01:24:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 03, 2021, 01:12:24 PM
:facepalm:

The never-ending fight rolls on...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on February 04, 2021, 11:33:29 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 02, 2021, 12:08:08 PM
This one on US 21 Business in Beaufort, SC states that SC 281 is to the right at the light ahead.  False as the SC designation is the second signal.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50902176082_49d8f01ccf_4k_d.jpg)

This one becomes an error because of its MUTCD violation. The advance turn arrow is not to be used when there is an intersection between the sign and the intended turn. (2009 MUTCD Sec. 2D.31 p06)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on February 09, 2021, 05:51:58 AM
Slight error on this one in Waukesha...the "south" should go over the WI-164 shield and the US 18 should have the "west" directional banner:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50924288652_ce98ed049f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kA1hQL)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on February 09, 2021, 10:25:34 AM
Quote from: formulanone on February 09, 2021, 05:51:58 AM

Slight error on this one in Waukesha...the "south" should go over the WI-164 shield and the US 18 should have the "west" directional banner:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50924288652_ce98ed049f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kA1hQL)


And, because it's Wisconsin, one cannot simply switch the tabs around.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ran4sh on February 09, 2021, 10:52:24 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 30, 2021, 12:24:18 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on December 04, 2020, 11:58:03 AM
The opposite of the error above: US 65 became I-65. I can't say I'm too surprised, given that even the local media has called the freeway as such. Only two mile markers were affected by this error.

GSV from 2017 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1136301,-93.2337453,3a,15y,4.37h,88.29t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYgBpTspgwvULeoJzPqTq3A!2e0!5s20170701T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
I know it's the wrong route, but it's weird seeing an I-65 shield on a green enhanced mile markers. The states I-65 goes through I drove on (IN, KY, TN) all uses blue mile markers.

If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on February 09, 2021, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on February 09, 2021, 10:52:24 AM
If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.
Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.218046,-84.3689792,3a,15y,334.6h,88.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNGvsQyNa8AMzLpY_iuOlcg!2e0!5s20160701T000000!7i13312!8i6656) to the full sized ones (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2180604,-84.3690275,3a,15y,341.97h,89.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-XAXfTCq2mZQg1YSm9GQEQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on February 09, 2021, 01:46:29 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 09, 2021, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on February 09, 2021, 10:52:24 AM
If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.
Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.218046,-84.3689792,3a,15y,334.6h,88.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNGvsQyNa8AMzLpY_iuOlcg!2e0!5s20160701T000000!7i13312!8i6656) to the full sized ones (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2180604,-84.3690275,3a,15y,341.97h,89.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-XAXfTCq2mZQg1YSm9GQEQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.

Interestingly, there has been a rash of new-style ones with the initial letter only (https://goo.gl/maps/iTb3S8xitsHPTDmz5) for the direction, usually in Series B or C (https://goo.gl/maps/T7SLKZFJH9cUDnHp6) which is narrower than what was on the original design. 

I would be surprised if ODOT changed them all over statewide just to turn blue to green.

It is interesting that ODOT went through a phase of the whole number markers being green (https://goo.gl/maps/p3YGVaZ67Fi1rvp48) and the others blue (https://goo.gl/maps/KY9HGfL89jCG9Zzr8).  Those were put up at the same time, and interestingly, the values changed by 6/10 mile when they did.  (If you move back in time, you can see 22.6 where 22.0 now is.  Also, the old 22.6 was an interesting one with a W direction but both 76 and 77 shields; they all had that along the duplex.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on February 09, 2021, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on February 09, 2021, 01:46:29 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 09, 2021, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on February 09, 2021, 10:52:24 AM
If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.
Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.218046,-84.3689792,3a,15y,334.6h,88.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNGvsQyNa8AMzLpY_iuOlcg!2e0!5s20160701T000000!7i13312!8i6656) to the full sized ones (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2180604,-84.3690275,3a,15y,341.97h,89.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-XAXfTCq2mZQg1YSm9GQEQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.
It is interesting that ODOT went through a phase of the whole number markers being green (https://goo.gl/maps/p3YGVaZ67Fi1rvp48) and the others blue (https://goo.gl/maps/KY9HGfL89jCG9Zzr8).  Those were put up at the same time, and interestingly, the values changed by 6/10 mile when they did.  (If you move back in time, you can see 22.6 where 22.0 now is.  Also, the old 22.6 was an interesting one with a W direction but both 76 and 77 shields; they all had that along the duplex.)
I think the whole number green enhanced markers might be exclusive to Akron (or ODOT district 4), as I don't see them anywhere else in the state. Also interesting is that the .0 is omitted on the Akron ones you linked. Normally, the state keeps the .0 on whole miles; this one-off in Toledo (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6850843,-83.5682444,3a,20.7y,185.42h,89.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD-Iu_zLM2izyQGw5dPz4mQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) was the only one I knew about that omitted the .0 before seeing the Akron ones. The other cities (well, Cincy, Columbus, Dayton and Cleveland at least) have the standard vertical number green mile marker on the right side of the road for whole miles in addition to the blue mile marker in the median.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on February 09, 2021, 02:09:12 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 09, 2021, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on February 09, 2021, 01:46:29 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 09, 2021, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on February 09, 2021, 10:52:24 AM
If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.
Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.218046,-84.3689792,3a,15y,334.6h,88.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNGvsQyNa8AMzLpY_iuOlcg!2e0!5s20160701T000000!7i13312!8i6656) to the full sized ones (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2180604,-84.3690275,3a,15y,341.97h,89.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-XAXfTCq2mZQg1YSm9GQEQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.
It is interesting that ODOT went through a phase of the whole number markers being green (https://goo.gl/maps/p3YGVaZ67Fi1rvp48) and the others blue (https://goo.gl/maps/KY9HGfL89jCG9Zzr8).  Those were put up at the same time, and interestingly, the values changed by 6/10 mile when they did.  (If you move back in time, you can see 22.6 where 22.0 now is.  Also, the old 22.6 was an interesting one with a W direction but both 76 and 77 shields; they all had that along the duplex.)
I think the whole number green enhanced markers might be exclusive to Akron (or ODOT district 4), as I don't see them anywhere else in the state. Also interesting is that the .0 is omitted on the Akron ones you linked. Normally, the state keeps the .0 on whole miles; this one-off in Toledo (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6850843,-83.5682444,3a,20.7y,185.42h,89.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD-Iu_zLM2izyQGw5dPz4mQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) was the only one I knew about that omitted the .0 before seeing the Akron ones. The other cities (well, Cincy, Columbus, Dayton and Cleveland at least) have the standard vertical number green mile marker on the right side of the road for whole miles in addition to the blue mile marker in the median.

Some of the newest .0 ones show .0; it seems that it is flavor of the month with them.  The recently-completed project on 76/77 includes a new 22.0 marker with Mile 22 traditional markers on the roadside; other whole numbers nearby are missing and possibly because of the 6/10 shift (which itself is odd).  It is almost like they are seeing how many permutations they can come up with.  It was never this way when they were all the old design.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on February 09, 2021, 04:47:58 PM
This F'n gantry in Chicago, suggesting a two-lane exit for I-294 SB with an option lane. And then you get there, and surprise! It's just a one-lane exit ramp.

I guess it is IDiOT.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9089792,-87.9287183,3a,75y,125.15h,105.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sejc_jh3OdIwPYtmGej9Nfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on February 09, 2021, 08:35:05 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 09, 2021, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on February 09, 2021, 01:46:29 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 09, 2021, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on February 09, 2021, 10:52:24 AM
If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.
Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.218046,-84.3689792,3a,15y,334.6h,88.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNGvsQyNa8AMzLpY_iuOlcg!2e0!5s20160701T000000!7i13312!8i6656) to the full sized ones (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2180604,-84.3690275,3a,15y,341.97h,89.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-XAXfTCq2mZQg1YSm9GQEQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.
It is interesting that ODOT went through a phase of the whole number markers being green (https://goo.gl/maps/p3YGVaZ67Fi1rvp48) and the others blue (https://goo.gl/maps/KY9HGfL89jCG9Zzr8).  Those were put up at the same time, and interestingly, the values changed by 6/10 mile when they did.  (If you move back in time, you can see 22.6 where 22.0 now is.  Also, the old 22.6 was an interesting one with a W direction but both 76 and 77 shields; they all had that along the duplex.)
I think the whole number green enhanced markers might be exclusive to Akron (or ODOT district 4), as I don't see them anywhere else in the state.

Akron area freeways has always had anomalies, with some ground‐mounted signage looking slightly different...Especially on the older freeway segments that were later rebuilt.   

I would hazard a guess that those simpler replacement signs (Non-overhead BGS) were made by the City of Akron's sign department for quite a few decades.  That might explain the green fractional mile‐markers. 

Another reason why I suspect the city of Akron is that once you are outside of their city limits, the signage looks more uniform.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on February 09, 2021, 08:40:06 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 09, 2021, 04:47:58 PM
This F'n gantry in Chicago, suggesting a two-lane exit for I-294 SB with an option lane. And then you get there, and surprise! It's just a one-lane exit ramp.

I guess it is IDiOT.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9089792,-87.9287183,3a,75y,125.15h,105.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sejc_jh3OdIwPYtmGej9Nfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Great MNDOT style arrows, but yeah, total fail.

Quote from: kphoger on February 09, 2021, 10:25:34 AM
Quote from: formulanone on February 09, 2021, 05:51:58 AM

Slight error on this one in Waukesha...the "south" should go over the WI-164 shield and the US 18 should have the "west" directional banner:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50924288652_ce98ed049f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kA1hQL)

And, because it's Wisconsin, one cannot simply switch the tabs around.

Great place to try white-out!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: BridgesToIdealism on February 14, 2021, 04:27:53 PM
I know there was a thread somewhere about "signs that point towards a road you're already on", but for the life of me I can't find it, so I'll put this here.

When traveling westbound on NH 111A approaching the double roundabouts at the Pelham Village Green, there is a sign that says "JCT NH 111A" when approaching the first roundabout at Nashua Road... even though you're already on NH 111A and have been for the last 5-10 miles. The sign should read " WEST NH 111A" with a straight arrow to indicate that you need to continue straight through the traffic circle to remain on NH 111A. Interestingly, the same problem doesn't exist when traveling eastbound.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on February 14, 2021, 06:03:15 PM
Quote from: BridgesToIdealism on February 14, 2021, 04:27:53 PM
I know there was a thread somewhere about "signs that point towards a road you're already on", but for the life of me I can't find it, so I'll put this here.

Signs That Point Toward a Highway That You're Already On (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26863.msg2498691#msg2498691)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on February 28, 2021, 04:58:27 PM
Something doesn't look right here:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/313427323393?ul_noapp=true
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on February 28, 2021, 09:46:27 PM
Quote from: US71 on February 28, 2021, 04:58:27 PM
Something doesn't look right here:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/313427323393?ul_noapp=true

Aaaaaaand, someone bought it.

Ok who was it??
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on February 28, 2021, 09:52:51 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if it's someone on this forum.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on February 28, 2021, 10:37:15 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 28, 2021, 09:52:51 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if it's someone on this forum.

Wasn't me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 02, 2021, 09:01:47 AM
WisDOT needs more WisDOM.  :pan:

https://goo.gl/maps/1AAM9vnZtwXtQER1A (https://goo.gl/maps/1AAM9vnZtwXtQER1A)

This one should be self-explanatory.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TravelingBethelite on March 07, 2021, 10:04:34 PM
Definitely erroneous, debatably bad; on the ramp from US 46 east to the Portland-Columbia Toll Bridge in Columbia, NJ: https://goo.gl/maps/x9kfYGbYyR4vas4A7 (https://goo.gl/maps/x9kfYGbYyR4vas4A7)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 07, 2021, 10:20:57 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 07, 2021, 10:04:34 PM
Definitely erroneous, debatably bad; on the ramp from US 46 east to the Portland-Columbia Toll Bridge in Columbia, NJ: https://goo.gl/maps/x9kfYGbYyR4vas4A7 (https://goo.gl/maps/x9kfYGbYyR4vas4A7)

What on earth is US-611? What is that supposed to even be?!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ilpt4u on March 07, 2021, 10:24:35 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 07, 2021, 10:20:57 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 07, 2021, 10:04:34 PM
Definitely erroneous, debatably bad; on the ramp from US 46 east to the Portland-Columbia Toll Bridge in Columbia, NJ: https://goo.gl/maps/x9kfYGbYyR4vas4A7 (https://goo.gl/maps/x9kfYGbYyR4vas4A7)
What on earth is US-611? What is that supposed to even be?!
Not familiar with the area at all, but from a quick map glance, I'm guessing it is supposed to be PA 611
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 07, 2021, 10:26:44 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on March 07, 2021, 10:24:35 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 07, 2021, 10:20:57 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 07, 2021, 10:04:34 PM
Definitely erroneous, debatably bad; on the ramp from US 46 east to the Portland-Columbia Toll Bridge in Columbia, NJ: https://goo.gl/maps/x9kfYGbYyR4vas4A7 (https://goo.gl/maps/x9kfYGbYyR4vas4A7)
What on earth is US-611? What is that supposed to even be?!
Not familiar with the area at all, but from a quick map glance, I’m guessing it is supposed to be PA 611

You're right, I barely checked the map, didn't even see PA-611. I saw this was in NJ and figured whoever installed the sign was as high as Mount Everest.  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on March 08, 2021, 02:32:01 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 07, 2021, 10:26:44 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on March 07, 2021, 10:24:35 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 07, 2021, 10:20:57 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 07, 2021, 10:04:34 PM
Definitely erroneous, debatably bad; on the ramp from US 46 east to the Portland-Columbia Toll Bridge in Columbia, NJ: https://goo.gl/maps/x9kfYGbYyR4vas4A7 (https://goo.gl/maps/x9kfYGbYyR4vas4A7)
What on earth is US-611? What is that supposed to even be?!
Not familiar with the area at all, but from a quick map glance, I’m guessing it is supposed to be PA 611

You're right, I barely checked the map, didn't even see PA-611. I saw this was in NJ and figured whoever installed the sign was as high as Mount Everest.  :pan:

I think it is a well-intentioned replacement for a very, very old shield from when US 611 did exist.  Steve's site has a photo of it (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_94/), and older street view shows it blurry (https://goo.gl/maps/T2Q2DG6AsKo97sac7). 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Steve.S on March 08, 2021, 06:36:42 AM
Right idea, wrong sign.

https://goo.gl/maps/Mqc45hg7MCdsFqv8A (https://goo.gl/maps/Mqc45hg7MCdsFqv8A)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on March 08, 2021, 07:10:59 AM
Quote from: Steve.S on March 08, 2021, 06:36:42 AM
Right idea, wrong sign.

https://goo.gl/maps/Mqc45hg7MCdsFqv8A (https://goo.gl/maps/Mqc45hg7MCdsFqv8A)
Heh, I pass by that sign every time I go to Costco and was about to post it here, but forgot to.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Steve.S on March 08, 2021, 08:28:10 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 08, 2021, 07:10:59 AM
Quote from: Steve.S on March 08, 2021, 06:36:42 AM
Right idea, wrong sign.

https://goo.gl/maps/Mqc45hg7MCdsFqv8A (https://goo.gl/maps/Mqc45hg7MCdsFqv8A)
Heh, I pass by that sign every time I go to Costco and was about to post it here, but forgot to.
Same!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on March 08, 2021, 12:38:51 PM
Quote from: Steve.S on March 08, 2021, 06:36:42 AM
Right idea, wrong sign.

https://goo.gl/maps/Mqc45hg7MCdsFqv8A (https://goo.gl/maps/Mqc45hg7MCdsFqv8A)
Right Idea, Wrong sign thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15172.0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on March 09, 2021, 12:11:17 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on March 07, 2021, 10:24:35 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 07, 2021, 10:20:57 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 07, 2021, 10:04:34 PM
Definitely erroneous, debatably bad; on the ramp from US 46 east to the Portland-Columbia Toll Bridge in Columbia, NJ: https://goo.gl/maps/x9kfYGbYyR4vas4A7 (https://goo.gl/maps/x9kfYGbYyR4vas4A7)
What on earth is US-611? What is that supposed to even be?!
Not familiar with the area at all, but from a quick map glance, I'm guessing it is supposed to be PA 611

I saw that in 2016 and thought it was a really dumb carbon copy of the vintage U.S. 611 shield.

Looking back at the old shield, it was somewhat restored at one point. Must have been locally maintained, as must be the odd replacement.
Photo I took of it in 1996:
(https://www.aaroads.com/nj/046/us-046_eb_ramp_to_pa-611_01.jpg)

And the same shield in 2000:
(https://www.aaroads.com/nj/046/us-046_eb_ramp_to_pa-611_02.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: interstatefan990 on March 09, 2021, 02:02:26 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 02, 2021, 09:01:47 AM
WisDOT needs more WisDOM.  :pan:

https://goo.gl/maps/1AAM9vnZtwXtQER1A (https://goo.gl/maps/1AAM9vnZtwXtQER1A)

This one should be self-explanatory.

Wow, a STOP sign, DO NOT ENTER sign, and WRONG WAY sign all for a small, narrow private driveway?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tchafe1978 on March 09, 2021, 09:36:06 AM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 09, 2021, 02:02:26 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 02, 2021, 09:01:47 AM
WisDOT needs more WisDOM.  :pan:

https://goo.gl/maps/1AAM9vnZtwXtQER1A (https://goo.gl/maps/1AAM9vnZtwXtQER1A)

This one should be self-explanatory.

Wow, a STOP sign, DO NOT ENTER sign, and WRONG WAY sign all for a small, narrow private driveway?

That's not a small, narrow private driveway. That's at the intersection of WIS 60 and US 61 just north of Boscobel.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on March 09, 2021, 09:40:37 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on March 09, 2021, 09:36:06 AM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 09, 2021, 02:02:26 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 02, 2021, 09:01:47 AM
WisDOT needs more WisDOM.  :pan:

https://goo.gl/maps/1AAM9vnZtwXtQER1A (https://goo.gl/maps/1AAM9vnZtwXtQER1A)

This one should be self-explanatory.

Wow, a STOP sign, DO NOT ENTER sign, and WRONG WAY sign all for a small, narrow private driveway?

That's not a small, narrow private driveway. That's at the intersection of WIS 60 and US 61 just north of Boscobel.
Probably referring to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1527211,-90.7179011,3a,75y,311.91h,76.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWGDR9ze4rVL0Hm7E9WGBQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), just west of the WI 60 and US 61 intersection
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 09, 2021, 10:31:36 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 09, 2021, 09:40:37 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on March 09, 2021, 09:36:06 AM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 09, 2021, 02:02:26 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 02, 2021, 09:01:47 AM
WisDOT needs more WisDOM.  :pan:

https://goo.gl/maps/1AAM9vnZtwXtQER1A (https://goo.gl/maps/1AAM9vnZtwXtQER1A)

This one should be self-explanatory.

Wow, a STOP sign, DO NOT ENTER sign, and WRONG WAY sign all for a small, narrow private driveway?

That's not a small, narrow private driveway. That's at the intersection of WIS 60 and US 61 just north of Boscobel.
Probably referring to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1527211,-90.7179011,3a,75y,311.91h,76.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWGDR9ze4rVL0Hm7E9WGBQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), just west of the WI 60 and US 61 intersection

Oddly enough, Google Maps actually claims it's a road, "Easter Rock Ln".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: interstatefan990 on March 09, 2021, 10:46:49 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 09, 2021, 09:40:37 AM
Probably referring to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1527211,-90.7179011,3a,75y,311.91h,76.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWGDR9ze4rVL0Hm7E9WGBQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), just west of the WI 60 and US 61 intersection

Correct, that's what I was referring to.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 09, 2021, 04:26:21 PM
Found this goof today in Mokena, IL

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51020699862_bae9557164_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kJwqx1)
IMG_4874 (https://flic.kr/p/2kJwqx1) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tchafe1978 on March 09, 2021, 04:52:06 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 09, 2021, 10:46:49 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 09, 2021, 09:40:37 AM
Probably referring to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1527211,-90.7179011,3a,75y,311.91h,76.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWGDR9ze4rVL0Hm7E9WGBQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), just west of the WI 60 and US 61 intersection

Correct, that's what I was referring to.

Sorry for the mixup, but the Do Not Enter and Wrong Way signs are also clearly there because it is the beginning of a divided highway, not just for the driveway. On another note, some township lanes that look like nothing more than a private driveway are indeed maintained and plowed in winter by the township, so that could be why there is a stop sign there and the lane has an official name. Usually these town lanes are dead ends and are basically nothing more than a long driveway. I had a friend who used to live at the end of one of these lanes and the township plowed basically all but the last 50 feet of the lane up to where their property line was. It's a nice deal if you can get it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 09, 2021, 05:09:34 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 09, 2021, 04:26:21 PM
Found this goof today in Mokena, IL

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51020699862_bae9557164_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kJwqx1)
IMG_4874 (https://flic.kr/p/2kJwqx1) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr

I feel like the person who fabricated that was probably having fun on purpose. :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: interstatefan990 on March 09, 2021, 05:18:24 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on March 09, 2021, 04:52:06 PM
the Do Not Enter and Wrong Way signs are also clearly there because it is the beginning of a divided highway, not just for the driveway.

If that's true, then the signs would be pretty much redundant for that purpose because of the pair of double yellows and the Keep Right sign on the divider. I'd be curious to know if that was the intent. My gut tells me that it would be considered optional signage according to the MUTCD.

Quote from: tchafe1978 on March 09, 2021, 04:52:06 PM
On another note, some township lanes that look like nothing more than a private driveway are indeed maintained and plowed in winter by the township, so that could be why there is a stop sign there and the lane has an official name. Usually these town lanes are dead ends and are basically nothing more than a long driveway. I had a friend who used to live at the end of one of these lanes and the township plowed basically all but the last 50 feet of the lane up to where their property line was. It's a nice deal if you can get it.

That sure sounds nice. However, in the GSV you can see the house that the driveway leads to in the distance behind the trees, so I'm not too sure how long of a driveway (or township lane) it actually is. In any case, it looks like it would be difficult to plow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on March 09, 2021, 05:21:20 PM
In states where spirals are used for highway alignments or surveying, TS would stand for Tangent (end) to spiral (beginning).  With what I see, it is an erroneous sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on March 10, 2021, 10:01:19 AM
Square-mounted curve sign, Atlanta. (https://goo.gl/maps/13bXLiwcBWXgJrQj6)  And then, facing the other way: missing sign and lights still active. (https://goo.gl/maps/ARcbtNXSsWfdSceu6)  At least it's just solar power.  (The missing sign used to be square-mounted too. (https://goo.gl/maps/nJxrZq2sQp8PqK2P7))
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on March 20, 2021, 12:06:07 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/yhkQN9f6NtzjxRHUA

Shouldn't the arrow be upward if it's telling motorists to exit to accesss I-64?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on March 20, 2021, 12:33:03 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 20, 2021, 12:06:07 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/yhkQN9f6NtzjxRHUA

Shouldn't the arrow be upward if it's telling motorists to exit to accesss I-64?
The downward arrow would make sense if it's place right at the ramp entrance (like what California does), but this one is a bit ahead of it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on March 23, 2021, 11:25:05 AM
Yes I know there is a thread separate for this, but the search engine sucks and offers no help. I don't have time to view each page either to find it, but here is a doozy in Camden. https://goo.gl/maps/9KnDU9YJCJLSTi4S7
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on March 23, 2021, 04:35:27 PM
For those who haven't seen the other thread, the new signs for the Goethals Bridge manage to misspell it in two different ways:

(https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/advancelocal/BFMD6I24NBF4PDTV6KGITZ3GG4.jpg)

(https://media.nbcnewyork.com/2021/03/Video-21.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&w=1024)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 23, 2021, 04:52:08 PM
The first one looks like a contraction of geothermals.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on March 23, 2021, 08:05:51 PM
Well being that Geothals is not a relation to Andrew Cuomo, it will not be fixed right away like the NYSTA had to add the middle initial to Mario Cuomo when they unintentionally left that part out on new guides.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 24, 2021, 01:37:01 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2021, 08:05:51 PM
Well being that Geothals is not a relation to Andrew Cuomo, it will not be fixed right away like the NYSTA had to add the middle initial to Mario Cuomo when they unintentionally left that part out on new guides.

I can pretty much guarantee you it will be fixed soon. That's a pretty significant mistake and one we know they're aware of based on the news articles.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on March 25, 2021, 09:53:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2021, 11:25:05 AM
Yes I know there is a thread separate for this, but the search engine sucks and offers no help. I don’t have time to view each page either to find it, but here is a doozy in Camden. https://goo.gl/maps/9KnDU9YJCJLSTi4S7

The light pole that has not had a luminary attached for as long as Street View has existed is special, as they have poured concrete, broken up concrete, poured more concrete, built out the sidewalk around the pole, but left the pole as-is and in the last street view it is literally leaning against utility wires (https://goo.gl/maps/hUrd8a7oi7esAcHA6) as the base has rotted out that much.  Guess removing it or replacing it was in no scope of work for any project!  (Just move the NJTP assembly to its own pole, please.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on March 29, 2021, 10:47:54 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/48009424003
PA 1502 in a Texas SH shield?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on March 29, 2021, 02:13:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 29, 2021, 10:47:54 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/48009424003
PA 1502 in a Texas SH shield?

It's actually PA as in "Principal Arterial".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on March 29, 2021, 11:46:18 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 20, 2021, 12:33:03 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 20, 2021, 12:06:07 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/yhkQN9f6NtzjxRHUA

Shouldn't the arrow be upward if it's telling motorists to exit to accesss I-64?
The downward arrow would make sense if it's place right at the ramp entrance (like what California does), but this one is a bit ahead of it.
It's Norfolk, VA--the #1 place for derp signage! 

This would work better the way it is if the pavement markings were improved such as gore markings to divide the main route from the exit ramp.  However, Tidewater Drive has been marked this way for as long as I can remember (since the mid-1970's).  It more than likely has been like this since it was completed in 1956.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 30, 2021, 11:39:39 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2021, 02:13:20 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on March 29, 2021, 10:47:54 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/48009424003
PA 1502 in a Texas SH shield?

It's actually PA as in "Principal Arterial".

See below.

Quote from: TxDOT – Highway Designations Glossary
Principle Arterial Street System (PASS) City streets included in the State Highway System under the 1988 ? 1992 Urban System/PASS Program for major urbanized areas (Category 6). The purpose of the PASS is to improve mobility by developing a high level urban arterial street system to connect and serve freeways and expressways and relieve major traffic corridors.

Quote from: TxDOT – Highway Designation Files
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL STATE SYSTEM NO. 1502

In San Antonio, on Wurzbach Road and East-West Pkwy, from IH 410 northeast and east to IH 35; and then from another point on East-West Pkwy on East-West Pkwy Connection north to Schertz Road.

PASS PROJECT NO. 1502-01
Minute Order 87544, 6/28/88

In San Antonio, on Wurzbach Rd, from 0.6 mile east of Ingram Rd northward to the Leon Valley western city limits, a distance of approx. 1.0 mile. (Bexar County)

PASS PROJECT NO. 1502-02
Minute Order 87546, 6/28/88

In Leon Valley, on Wurzbach Rd, from Seville Dr northward to Evers Rd, a distance of approx. 0.8 mile. (Bexar County)

PASS PROJECT NO. 1502-03
Minute Order 87549, 6/28/88

In San Antonio, on East-West Pkwy, from Lockhill-Selma Rd northeastward to IH 35, a distance of approx. 10.0 miles. (Bexar County)

And here is a list of them.  (Go to the bottom of the dropdown.)

So not at all incorrect, but I'm not sure I'd ever seen one signed before.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on March 30, 2021, 03:44:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2021, 02:13:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 29, 2021, 10:47:54 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/48009424003
PA 1502 in a Texas SH shield?

It's actually PA as in "Principal Arterial".

Is this only one of its kind? I know you have OSR and NASA Road 1 as rarities in the system. So this is another one of those?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on March 30, 2021, 08:53:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 30, 2021, 03:44:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2021, 02:13:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 29, 2021, 10:47:54 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/48009424003
PA 1502 in a Texas SH shield?

It's actually PA as in "Principal Arterial".

Is this only one of its kind? I know you have OSR and NASA Road 1 as rarities in the system. So this is another one of those?

So far, it's believed to be the only "principal arterial" posted with a shield.

This one on US 281 (from 2017) is erroneous:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4558/38219272626_8e49473e9b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21eiLdj)

Some shields had the "PA" below the number, others had it above the numerals.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4574/38242306792_07d0feec54_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21gkPt7)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4579/38242307132_2b8447bc64_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21gkPyY)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 09:20:14 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 30, 2021, 03:44:57 PM
Is this only one of its kind? I know you have OSR and NASA Road 1 as rarities in the system. So this is another one of those?

As I said, you can easily search for them all:

Quote from: kphoger on March 30, 2021, 11:39:39 AM
And here is a list (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/default.aspx) of them.  (Go to the bottom of the dropdown.)

There are 72.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Flint1979 on April 02, 2021, 05:33:36 PM
Not sure if this one has made the list but I noticed this error on Greenfield Road in Dearborn for the first time today. The route number is correct but this is US-12 not M-12.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3187025,-83.1955261,3a,15y,213.97h,89.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soD8uTUOaHyY9gk8z1ep5mQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

EDIT: I just sent MDOT a complaint.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 02, 2021, 05:47:24 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 02, 2021, 05:33:36 PM
Not sure if this one has made the list but I noticed this error on Greenfield Road in Dearborn for the first time today. The route number is correct but this is US-12 not M-12.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3187025,-83.1955261,3a,15y,213.97h,89.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soD8uTUOaHyY9gk8z1ep5mQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

EDIT: I just sent MDOT a complaint.

US/State mixup shield error signs (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.0)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 05, 2021, 10:19:45 AM
Quote from: formulanone on March 30, 2021, 08:53:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 30, 2021, 03:44:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 29, 2021, 02:13:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 29, 2021, 10:47:54 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/48009424003
PA 1502 in a Texas SH shield?

It's actually PA as in "Principal Arterial".

Is this only one of its kind? I know you have OSR and NASA Road 1 as rarities in the system. So this is another one of those?

So far, it's believed to be the only "principal arterial" posted with a shield.

This one on US 281 (from 2017) is erroneous:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4558/38219272626_8e49473e9b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21eiLdj)

Some shields had the "PA" below the number, others had it above the numerals.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4574/38242306792_07d0feec54_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21gkPt7)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4579/38242307132_2b8447bc64_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21gkPyY)

(https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/48009423513/)

Me too I got that one in 2019.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/48009423513/


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48009423513_ba19a6a2f0_4k.jpg)





Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: snowc on April 05, 2021, 12:46:54 PM
Quote from: flaroads on January 20, 2009, 04:01:44 PM
Okay, we've all seen them and did a double-take when we did.  Yup, I'm talking about sign goofs.  We know they're out there, now let's see how many sign errors the DOT's and sign companies have put up across the country.  Here's one to get it started (which I have already posted on another thread)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/VA_37.jpg)

A US 37 in Virginia??  No, don't get your hopes up, it's actually suppose to be VA 37.  This is located along southbound I-81 in Virginia.  The other signs at this interchange show the correct VA 37 but whoever crafted this particular sign didn't read the full instructions and decided to make all the numbers with US highway shields...
Seems to be fixed now...
(https://storage12.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2019/7/26/proc/1595401_34_f642f_17.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on April 13, 2021, 03:39:24 PM
I'm not sure how this contractor error happened. That's supposed to be a Western Kentucky Parkway route marker. Instead, we now have I-100!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/21_13_04_21_3_37_09.jpeg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CoreySamson on April 13, 2021, 03:43:04 PM
That is glorious!  :)  How does that even happen?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on April 13, 2021, 05:12:01 PM
I like that error. We wouldn't get an I-100 otherwise.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on April 13, 2021, 05:43:21 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 13, 2021, 03:39:24 PM
I'm not sure how this contractor error happened. That's supposed to be a Western Kentucky Parkway route marker. Instead, we now have I-100!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/21_13_04_21_3_37_09.jpeg)

You should save that pic on at least four different thumb drives, a few SD cards, and maybe the Cloud. It must be cherished foreverrrrrr!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on April 13, 2021, 06:33:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 13, 2021, 03:39:24 PM
I'm not sure how this contractor error happened. That's supposed to be a Western Kentucky Parkway route marker. Instead, we now have I-100!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/21_13_04_21_3_37_09.jpeg)

I think we have a winner here. This might be the most baffling error there ever was (unless the Parkway is secretly KY 100?).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on April 13, 2021, 08:54:02 PM
Is that a one-off, or are all the approach signs that way?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 13, 2021, 10:32:37 PM
You have officially won the thread. I still think there one day could reasonably be an I-100 on the very top of the country hugging the Canadian border.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on April 13, 2021, 10:33:06 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 13, 2021, 10:32:37 PM
You have officially won the thread. I still think there one day could reasonably be an I-100 on the very top of the country hugging the Canadian border.
If FritzOwl becomes president.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Flint1979 on April 13, 2021, 10:38:17 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 13, 2021, 10:32:37 PM
You have officially won the thread. I still think there one day could reasonably be an I-100 on the very top of the country hugging the Canadian border.
The most northern US route US-2 sees little traffic.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on April 14, 2021, 12:01:36 AM
There's a really simple explanation for I-100:

Exit 42 + I-69 — I-24 + Lucky 13 = 100

Never mind, it's just amazingly weird.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kenarmy on April 14, 2021, 12:31:40 AM
Plot Twist: It's not an error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: interstatefan990 on April 14, 2021, 02:38:43 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 13, 2021, 10:32:37 PM
You have officially won the thread. I still think there one day could reasonably be an I-100 on the very top of the country hugging the Canadian border.

Yes, a spur route of famous I-0...  :hmm:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on April 14, 2021, 03:49:52 AM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 14, 2021, 02:38:43 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 13, 2021, 10:32:37 PM
You have officially won the thread. I still think there one day could reasonably be an I-100 on the very top of the country hugging the Canadian border.

Yes, a spur route of famous I-0...  :hmm:

I mean, it's the same logic that gave us US-101.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 14, 2021, 09:48:35 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 13, 2021, 03:39:24 PM
I'm not sure how this contractor error happened. That's supposed to be a Western Kentucky Parkway route marker. Instead, we now have I-100!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/21_13_04_21_3_37_09.jpeg)

FritzOwl strikes!

Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 13, 2021, 06:33:40 PM
I think we have a winner here. This might be the most baffling error there ever was (unless the Parkway is secretly KY 100?).

Nope, its secret designation is KY 9001 (and part of it is future I-569), which makes me wonder where the contractor got 100 from in the first place.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 12:01:00 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/oPUKgkgzF6b9YtKa6 US 122 is back.

Also US 73 in Kansas has a child in NJ.
https://goo.gl/maps/ergb4sLzxrRT3NMu7

Same locale in NJ.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 14, 2021, 12:21:49 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 12:01:00 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/oPUKgkgzF6b9YtKa6 US 122 is back.

Also US 73 in Kansas has a child in NJ.
https://goo.gl/maps/ergb4sLzxrRT3NMu7

Same locale in NJ.

Aren't those just US/State mixup shield error signs (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.0)?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 12:53:48 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 14, 2021, 12:21:49 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 12:01:00 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/oPUKgkgzF6b9YtKa6 US 122 is back.

Also US 73 in Kansas has a child in NJ.
https://goo.gl/maps/ergb4sLzxrRT3NMu7



Same locale in NJ.

Aren't those just US/State mixup shield error signs (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.0)?

I tried to find the page, but the site engine was no help.  I typed in US routes signed as State routes, but no help. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 14, 2021, 12:57:43 PM
Yeah, the search engine is tough to use sometimes.  I tried a few times, then gave up and just searched the child board for it myself.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on April 14, 2021, 01:05:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 14, 2021, 12:57:43 PM
Yeah, the search engine is tough to use sometimes.  I tried a few times, then gave up and just searched the child board for it myself.

I've been having trouble using the search engine lately. I find using quotes helps, but even lately that hasn't helped. Most recently I was trying to find an image by searching with the link from Imgur (using just the end of the link) ... no luck. Still haven't found it, even though I know I posted it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on April 14, 2021, 01:13:11 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 14, 2021, 12:57:43 PM
Yeah, the search engine is tough to use sometimes.  I tried a few times, then gave up and just searched the child board for it myself.
I use Google as the search engine for here. Adding in 'aaroads' to the search normally results in forum posts here as the top results. The exception is for fictional highways, which is locked behind a login and Google can't search for threads there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 01:15:01 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 14, 2021, 01:13:11 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 14, 2021, 12:57:43 PM
Yeah, the search engine is tough to use sometimes.  I tried a few times, then gave up and just searched the child board for it myself.
I use Google as the search engine for here. Adding in 'aaroads' to the search normally results in forum posts here as the top results. The exception is for fictional highways, which is locked behind a login and Google can't search for threads there.

Yeah I posted it on there as well as I used your link above.  Have to remember that one next time as I always can't find certain threads on here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on April 14, 2021, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on April 13, 2021, 08:54:02 PM
Is that a one-off, or are all the approach signs that way?

I think it's a one-off. The original sign must have gotten knocked down or something.

This is what it replaced. I was in error on the original location. It's I-24 westbound. The eastbound signs have Henderson listed as well as E-town. Best I can tell, this photo was taken last summer.

(https://roadview-images.kytc.ky.gov/Van2_Mandli_Data_2020/06-24-2020/2020_V6_024-I-24W~1/2020_V6_024-I-24W~1/Right/Dir_063/R_06346.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: andrepoiy on April 14, 2021, 09:34:21 PM
Here is a yield sign placed upside-down

(https://i.imgur.com/hnTx6ay.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 09:46:48 PM
I drove the I-24 and 69 concurrency in September last year and saw no mistake. I drove it EB and nothing odd then.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on April 15, 2021, 10:34:33 PM
Another square-mounted curve sign. (https://goo.gl/maps/vJ5v8fg1kjiwqsNx9)  They have bolt holes for a guide and everything.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tchafe1978 on April 15, 2021, 10:39:29 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on April 15, 2021, 10:34:33 PM
Another square-mounted curve sign. (https://goo.gl/maps/vJ5v8fg1kjiwqsNx9)  They have bolt holes for a guide and everything.

Something tells me it's being used for other than its originally intended purpose.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on April 15, 2021, 10:44:24 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on April 15, 2021, 10:34:33 PM
Another square-mounted curve sign. (https://goo.gl/maps/vJ5v8fg1kjiwqsNx9)  They have bolt holes for a guide and everything.
And should it say TO 90 instead of JCT 90?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on April 15, 2021, 10:52:17 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 15, 2021, 10:39:29 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on April 15, 2021, 10:34:33 PM
Another square-mounted curve sign. (https://goo.gl/maps/vJ5v8fg1kjiwqsNx9)  They have bolt holes for a guide and everything.

Something tells me it's being used for other than its originally intended purpose.

The correct bolt holes seem to be rusted, so you might be right.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 15, 2021, 11:00:02 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on April 15, 2021, 10:34:33 PM
Another square-mounted curve sign. (https://goo.gl/maps/vJ5v8fg1kjiwqsNx9)  They have bolt holes for a guide and everything.

And we also have the skinny hospital arrow being incorrectly used.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dirt Roads on April 16, 2021, 08:46:31 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on April 15, 2021, 10:34:33 PM
Another square-mounted curve sign. (https://goo.gl/maps/vJ5v8fg1kjiwqsNx9)  They have bolt holes for a guide and everything.

That is very confusing.  It looks like the "main road" does a zig-zag from Main Street left onto Railroad Avenue then right onto another section named Main Street.  But the location of this square-mounted curve sign is telling me that the "main road" is to ignore the lane striping and turn left on Railroad Avenue then continue straight on Railroad Avenue through the next intersection.  Unless I was headed for I-90, in which I would follow the signs (there's also a tiny green one down at the next section of Main Street).

Worse, there's no "Stop, except when turning right" signage at the next section of Main Street.  If I followed the signage, I might get blasted from "oncoming" traffic making the zig-zag.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on April 16, 2021, 04:25:36 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on April 15, 2021, 10:34:33 PM
Another square-mounted curve sign. (https://goo.gl/maps/vJ5v8fg1kjiwqsNx9)  They have bolt holes for a guide and everything.

that arrow panel above it isn't exactly up-to-spec, either
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kylebnjmnross on April 18, 2021, 05:06:44 PM
 https://maps.app.goo.gl/fzsDXhFVrfZhZGp29  (https://maps.app.goo.gl/fzsDXhFVrfZhZGp29)

As part of the newly redone I-83/US 22 interchange, these signs have been put up on WB US 22. I-83 is NOT accessible from the middle lane as the sign implies. You have to get over to the right lane for both I-81 and I-83. Is there a reason why PennDOT would have done this? Since as it stands now, people get into the middle lane, realize oh sh1t, and then quick clamor for the right lane at the ramp.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ricw24 on April 18, 2021, 09:41:38 PM
Help.

https://goo.gl/maps/RhisUL9khGVnY2AC9
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: interstatefan990 on April 18, 2021, 09:52:14 PM
Quote from: Ricw24 on April 18, 2021, 09:41:38 PM
Help.

https://goo.gl/maps/RhisUL9khGVnY2AC9

That's a candidate for Worst Of if you ask me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on April 18, 2021, 09:54:07 PM
Rectangular interstate signs aren't a bad idea if for some reason, 4dis are introduced.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: interstatefan990 on April 18, 2021, 09:57:02 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 18, 2021, 09:54:07 PM
Rectangular interstate signs aren't a bad idea if for some reason, 4dis are introduced.

I say FHWA design an ultra-wide 4DI shield and a rectangular interstate sign, and put it up for public discussion/voting.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 19, 2021, 12:51:12 PM
Quote from: Ricw24 on April 18, 2021, 09:41:38 PM
Help.

https://goo.gl/maps/RhisUL9khGVnY2AC9

With all due respect, we've seen this one around here many times before...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 19, 2021, 03:44:50 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 19, 2021, 12:51:12 PM

Quote from: Ricw24 on April 18, 2021, 09:41:38 PM
Help.

https://goo.gl/maps/RhisUL9khGVnY2AC9

With all due respect, we've seen this one around here many times before...

With all due respect, the guy's post count currently says 13, so perhaps some slack could be cut.

(Also, it isn't erroneous, because that is indeed the way to Interstate 290.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 19, 2021, 03:47:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2021, 03:44:50 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 19, 2021, 12:51:12 PM

Quote from: Ricw24 on April 18, 2021, 09:41:38 PM
Help.

https://goo.gl/maps/RhisUL9khGVnY2AC9

With all due respect, we've seen this one around here many times before...

With all due respect, the guy's post count currently says 13, so perhaps some slack could be cut.

(Also, it isn't erroneous, because that is indeed the way to Interstate 290.)

This is the AARoads Forum, we don't cut slack around here. ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 19, 2021, 03:52:05 PM
One of the square 290s has been taken down in recent years (the arrow is there, pointing to nothing). However, I admit the more I live here and see those, the more I've grown to like it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on April 19, 2021, 10:22:29 PM
*throws slack into the forum*
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ricw24 on April 19, 2021, 11:40:01 PM
To my defense I did come across that sign in real life (I live in the area) & haven't seen it being posted here yet.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: interstatefan990 on April 25, 2021, 10:27:54 PM
"Rough Road Next 4miles":

https://goo.gl/maps/cC4PZqtgdvPTtksx6
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 26, 2021, 01:56:51 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 25, 2021, 10:27:54 PM
"Rough Road Next 4miles":

https://goo.gl/maps/cC4PZqtgdvPTtksx6

Is the road not rough?

Or was this supposed to go in Signs with Design Errors (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.0)?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: interstatefan990 on April 26, 2021, 02:00:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 26, 2021, 01:56:51 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 25, 2021, 10:27:54 PM
"Rough Road Next 4miles":

https://goo.gl/maps/cC4PZqtgdvPTtksx6

Is the road not rough?

Or was this supposed to go in Signs with Design Errors (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.0)?

Is a sign with a design error not an erroneous sign?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CoreySamson on April 26, 2021, 02:04:59 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 26, 2021, 02:00:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 26, 2021, 01:56:51 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 25, 2021, 10:27:54 PM
"Rough Road Next 4miles":

https://goo.gl/maps/cC4PZqtgdvPTtksx6

Is the road not rough?

Or was this supposed to go in Signs with Design Errors (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.0)?

Is a sign with a design error not an erroneous sign?
It technically is, but that thread was created to prevent slightly off-looking signs from clogging up this thread and the Worst road signs thread. You could post this sign in the Unique, Odd, or Interesting signs threads though. It would be a perfect fit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 26, 2021, 02:57:05 PM
I'm assuming nothing that sign says is erroneous.  The road is rough, for the next four miles.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on April 26, 2021, 04:26:52 PM
All I see is there is a missing space between 4 and miles.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: interstatefan990 on April 26, 2021, 09:00:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 26, 2021, 02:57:05 PM
I'm assuming nothing that sign says is erroneous.  The road is rough, for the next four miles.

Quote from: Big John on April 26, 2021, 04:26:52 PM
All I see is there is a missing space between 4 and miles.

Yes, it's not very erroneous. But is it still erroneous? Also yes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 27, 2021, 11:21:56 AM
What information does it convey in error?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on April 27, 2021, 11:38:41 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2021, 11:21:56 AM
What information does it convey in error?

I don't see any change in the pavement as you pass the sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: interstatefan990 on April 27, 2021, 11:40:51 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2021, 11:21:56 AM
What information does it convey in error?

What about the title "Erroneous road signs" conveys "incorrect information only"? Many things can be erroneous, not just the accuracy of what the sign tells you.

Quote from: 1 on April 27, 2021, 11:38:41 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2021, 11:21:56 AM
What information does it convey in error?

I don't see any change in the pavement as you pass the sign.

I was thinking the exact same thing. I wasn't sure if GSV wasn't showing enough detail or if the road really did just never get rough.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 27, 2021, 10:23:50 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 27, 2021, 11:40:51 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2021, 11:21:56 AM
What information does it convey in error?

What about the title "Erroneous road signs" conveys "incorrect information only"? Many things can be erroneous, not just the accuracy of what the sign tells you.

A design error is indeed erroneous. It's just that on this forum we have created separate threads for different issues on signs. Signs with Design Errors, Redundant Signs, The Worst Of, US/State Shield Mix-ups, The Good, The Bad, the Ugly, etc. Admittedly it's gotten to the point where we all play politics with where a specific sign should go when in the end it probably doesn't matter. And yes, I'm guilty of this too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on April 27, 2021, 10:34:33 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 27, 2021, 10:23:50 PM
It's just that on this forum we have created separate threads for different issues on signs. Signs with Design Errors, Redundant Signs, The Worst Of, US/State Shield Mix-ups, The Good, The Bad, the Ugly, etc. Admittedly it's gotten to the point where we all play politics with where a specific sign should go when in the end it probably doesn't matter.

Behold, the real design error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: interstatefan990 on April 28, 2021, 10:33:40 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 27, 2021, 10:23:50 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 27, 2021, 11:40:51 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2021, 11:21:56 AM
What information does it convey in error?

What about the title "Erroneous road signs" conveys "incorrect information only"? Many things can be erroneous, not just the accuracy of what the sign tells you.

A design error is indeed erroneous. It's just that on this forum we have created separate threads for different issues on signs. Signs with Design Errors, Redundant Signs, The Worst Of, US/State Shield Mix-ups, The Good, The Bad, the Ugly, etc. Admittedly it's gotten to the point where we all play politics with where a specific sign should go when in the end it probably doesn't matter. And yes, I'm guilty of this too.

I guess signs can qualify for multiple threads. It's just a matter of choosing which one, which may be more difficult for people like me who haven't yet discovered the entire list of possible choices.  :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 28, 2021, 11:52:07 AM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 28, 2021, 10:33:40 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 27, 2021, 10:23:50 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on April 27, 2021, 11:40:51 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2021, 11:21:56 AM
What information does it convey in error?

What about the title "Erroneous road signs" conveys "incorrect information only"? Many things can be erroneous, not just the accuracy of what the sign tells you.

A design error is indeed erroneous. It's just that on this forum we have created separate threads for different issues on signs. Signs with Design Errors, Redundant Signs, The Worst Of, US/State Shield Mix-ups, The Good, The Bad, the Ugly, etc. Admittedly it's gotten to the point where we all play politics with where a specific sign should go when in the end it probably doesn't matter. And yes, I'm guilty of this too.

I guess signs can qualify for multiple threads. It's just a matter of choosing which one, which may be more difficult for people like me who haven't yet discovered the entire list of possible choices.  :spin:

That's why at one point I suggested pinning the most common of those threads to the top of the board so people would see them more easily. It wouldn't "solve" the problem, but maybe make it a bit better.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on April 28, 2021, 06:45:51 PM
I gave up a long time ago, and just started posting everything in the "Unique -- Good/Bad/Ugly" thread.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 28, 2021, 06:47:27 PM
That is quite a broad title, isn't it?

–  Hey, that's not unique!
–  I know.  It's bad.
–  Yeah, I think it's really ugly.
–  That too.
–  Actually, I like it quite a bit.
–  Well, then, it's good.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:59:27 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/sMz22ndKyYnbtAft8
I-80 east should have its arrow pointing to NJ 53 South.  The entrance ramp for I-80 is near the end of the ramp to the right.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: interstate73 on May 02, 2021, 12:26:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:59:27 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/sMz22ndKyYnbtAft8
I-80 east should have its arrow pointing to NJ 53 South.  The entrance ramp for I-80 is near the end of the ramp to the right.

Ah, one of my favorite stretches of road! Always gets my heart pumping to fight with traffic coming off 80 to get to 53 :D Although maybe they're intentionally directing traffic bound for I-80 East to keep going on 46 and get on 80 at Cherry Hill Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.875649,-74.4387789,3a,43.1y,127.41h,88.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stisJAe8aJA74rfs5BUaM7A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) because of the numerous issues (congestion, conflict with local traffic, a blind turn, weaving at both ends, etc) at the 53 South ramp?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 02, 2021, 01:41:46 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:59:27 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/sMz22ndKyYnbtAft8
I-80 east should have its arrow pointing to NJ 53 South.  The entrance ramp for I-80 is near the end of the ramp to the right.

Error aside, this illustrates one of my pet peeves:  Posting trailblazer and detour confirmation assemblies just past an exit ramp.  Thanks a heap, folks, I've got no choice but to continue straight at that point.  Posting the trailblazer assembly before the exit to confirm that I should continue straight would actually have been helpful.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on May 04, 2021, 08:38:35 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 02, 2021, 01:41:46 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:59:27 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/sMz22ndKyYnbtAft8
I-80 east should have its arrow pointing to NJ 53 South.  The entrance ramp for I-80 is near the end of the ramp to the right.

Error aside, this illustrates one of my pet peeves:  Posting trailblazer and detour confirmation assemblies just past an exit ramp.  Thanks a heap, folks, I've got no choice but to continue straight at that point.  Posting the trailblazer assembly before the exit to confirm that I should continue straight would actually have been helpful.

There is a sign over here, only a few feet back:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8925289,-74.480719,3a,75y,138.08h,96.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smSLPUJ4vSEjKgrRhsqQw9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I think interstate73 has the right explanation.  Yes you can reach I-80 east at this exit, but given the geometries the DOT would prefer that you stay on 46 a little while longer so that you don't create extra congestion at 73.

While the 80 trailblazer is beyond the exit, it isn't drastically so, and it is clear as to how they want you to travel.

If that upsets you, you probably hate the new exit signage in California.  (I do too!)

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0373979,-118.3061824,3a,75y,286.93h,87.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8UUoMWNxjji-BWsuzZFyMw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 06, 2021, 11:51:31 AM
I saw this misspelling of Selinsgrove (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.261842,-76.9062106,3a,37.5y,46.73h,89.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s28kBpAQAeCvzKLme3Fub6A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) while driving this morning.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JMoses24 on May 15, 2021, 12:19:29 AM
Quote from: JMoses24 on December 10, 2019, 02:12:41 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 29, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure :nod: this is a goof:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTlN9Ey2.jpg&hash=c0baa9041031d9d679bcdaf458213240d68d965c)

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

Still there in 2019.

And in 2021... STILL there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2021, 10:40:05 AM
Quote from: JMoses24 on May 15, 2021, 12:19:29 AM
Quote from: JMoses24 on December 10, 2019, 02:12:41 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 29, 2016, 09:40:56 AM
Saw this one in August on I-35 in Oklahoma, and I'm pretty sure :nod: this is a goof:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTlN9Ey2.jpg&hash=c0baa9041031d9d679bcdaf458213240d68d965c)

Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma

Still there in 2019.

And in 2021... STILL there.

It's Oklahoma... do you really think that will ever get fixed?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 16, 2021, 08:36:31 PM
No one's going to fix the sign because no one knows what the problem is. There is nothing erroneous on that sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: renegade on May 17, 2021, 03:19:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 16, 2021, 08:36:31 PM
No one's going to fix the sign because no one knows what the problem is. There is nothing erroneous on that sign.
No meat cleaver ?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on May 17, 2021, 03:42:15 PM
Quote from: renegade on May 17, 2021, 03:19:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 16, 2021, 08:36:31 PM
No one's going to fix the sign because no one knows what the problem is. There is nothing erroneous on that sign.
No meat cleaver ?

Lacking the meat cleaver is a design error at best. The information portrayed is still correct: "Highway 51 towards Stillwater or Hennessey, next exit".

Most likely: few if any would notice the lack of the meat cleaver.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TBKS1 on May 23, 2021, 07:04:00 PM
This is a really subtle error, and it's one that I didn't notice for quite a while. It is still technically a mixup, although it's definitely not noticeable to almost everybody at first glance.

(https://i.imgur.com/rr04J13.jpg)

This was on I-30 near Saltillo, TX. I took this on May 2nd, 2019 so this sign may have been replaced since. This is supposed to be FM 900, not SH 900.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on May 23, 2021, 08:18:32 PM
US 5 in Texas.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4147/35631781455_9c60444964_z_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CoreySamson on May 23, 2021, 08:49:47 PM
Quote from: TBKS1 on May 23, 2021, 07:04:00 PM
This is a really subtle error, and it's one that I didn't notice for quite a while. It is still technically a mixup, although it's definitely not noticeable to almost everybody at first glance.

(https://i.imgur.com/rr04J13.jpg)

This was on I-30 near Saltillo, TX. I took this on May 2nd, 2019 so this sign may have been replaced since. This is supposed to be FM 900, not SH 900.
This happens a lot more than you'd think, at least from my experience. One of the few mess-ups TxDOT does a lot.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on May 23, 2021, 09:06:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 17, 2021, 03:42:15 PM
Quote from: renegade on May 17, 2021, 03:19:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 16, 2021, 08:36:31 PM
No one's going to fix the sign because no one knows what the problem is. There is nothing erroneous on that sign.
No meat cleaver ?

Lacking the meat cleaver is a design error at best. The information portrayed is still correct: "Highway 51 towards Stillwater or Hennessey, next exit".

Most likely: few if any would notice the lack of the meat cleaver.

looks like SOMEONE got sent on an all-expenses-paid-trip to Craig County by ODOT

The centered tab is also wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on May 23, 2021, 10:32:19 PM
Neither of those two signs are correct for the road condition.

(https://i.imgur.com/JKlplKV.png)

It should be a D-360 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Qu%C3%A9bec_D-360.svg/600px-Qu%C3%A9bec_D-360.svg.png) sign.

Street View (https://www.google.ca/maps/@46.0382939,-71.8784548,3a,15y,147.21h,86.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl0DtSyqrm8eiOH3KjMS0Qg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TBKS1 on May 24, 2021, 12:20:52 AM
I guess I didn't think about it but I could also post this one in here too (taken on October 16th, 2020)

(https://i.imgur.com/C9QrBs2.png)

Honestly it's not wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on May 24, 2021, 06:18:24 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on May 24, 2021, 12:20:52 AM
I guess I didn't think about it but I could also post this one in here too (taken on October 16th, 2020)

(https://i.imgur.com/C9QrBs2.png)

Honestly it's not wrong.

I don't see the error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on May 24, 2021, 09:17:30 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 24, 2021, 06:18:24 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on May 24, 2021, 12:20:52 AM
I guess I didn't think about it but I could also post this one in here too (taken on October 16th, 2020)

(https://i.imgur.com/C9QrBs2.png)

Honestly it's not wrong.

I don't see the error.

I-49 is old I-540. They swapped the shield but didn't change the text on the sign.

Though you could theoretically take I-49 south to the remaining section of I-540 in Fort Smith, which is probably dozens of miles away from this sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on May 24, 2021, 11:00:43 PM
I've taken this picture on TCH 2 EB in Edmundston, New Brunswick in a construction zone back in 2019. Such an error could kill people if it were followed.

(https://i.imgur.com/jEoYu8J.jpg)

Original size (https://i.imgur.com/jEoYu8J.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 25, 2021, 10:20:52 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 24, 2021, 11:00:43 PM
I've taken this picture on TCH 2 EB in Edmundston, New Brunswick in a construction zone back in 2019. Such an error could kill people if it were followed.

(https://i.imgur.com/jEoYu8J.jpg)

Original size (https://i.imgur.com/jEoYu8J.jpg)

Well, that's not dangerous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 25, 2021, 03:42:38 PM
The No Return Access should be in a yellow warning label. However it is not.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51203902610_796e713342_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CardInLex on May 25, 2021, 06:19:14 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 25, 2021, 10:20:52 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 24, 2021, 11:00:43 PM
I've taken this picture on TCH 2 EB in Edmundston, New Brunswick in a construction zone back in 2019. Such an error could kill people if it were followed.

(https://i.imgur.com/jEoYu8J.jpg)

Original size (https://i.imgur.com/jEoYu8J.jpg)

Well, that's not dangerous.

How about permanent dual mounted signage? It has been wrong (and reported) for years.
https://goo.gl/maps/aSm1Kk9vFc7g4P6a7
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on May 25, 2021, 07:09:36 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 25, 2021, 03:42:38 PM
The No Return Access should be in a yellow warning label. However it is not.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51203902610_796e713342_k.jpg)

Also, shouldn't that airport sign behind it have an arrow or exit number or something underneath?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on May 25, 2021, 08:10:01 PM
^^ The airport sign should go to Signs that Lack context: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29232.0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 01, 2021, 10:30:07 AM
This one where I-20 exits off of the I-520 c/d road.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51217154167_865cb4f632_3k.jpg)

The exit sign in the gore is pointing the wrong way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 01, 2021, 06:01:51 PM
US 441 does not end in Madison, GA.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51219622180_8dbcc714f6_4k.jpg)

It is supposed to be BY-PASS US 441 and GA 24.  However the banners fell off obviously.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on June 12, 2021, 11:12:46 PM
"Follow Bluegrass Pkwy for Bluegrass Pkwy (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0859663,-84.4633784,3a,16y,3h,95.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sThY2dfWtD2KvrarpcuPB0Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on June 13, 2021, 12:14:29 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 12, 2021, 11:12:46 PM
"Follow Bluegrass Pkwy for Bluegrass Pkwy (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0859663,-84.4633784,3a,16y,3h,95.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sThY2dfWtD2KvrarpcuPB0Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)"

I'd argue this is the opposite of erroneous. I mean... how else would you follow the Bluegrass Parkway?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TBKS1 on June 13, 2021, 12:28:08 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on June 13, 2021, 12:14:29 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 12, 2021, 11:12:46 PM
"Follow Bluegrass Pkwy for Bluegrass Pkwy (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0859663,-84.4633784,3a,16y,3h,95.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sThY2dfWtD2KvrarpcuPB0Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)"

I'd argue this is the opposite of erroneous. I mean... how else would you follow the Bluegrass Parkway?

Definitely more redundant than erroneous, which I believe there's a thread for that... (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11212.0)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on June 13, 2021, 08:41:06 AM
Back in 2013 in Bloomfield Twp, MI.  Should have clarified "Telegraph/Dixie (intersection, where US-24 changes between the two) to I-75."

(https://i.imgur.com/YljODye.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 13, 2021, 08:49:02 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on June 13, 2021, 12:14:29 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 12, 2021, 11:12:46 PM
"Follow Bluegrass Pkwy for Bluegrass Pkwy (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0859663,-84.4633784,3a,16y,3h,95.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sThY2dfWtD2KvrarpcuPB0Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)"

I'd argue this is the opposite of erroneous. I mean... how else would you follow the Bluegrass Parkway?

That dates back to when the sign said "BG Parkway" instead of the full name, with the governor it's named after and the KUS logo at the bottom. There are trailblazers for the parkway along KY 922, KY 4, and US 60.

Fun fact: there are fewer traffic lights if you take US 27/68 and KY 4 over taking KY 922 and KY 4.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on June 13, 2021, 09:03:54 PM
Quote from: TBKS1 on June 13, 2021, 12:28:08 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on June 13, 2021, 12:14:29 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 12, 2021, 11:12:46 PM
"Follow Bluegrass Pkwy for Bluegrass Pkwy (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0859663,-84.4633784,3a,16y,3h,95.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sThY2dfWtD2KvrarpcuPB0Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)"

I'd argue this is the opposite of erroneous. I mean... how else would you follow the Bluegrass Parkway?

Definitely more redundant than erroneous, which I believe there's a thread for that... (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11212.0)
As the next exit is to KY 922, I thought the sign is supposed to say "Follow KY 922 for Bluegrass Pkwy", which is why I posted it here. Now that you pointed out that thread, think this is a better fit there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TBKS1 on June 14, 2021, 01:23:49 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/FpqgOmT.jpeg)

Does anybody wanna guess what's wrong with this? [Google Street View] (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.941943,-90.7949844,3a,31.9y,114.79h,81.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-E6jbAtXXBBavk75T2TbIA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: stevashe on June 14, 2021, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on June 14, 2021, 01:23:49 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/FpqgOmT.jpeg)

Does anybody wanna guess what's wrong with this? [Google Street View] (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.941943,-90.7949844,3a,31.9y,114.79h,81.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-E6jbAtXXBBavk75T2TbIA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

The plaque below MO 185 points both ways, but turning right does not look advisable.  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 14, 2021, 01:56:26 PM
Quote from: stevashe on June 14, 2021, 11:50:58 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on June 14, 2021, 01:23:49 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/FpqgOmT.jpeg)

Does anybody wanna guess what's wrong with this? [Google Street View] (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.941943,-90.7949844,3a,31.9y,114.79h,81.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-E6jbAtXXBBavk75T2TbIA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

The plaque below MO 185 points both ways, but turning right does not look advisable.  :pan:

There's also stop signs in the direction you're not actually allowed to go.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 15, 2021, 11:25:01 AM
My co-worker mentioned this morning that, getting on I-135 North from Harry Street (here in Wichita), there are road construction signs informing drivers that the left lane is closed.  It's actually the right lane that's closed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 15, 2021, 12:02:00 PM
How about the arrows here. The one on the right is pointing toward the upward left arrow which goes to a different place than the arrow intends.

Yeah the middle lane is either or, but this is where the APL would be useful.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51250029360_6ff1759c70_h.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: fillup420 on June 15, 2021, 08:52:36 PM
These road work signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8747442,-78.8336953,3a,49y,147.53h,87.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFG_yH3zwu1zZogl-_VYLDg!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656) are still there as of this morning. As you can see, the first street view that shows them is May 2012.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on June 15, 2021, 09:30:43 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2021, 12:02:00 PM
How about the arrows here. The one on the right is pointing toward the upward left arrow which goes to a different place than the arrow intends.

Yeah the middle lane is either or, but this is where the APL would be useful.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51250029360_6ff1759c70_h.jpg)
That looks like half of ODOT signage that uses dancing arrows where an APL would be better.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TBKS1 on June 17, 2021, 03:28:23 PM
Wandered around on Google Street View around Hampton Roads to find this mix up (https://goo.gl/maps/pEFAPfRERaCVAiqGA)

(https://i.imgur.com/dIixBeO.jpeg)

Virginia SR 564, this should be Interstate 564 instead.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on June 17, 2021, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: TBKS1 on June 17, 2021, 03:28:23 PM
Wandered around on Google Street View around Hampton Roads to find this mix up (https://goo.gl/maps/pEFAPfRERaCVAiqGA)

(https://i.imgur.com/dIixBeO.jpeg)

Virginia SR 564, this should be Interstate 564 instead.

Such a mixup has been there a while.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 17, 2021, 04:30:17 PM
Isn't part of that route actually called VA 564, similar to I-381/VA 381 in Bristol?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on June 17, 2021, 04:39:24 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 17, 2021, 04:30:17 PM
Isn't part of that route actually called VA 564, similar to I-381/VA 381 in Bristol?

no...

VA 337 ends at I-564 and vice-versa

Froggie found this one there in 2001...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ozarkman417 on June 17, 2021, 06:33:21 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 09:46:48 PM
I drove the I-24 and 69 concurrency in September last year and saw no mistake. I drove it EB and nothing odd then.
It wasn't there when I drove I-24 westbound just before that interchange just after thanksgiving last year, either.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on June 19, 2021, 11:22:18 PM
As seen on Facebook: Pomona, CA (https://goo.gl/maps/Xu6Rq3n2fud9nUvU7)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 23, 2021, 01:20:19 AM
US 231 turns left here. Wrong arrow.

Also Business US 431 is straight, not right. Another wrong arrow.


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51265195591_e2573282b1_k.jpg)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 23, 2021, 01:27:10 PM
The longstanding US 18 error in Covington, Va., has been replaced by ... another US 18 error.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51265207254_34c9d9d0df_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2m78A4G)2021 Pre-back-to-the-office trip (KY-VA-WV) Day 2 - 054 (https://flic.kr/p/2m78A4G) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

(Yeah, I know, some anal-retentive type will whine about the other thread, but I'm putting this here because it's an erroneous road sign and this thread was here first. Deal with it.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on June 23, 2021, 02:46:46 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on June 19, 2021, 11:22:18 PM
As seen on Facebook: Pomona, CA (https://goo.gl/maps/Xu6Rq3n2fud9nUvU7)

This reminds me of a similar error I found a few years ago...

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 24, 2021, 11:00:43 PM
I've taken this picture on TCH 2 EB in Edmundston, New Brunswick in a construction zone back in 2019. Such an error could kill people if it were followed.

(https://i.imgur.com/jEoYu8J.jpg)

Original size (https://i.imgur.com/jEoYu8J.jpg)

Of course, the Pomona error is worse as it's a permanent sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on June 23, 2021, 03:25:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 23, 2021, 01:27:10 PM
(Yeah, I know, some anal-retentive type will whine about the other thread, but I'm putting this here because it's an erroneous road sign and this thread was here first. Deal with it.)

Half this forum didn't exist when you originally joined. Do you also not use those threads?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on June 23, 2021, 04:58:17 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on June 19, 2021, 11:22:18 PM
As seen on Facebook: Pomona, CA (https://goo.gl/maps/Xu6Rq3n2fud9nUvU7)
The keep left sign is too close to the keep right sign.  I would require a "LEFT" verbiage on the keep left sign to remove the confusion and the placement of the wrong sign as seen here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 23, 2021, 06:22:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 23, 2021, 03:25:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 23, 2021, 01:27:10 PM
(Yeah, I know, some anal-retentive type will whine about the other thread, but I'm putting this here because it's an erroneous road sign and this thread was here first. Deal with it.)

Half this forum didn't exist when you originally joined. Do you also not use those threads?

I read that thread, but I post my erroneous finds here. I didn't really see any reason for the other thread.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on June 23, 2021, 07:07:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 23, 2021, 06:22:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 23, 2021, 03:25:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 23, 2021, 01:27:10 PM
(Yeah, I know, some anal-retentive type will whine about the other thread, but I'm putting this here because it's an erroneous road sign and this thread was here first. Deal with it.)

Half this forum didn't exist when you originally joined. Do you also not use those threads?

I read that thread, but I post my erroneous finds here. I didn't really see any reason for the other thread.

Oh, a protest :) You'd fit in with my generation quite nicely.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TBKS1 on June 23, 2021, 08:29:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2021, 01:20:19 AM
US 231 turns left here. Wrong arrow.

Also Business US 431 is straight, not right. Another wrong arrow.


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51265195591_e2573282b1_k.jpg)

I literally have a picture of the same setup and I didn't even notice those errors until you pointed it out, 8 months after I took my photo

(https://i.imgur.com/OmWYcQB.jpeg)

That does seem kinda weird though, because surely the business routes and the actual routes would be separate... kinda surprised I didn't notice this lol
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 26, 2021, 10:22:05 PM
US 431 is here with US 84.  US 84 and AL 210 do not lead to US 431.  Only US 231 is the only route that is not here.   The TO US 431 SOUTH is wrong.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51273799634_d4d8084b24_k.jpg(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51273799634_d4d8084b24_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 13, 2021, 12:09:30 PM
This one as US 101 does not yet use Lombard Street.

(https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51309101725/)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51309101725_30b2fa525e_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on July 13, 2021, 01:25:22 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 13, 2021, 12:09:30 PM
This one as US 101 does not yet use Lombard Street.

It doesn't? I thought it ran along Van Ness and then turned down Lombard?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on July 13, 2021, 04:59:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 13, 2021, 01:25:22 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 13, 2021, 12:09:30 PM
This one as US 101 does not yet use Lombard Street.

It doesn't? I thought it ran along Van Ness and then turned down Lombard?

On a very technical basis, US 101 leaves the Presidio Parkway on a street called Richardson Ave before it reaches Lombard.  I don't see the signs as being erroneous, because for most drivers, they know that heading off the 101 from the bridge, they can either take Marina Blvd toward Fishermans Wharf area or Lombard street to follow US 101 towards downtown by way of either Van Ness or a very crooked street if they forget to make a right turn.  Yes on a very techincal basis, the main road goes to Richardson and the exit goes to Girard/Gorgas, but most people in the area are more familiar with Lombard and Marina, and IMO Lombard and Marina are the proper streets to use here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on July 13, 2021, 06:17:31 PM
Brand new sign goof on I-35 in Ardmore, OK. So new, the previous signs (and sign bridge) were on the ground just to the right of this picture. The sign on the left has the OK 142 & OK 199 shields switched. Should say OK 142 East TO OK 199.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51307460431_44b70d6e4c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2maS9sK)DSC03792 (https://flic.kr/p/2maS9sK) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on July 14, 2021, 12:22:45 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 13, 2021, 04:59:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 13, 2021, 01:25:22 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 13, 2021, 12:09:30 PM
This one as US 101 does not yet use Lombard Street.

It doesn't? I thought it ran along Van Ness and then turned down Lombard?

On a very technical basis, US 101 leaves the Presidio Parkway on a street called Richardson Ave before it reaches Lombard.  I don't see the signs as being erroneous, because for most drivers, they know that heading off the 101 from the bridge, they can either take Marina Blvd toward Fishermans Wharf area or Lombard street to follow US 101 towards downtown by way of either Van Ness or a very crooked street if they forget to make a right turn.  Yes on a very techincal basis, the main road goes to Richardson and the exit goes to Girard/Gorgas, but most people in the area are more familiar with Lombard and Marina, and IMO Lombard and Marina are the proper streets to use here.

Oh, gotcha. Yeah, and I mean I can see that on the map as a brief extension of the Presidio Parkway. I wouldn't think "Lombard" is erroneous either. I don't know of any requirement that street names be the immediate street.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 15, 2021, 09:04:00 AM
Quote from: okroads on July 13, 2021, 06:17:31 PM
Brand new sign goof on I-35 in Ardmore, OK. So new, the previous signs (and sign bridge) were on the ground just to the right of this picture. The sign on the left has the OK 142 & OK 199 shields switched. Should say OK 142 East TO OK 199.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51307460431_44b70d6e4c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2maS9sK)DSC03792 (https://flic.kr/p/2maS9sK) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

If we wanna get nitpicky, the TO should not have a raised T. And also the arrow on the right sign. Decent stuff overall though for OkDOT.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 15, 2021, 10:43:55 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 15, 2021, 09:04:00 AM
Quote from: okroads on July 13, 2021, 06:17:31 PM
Brand new sign goof on I-35 in Ardmore, OK. So new, the previous signs (and sign bridge) were on the ground just to the right of this picture. The sign on the left has the OK 142 & OK 199 shields switched. Should say OK 142 East TO OK 199.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51307460431_44b70d6e4c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2maS9sK)DSC03792 (https://flic.kr/p/2maS9sK) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr

If we wanna get nitpicky, the TO should not have a raised T. And also the arrow on the right sign. Decent stuff overall though for OkDOT.

Virginia is notorious for using the larger first letter in its "To" banners. It's the only state where I've seen this done.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on July 15, 2021, 12:07:52 PM
I think this is erroneous. Not sure what people here think:

https://goo.gl/maps/MKeysr1rs8T7VvFE9

The sign shows "WA-167 South" as being this exit. While you have to use this ramp to reach 167, it's not quite that simple: you have to turn at the end of the off-ramp, continue down West Valley Hwy for half a mile, make a left on 15th, and then make another right to actually reach 167. In between, it's all city streets.

The reverse maneuver is marked "To WA-18 West (https://goo.gl/maps/hGXEP4SHJhPiUUgo7)", so I'm pretty sure it would be erroneous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on July 15, 2021, 07:59:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 15, 2021, 12:07:52 PM
I think this is erroneous. Not sure what people here think:

https://goo.gl/maps/MKeysr1rs8T7VvFE9

The sign shows "WA-167 South" as being this exit. While you have to use this ramp to reach 167, it's not quite that simple: you have to turn at the end of the off-ramp, continue down West Valley Hwy for half a mile, make a left on 15th, and then make another right to actually reach 167. In between, it's all city streets.

The reverse maneuver is marked "To WA-18 West (https://goo.gl/maps/hGXEP4SHJhPiUUgo7)", so I'm pretty sure it would be erroneous.

I agree that this is erroneous, even though it is commonly done.

Basically, when there are missing movements on a freeway to freeway interchange, traffic will have to use a surface street connection to make the connection.  For someone who is somewhat familiar with the Seattle-Tacoma area, but not very familiar with the specific area, they may assume that this exit, signed as it is, is actually a freeway to freeway ramp (since they are aware that WA-167 is a relatively important regional freeway) and drive fast on it.  That could be dangerous.  It would be far better is it were clearly denoted as an exit for a street and it will lead to the missing connection to the other freeway.

The word "TO" is very important here, even though it is only two letters.

Here's another sign with a similar problem:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0086492,-118.1584596,3a,75y,318.15h,84.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8xbQ4kHW0oOXA49OQJOvOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

From here, one would assume that the off-ramp will lead to two separate off-ramps, one for Atlantic and one directly for 710 south.  But that is not the case.  The sign is a little deceptive.

The reverse move is far better signed.  Just use supplemental signage.  It is so easy:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9944929,-118.1765834,3a,75y,4.77h,78.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU5eqIGjiwcbMFVZHrFcHNw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Here's another problem:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6693581,-73.8014686,3a,75y,186.11h,94.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sizmQZQ5zd1321uOKwF3Pqg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The exit should be signed for North Conduit Ave west, not Belt Pkwy west.  You exit and then reach a traffic signal that puts you on North Conduit, which is the "service road" (to use NYC lingo) for the Belt Pkwy.  To enter the Belt, you must merge onto the left lane and enter through a normal on-ramp.  Very tight situation, and the signage off the Van Wyck gives no indication that this isn't freeway to freeway (expressway to parkway) ramp, but rather via a local street.

Exits like this (by way of a service road) are actually quite common in the NYC area, but they are usually better signed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kendancy66 on July 17, 2021, 12:03:43 AM
Here is a State route US shield mixup for Route 66 in Depew, OK

https://goo.gl/maps/SYXJr3yNKc27ewPR8
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 17, 2021, 01:12:23 AM
Somebody might steal that US-66 sign. So ODOT will have to replace that one way or another.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ozarkman417 on August 05, 2021, 06:32:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 24, 2021, 09:17:30 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 24, 2021, 06:18:24 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on May 24, 2021, 12:20:52 AM
I guess I didn't think about it but I could also post this one in here too (taken on October 16th, 2020)

(https://i.imgur.com/C9QrBs2.png)

Honestly it's not wrong.

I don't see the error.

I-49 is old I-540. They swapped the shield but didn't change the text on the sign.

Though you could theoretically take I-49 south to the remaining section of I-540 in Fort Smith, which is probably dozens of miles away from this sign.
I found another one of these near the intersection of Walton and J streets. Photo from GSV because mine did not turn out (camera focused on the rain instead).
I can understand the I-540 error,  but the other direction says Jct US 71. Back then, US 71 ran *along* Walton if I'm not mistaken.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210805/afa3d3e28b4b2b1be6555bd4c6903307.jpg)

SM-G965U

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: chrismarion100 on August 10, 2021, 03:14:25 AM
A sign where both distances are not correct not to mention that the next exit is not even listed and the exit to Chippewa falls is 7 miles away from the sign and not 10 and I-94 is 26 miles away and not 31 miles away
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9192797,-91.2285751,3a,23.1y,264.69h,87.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s34KSXN6bEeTVUlxYQTqfvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e4

edit: I did some looking and notice that a few signs along this highway do not have the right distance to Chippewa Falls as it looks like they forgot to update the distance to exit the highway as 29 no long goes through downtown Chippewa Falls
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hirothehero on August 16, 2021, 06:46:34 PM
(Boston, MA-Longwood area) A rare appearance of the default circle state shield. FYI, MassDOT uses square shields on state routes, including this one.
GSV and photo are from July 2019. The shield was removed sometime between then and the following GSV snapshot in November 2020.

https://goo.gl/maps/yapMVDQYovtww56F7 (https://goo.gl/maps/yapMVDQYovtww56F7)
(https://i.imgur.com/SbTnUhx.png)


(Newton, MA) I-95 is written in full inside a Mass state shield. The cardinal direction "West" also has the same formatting and alignment as the destination city, making it look like MA-16 goes to "Wellesley West" lol

https://goo.gl/maps/oPdfD6JyPnKSfEow9 (https://goo.gl/maps/oPdfD6JyPnKSfEow9)
(https://i.imgur.com/pnOpkzg.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on August 16, 2021, 07:49:01 PM
Quote from: hirothehero on August 16, 2021, 06:46:34 PM
(Boston, MA-Longwood area) A rare appearance of the default circle state shield. FYI, MassDOT uses square shields on state routes, including this one.
GSV and photo are from July 2019. The shield was removed sometime between then and the following GSV snapshot in November 2020.

NJ shields in MA aren't that rare, especially on MA 9.  There probably are still a couple in the Amherst-Hadley-Northampton area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on August 20, 2021, 09:25:03 PM
"2 or More Persons per 'Vehilce'"

https://www.startribune.com/mndot-s-typo-on-new-i-35w-signs-has-motorists-laughing/600089616/?fbclid=IwAR0SveOeIXf0qcFqg9FQ-oYjvDihYMhYmIq0Jwn81gGMS0MKwWVUopu3Jz0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J3ebrules on August 21, 2021, 02:41:32 PM
That's a long sign for something so incorrect. I was debating whether this photo goes under US/State Shield Mixups, but it's not a shield and looks like a fairly new sign.

(https://i.postimg.cc/rp8Jv7pg/A6857324-BB24-48-E7-BE7-E-8-AEF2-BDFEF7-B.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on August 21, 2021, 02:46:50 PM
"NJ state highway route" ... that's a mouthful of redundancy there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on August 22, 2021, 02:15:44 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 21, 2021, 02:46:50 PM
"NJ state highway route" ... that's a mouthful of redundancy there.

It's a cheap Carl Rogers imitation.

Hey, if they can have US Federal Routes, then why not NJ State Highway Routes?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 01:55:28 PM
Well, there are no federal routes, right?  Therefore, the road is in fact {N.J. State Highway} {Route 130}.   :awesomeface:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on August 23, 2021, 06:51:59 PM
Clearly they were trying oh so hard to convince everyone else that they were right!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 07:05:47 PM
Good grief!  It's not even unique, either:

https://goo.gl/maps/G8vmnrFzqx5WZcz67
https://goo.gl/maps/SaiiUiC1jK7SvDQE7
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 03:10:10 PM
What, it's you mean it's not N.J. State Highway Trunk Road Route 130?

All those words, and yet they still abbreviate NJ...At that point just admit that you're going for the Guinness record for longest street blade and own it.

Also, been a while since I saw chocolate Series B.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 24, 2021, 04:35:03 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/KncsaUXQUXytGjYc8

There is a sign informing motorists that NJ 23 goes to the same left that is prohibited by law.


Why not just have a NJ 23 shield without arrows like we have in Florida?

Ditto here at same intersection.
https://goo.gl/maps/32h85J47HzCR5SiP9
Just post the shield with no directions being here no turns either way are permitted.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 04:37:41 PM
Because you can turn onto NJ 23 south there, it's just that to do it, you have to use a jughandle.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 24, 2021, 04:42:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2021, 04:35:03 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/KncsaUXQUXytGjYc8

There is a sign informing motorists that NJ 23 goes to the same left that is prohibited by law.


Why not just have a NJ 23 shield without arrows like we have in Florida?

Ditto here at same intersection.
https://goo.gl/maps/32h85J47HzCR5SiP9
Just post the shield with no directions being here no turns either way are permitted.

That signage is pretty standard throughout the state.  Nothing wrong with it, because it's only indicating which way a route goes - it's not telling you to make the turn.  Routes are also signed at off ramps and one-way streets where there's no possibility of entering the roadway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on August 25, 2021, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 03:10:10 PM
What, it's you mean it's not N.J. State Highway Trunk Road Route 130?

All those words, and yet they still abbreviate NJ...At that point just admit that you're going for the Guinness record for longest street blade and own it.

Also, been a while since I saw chocolate Series B.

I think it should also be pointed out that this highway is actually U.S. 130, not NJ-130.

So while it is a NJ State Highway in the sense that NJ maintains it, just like it maintains other US highways within its borders, most would not call it NJ-130 since it is a US route.

Google maps names this street as Burlington Pike.  I wonder whether "Burlington Pike" or "US 130" or "Route 130" or "Highway 130" is used by locals to refer to the street and which of the above is used for purposes of mailing addresses.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Occidental Tourist on August 25, 2021, 11:54:50 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2021, 04:35:03 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/KncsaUXQUXytGjYc8

There is a sign informing motorists that NJ 23 goes to the same left that is prohibited by law.


Why not just have a NJ 23 shield without arrows like we have in Florida?

Ditto here at same intersection.
https://goo.gl/maps/32h85J47HzCR5SiP9
Just post the shield with no directions being here no turns either way are permitted.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 04:37:41 PM
Because you can turn onto NJ 23 south there, it's just that to do it, you have to use a jughandle.

And at the jughandle up ahead, it lets you know that you should use it for left turns and U-turns . . . except I don't see how you could do a U-turn using it, at least not for Kiel/Kinnelon.  Are they talking about a U-turn from 23 north to 23 south?

Edit: I found this comment (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11045.msg2653381#msg2653381) in the other thread raising the same issue immediately after I posted. :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on August 27, 2021, 12:17:54 AM
Quote from: mrsman on August 25, 2021, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 03:10:10 PM
What, it's you mean it's not N.J. State Highway Trunk Road Route 130?

All those words, and yet they still abbreviate NJ...At that point just admit that you're going for the Guinness record for longest street blade and own it.

Also, been a while since I saw chocolate Series B.

I think it should also be pointed out that this highway is actually U.S. 130, not NJ-130.

So while it is a NJ State Highway in the sense that NJ maintains it, just like it maintains other US highways within its borders, most would not call it NJ-130 since it is a US route.

Google maps names this street as Burlington Pike.  I wonder whether "Burlington Pike" or "US 130" or "Route 130" or "Highway 130" is used by locals to refer to the street and which of the above is used for purposes of mailing addresses.

it's locally known as Route 130, at least as far back as the 80's.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 27, 2021, 10:57:50 PM
In NJ logs all US routes are also state designations.  That is why no duplicate route numbers like other states do.  So even though I-80 is signed and referred to as an interstate, in the minds of NJDOT, its NJ 80 or State Route 80.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2021, 11:39:36 PM
Quote from: odditude on August 27, 2021, 12:17:54 AM
Quote from: mrsman on August 25, 2021, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 03:10:10 PM
What, it's you mean it's not N.J. State Highway Trunk Road Route 130?

All those words, and yet they still abbreviate NJ...At that point just admit that you're going for the Guinness record for longest street blade and own it.

Also, been a while since I saw chocolate Series B.

I think it should also be pointed out that this highway is actually U.S. 130, not NJ-130.

So while it is a NJ State Highway in the sense that NJ maintains it, just like it maintains other US highways within its borders, most would not call it NJ-130 since it is a US route.

Google maps names this street as Burlington Pike.  I wonder whether "Burlington Pike" or "US 130" or "Route 130" or "Highway 130" is used by locals to refer to the street and which of the above is used for purposes of mailing addresses.

it's locally known as Route 130, at least as far back as the 80's.

I posted this one or one similar on a Facebook group page, and some guy gave me a lot of gruff about it because it was "correct".  He wasn't correct, but, whatever.    I think street blades like this get mixed up in translation, and someone in the office verbally says what they're used to saying, and it somehow gets translated to what you see here.  Yet, on other street blades:  "US 130". 

So there's no uniformity.  But there really should be.  Along with the general public motoring along, street blades serve as guidance for emergency responders and those in an emergency. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J3ebrules on August 30, 2021, 03:06:05 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 25, 2021, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 03:10:10 PM
What, it's you mean it's not N.J. State Highway Trunk Road Route 130?

All those words, and yet they still abbreviate NJ...At that point just admit that you're going for the Guinness record for longest street blade and own it.

Also, been a while since I saw chocolate Series B.

I think it should also be pointed out that this highway is actually U.S. 130, not NJ-130.

So while it is a NJ State Highway in the sense that NJ maintains it, just like it maintains other US highways within its borders, most would not call it NJ-130 since it is a US route.

Google maps names this street as Burlington Pike.  I wonder whether "Burlington Pike" or "US 130" or "Route 130" or "Highway 130" is used by locals to refer to the street and which of the above is used for purposes of mailing addresses.

I actually live right off of US 130 (the photo is a bit north of me), and I and my neighbors and everyone at the dog park just calls it "130" .

But yeah, I know in this era that US highways are state-maintained... but it's still a US Highway, not an NJ one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on August 30, 2021, 03:12:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 03:10:10 PM
What, it's you mean it's not N.J. State Highway Trunk Road Route 130?

All those words, and yet they still abbreviate NJ...At that point just admit that you're going for the Guinness record for longest street blade and own it.
Could write the number out to make it even longer

"New Jersey United States State Highway Trunk Road Route One Thirty"  :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: chrismarion100 on September 04, 2021, 01:14:23 PM
Update WISDot have fix the distance to I-94 and I made a mistake so the distance to Chippewa Falls was right.
Quote from: chrismarion100 on August 10, 2021, 03:14:25 AM
A sign where both distances are not correct not to mention that the next exit is not even listed and the exit to Chippewa falls is 7 miles away from the sign and not 10 and I-94 is 26 miles away and not 31 miles away
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9192797,-91.2285751,3a,23.1y,264.69h,87.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s34KSXN6bEeTVUlxYQTqfvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e4

edit: I did some looking and notice that a few signs along this highway do not have the right distance to Chippewa Falls as it looks like they forgot to update the distance to exit the highway as 29 no long goes through downtown Chippewa Falls
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: chrismarion100 on September 05, 2021, 11:40:13 PM
I have found some more signs that are wrong
A sign on that signed as mainline US 53, not Bus. 53 or Hastings Way (WisDOT might have forgot to replace the sign when the bypass opened base on the look of the sign)
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.792007,-91.4584599,3a,49.7y,331.02h,101.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_L4sX15f7QV3Hc5bNU1s5Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: interstatefan990 on September 06, 2021, 12:37:00 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 21, 2021, 02:46:50 PM
"NJ state highway route" ... that's a mouthful of redundancy there.

It's almost like they're trying to brand it. Route 130...brought to you by NJ State Highway™.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 07, 2021, 09:16:25 AM
This one on NJ Route 79 in Marlboro, NJ has the wrong arrow to the SB Garden State Parkway.
https://goo.gl/maps/6FBwpMqbX1pJb14u5
Should be to the right as NJ 18 south is the best way to get there. Going straight, will indeed get you there via NJ 79, CR 516, Clark Street, and Lloyd Road, but miles out of the way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on September 07, 2021, 02:43:22 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 07, 2021, 09:16:25 AM
This one on NJ Route 79 in Marlboro, NJ has the wrong arrow to the SB Garden State Parkway.
https://goo.gl/maps/6FBwpMqbX1pJb14u5
Should be to the right as NJ 18 south is the best way to get there. Going straight, will indeed get you there via NJ 79, CR 516, Clark Street, and Lloyd Road, but miles out of the way.

Posted route uses CR 520 which is only 3 miles longer but does take twice as long per the Goog...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 07, 2021, 04:43:35 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 07, 2021, 02:43:22 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 07, 2021, 09:16:25 AM
This one on NJ Route 79 in Marlboro, NJ has the wrong arrow to the SB Garden State Parkway.
https://goo.gl/maps/6FBwpMqbX1pJb14u5
Should be to the right as NJ 18 south is the best way to get there. Going straight, will indeed get you there via NJ 79, CR 516, Clark Street, and Lloyd Road, but miles out of the way.

Posted route uses CR 520 which is only 3 miles longer but does take twice as long per the Goog...

Think it was carbon copied from before NJ 18 was completed between NJ 34 and the Southbound Parkway.

I remember at the 520 exit on NJ 18 SB there was a Parkway shield that stood long after the freeway extended south of NJ 34 with connection to the Parkway South at the end directing all motorists to it via 520 east.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on September 17, 2021, 10:38:01 PM
Seen this week in Missoula, MT: Mainline I-90 on exit. (https://goo.gl/maps/hHnzhjvHtbfBHo9R8)  Should be a green business loop.  It has been up since about 2015.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on September 19, 2021, 10:42:14 PM
I saw sign goofs on Indiana SR 2 southwest of Valparaiso in a newly-built roundabout at Heavilin Road. They have circular shields, which easily gave me vibes from Delaware!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 21, 2021, 09:45:12 AM
The arrow on this is wrong. Both Kinsley and Lyons are via the second right not the first.


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51497685737_d24d4b0db3_c.jpg)

The Salt site sign, though, is correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on September 21, 2021, 09:54:39 AM
I believe I got a lot of errors in one sign.

(https://i.imgur.com/wXjE4a5.jpg)
(Original size (https://i.imgur.com/wXjE4a5.jpg))

1. "Detour via bridge closed" doesn't make sense. It should be "detour via closed bridge". The French grammar is correct.
2. Wait, detour via a closed bridge? That makes no sense! The "closed bridge" line should be on top, and then the "bridge closed" wording would be accurate.
3. "Month to month"? I believe the closure is semi-permanent (as I don't recall the bridge being open in recent years), but in that case, no need for that text to be there.
4. "Rue/Street Quai Saint-André" should be just "Quai Saint-André".
5. "Rue Street (name)" shouldn't even be that way. It should be "Rue Saint-Paul Street" and "Rue Abraham-Martin Street".
6. The top sign shouldn't really exist anyways. Just the bottom two signs, with the detour signed with the name of the bridge, should be enough.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 23, 2021, 04:32:41 PM
They forgot the arrow
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51431910250_ea852b6b26_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 23, 2021, 05:42:38 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 23, 2021, 04:32:41 PM
They forgot the arrow
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51431910250_ea852b6b26_c.jpg)

They want you to stop right there, right in front of the sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on September 23, 2021, 11:05:11 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 23, 2021, 05:42:38 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 23, 2021, 04:32:41 PM
They forgot the arrow
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51431910250_ea852b6b26_c.jpg)

They want you to stop right there, right in front of the sign.

Seems like that's exactly what happened.  :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on September 24, 2021, 01:49:47 AM
I posted this in the enhanced mile markers thread a while ago, though I think it belongs here too:
(https://i.imgur.com/yq3dxin.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 7/8 on September 26, 2021, 03:10:07 PM
Facing south at Old Wanup Road and Hwy 537 in Wanup, ON. They used the wrong shield type (King's Highway instead of Secondary Highway):
(https://i.imgur.com/SUQdrmNl.jpg)

Streetview from Aug. 2018 shows it used to be the correct shields:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@46.3844591,-80.8271369,3a,42.9y,208.61h,82.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shvAi2KD_2BqPKBFqnj-MrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.ca/maps/@46.3844591,-80.8271369,3a,42.9y,208.61h,82.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shvAi2KD_2BqPKBFqnj-MrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 27, 2021, 03:54:04 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on September 23, 2021, 11:05:11 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 23, 2021, 05:42:38 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 23, 2021, 04:32:41 PM
They forgot the arrow
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51431910250_ea852b6b26_c.jpg)

They want you to stop right there, right in front of the sign.

Seems like that's exactly what happened.  :spin:

Well then, I'd say the sign did its job!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on October 09, 2021, 02:26:11 PM
Welcome to St. Hellens, Oregon.  Nowhere near Interstate 30 in Dallas, TX, but just off US 30.  How else could they have designated a US 30 business loop?  Use a normal US 30 shield with a "business" banner?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51570281330_bdaf1a3f74_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mz6aXy)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on October 13, 2021, 04:23:28 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 09, 2021, 02:26:11 PM
Welcome to St. Hellens, Oregon.  Nowhere near Interstate 30 in Dallas, TX, but just off US 30.  How else could they have designated a US 30 business loop?  Use a normal US 30 shield with a "business" banner?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51570281330_bdaf1a3f74_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mz6aXy)

I believe that business route is unofficial, hence the lack of competent signage.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 16, 2021, 12:59:16 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Vd2wkG3jhaymRMY89
New Brunswick is now via a jug handle behind the signal.  They forgot to change the sign when the eliminated the left turn here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on October 16, 2021, 02:47:49 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2021, 12:59:16 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Vd2wkG3jhaymRMY89
New Brunswick is now via a jug handle behind the signal.  They forgot to change the sign when the eliminated the left turn here.

Reminds me of this STOP sign just outside Williamsburg, VA. The signal has been there for 2 years now but they never removed the sign (I was there a few days ago).

https://maps.app.goo.gl/rchSAbQHbsQQnoGs5
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on October 16, 2021, 10:24:05 PM
Quote from: plain on October 16, 2021, 02:47:49 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2021, 12:59:16 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Vd2wkG3jhaymRMY89
New Brunswick is now via a jug handle behind the signal.  They forgot to change the sign when the eliminated the left turn here.

Reminds me of this STOP sign just outside Williamsburg, VA. The signal has been there for 2 years now but they never removed the sign (I was there a few days ago).

https://maps.app.goo.gl/rchSAbQHbsQQnoGs5

The red circles for the left turn lanes on the main drag and the way the sidewalk was built on the side street but not connected to the corner by the other project are both infuriating. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 20, 2021, 01:18:26 PM
US 13 don't go to US 58 & 460 here. US 13 & 460 goes to US 58 instead. City of Chesapeake goof.
https://goo.gl/maps/EteycengjGP24ebx6
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ozarkman417 on October 22, 2021, 02:36:26 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 04, 2020, 04:47:34 PM
When you can't rotate text in MS Paint
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200804/8d9306d50178d966d961070d6771e516.jpg)

SM-G965U
This Missouris has been rotated back to the correct position (note the difference in color immediately surrounding the shields)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211022/ade1536443e5d0fd464cf7d769c3294f.jpg)

SM-G965U

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on October 22, 2021, 04:55:59 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on October 22, 2021, 02:36:26 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 04, 2020, 04:47:34 PM
When you can't rotate text in MS Paint
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200804/8d9306d50178d966d961070d6771e516.jpg)

SM-G965U
This Missouris has been rotated back to the correct position (note the difference in color immediately surrounding the shields)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211022/ade1536443e5d0fd464cf7d769c3294f.jpg)

SM-G965U

Aww damn we were having so much fun with this  :-D oh well
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on October 22, 2021, 05:11:38 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on October 22, 2021, 02:36:26 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 04, 2020, 04:47:34 PM
When you can't rotate text in MS Paint
(Missouri, 90 degrees to the right)

This Missouris has been rotated back to the correct position (note the difference in color immediately surrounding the shields)

(MoDOT says NO FUN ALLOWED)

It reminded me of the tapping (https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Tap) mechanic in Magic: the Gathering.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FrCorySticha on October 22, 2021, 07:18:48 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 22, 2021, 05:11:38 PM
It reminded me of the tapping (https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Tap) mechanic in Magic: the Gathering.

Unless they're on MtG:Arena, then they'd be tapped 45° instead of 90° as the rules require.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on October 27, 2021, 07:46:26 PM
I took this in February 2020; a green keystone shield for I-76/Pennsylvania Turnpike:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51634084816_f6e3dec1e5_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mEJbvE)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 27, 2021, 08:04:48 PM
I've seen a number of those green PA Turnpike signs for various tolled interstates. There may even be some for I-376 since its extension west to I-80.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on October 31, 2021, 03:16:47 AM
...that's not where the arrow goes....

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.8172999,-69.5465913,3a,37.5y,345.89h,78.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4dRqLrv5S8FTEGFYuJlvig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on October 31, 2021, 12:18:31 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 31, 2021, 03:16:47 AM
...that's not where the arrow goes....

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.8172999,-69.5465913,3a,37.5y,345.89h,78.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4dRqLrv5S8FTEGFYuJlvig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Let's hope nobody crashes into these houses.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 01, 2021, 09:42:46 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 31, 2021, 03:16:47 AM
...that's not where the arrow goes....

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.8172999,-69.5465913,3a,37.5y,345.89h,78.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4dRqLrv5S8FTEGFYuJlvig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

oh nooooo
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TBKS1 on November 04, 2021, 12:51:10 AM
I found a switch-up but it's not a shield, although it's a pretty subtle error (once again).

(https://i.imgur.com/htE68ty.jpeg)

(Google Street View) (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2084511,-94.2441807,3a,26y,322.57h,82.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipNaV_b8B5Fq9QHAzRhQTFkx89GE-p4ON7a6hgNb!2e10!3e11!7i7680!8i3840)

This should be AR 22, US 22 doesn't go through Arkansas lol

Guaranteed I'm going to post this in here and someone's going to tell me to move it to the other thread but it's whatever honestly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SkyPesos on November 04, 2021, 02:40:07 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on November 04, 2021, 12:51:10 AM
I found a switch-up but it's not a shield, although it's a pretty subtle error (once again).

(https://i.imgur.com/htE68ty.jpeg)

(Google Street View) (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2084511,-94.2441807,3a,26y,322.57h,82.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipNaV_b8B5Fq9QHAzRhQTFkx89GE-p4ON7a6hgNb!2e10!3e11!7i7680!8i3840)

This should be AR 22, US 22 doesn't go through Arkansas lol

Guaranteed I'm going to post this in here and someone's going to tell me to move it to the other thread but it's whatever honestly.
US 22's alignment is approximately a WSW-ENE diagonal. Interestingly, if you continue the diagonal, it'll enter the northwest corner of Arkansas.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MikieTimT on November 04, 2021, 07:03:41 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on November 04, 2021, 12:51:10 AM
I found a switch-up but it's not a shield, although it's a pretty subtle error (once again).

(https://i.imgur.com/htE68ty.jpeg)

(Google Street View) (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2084511,-94.2441807,3a,26y,322.57h,82.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipNaV_b8B5Fq9QHAzRhQTFkx89GE-p4ON7a6hgNb!2e10!3e11!7i7680!8i3840)

This should be AR 22, US 22 doesn't go through Arkansas lol

Guaranteed I'm going to post this in here and someone's going to tell me to move it to the other thread but it's whatever honestly.

I've used AR-96 numerous times and never noticed this, but always coming from Greenwood's downtown when doing so, so never really see this sign.  They actually got it right coming from the other direction, which is a left turn instead.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TBKS1 on November 05, 2021, 02:10:56 AM
I don't get this one, I might need a bit of an explanation for this but there's obviously something off about this sign

(https://i.imgur.com/zm1cg86.jpeg)

Located along AR 94 northbound at the intersection of AR 340 just south of the Missouri state line

Missouri SR 44 doesn't exist, and I have no idea if this was a former highway or if it's meant to represent Interstate 44... but I-44 is nearly 50 miles away from this location, and it intersects other highways well before it. I don't get this one but I think it qualifies for this thread.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 05, 2021, 08:27:35 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on November 05, 2021, 02:10:56 AM
I don't get this one, I might need a bit of an explanation for this but there's obviously something off about this sign

(https://i.imgur.com/zm1cg86.jpeg)

Located along AR 94 northbound at the intersection of AR 340 just south of the Missouri state line

Missouri SR 44 doesn't exist, and I have no idea if this was a former highway or if it's meant to represent Interstate 44... but I-44 is nearly 50 miles away from this location, and it intersects other highways well before it. I don't get this one but I think it qualifies for this thread.

MO 44 is a former highway which was replaced when I-44 was designated. It's now Secondary Route F.  ArDOT apparently never got the memo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jlam on November 08, 2021, 10:49:08 AM
The other day, as I was geocaching, I found this strange road sign along CO 392 while geocaching. I don't know why it exists.
(https://i.ibb.co/wc1DnrT/Screenshot-2021-11-08-8-47-16-AM.png) (https://ibb.co/z6wK3H1)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TBKS1 on November 08, 2021, 01:54:17 PM
Quote from: jlam on November 08, 2021, 10:49:08 AM
The other day, as I was geocaching, I found this strange road sign along CO 392 while geocaching. I don't know why it exists.
(https://i.ibb.co/wc1DnrT/Screenshot-2021-11-08-8-47-16-AM.png) (https://ibb.co/z6wK3H1)

I don't get this one unless it's a location specific error
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on November 08, 2021, 02:29:09 PM
Quote from: TBKS1 on November 08, 2021, 01:54:17 PM
Quote from: jlam on November 08, 2021, 10:49:08 AM
The other day, as I was geocaching, I found this strange road sign along CO 392 while geocaching. I don't know why it exists.
(https://i.ibb.co/wc1DnrT/Screenshot-2021-11-08-8-47-16-AM.png) (https://ibb.co/z6wK3H1)

I don't get this one unless it's a location specific error

You can't junction the route you're on.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TBKS1 on November 08, 2021, 02:38:21 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on November 08, 2021, 02:29:09 PM
Quote from: TBKS1 on November 08, 2021, 01:54:17 PM
Quote from: jlam on November 08, 2021, 10:49:08 AM
The other day, as I was geocaching, I found this strange road sign along CO 392 while geocaching. I don't know why it exists.
(https://i.ibb.co/wc1DnrT/Screenshot-2021-11-08-8-47-16-AM.png) (https://ibb.co/z6wK3H1)

I don't get this one unless it's a location specific error

You can't junction the route you're on.

OHHHH I literally didn't notice that, I thought the sign itself was an error apart from the road itself. That makes sense now.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 08, 2021, 04:06:56 PM
Illinois is notorious for signing "JCT Both Routes" assemblies on concurrencies.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jlam on November 08, 2021, 04:16:00 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 08, 2021, 04:06:56 PM
Illinois is notorious for signing "JCT Both Routes" assemblies on concurrencies.
This is near the CO 257 concurrency in Windsor... maybe it was just placed in an incorrect location?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JayhawkCO on November 09, 2021, 03:28:06 PM
Another Colorado one.  I hadn't driven on I-70 East out of Denver in a while, and these signs are new.  Contractor mix-up.

(https://i.postimg.cc/FFxyzFK9/I-70-BL.png)

(Supposed to be BL-70)

Chris
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on November 09, 2021, 08:40:21 PM
Are sign colors important any more?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51668776313_dbc35484b1_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mHMZ5V)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on November 09, 2021, 10:23:31 PM
^^ Or are operations doing a slow pace? :bigass:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on November 09, 2021, 11:31:33 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on November 09, 2021, 03:28:06 PM
Another Colorado one.  I hadn't driven on I-70 East out of Denver in a while, and these signs are new.  Contractor mix-up.

(https://i.postimg.cc/FFxyzFK9/I-70-BL.png)

(Supposed to be BL-70)

Chris

There's one similar to that (shield error) on EB I-70 going into Idaho Springs.  When there WAS a BL-70, it should've been a BL-70 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on November 14, 2021, 09:48:58 PM
Another misapplied appearance of the Divided Highway Ahead sign:  Kirkland, WA (https://goo.gl/maps/pgoQE4NKB2FEqWWeA)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on November 14, 2021, 10:22:56 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on November 14, 2021, 09:48:58 PM
Another misapplied appearance of the Divided Highway Ahead sign:  Kirkland, WA (https://goo.gl/maps/pgoQE4NKB2FEqWWeA)

Speaking of which, here's a local example (https://goo.gl/maps/RX9DQhSrweDU1cpo9).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 15, 2021, 11:47:42 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on November 14, 2021, 09:48:58 PM
Another misapplied appearance of the Divided Highway Ahead sign:  Kirkland, WA (https://goo.gl/maps/pgoQE4NKB2FEqWWeA)

Quote from: LilianaUwU on November 14, 2021, 10:22:56 PM
Speaking of which, here's a local example (https://goo.gl/maps/RX9DQhSrweDU1cpo9).

But there is a legal difference between the Federal Highway Administration MUTCD and the MUTCD of Canada.  Here in the United States, the FHWA can and sometimes will withhold Federal funds when a Federal-funded project has blatantly failed to adhere to MUTCD standards, which are contractually-mandated regulations for such projects.  Transport Canada (the ministry of transportation, lower case intended) can certainly hold provincial Transport/Infrastructure agencies to those same standards, but the Transport Association of Canada (TAC) that administers the MUTCD Canada doesn't have any such authority.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on November 15, 2021, 12:11:27 PM
Reminder that I have an entire folder of over 90 photos entitled "Nope Springs Eternal," full of traffic control fails.  Mostly it's signage.  Feel free to post any photos here in this thread if you have any specific comments.

https://flic.kr/s/aHskyzimkx
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 16, 2021, 09:48:39 PM
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51686258545_e9cff0f939_k.jpg
The double turn sign blocking the view of the shields behind it is wrong.  Look at the pavement and the fact the shield behind it, says continuing straight is an option.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on November 16, 2021, 10:01:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 16, 2021, 09:48:39 PM
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51686258545_e9cff0f939_k.jpg
The double turn sign blocking the view of the shields behind it is wrong.  Look at the pavement and the fact the shield behind it, says continuing straight is an option.

i was wondering why there was an intersection on an interstate until i realized it's a frontage road  :-|
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 17, 2021, 10:55:30 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on November 16, 2021, 10:01:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 16, 2021, 09:48:39 PM
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51686258545_e9cff0f939_k.jpg
The double turn sign blocking the view of the shields behind it is wrong.  Look at the pavement and the fact the shield behind it, says continuing straight is an option.

i was wondering why there was an intersection on an interstate until i realized it's a frontage road  :-|

You haven't been to Cheyenne, WY and drove I-180 😄
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on November 23, 2021, 01:24:30 AM
Northbound US-23 in Ann Arbor.  In reality, only the right lane exits to eastbound M-14.

(https://i.imgur.com/f85wtqa.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on November 23, 2021, 09:09:43 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 23, 2021, 01:24:30 AM
Northbound US-23 in Ann Arbor.  In reality, only the right lane exits to eastbound M-14.

(https://i.imgur.com/f85wtqa.jpg)
Good one.  I drove through there a month ago or so and noticed that botch.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 24, 2021, 01:37:06 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/gtjicYYsdBb3caDo8
This is NJ 29 since NJDOT and the City of Lambertville made S. Main Street a one way. So technically NJ 165 has a NB concurrency with Route 29.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 29, 2021, 11:33:36 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/s8fsFLDyMDhhjUMb6
The NB Garden State Parkway does not go to US 22 here.   

Thankfully soon new signs will go up as part of the intersection improvements project replacing the overpass ahead. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on November 29, 2021, 03:52:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 29, 2021, 11:33:36 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/s8fsFLDyMDhhjUMb6
The NB Garden State Parkway does not go to US 22 here.   

... but that ramp does.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 30, 2021, 12:38:59 PM
Quote from: odditude on November 29, 2021, 03:52:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 29, 2021, 11:33:36 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/s8fsFLDyMDhhjUMb6
The NB Garden State Parkway does not go to US 22 here.   

... but that ramp does.

The ramp is not the NB Parkway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CardInLex on November 30, 2021, 01:18:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2021, 12:38:59 PM
Quote from: odditude on November 29, 2021, 03:52:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 29, 2021, 11:33:36 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/s8fsFLDyMDhhjUMb6
The NB Garden State Parkway does not go to US 22 here.   

... but that ramp does.

The ramp is not the NB Parkway.

I think the sign is more right than it is wrong. But, if I were designing it, I would eliminate the "north"  and "to"  since you can take that ramp to join NB and SB Garden State Pkwy and EB and WB US 22.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 30, 2021, 08:00:51 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on November 30, 2021, 01:18:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2021, 12:38:59 PM
Quote from: odditude on November 29, 2021, 03:52:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 29, 2021, 11:33:36 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/s8fsFLDyMDhhjUMb6
The NB Garden State Parkway does not go to US 22 here.   

... but that ramp does.

The ramp is not the NB Parkway.

I think the sign is more right than it is wrong. But, if I were designing it, I would eliminate the "north"  and "to"  since you can take that ramp to join NB and SB Garden State Pkwy and EB and WB US 22.

The old text signs it replaced did just say "PARKWAY " and " US 22."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mrsman on December 01, 2021, 12:27:59 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on November 30, 2021, 01:18:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2021, 12:38:59 PM
Quote from: odditude on November 29, 2021, 03:52:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 29, 2021, 11:33:36 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/s8fsFLDyMDhhjUMb6
The NB Garden State Parkway does not go to US 22 here.   

... but that ramp does.

The ramp is not the NB Parkway.

I think the sign is more right than it is wrong. But, if I were designing it, I would eliminate the "north"  and "to"  since you can take that ramp to join NB and SB Garden State Pkwy and EB and WB US 22.

Agreed.  For 82 WB traffic, this is the ramp to reach any direction of 22 and any direction of GSP.  You don't take the parkway to 22 from here.  You don't take 22 to reach the parkway from here.  The ramp leads to both.

The simplest way of addressing it would be to just remove the words "NORTH" and "TO" from the existing sign, and then hope that the following signs all make it clear to drivers which way they should go.  IMO a few key signs seem to be missing.

This is good.  But I'd remove the "JCT".

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6946979,-74.2608222,3a,75y,52.31h,82.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ8ZywAxSc82XPim3nOATuA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

At the gore there is a prominent sign for GSP north, but no so much for GSP south.  Even though GSP south is free, I would recommend a trailblazer of equal size in the gore for the southbound GSP and another reminder for US 22 to head to the right.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6949049,-74.2603717,3a,75y,52.31h,82.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqciTbxP2kYOdVnnAUoVqAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Who yields to whom over here?  Perhaps a yield or a merge sign is in order here.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.695146,-74.2594511,3a,75y,104.04h,74.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR9S750ELPrtbH-r63_Qshw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This sign certainly needs more.  From the persepective of EB 22 drivers, the left ramp is for SB GSP, WB 82, and WB 22 (u-turn).  But given that some WB 82 drivers are also seeing this sign a WB 22 shield and even the Somerville control should also be added here.  There also needs to reassurance of some kind, ideally an overhead sign, that going straight will lead you to EB 22 to Newark.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6954412,-74.258677,3a,75y,95.16h,74.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swms8fwxqwwp620cNryLh3g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


Entrance ramps onto Highway A that are right before a major interchange with Highway B are always a little tricky.  It is definitely a ramp to Highway A.  But given the lane configuraions, often when you use the ramp, it is easier to take the exit to Highway B (which is probably the next right exit) then it would be to stay with Highway A (which may require multiple lane changes).  So even if a particular entrance like this is more useful for highway B, it would still be an entrance to Highway A, as a technical matter.

Here's an example of another similar mistake:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1412309,-118.1541134,3a,75y,288.19h,79.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWxL4arw9DgBUfs0Hhf95yQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This is an on-ramp to the 710 NB stub in Pasadena.  It is signed as an entrance to WB 134, but it really isn't an entrance to 134.  It also isn't exclusively an entrance to 134, as you can still reach 210 EB or WB from this ramp as well.

Other signs do let drivers know that you can reach either freeway here, but it still signed as an official entrance to 134.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1409302,-118.1541286,3a,15y,343.04h,91.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sne8aTaDGIOsz7DQnoGqDsQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

As the 710 project to connect Pasadena to Alhambra is basically dead, to the extent that the Pasadena stub is kept by Caltrans, it should get a new separate number (i.e. 789*) .  Then this would be an entrance directly to that highway which leads to the other freeways.  So signs can say: 789 north to 210 and 134 freeways and the freeway entrance sign should absolutely have the 789 shield.

* Random number
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: sprjus4 on December 19, 2021, 08:04:39 PM
This overhead signage was recently replaced to be on a new gantry alongside new Express Lane overhead signage, and I couldn't help but notice "I-464" now reads "I-264". I didn't manage to get a picture, unfortunately, as it was last minute.

It's just blatantly incorrect.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8013383,-76.2002036,3a,47.4y,230.36h,92.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szNSQ6utAAuUZLTZquBtwAw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: HTM Duke on December 24, 2021, 07:54:07 PM
I spotted this error shield about a week ago, but the error's not too obvious:

https://goo.gl/maps/PqG9jE5WXYrxESVt6

It should be 686A, not 686.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on December 24, 2021, 07:55:50 PM
Quote from: HTM Duke on December 24, 2021, 07:54:07 PM
I spotted this error shield about a week ago, but the error's not too obvious:

https://goo.gl/maps/PqG9jE5WXYrxESVt6

It should be 686A, not 686.

And since it's closed, it should be covered and not say anything at all.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 01, 2022, 11:20:55 PM
This US 17 shield should have an ALT or Alternate Banner above it.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51793435823_ced57e5a44_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 03, 2022, 08:30:11 AM
Another goofy in SC.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51796867584/in/photostream/

SC 63 is supposed to be signed NORTH not EAST.

Although technically SC 63 runs more E-W than N-S, but SCDOT and their rule all odd numbers N-S and all even numbers E-W hence why US 52 is signed E-W in a state where it runs N-S.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 19, 2022, 01:28:12 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8697701913/in/dateposted-public/
Should be an Orange County Pentagon shield here. Though I have been told now this assembly is now removed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Declan127 on January 27, 2022, 08:37:28 PM
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/909984868576927824/936434229422747709/unknown.png?width=244&height=427)

This assembly is not on either of these latter two routes. In fact, 17 is an E-W route the last time I checked, as is 287.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 05, 2022, 05:46:51 AM
NY 17 is N-S Route on the section between the Jersey Line and the Quickway in Woodbury.




This one here is ALT US 17. The word ALT abbreviation faded beyond recognition.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51862767321_cf8470e5de_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 7/8 on February 10, 2022, 01:49:32 PM
I found an example on Highway 6 in Fergus, ON (GSV link (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6978832,-80.3700611,3a,51.1y,334.98h,88.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st6Te1FjZZ0OpBMamzxeL1Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)).

There are two lanes going northbound. The sign is a thru-right lane designation sign (Rb-44) over a "right lane exits" sign. These are contradictory since "right lane exits" means the right lane can't go straight.

At the light ahead, you'll see the left lane is thru-only and the right lane becomes a right-only turn lane. Therefore, the Rb-44 should be replaced with a right lane designation sign (Rb-42).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 12:05:51 PM
I'm not complaining, but this sign should have a TO between US 401 and SC 403 being the latter does not connect with the freeway here directly.

Though close enough away, still you have to use US 401 south to reach SC 403 from the exit in the photo.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51894317837_a049b18725_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on February 21, 2022, 01:19:40 PM
A few years back in Oklahoma

(https://live.staticflickr.com/3386/3564881823_da72c7617c_z_d.jpg)

Do you go left or right?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ClassicHasClass on February 21, 2022, 02:02:37 PM
Just make sure you yield to traffic, either, uh, way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rlb2024 on February 24, 2022, 04:39:58 PM
Don't know if this has already been posted and I'm not going through almost 200 pages of posts to see, but this is in Fairhope, AL:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5457045,-87.8963539,3a,28.6y,37.1h,84.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spvcFvzbpfgRHnhe0pQxkcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5457045,-87.8963539,3a,28.6y,37.1h,84.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spvcFvzbpfgRHnhe0pQxkcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

It's US 98, not Alabama 98.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on February 24, 2022, 05:09:25 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on February 24, 2022, 04:39:58 PM
Don't know if this has already been posted and I'm not going through almost 200 pages of posts to see, but this is in Fairhope, AL:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5457045,-87.8963539,3a,28.6y,37.1h,84.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spvcFvzbpfgRHnhe0pQxkcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5457045,-87.8963539,3a,28.6y,37.1h,84.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spvcFvzbpfgRHnhe0pQxkcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

It's US 98, not Alabama 98.

US/State shield mixup thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: FredAkbar on March 08, 2022, 02:45:34 AM
Quote from: Big John on February 24, 2022, 05:09:25 PM
US/State shield mixup thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.0

Is there a thread for US/Interstate shield mixup? If not, this can go here: the temporary sign for the 380 ramp from 101S in San Bruno, CA has US highway shields for the (interstates) 380 and 280:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6406344,-122.4060525,3a,75y,182.17h,94.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0-eKJekdeMyg5nbbrNY1ig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I had originally assumed that was some default option when ordering the sign, perhaps because it's cheaper for some reason, but after reading this thread I figure it's just human error.

(https://i.imgur.com/vYkKAj8.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on March 09, 2022, 09:04:02 PM
US 48 in New York.
https://goo.gl/maps/7YxYWnv1Uh8GMrzu5


Or should this count the same as a US Route shielded as a state designation and be posted in that thread? Whatever, I always have trouble finding that thread as the search engine here isn't all that great.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on March 10, 2022, 12:47:36 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 09, 2022, 09:04:02 PM
US 48 in New York.
https://goo.gl/maps/7YxYWnv1Uh8GMrzu5


Or should this count the same as a US Route shielded as a state designation and be posted in that thread? Whatever, I always have trouble finding that thread as the search engine here isn't all that great.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on March 20, 2022, 11:34:14 AM
Costumes required. And no parking even if you do wear costumes.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51950537455_571a8593ea_k.jpg)

A school should really know better.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51949934281_345eea8241_k.jpg)

Not a road sign, but the same error again:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51950537525_afe3170da2_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on March 20, 2022, 02:08:25 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 20, 2022, 11:34:14 AM
A school should really know better.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51949934281_345eea8241_k.jpg)

they're a grammar school, not a spelling school
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on March 20, 2022, 02:53:41 PM
US 411 shield in Pigeon Forge, where a US 441 shield should be.

https://goo.gl/maps/MPa1vynZNXSUC1x17

US 411 isn't that far away, so it seems like a simple mix-up.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MATraveler128 on April 09, 2022, 10:44:05 AM
Not sure if this belongs here, but this is a sign I pass on my way to school every week. This is Summit Street in Peabody, Massachusetts at the 128 interchange. It tells you to take 128 south to get to NH, Maine. There should be an I-95 shield. I know the locals call it 128, but it doesn’t even get close to a state line.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5283087,-70.9575931,3a,88.4y,217.35h,81.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spVVmXYiLgTxVqjvjKnctCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hunty2022 on April 09, 2022, 11:08:30 AM
Quote from: formulanone on March 20, 2022, 02:53:41 PM
US 411 shield in Pigeon Forge, where a US 441 shield should be.

https://goo.gl/maps/MPa1vynZNXSUC1x17
The sign was correct before 2020/21, I don't know why they would replace it with an erroneous one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: sprjus4 on April 09, 2022, 11:19:12 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 09, 2022, 10:44:05 AM
Not sure if this belongs here, but this is a sign I pass on my way to school every week. This is Summit Street in Peabody, Massachusetts at the 128 interchange. It tells you to take 128 south to get to NH, Maine. There should be an I-95 shield. I know the locals call it 128, but it doesn't even get close to a state line.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5283087,-70.9575931,3a,88.4y,217.35h,81.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spVVmXYiLgTxVqjvjKnctCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
To I-95 at the most. That section of MA-128 is independent of I-95 at that location.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MATraveler128 on April 09, 2022, 11:22:16 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 09, 2022, 11:19:12 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 09, 2022, 10:44:05 AM
Not sure if this belongs here, but this is a sign I pass on my way to school every week. This is Summit Street in Peabody, Massachusetts at the 128 interchange. It tells you to take 128 south to get to NH, Maine. There should be an I-95 shield. I know the locals call it 128, but it doesn't even get close to a state line.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5283087,-70.9575931,3a,88.4y,217.35h,81.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spVVmXYiLgTxVqjvjKnctCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
To I-95 at the most. That section of MA-128 is independent of I-95 at that location.

I know it's independent there, but maybe NH, Maine isn't the best control point to use there. Waltham would make more sense. Basically what I'm trying to say is that the paddle sign should read 128 south to I-95 NH/Maine, Boston
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on April 09, 2022, 01:54:32 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on April 09, 2022, 11:08:30 AM
Quote from: formulanone on March 20, 2022, 02:53:41 PM
US 411 shield in Pigeon Forge, where a US 441 shield should be.

https://goo.gl/maps/MPa1vynZNXSUC1x17
The sign was correct before 2020/21, I don't know why they would replace it with an erroneous one.


Someone probably ran over the sign, so the DOT division quickly grabbed one from existing stock without checking twice.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on April 10, 2022, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 20, 2022, 02:53:41 PM
US 411 shield in Pigeon Forge, where a US 441 shield should be.

https://goo.gl/maps/MPa1vynZNXSUC1x17

US 411 isn't that far away, so it seems like a simple mix-up.

For years, back when US 411 ran to Bristol, Gousha maps incorrectly identified one of the concurrencies (either 11E/19/411 or 11E/19W/411) as US 441.

The 411/441 concurrency in Sevier County is interesting. Not only are the numbers similar, but it's a wrong-way concurrency. Northbound on 411 is southbound on 441, and vice-versa.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on April 11, 2022, 04:57:05 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 10, 2022, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 20, 2022, 02:53:41 PM
US 411 shield in Pigeon Forge, where a US 441 shield should be.

https://goo.gl/maps/MPa1vynZNXSUC1x17

US 411 isn't that far away, so it seems like a simple mix-up.

For years, back when US 411 ran to Bristol, Gousha maps incorrectly identified one of the concurrencies (either 11E/19/411 or 11E/19W/411) as US 441.

The 411/441 concurrency in Sevier County is interesting. Not only are the numbers similar, but it's a wrong-way concurrency. Northbound on 411 is southbound on 441, and vice-versa.

If I had nothing to do with this hobby, I would initially declare it as the machinations of a very bureaucratic evil:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50611728991_19a60bf8f6_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2k7okK6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on April 11, 2022, 05:13:07 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 09, 2022, 11:22:16 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 09, 2022, 11:19:12 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 09, 2022, 10:44:05 AM
Not sure if this belongs here, but this is a sign I pass on my way to school every week. This is Summit Street in Peabody, Massachusetts at the 128 interchange. It tells you to take 128 south to get to NH, Maine. There should be an I-95 shield. I know the locals call it 128, but it doesn't even get close to a state line.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5283087,-70.9575931,3a,88.4y,217.35h,81.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spVVmXYiLgTxVqjvjKnctCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
To I-95 at the most. That section of MA-128 is independent of I-95 at that location.

I know it's independent there, but maybe NH, Maine isn't the best control point to use there. Waltham would make more sense. Basically what I'm trying to say is that the paddle sign should read 128 south to I-95 NH/Maine, Boston

Also, for consistency purposes, NH/Maine could be replaced by "Portsmouth, NH"  like all of the 95 signage noe shows.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 27, 2022, 08:32:54 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52033941248_8acd2c3440_k.jpg)This one
here lists the next 4 exits as for the City of Ukiah on US 101 North.

The problem is the fourth exit mentioned is for a dead end road that only serves a short dead end frontage road, a water treatment plant, and a baseball complex.  The fourth and final exit according to this sign is not connected to the city street grid in anyway as River Street goes nowhere beyond the services that are at that particular exit.

Though it is within the city limits, its easy to deduct that in the interest of motorists looking for parts of the city from the freeway, it is not really an exit worth noting.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SD Mapman on May 02, 2022, 01:40:02 PM
Not sure what WYDOT or the contractor was thinking here...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52045053753_c3a4741767_c.jpg)

I don't think I-25 takes McKinley Street through Casper...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on May 12, 2022, 05:52:58 PM
This seems rather... umm... ingenuous.

Chester, IL
On the ramp leading down from the Mississippi River bridge to the truck bypass

RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP AHEAD (https://goo.gl/maps/eYaiYqw6jx1J6TZp8)
Runaway Truck Ramp ↗ (https://goo.gl/maps/2n33G35NB24K84mE6)
And here's the actual "truck ramp"... (https://goo.gl/maps/CWT7pakNVGGwgePZ9)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ClassicHasClass on May 13, 2022, 12:15:51 AM
You don't understand. They're supposed to keep going through the guard rail into the river.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ozarkman417 on May 13, 2022, 12:42:00 AM
The engineers that created these signs are desperately trying to convince themselves that Illinois isn't flat.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on May 13, 2022, 09:11:10 AM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on May 13, 2022, 12:42:00 AM
The engineers that created these signs are desperately trying to convince themselves that Illinois isn't flat.

Ha.  You should try driving in Chester during a winter snow storm sometime.

Back when I drove a delivery route in southern Illinois, one my fellow drivers had that route during a nasty ice storm.  He was inching down this hill (https://goo.gl/maps/gbZECfrFcqs8ysYW6), approaching the stop sign at IL-150.  He slowed to a stop and then, with his foot firmly planted on the brake pedal and the brakes still fully engaged, the box truck simply started sliding on down the hill into the intersection.  Nothing he could do about it.  Fortunately, there was no wreck.

(I had a similar situation that day, but in a much flatter part of the state.  Back when this road (https://goo.gl/maps/TMgRbuhfZ7PH8GQF7) on the outskirts of Centralia still had open drainage (visible in the GSV shot), it had quite the domed cross-section and quite the drop-off into the ditch, as well as a surface that was mostly tar with some bits of gravel thrown in every so often for kicks.  I needed to make a right turn at the stop sign in that GSV shot, but cars had been sliding off the pavement, police officers were out, and traffic was at a crawl.  While I was stopped waiting–with my foot firmly planted on the brake pedal and the brakes still fully engaged, my box truck started sliding sideways toward the ditch.  Fortunately, right then, the path ahead of me opened up, and I was able to start moving forward again and make my turn.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on May 13, 2022, 09:34:32 AM
Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2022, 05:52:58 PM
This seems rather... umm... ingenuous.

Chester, IL
On the ramp leading down from the Mississippi River bridge to the truck bypass

RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP AHEAD (https://goo.gl/maps/eYaiYqw6jx1J6TZp8)
Runaway Truck Ramp ↗ (https://goo.gl/maps/2n33G35NB24K84mE6)
And here's the actual "truck ramp"... (https://goo.gl/maps/CWT7pakNVGGwgePZ9)

Imagine getting to the bottom and your truck is out of control and someone from Illinois is sitting there parked in it, dashcam running, yelling at you that you're using the runaway truck ramp incorrectly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on May 13, 2022, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 13, 2022, 09:34:32 AM
Imagine getting to the bottom and your truck is out of control and someone from Illinois is sitting there parked in it, dashcam running, yelling at you that you're using the runaway truck ramp incorrectly.

:-D   That sort of person never even goes to Randolph County.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 18, 2022, 09:48:46 AM
This here is not only erroneous, but impossible as well.(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52082189843_b825b96e1f_k.jpg)

The I-45 South the sign refers to doesn’t have an access ramp before it’s termination to even access it. 

Look on Google.
https://goo.gl/maps/aB8q3gnLMpkD3TgX9
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on May 18, 2022, 10:21:41 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 18, 2022, 09:48:46 AM
This here is not only erroneous, but impossible as well.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52082189843_b825b96e1f_k.jpg)

The I-45 South the sign refers to doesn't have an access ramp before it's termination to even access it. 

Look on Google.
https://goo.gl/maps/aB8q3gnLMpkD3TgX9

According to the TxDOT dataset map (https://gis-txdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/txdot-roadways/explore?location=29.289136%2C-94.836662%2C17.00), I-45 ends at 59th Street.

Therefore, as I see it, that sign does technically lead to the southernmost ≈350 feet of I-45.   :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 25, 2022, 10:51:16 PM
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52096913656_119a5660b5_k.jpg

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52096913656_119a5660b5_k.jpg)

The direction header for US 90 is wrong as well as the control city of West Theodore.  Should be US 90 WEST to Theodore.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on June 16, 2022, 11:02:35 PM
The last line on the first sign for the entrance to WB I-72 from IL 106 at Hull (https://goo.gl/maps/wGV4zweNMR12uiSH7) (which prohibits non-motorized traffic) seems to conflict with the sign further down the ramp requiring bicycles to use the right shoulder (https://goo.gl/maps/gnMf1cZZv9aZZsPq8).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 17, 2022, 09:05:01 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 16, 2022, 11:02:35 PM
The last line on the first sign for the entrance to WB I-72 from IL 106 at Hull (https://goo.gl/maps/wGV4zweNMR12uiSH7) (which prohibits non-motorized traffic) seems to conflict with the sign further down the ramp requiring bicycles to use the right shoulder (https://goo.gl/maps/gnMf1cZZv9aZZsPq8).

Wow, nice one!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 21, 2022, 01:26:49 PM
Looks fine right?
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52163518694_b8b8f05e3a_k.jpg
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52163518694_b8b8f05e3a_k.jpg)

However the US 84 doesn't belong here.

The location of this assembly is here.
https://goo.gl/maps/T4W8vGRxNjkms8ao8

It's past the point US 84 leaves US 231 and AL 210.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on June 21, 2022, 04:32:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2022, 01:26:49 PM
Looks fine right?
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52163518694_b8b8f05e3a_k.jpg
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52163518694_b8b8f05e3a_k.jpg)

Can't tell... Photo is not showing up and the link is giving me a 410 file not found error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 21, 2022, 04:43:28 PM
It was there earlier...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 21, 2022, 10:01:53 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52163518694_a69914dd91_k.jpg)

Try this.
Or this.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52163518694/in/dateposted-public/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on July 03, 2022, 01:06:33 PM
Two minor errors along the way from Québec City to my hometown.

First, a missing up arrow for TCH 1 somewhere east of Crapaud, PE:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52190531868_bf4bb185b7.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvU7Qm)TCH 1 EB missing up arrow (https://flic.kr/p/2nvU7Qm) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr

Then, a grammar error heading to the Confederation Bridge on TCH 16 EB (should be Restrictions relatives):

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52190771574_7f3afe895c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvVm6d)Restrictions relative(s) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvVm6d) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 10, 2022, 07:07:09 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52206243976/in/dateposted-public/

Island Expressway in Chatham County, GA is an East-West running route.  In fact its Historic TOLL US 80, that was decommissioned in the Mid 1980's and I'm sure it was signed then as East & West in its day.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on July 10, 2022, 08:02:46 PM
A street blade that erroneously refers to Chemin de la Dune-du-Sud as Chemin de la Dune-de-Sud.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52207767021_a14f5df620_w.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nxqsfa)Chemin de la Dune-de-Sud (sic) 1 (https://flic.kr/p/2nxqsfa) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on July 11, 2022, 08:39:30 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 10, 2022, 08:02:46 PM
A street blade that erroneously refers to Chemin de la Dune-du-Sud as Chemin de la Dune-de-Sud.

How possible is it that the sign was made by someone who doesn't speak French and wouldn't immediately recognise the error? Not sure how many people on the Magdalen Islands don't speak French...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on July 12, 2022, 01:13:04 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2022, 08:39:30 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 10, 2022, 08:02:46 PM
A street blade that erroneously refers to Chemin de la Dune-du-Sud as Chemin de la Dune-de-Sud.

How possible is it that the sign was made by someone who doesn't speak French and wouldn't immediately recognise the error? Not sure how many people on the Magdalen Islands don't speak French...

As those signs are made by a contractor in Québec, the issue I believe happened is not a language barrier, but an accent barrier (as some people in the Magdalen Islands have thick accents), which would've happened if the order was placed by phone.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: highwaytuna on July 13, 2022, 06:32:56 PM
Forgetting to remove a sign referencing I-895 (Sheridan Expwy), which was downgraded to NY-895 (Sheridan Blvd) a few years ago:

(https://i.imgur.com/4acwivH.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on July 19, 2022, 12:28:12 AM
Not one, but two capitalization errors involving the letter L in PEI:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52224055027_db2ed03af1.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nyRW6R)ÃŽLes-de-la-Madeleine (sic) (https://flic.kr/p/2nyRW6R) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52225142537_dab2e8464c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nyXvo2)Maple PLains (sic) (https://flic.kr/p/2nyXvo2) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 19, 2022, 10:50:39 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/6sn1BRYQ8togKaGo6
The Atlantic City Expressway does not travel north.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kirbykart on July 19, 2022, 04:32:14 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2022, 10:50:39 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/6sn1BRYQ8togKaGo6
The Atlantic City Expressway does not travel north.
The "North" is referring to the Garden State Parkway. I would put the ACE shield on a separate post. Basically, this way to ACE (both directions), and GSP northbound  only. Not sure if this is MUTCD-compliant, but it's better than the current situation.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Lukeisroads on July 19, 2022, 09:27:00 PM
Wow Wow look at caltrans https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0645499,-119.3134717,3a,26.8y,22.42h,91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_uaMDM6_n6_duar5lrp3Pg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kirbykart on July 20, 2022, 01:07:19 AM
Quote from: Lukeisroads on July 19, 2022, 09:27:00 PM
Wow Wow look at caltrans https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0645499,-119.3134717,3a,26.8y,22.42h,91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_uaMDM6_n6_duar5lrp3Pg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Wow. That's sad.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: GaryA on July 20, 2022, 12:11:26 PM
Another Caltrans special:  https://goo.gl/maps/MU99W5DWQ2XwAEK46

This used to have a large "Scenic Route" blue sign (with the poppy and wording) that went missing in 2019 or so.  In late 2021 or early 2022 the blank space was replaced by a "Freeway Entrance" green sign.  This road is scenic, but is definitely not a freeway (even if it does have a couple of exit ramps further up).

(Near the west end of Niles Canyon Road: small blue "begin", green "FREEWAY ENTRANCE", green "EAST", CA-84 shield.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kirbykart on July 20, 2022, 02:36:33 PM
Quote from: GaryA on July 20, 2022, 12:11:26 PM
Another Caltrans special:  https://goo.gl/maps/MU99W5DWQ2XwAEK46

This used to have a large "Scenic Route" blue sign (with the poppy and wording) that went missing in 2019 or so.  In late 2021 or early 2022 the blank space was replaced by a "Freeway Entrance" green sign.  This road is scenic, but is definitely not a freeway (even if it does have a couple of exit ramps further up).

(Near the west end of Niles Canyon Road: small blue "begin", green "FREEWAY ENTRANCE", green "EAST", CA-84 shield.)
What the heck does "begin FREEWAY ENTRANCE" mean??
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 20, 2022, 02:45:17 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on July 20, 2022, 02:36:33 PM
Quote from: GaryA on July 20, 2022, 12:11:26 PM
Another Caltrans special:  https://goo.gl/maps/MU99W5DWQ2XwAEK46

This used to have a large "Scenic Route" blue sign (with the poppy and wording) that went missing in 2019 or so.  In late 2021 or early 2022 the blank space was replaced by a "Freeway Entrance" green sign.  This road is scenic, but is definitely not a freeway (even if it does have a couple of exit ramps further up).

(Near the west end of Niles Canyon Road: small blue "begin", green "FREEWAY ENTRANCE", green "EAST", CA-84 shield.)
What the heck does "begin FREEWAY ENTRANCE" mean??

Simple: you can begin to enter the freeway. ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ClassicHasClass on July 20, 2022, 02:53:21 PM
And eventually the ENTRANCE will end and it will be a FREEWAY! Duh!  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kirbykart on July 20, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on July 20, 2022, 02:53:21 PM
And eventually the ENTRANCE will end and it will be a FREEWAY! Duh!  :pan:
I was really talking more in this context. This road NEVER becomes a freeway! Or at least not in the ~20 miles of it I checked on Google Maps! There is no freeway to enter.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: GaryA on July 20, 2022, 04:21:44 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on July 20, 2022, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on July 20, 2022, 02:53:21 PM
And eventually the ENTRANCE will end and it will be a FREEWAY! Duh!  :pan:
I was really talking more in this context. This road NEVER becomes a freeway! Or at least not in the ~20 miles of it I checked on Google Maps! There is no freeway to enter.
Oh, in about 7.5 miles CA-84 will briefly join I-680.  But I don't think that's what they were referring to.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 20, 2022, 04:53:03 PM
I believe that "begin" plaque is the type that is meant to be paired with a scenic byway sign. My guess is somehow the scenic byway sign got switched with a freeway entrance sign. Maybe somewhere out there, there's a freeway entrance inexplicably signed as a scenic byway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 21, 2022, 08:56:14 AM
VDOT can't seem to figure out how to spell the name of this road.

(https://scontent.fewr1-5.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/294884517_10108631885579156_4027828115213055168_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=Qqf3D_PHyhUAX9tF2T8&_nc_ht=scontent.fewr1-5.fna&oh=00_AT-aH0W-2ISsljFS3X2kS36DNjBEgcQWjqWWYuL99Thq-A&oe=62DF2B09)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: highwaytuna on July 21, 2022, 12:32:46 PM
Gore sign with old sequential exit number mysteriously reappearing on the Mass Pike after its exits were renumbered to the mile-based system:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZYGJkmY.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/jZhxPFT.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Declan127 on July 21, 2022, 10:16:51 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0454461,-73.7641473,3a,18.9y,168.11h,91.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBvpXBg2byWofbX3ceT7RSg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DBvpXBg2byWofbX3ceT7RSg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D166.93211%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0454461,-73.7641473,3a,18.9y,168.11h,91.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBvpXBg2byWofbX3ceT7RSg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DBvpXBg2byWofbX3ceT7RSg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D166.93211%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)

1) those numerals are not even close to centered
2) either remove the "to" or arrow, or even both; there's nothing left before the merge with 287
3) Long Island cannot be reached easily from 287 alone. To get to Long Island, I'm assuming the Hutch is the road they want you to take (this sign is technically on a Parkway, after all), and then you'd take the Cross Island to the (NSP/LIE/SSP). Sure, 287 was planned to go to LI, but this is a new sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 7/8 on July 22, 2022, 09:52:16 AM
The left sign here in Waterloo Kitchener, ON (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4671181,-80.4731933,3a,38y,197.84h,87.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-8biBxucJswVd48gfkbm6Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is technically wrong. Highway 7 doesn't start until the next interchange, where you can choose to either stay on the Expressway (which switches from Highway 85 south to Highway 7 west) or take the exit to go Highway 7 east.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Lukeisroads on July 22, 2022, 04:51:39 PM
At least they fixed it https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2243266,-114.1303109,3a,75y,128.05h,92.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s72VXERIAxJO6Ts3AOO64bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2251773,-114.1311908,3a,15y,140.66h,92.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1so0kqNIbnWxb8HuOtTlVjNw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Do0kqNIbnWxb8HuOtTlVjNw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.18593%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Declan127 on July 22, 2022, 08:15:32 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1862541,-74.3311144,3a,15.8y,221.97h,86.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKAWJsgD-YJT2XI5P1HUguQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1862541,-74.3311144,3a,15.8y,221.97h,86.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKAWJsgD-YJT2XI5P1HUguQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)

This might not be an error if NYSDOT maintains the road to this point, but this sign is squarely in NJ.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Declan127 on July 22, 2022, 08:42:03 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3549597,-74.6738426,3a,15y,275.69h,96.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIa0iRW0n7s7DIQJFE_ToYQ!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3549597,-74.6738426,3a,15y,275.69h,96.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIa0iRW0n7s7DIQJFE_ToYQ!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)

And here's another one, showing NY's way of drawing a circle.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MATraveler128 on July 22, 2022, 08:45:26 PM
Massachusetts often screws up with state/US highway mixups, but here’s the first New Hampshire exit on I-95 north with a MA 107 shield. This is in Massachusetts.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8769023,-70.8846704,3a,75y,21.84h,81.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFLsst4S4WWsEdtn1-W6QdA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kirbykart on July 22, 2022, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on July 22, 2022, 08:45:26 PM
Massachusetts often screws up with state/US highway mixups, but here's the first New Hampshire exit on I-95 north with a MA 107 shield. This is in Massachusetts.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8769023,-70.8846704,3a,75y,21.84h,81.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFLsst4S4WWsEdtn1-W6QdA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I've been through there several times but I guess I never noticed the absence of the Old Man of the Mountain on that sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on July 27, 2022, 11:46:13 PM
Erroneous TOLL NORTH I-195. Even though VA 76 ends just beyond this on ramp and defaults onto I-195, this should say TOLL NORTH VA 76 TO I-195 NORTH.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/qeFSMfyRvDRr8vdv6
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Declan127 on July 28, 2022, 12:00:20 AM
Quote from: plain on July 27, 2022, 11:46:13 PM
Erroneous TOLL NORTH I-195. Even though VA 76 ends just beyond this on ramp and defaults onto I-195, this should say TOLL NORTH VA 76 TO I-195 NORTH.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/qeFSMfyRvDRr8vdv6

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that standard practice is not to sign the terminating highway from anywhere. In this case, 76 has no more junctions until it hits 195, and as such acts as a ramp to 195.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 28, 2022, 12:11:06 AM
Quote from: Declan127 on July 28, 2022, 12:00:20 AM
Quote from: plain on July 27, 2022, 11:46:13 PM
Erroneous TOLL NORTH I-195. Even though VA 76 ends just beyond this on ramp and defaults onto I-195, this should say TOLL NORTH VA 76 TO I-195 NORTH.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/qeFSMfyRvDRr8vdv6

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that standard practice is not to sign the terminating highway from anywhere. In this case, 76 has no more junctions until it hits 195, and as such acts as a ramp to 195.

It varies by state. Oklahoma signs I-240 east at Anderson Road despite the fact that if you get on I-240 east there you'll end up defaulting onto I-40 east with no chance to exit. On Merriam Road in Kansas City, Kansas, KDOT signs I-635 only on the northbound ramp, and the southbound ramp for I-35/US-69 (interestingly, no directional banners are used at this interchange at all).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Declan127 on July 28, 2022, 12:15:09 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 28, 2022, 12:11:06 AM
Quote from: Declan127 on July 28, 2022, 12:00:20 AM
Quote from: plain on July 27, 2022, 11:46:13 PM
Erroneous TOLL NORTH I-195. Even though VA 76 ends just beyond this on ramp and defaults onto I-195, this should say TOLL NORTH VA 76 TO I-195 NORTH.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/qeFSMfyRvDRr8vdv6

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that standard practice is not to sign the terminating highway from anywhere. In this case, 76 has no more junctions until it hits 195, and as such acts as a ramp to 195.

It varies by state. Oklahoma signs I-240 east at Anderson Road despite the fact that if you get on I-240 east there you'll end up defaulting onto I-40 east with no chance to exit. On Merriam Road in Kansas City, Kansas, KDOT signs I-635 only on the northbound ramp, and the southbound ramp for I-35/US-69 (interestingly, no directional banners are used at this interchange at all).

Gotcha.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Albert on July 28, 2022, 03:12:17 PM
Moving to Oregon: Southbound 101 before the 42 split has a gantry with 2 signs: One of the signs has Eᴀsᴛ and the other has South, which is supposed to say Sᴏᴜᴛʜ.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 10, 2022, 06:24:16 PM
There is no ALT US 101.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51352379935/in/album-72157719515990111/

It's Business US 101.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51351384141/in/album-72157719515990111/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Declan127 on August 10, 2022, 09:45:11 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7582868,-73.8556004,3a,15y,91.89h,89.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9iYoWSyRca6qOufOVryjOA!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7582868,-73.8556004,3a,15y,91.89h,89.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9iYoWSyRca6qOufOVryjOA!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)

Double whammy here... going back to older views shows an MA 25A shield and a green TO banner. Well, they finally replaced it... and replaced the only CORRECT part of the assembly (the I-678 shield) with an I-695 shield! Sure, 25A eventually gets you to 295 then 695, and 678 connects to 95, but this is the Van Wyck we're talking about! and 695 isn't even in Queens!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Flint1979 on August 10, 2022, 09:50:46 PM
I spotted this old sign for US-27 in Shepherd, Michigan the other day, this should say US-127.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5242651,-84.7059205,3a,15y,124.74h,85.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2EJTdIZ0rdTiatlvbBH0EQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on August 10, 2022, 10:33:09 PM
Quote from: Declan127 on August 10, 2022, 09:45:11 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7582868,-73.8556004,3a,15y,91.89h,89.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9iYoWSyRca6qOufOVryjOA!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7582868,-73.8556004,3a,15y,91.89h,89.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9iYoWSyRca6qOufOVryjOA!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)

Double whammy here... going back to older views shows an MA 25A shield and a green TO banner. Well, they finally replaced it... and replaced the only CORRECT part of the assembly (the I-678 shield) with an I-695 shield! Sure, 25A eventually gets you to 295 then 695, and 678 connects to 95, but this is the Van Wyck we're talking about! and 695 isn't even in Queens!

The old rectangular 25A shield that lasted so long looks more like a Connecticut shield than Mass with the thick border (topic for another thread), but they regressed with the shape of the I-shield in the new assembly (from a tasteful, correctly-shaped 3DI shield to a nasty bubble shield).  Why can't they get all of it right at the same time?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Lukeisroads on August 11, 2022, 05:42:20 PM
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2943156,-119.0294213,0a,86.9y,53.98h,80.7t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1cy-ScHJFXoP8KKhnUydGg!2e0?source=apiv3
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kirbykart on August 11, 2022, 06:24:42 PM
^I'm sure many people wouldn't notice that. That really doesn't matter that much that the sign was installed upside-down.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 11, 2022, 06:36:30 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on August 11, 2022, 06:24:42 PM
^I'm sure many people wouldn't notice that. That really doesn't matter that much that the sign was installed upside-down.

I mean, if we're going to exclude things that many people wouldn't notice, we can just save everyone some time and delete the entire forum.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on August 15, 2022, 12:47:22 AM
Quote from: Lukeisroads on August 11, 2022, 05:42:20 PM
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2943156,-119.0294213,0a,86.9y,53.98h,80.7t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1cy-ScHJFXoP8KKhnUydGg!2e0?source=apiv3
This sign is only correct in one place: Tipperary Hill in Syracuse, NY.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 16, 2022, 07:40:16 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/n8CFg9j1aNQK5b4P8

It's not US 25 here at all.  Only US 11 and 70 are at this location the sign directs people to.

Plus, it's former US 25W before the I-640 aligning took place.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: andrepoiy on August 16, 2022, 11:37:14 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on July 22, 2022, 09:52:16 AM
The left sign here in Waterloo Kitchener, ON (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4671181,-80.4731933,3a,38y,197.84h,87.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-8biBxucJswVd48gfkbm6Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is technically wrong. Highway 7 doesn't start until the next interchange, where you can choose to either stay on the Expressway (which switches from Highway 85 south to Highway 7 west) or take the exit to go Highway 7 east.

Man does Ontario suck at signing shit in southern Ontario
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: andrepoiy on August 16, 2022, 11:43:26 AM
Erroneous construction sign:

(https://i.imgur.com/nsQ65Ez.png)

Route-132 using an Autoroute shield
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on August 16, 2022, 02:38:54 PM
Quote from: andrepoiy on August 16, 2022, 11:43:26 AM
Erroneous construction sign:

(https://i.imgur.com/nsQ65Ez.png)

Route-132 using an Autoroute shield

I bet the sign maker is from Longueuil, where they do call it Autoroute 132 for some reason.

On the opposite side of the problem, A-440 was mislabeled as R-440 on Boulevard Charest:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51641296364_faaf427ccd.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mFn9fG)R-440 (should be A-440) (https://flic.kr/p/2mFn9fG) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr

I believe this one has already been documented, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: webny99 on August 16, 2022, 03:21:56 PM
I found a strange one today at the end of NY 441: "begin divided highway (https://goo.gl/maps/2aGbDgqTLsijwyXTA)" that should be "end divided highway". Somehow the same sign got installed on both sides of the signpost.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 16, 2022, 03:38:46 PM
This doesn't quite qualify as a US/state mixup.  It's more of a state/state mixup so I put it in this thread. This sign faces the exit from a facility along Kankakee County Highway 9, on the eastern side of Manteno, IL.  This isn't Delaware, New Jersey, Kentucky, Mississippi, or Iowa!  This is Illinois!  This photo is in my "Nope Springs Eternal" folder, which is currently 100 photos of traffic control fails.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52275875832_3ccb453d2d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nDrwC1)
20220810_121640 (https://flic.kr/p/2nDrwC1) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kirbykart on August 16, 2022, 04:17:10 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 16, 2022, 03:21:56 PM
I found a strange one today at the end of NY 441: "begin divided highway (https://goo.gl/maps/2aGbDgqTLsijwyXTA)" that should be "end divided highway". Somehow the same sign got installed on both sides of the signpost.
I just realized "begin divided highway" sign is just an upside down "end divided highway" sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 16, 2022, 04:38:39 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 16, 2022, 03:38:46 PM
This doesn't quite qualify as a US/state mixup.  It's more of a state/state mixup so I put it in this thread. This sign faces the exit from a facility along Kankakee County Highway 9, on the eastern side of Manteno, IL.  This isn't Delaware, New Jersey, Kentucky, Mississippi, or Iowa!  This is Illinois!  This photo is in my "Nope Springs Eternal" folder, which is currently 100 photos of traffic control fails.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52275875832_3ccb453d2d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nDrwC1)
20220810_121640 (https://flic.kr/p/2nDrwC1) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr

Probably just looked in the federal MUTCD for "what does a state highway marker look like", saw the default circle shield, and ran with it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on August 16, 2022, 04:56:28 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 16, 2022, 04:38:39 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 16, 2022, 03:38:46 PM
This doesn't quite qualify as a US/state mixup.  It's more of a state/state mixup so I put it in this thread. This sign faces the exit from a facility along Kankakee County Highway 9, on the eastern side of Manteno, IL.  This isn't Delaware, New Jersey, Kentucky, Mississippi, or Iowa!  This is Illinois!  This photo is in my "Nope Springs Eternal" folder, which is currently 100 photos of traffic control fails.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52275875832_3ccb453d2d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nDrwC1)
20220810_121640 (https://flic.kr/p/2nDrwC1) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr

Probably just looked in the federal MUTCD for "what does a state highway marker look like", saw the default circle shield, and ran with it.

Or they looked at a AAA Map of Illinois, saw the state circle routes and ran with it!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on August 19, 2022, 08:05:37 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 16, 2022, 04:56:28 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 16, 2022, 04:38:39 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 16, 2022, 03:38:46 PM
This doesn't quite qualify as a US/state mixup.  It's more of a state/state mixup so I put it in this thread. This sign faces the exit from a facility along Kankakee County Highway 9, on the eastern side of Manteno, IL.  This isn't Delaware, New Jersey, Kentucky, Mississippi, or Iowa!  This is Illinois!  This photo is in my "Nope Springs Eternal" folder, which is currently 100 photos of traffic control fails.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52275875832_3ccb453d2d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nDrwC1)
20220810_121640 (https://flic.kr/p/2nDrwC1) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr

Probably just looked in the federal MUTCD for "what does a state highway marker look like", saw the default circle shield, and ran with it.

Or they looked at a AAA Map of Illinois, saw the state circle routes and ran with it!

Interesting that the I-57 assembly is from IDOT and is attached to the "SR-1" part. I wonder if the I-57 side was also wrong at one point and IDOT decided to update it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Declan127 on August 20, 2022, 01:59:16 AM
a) my google maps is showing the arrow that takes you out of SV backwards
Quote from: JoePCool14 on August 19, 2022, 08:05:37 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 16, 2022, 04:56:28 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 16, 2022, 04:38:39 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 16, 2022, 03:38:46 PM
This doesn't quite qualify as a US/state mixup.  It's more of a state/state mixup so I put it in this thread. This sign faces the exit from a facility along Kankakee County Highway 9, on the eastern side of Manteno, IL.  This isn't Delaware, New Jersey, Kentucky, Mississippi, or Iowa!  This is Illinois!  This photo is in my "Nope Springs Eternal" folder, which is currently 100 photos of traffic control fails.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52275875832_3ccb453d2d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nDrwC1)
20220810_121640 (https://flic.kr/p/2nDrwC1) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr

Probably just looked in the federal MUTCD for "what does a state highway marker look like", saw the default circle shield, and ran with it.

Or they looked at a AAA Map of Illinois, saw the state circle routes and ran with it!

Interesting that the I-57 assembly is from IDOT and is attached to the "SR-1" part. I wonder if the I-57 side was also wrong at one point and IDOT decided to update it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2507995,-87.8104158,3a,15.4y,351.73h,88.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfBYPnmxs6vGRFo212FMPbw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2507995,-87.8104158,3a,15.4y,351.73h,88.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfBYPnmxs6vGRFo212FMPbw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)
Looks like you were right: the old 57 shield was too top-justified and had white banners, however this was changed between 2009 and 2016. Also changed between those years (but obviously after the 57 shield) was the circle shield, which is now a normal Illinois shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: highwaytuna on August 20, 2022, 10:29:21 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ibtzrd3.jpg)
Putting the name of an attraction (NJPAC) inside a state route shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on August 22, 2022, 09:14:46 AM
I'm not sure whether this is really an error per se, but it's an oddity where the sign conflicts with the traffic signal such that one or the other could be argued to be incorrect. I think what is really going on here is that the District of Columbia views South Capitol Street as continuing around this new "traffic oval," and they therefore put up straight-ahead arrows for the traffic lights because you are continuing "straight" on South Capitol, but they then threw up a "No Turn on Red" sign because they thought drivers would view the situation as a right turn. It's odd, though, to have a straight-ahead signal signed for "No Turn on Red." I don't know whether they have red arrows because I haven't driven through there since the new configuration opened. I note at the other end of the oval near the ballpark there are red left arrows for traffic staying on the oval (maybe heading to the soccer stadium) and green straight-ahead arrows for traffic exiting the oval to stay on South Capitol Street.

https://goo.gl/maps/sXM5HhLndqF62sxA8
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 22, 2022, 11:54:10 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2022, 09:14:46 AM
I'm not sure whether this is really an error per se, but it's an oddity where the sign conflicts with the traffic signal such that one or the other could be argued to be incorrect. I think what is really going on here is that the District of Columbia views South Capitol Street as continuing around this new "traffic oval," and they therefore put up straight-ahead arrows for the traffic lights because you are continuing "straight" on South Capitol, but they then threw up a "No Turn on Red" sign because they thought drivers would view the situation as a right turn. It's odd, though, to have a straight-ahead signal signed for "No Turn on Red." I don't know whether they have red arrows because I haven't driven through there since the new configuration opened. I note at the other end of the oval near the ballpark there are red left arrows for traffic staying on the oval (maybe heading to the soccer stadium) and green straight-ahead arrows for traffic exiting the oval to stay on South Capitol Street.

https://goo.gl/maps/sXM5HhLndqF62sxA8

I'm glad you posted this, I was waiting for this intersection to be on Street View. I haven't seen a new traffic circle built in decades (everything has been roundabouts, and even then, it's been almost entirely Maryland building them in the DMV area).

I think this may be a better fit for the generic "Traffic Signal" thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5944.0).

Still, my thoughts: I think it's a red orb, based on this street view image (https://goo.gl/maps/MU2LZnQrjHqN2Hbp8). The issue reminds me of what happens at many DDIs, where "no turn on red" signs are used but the arrows are straight. Example in Colorado (https://goo.gl/maps/uu8CdoW5BQwJdsw6A) that I find especially confusing since there is a R3-5R "right turn only" sign overhead, conflicting with the signals showing straight-ahead arrows.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on August 22, 2022, 01:57:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 22, 2022, 11:54:10 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2022, 09:14:46 AM
I'm not sure whether this is really an error per se, but it's an oddity where the sign conflicts with the traffic signal such that one or the other could be argued to be incorrect. I think what is really going on here is that the District of Columbia views South Capitol Street as continuing around this new "traffic oval," and they therefore put up straight-ahead arrows for the traffic lights because you are continuing "straight" on South Capitol, but they then threw up a "No Turn on Red" sign because they thought drivers would view the situation as a right turn. It's odd, though, to have a straight-ahead signal signed for "No Turn on Red." I don't know whether they have red arrows because I haven't driven through there since the new configuration opened. I note at the other end of the oval near the ballpark there are red left arrows for traffic staying on the oval (maybe heading to the soccer stadium) and green straight-ahead arrows for traffic exiting the oval to stay on South Capitol Street.

https://goo.gl/maps/sXM5HhLndqF62sxA8

I'm glad you posted this, I was waiting for this intersection to be on Street View. I haven't seen a new traffic circle built in decades (everything has been roundabouts, and even then, it's been almost entirely Maryland building them in the DMV area).

I think this may be a better fit for the generic "Traffic Signal" thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5944.0).

Still, my thoughts: I think it's a red orb, based on this street view image (https://goo.gl/maps/MU2LZnQrjHqN2Hbp8). The issue reminds me of what happens at many DDIs, where "no turn on red" signs are used but the arrows are straight. Example in Colorado (https://goo.gl/maps/uu8CdoW5BQwJdsw6A) that I find especially confusing since there is a R3-5R "right turn only" sign overhead, conflicting with the signals showing straight-ahead arrows.

I posted a few pictures taken from above (on one of the ramps to the upper concourse at the ballpark) earlier this summer when we went to the Ryan Zimmerman number retirement game. Here's that post, in case you hadn't seen the pictures:

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 18, 2022, 04:23:00 PM
The intersection of South Capitol Street and Potomac Avenue outside Nats Park has changed just a bit.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220618/677412520641c86a5e08400ebd60907f.jpg)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220618/a9fd326066c594ff124a85f94846b53f.jpg)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220618/e65ef0c9f985801badaca5d4c7157385.jpg)

For those who haven't seen the bridge:

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220618/3fd824b00978edd536db73b45a956a06.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on August 22, 2022, 01:59:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2022, 01:57:50 PM
I posted a few pictures taken from above (on one of the ramps to the upper concourse at the ballpark) earlier this summer when we went to the Ryan Zimmerman number retirement game. Here's that post, in case you hadn't seen the pictures:

I did see them! Thank you for sharing.

I think, long-term, I'm interested to see the lane layout. I think that's what I'll need GSV for, since no one is going to bother taking a picture of that :-D.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on August 22, 2022, 09:21:24 PM
The TO banners are what's erroneous here, as Chamberlayne Ave is US 1/301.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/D9353G6BVAiG6BFH9
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on August 23, 2022, 03:54:02 PM
Not quite Interstate 6, not quote US Route 6 in Barnstable, Massachusetts (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6738785,-70.3069481,3a,22.3y,302.61h,89.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svfXdamIwU3t-QGRw5-vI1g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvfXdamIwU3t-QGRw5-vI1g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D30.491692%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52306725594_c25844023e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nGaDbs)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on August 23, 2022, 04:57:08 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 23, 2022, 03:54:02 PM
Not quite Interstate 6, not quote US Route 6 in Barnstable, Massachusetts (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6738785,-70.3069481,3a,22.3y,302.61h,89.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svfXdamIwU3t-QGRw5-vI1g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvfXdamIwU3t-QGRw5-vI1g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D30.491692%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52306725594_c25844023e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nGaDbs)
That's been posted a bunch of times on the forum.  Wonder how many times in this thread... :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on August 23, 2022, 05:27:16 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2022, 04:57:08 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 23, 2022, 03:54:02 PM
Not quite Interstate 6, not quote US Route 6 in Barnstable, Massachusetts (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6738785,-70.3069481,3a,22.3y,302.61h,89.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svfXdamIwU3t-QGRw5-vI1g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvfXdamIwU3t-QGRw5-vI1g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D30.491692%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52306725594_c25844023e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nGaDbs)
That's been posted a bunch of times on the forum.  Wonder how many times in this thread... :D

After a search for "Barnstable", "Hyannis", "cape cod" and/or with "Interstate 6" had no direct results in this thread or any other, I'm going to also blatantly and lazily assume that I'm the first.

That doesn't mean nobody else ever saw nor discussed it elsewhere.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on August 27, 2022, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 23, 2022, 05:27:16 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2022, 04:57:08 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 23, 2022, 03:54:02 PM
Not quite Interstate 6, not quote US Route 6 in Barnstable, Massachusetts (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6738785,-70.3069481,3a,22.3y,302.61h,89.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svfXdamIwU3t-QGRw5-vI1g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvfXdamIwU3t-QGRw5-vI1g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D30.491692%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)...

photo (https://flic.kr/p/2nGaDbs)
That's been posted a bunch of times on the forum.  Wonder how many times in this thread... :D

After a search for "Barnstable", "Hyannis", "cape cod" and/or with "Interstate 6" had no direct results in this thread or any other, I'm going to also blatantly and lazily assume that I'm the first.

That doesn't mean nobody else ever saw nor discussed it elsewhere.

Until the mid-90s it was the Mass way to only show I-shields on paddle signs, and even then (especially on the lower sign) an Interstate might be in text (many specimens with 95 in text survived until fairly recently)...and given the penchant for messing up the shield (MA 202 rectangles, white I-6, etc.), maybe Mass should have stuck to text mostly!  Any older and this sign would have said "TO RTE 6" without a shield which would have been OK as everything in Mass is a "route"--route 1, route 3, the other route 3, route 95, route 2....
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 29, 2022, 10:07:57 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/tArF4PHXWM9ruSBc6
Wrong County. Should be Burlington County not Atlantic.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 07, 2022, 08:18:21 AM
The arrows seem to be a bit off here.  (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1896497,-85.4014183,3a,75y,23.16h,97.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMWgOBofFR4rRbsSAptub6w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (I do not think US 431 is concurrent with its business route in Dothan, AL.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hobsini2 on September 10, 2022, 04:25:11 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 07, 2022, 08:18:21 AM
The arrows seem to be a bit off here.  (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1896497,-85.4014183,3a,75y,23.16h,97.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMWgOBofFR4rRbsSAptub6w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (I do not think US 431 is concurrent with its business route in Dothan, AL.)
Nor is North US 231 and Bus 231.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 10, 2022, 07:11:51 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/fl/090/us-090a-e-at-fl-109-2.jpg)

This assembly in Jacksonville is supposed to be for US 90 ALT and SR 10. Been wrong since 2019.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 11, 2022, 10:03:59 AM
Quote from: Alex on September 10, 2022, 07:11:51 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/fl/090/us-090a-e-at-fl-109-2.jpg)

This assembly in Jacksonville is supposed to be for US 90 ALT and SR 10. Been wrong since 2019.

Heh, saw this last week and you've saved me trouble of posting it.

Ironically, there's the tiny 10A nearby.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 14, 2022, 07:48:57 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 10, 2022, 04:25:11 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 07, 2022, 08:18:21 AM
The arrows seem to be a bit off here.  (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1896497,-85.4014183,3a,75y,23.16h,97.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMWgOBofFR4rRbsSAptub6w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (I do not think US 431 is concurrent with its business route in Dothan, AL.)
Nor is North US 231 and Bus 231.


Was like that two years ago as well.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51265195591
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on September 23, 2022, 03:07:28 PM
https://twitter.com/JoeyConway/status/1573279909199622144
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ClassicHasClass on September 25, 2022, 08:09:28 PM
^^^^

you-had-one-job dept.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 25, 2022, 09:00:13 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/MaCJY6eNF1XxQFbr9
Isn't this Mainline US 62?

Also isn't there a Business US 68 that concurs with US 62 through Aberdeen, OH  and Maysville, KY?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 25, 2022, 11:13:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 23, 2022, 03:07:28 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdVpvD-XgAEZE6n?format=jpg&name=small)

Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 25, 2022, 08:09:28 PM
^^^^
you-had-one-job dept.

You don't think that maybe, just maybe, that DDOT changed the name so that folks won't think the street will take them towards Virginia?  I always found it odd that Virginia Avenue is on a diagonal such that it runs kinda parallel to the Potomac River at a distance such that the line would never intersect the river (nor the state).  At least Maryland Avenue does take you towards Maryland.  (Yeah, big whup.  So do most of the streets in the District).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: amroad17 on September 26, 2022, 02:44:58 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 25, 2022, 09:00:13 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/MaCJY6eNF1XxQFbr9
Isn't this Mainline US 62?

Also isn't there a Business US 68 that concurs with US 62 through Aberdeen, OH  and Maysville, KY?
This is mainline US 62.  There is no longer a Business US 62 through Aberdeen, OH and Maysville, KY since the US 68 bypass of the two cities was completed around 2015.  The bypass used to cross the Harsha Bridge and then ended at KY 9/10/AA Highway.  US 62/68 was routed on the bypass, then was routed on the AA Highway to where US 62 currently crosses KY 9 in Maysville.  Current US 62 through Maysville and Aberdeen was the business route for US 62/68.

There is a Business US 68.  It goes from where US 68 splits off on the bypass south of Maysville to the US 62 intersection a couple of miles away.  That's it.  It should be posted as a US 68 Spur or a KY 3X68 state highway.

Both KYTC and Ohio DOT should correct the signage for these routes through Maysville and Aberdeen.  There are quite a few errors.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on September 26, 2022, 07:37:52 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on September 25, 2022, 11:13:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 23, 2022, 03:07:28 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdVpvD-XgAEZE6n?format=jpg&name=small)

Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 25, 2022, 08:09:28 PM
^^^^
you-had-one-job dept.

You don't think that maybe, just maybe, that DDOT changed the name so that folks won't think the street will take them towards Virginia?  I always found it odd that Virginia Avenue is on a diagonal such that it runs kinda parallel to the Potomac River at a distance such that the line would never intersect the river (nor the state).  At least Maryland Avenue does take you towards Maryland.  (Yeah, big whup.  So do most of the streets in the District).

Well, it IS the same agency that posted the signs seen below on Vermont Avenue (they're still there). The thread is locked, so I'll link the post for now because the iPad browser won't let me get a link to the image. I'll edit this later from my PC when I have time.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3521.msg2304034#msg2304034

Edited to add: Notice the same error appears on two signs in this photo.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180214/69167f9e886a3861d5f3b9530577e220.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 26, 2022, 09:13:20 AM
The routings of US 62 and US 68 have changed a number of times since the new bridge was built. Originally, US 62 and US 68 followed the AA Highway west to the turnoff for the new route and bridge. The new connector route originally had a 3000-series state route number before both US highways were routed onto it.

When the US 68 bypass was built, no intersection with US 62 was created. The roads cross at a grade separation with no interchange. Therefore, US 62 is routed back through downtown.

It's signed properly in Kentucky, but still signed as Business 62 in Ohio.

I have a number of photos over the years showing how the signage evolved on both sides of the river.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on September 26, 2022, 09:54:16 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 26, 2022, 09:13:20 AM
The routings of US 62 and US 68 have changed a number of times since the new bridge was built. Originally, US 62 and US 68 followed the AA Highway west to the turnoff for the new route and bridge. The new connector route originally had a 3000-series state route number before both US highways were routed onto it.

When the US 68 bypass was built, no intersection with US 62 was created. The roads cross at a grade separation with no interchange. Therefore, US 62 is routed back through downtown.

It's signed properly in Kentucky, but still signed as Business 62 in Ohio.

I have a number of photos over the years showing how the signage evolved on both sides of the river.
In my experience, old routings of state routes still have some signs on them in KY.  KY 15 in Whitesburg comes to mind.  Wouldn't be surprised if there was an old KY 3 trailblazer or two around Jenny Wiley.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on October 04, 2022, 03:32:20 PM
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSPlaces/status/1577375626016735245
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 11, 2022, 02:26:02 PM
A ten-year old Street View, but somebody likes their "N's" a little different:

https://goo.gl/maps/vMUGjZ5bZ19wqbvV7
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on October 11, 2022, 06:12:46 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 11, 2022, 02:26:02 PM
A ten-year old Street View, but somebody likes their "N's" a little different:

https://goo.gl/maps/vMUGjZ5bZ19wqbvV7

Post-Red Dawn road markings.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ClassicHasClass on October 12, 2022, 10:51:49 PM
The Commies walk amongst us!  :angry:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on October 13, 2022, 06:57:19 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 12, 2022, 10:51:49 PM
The Commies walk amongst us!  :angry:
Given Angela Lansbury's death, seeing The Manchurian Candidate would appear to be appropriate.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 13, 2022, 11:52:47 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/9qLLbWbeF1xQn2jJ7
US 206 ends here. It hasn't connected to its parent in decades.

Though nice button copy signs though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ClassicHasClass on October 14, 2022, 06:21:17 PM
^^^

That's a classic. I'm impressed it's still up. I remember it when I was driving US 6 in 2006.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 14, 2022, 06:25:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 13, 2022, 11:52:47 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/9qLLbWbeF1xQn2jJ7
US 206 ends here. It hasn't connected to its parent in decades.

Though nice button copy signs though.

WANT!! :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 24, 2022, 11:12:30 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/gqLbki3PJUJBFvTt6
Port Jervis is straight ahead not left onto I-84 as it says here..
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JayhawkCO on October 24, 2022, 12:08:43 PM
Saw this sign when driving back from Cheyenne this weekend. SH-34 doesn't exist, it's referring to US34 at Loveland. I also don't remember any other use of SH terminology on distance signs in Colorado.

(https://i.postimg.cc/50tjgbZp/Error-Sign.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 02, 2022, 10:40:22 PM
This sign needs to say EaST US 46 not WEST.
https://goo.gl/maps/uoht6tq4jphvmGDQ6

Although one can argue that it implies a u turn at the next signal, this next image is that intersection with a Truck Prohibition on U Turns.
https://goo.gl/maps/qkTcAdyaZHx9Zni86

To get to I-80 from this side of the road, you would use US 46 EAST to Howard Blvd. North.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 07, 2022, 05:25:05 PM
Another NJ mistake.
https://goo.gl/maps/riZvzys1KEK3HVPf6
Implying that NJ 29 and 129 overlap when they don't.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on November 07, 2022, 05:36:32 PM
This is 5 years old and probably long since fixed, but here's an Albuquerque local news report on a NMDOT sign goof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M4HyRTd7Ps
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 07, 2022, 09:20:01 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 07, 2022, 05:36:32 PM
This is 5 years old and probably long since fixed, but here's an Albuquerque local news report on a NMDOT sign goof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M4HyRTd7Ps

The non-roadgeek version of this thread.

Also, "Google Streetscape".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 08, 2022, 10:54:06 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/bE29jFK2qfjBthXp6
I believe the road to the left is NJ 87 North and not NJ 187 North. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rlb2024 on November 10, 2022, 11:01:39 AM
This is on southbound US 65/US 165 at the intersection with AR 138 between Dumas and McGehee, AR.  The direction sign for US 165 is correct, but not the one for US 65.  The corresponding northbound sign correctly shows "NORTH" for both highways.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7768292,-91.4633624,3a,75y,191.75h,82.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIuCb8Z6NpXptCs1QN7a5Yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7768292,-91.4633624,3a,75y,191.75h,82.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIuCb8Z6NpXptCs1QN7a5Yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 10, 2022, 11:52:56 AM
Quote from: rlb2024 on November 10, 2022, 11:01:39 AM
This is on southbound US 65/US 165 at the intersection with AR 138 between Dumas and McGehee, AR.  The direction sign for US 165 is correct, but not the one for US 65.  The corresponding northbound sign correctly shows "NORTH" for both highways.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7768292,-91.4633624,3a,75y,191.75h,82.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIuCb8Z6NpXptCs1QN7a5Yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7768292,-91.4633624,3a,75y,191.75h,82.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIuCb8Z6NpXptCs1QN7a5Yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)


Odd: I've never noticed this before.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 10, 2022, 12:01:02 PM
Quote from: djsinco on September 05, 2013, 03:42:02 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2013, 03:09:58 AM
Quote from: djsinco on September 04, 2013, 02:27:38 AM
US 160 does a pretty good job of avoiding much of anything noteworthy.

It does serve the third-largest city in Missouri, y'know...
Having been to Springfield many times, I stand by my statement.

Ever visited Shell Knob?  :p
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on November 10, 2022, 12:18:01 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 10, 2022, 12:01:02 PM

Quote from: djsinco on September 05, 2013, 03:42:02 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2013, 03:09:58 AM

Quote from: djsinco on September 04, 2013, 02:27:38 AM
US 160 does a pretty good job of avoiding much of anything noteworthy.

It does serve the third-largest city in Missouri, y'know...

Having been to Springfield many times, I stand by my statement.

Ever visited Shell Knob?  :p

Wow, you dug up a post from nine years ago?

For what it's worth, the most noteworthy thing in Springfield served by US-160 is a Wal-Mart...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 10, 2022, 12:23:15 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 10, 2022, 12:18:01 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 10, 2022, 12:01:02 PM

Quote from: djsinco on September 05, 2013, 03:42:02 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on September 04, 2013, 03:09:58 AM

Quote from: djsinco on September 04, 2013, 02:27:38 AM
US 160 does a pretty good job of avoiding much of anything noteworthy.

It does serve the third-largest city in Missouri, y'know...

Having been to Springfield many times, I stand by my statement.

Ever visited Shell Knob?  :p

Wow, you dug up a post from nine years ago?

For what it's worth, the most noteworthy thing in Springfield served by US-160 is a Wal-Mart...

Springfield also has 2-3 local pizza places and too many Oriental-type places to count (being the home of Chicken Fried Rice). :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on November 10, 2022, 12:27:39 PM
I'm not saying Meth Capital USA Springfield isn't noteworthy.  I'm just saying that US-160 avoids all of its noteworthy parts.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kirbykart on November 10, 2022, 02:12:25 PM
These are not Tennessee route shields: https://goo.gl/maps/Ta3zA8Q8pP9XJVZd6 (https://goo.gl/maps/Ta3zA8Q8pP9XJVZd6)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on November 10, 2022, 02:23:56 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 10, 2022, 02:12:25 PM
These are not Tennessee route shields: https://goo.gl/maps/Ta3zA8Q8pP9XJVZd6 (https://goo.gl/maps/Ta3zA8Q8pP9XJVZd6)

The Natchez Trace is loaded with round shields. I don't think there are any Tennessee shields throughout the route, though I have not clinched it in both directions.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51256846694_a6ecceb84e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2m6oJL7)

Hey, it least it works for Mississippi...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kirbykart on November 10, 2022, 02:25:36 PM
^That's interesting. Obviously I have no knowledge of the area personally.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rlb2024 on November 10, 2022, 10:36:34 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 10, 2022, 11:52:56 AM
Quote from: rlb2024 on November 10, 2022, 11:01:39 AM
This is on southbound US 65/US 165 at the intersection with AR 138 between Dumas and McGehee, AR.  The direction sign for US 165 is correct, but not the one for US 65.  The corresponding northbound sign correctly shows "NORTH" for both highways.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7768292,-91.4633624,3a,75y,191.75h,82.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIuCb8Z6NpXptCs1QN7a5Yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7768292,-91.4633624,3a,75y,191.75h,82.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIuCb8Z6NpXptCs1QN7a5Yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)


Odd: I've never noticed this before.
I caught it out of the corner of my eye yesterday when driving home from Little Rock.  I had to confirm it on Google Maps to make sure.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 08:29:32 AM
A wrong-way concurrency of the same route? In the state of concurrencies anything is possible.

I saw this yesterday on WI-83 in Kenosha County.

(https://i.imgur.com/tOdYfRk.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tchafe1978 on November 12, 2022, 10:41:50 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 08:29:32 AM
A wrong-way concurrency of the same route? In the state of concurrencies anything is possible.

I saw this yesterday on WI-83 in Kenosha County.

(https://i.imgur.com/tOdYfRk.jpg)

Are there supposed to be directional arrows under the shields that are maybe missing? Also, it used to be rare for county highways in Wisconsin to be posted with directional banners, but I've been seeing it more than I used to.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on November 12, 2022, 10:41:50 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 08:29:32 AM
A wrong-way concurrency of the same route? In the state of concurrencies anything is possible.

I saw this yesterday on WI-83 in Kenosha County.

(https://i.imgur.com/tOdYfRk.jpg)

Are there supposed to be directional arrows under the shields that are maybe missing? Also, it used to be rare for county highways in Wisconsin to be posted with directional banners, but I've been seeing it more than I used to.

Yes, there are supposed to be arrows.

As for posting directions on county highways, Kenosha and Racine Counties sign their highways quite well with directions posted. Rural counties tend to be more hit or miss if county routes are even signed at all. I saw more of that out in the southwest region.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kirbykart on November 13, 2022, 11:22:37 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 08:29:32 AM
A wrong-way concurrency of the same route? In the state of concurrencies anything is possible.

I saw this yesterday on WI-83 in Kenosha County.

(https://i.imgur.com/tOdYfRk.jpg)

I mean, there's a possibility that RI 114 has a wrong-way concurrency with itself in Pawtucket. The craziest thing is that nobody actually knows the exact route of RI 114 through the city. Especially confusing because RIDOT disagrees with the City of Pawtucket!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on November 14, 2022, 09:12:17 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/f3fWcuKS9ZSbXsBEA
https://goo.gl/maps/S68s1VExDJgjyeuX7
Business US 62 in Niagara Falls is signed with the Business banners placed erroneously at many locations within the city.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on December 03, 2022, 07:12:55 PM
Minor error: "sécurite" instead of "sécurité" (mind the accent) somewhere on ON 401 EB. It's pretty much the only French grammar error I've seen on my trips up and down 401.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52538074878_bdda888db3.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o3Bngd)Sécurite (typo) - ON 401 EB (https://flic.kr/p/2o3Bngd) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CoreySamson on December 04, 2022, 06:36:19 PM
This is a crappy photo, but I had to share:
(https://imgur.com/UAhHfTV.jpg)
W 121st S EB @ US 75, Glenpool, OK

Apparently ODOT thinks it's British? I've never seen a W6-1 messed up like that before.
GSV Link:
https://goo.gl/maps/DhDhicecCTxhZ39b9
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 05, 2022, 10:56:09 AM
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 04, 2022, 06:36:19 PM
This is a crappy photo, but I had to share:
(https://imgur.com/UAhHfTV.jpg)
W 121st S EB @ US 75, Glenpool, OK

Apparently ODOT thinks it's British? I've never seen a W6-1 messed up like that before.
GSV Link:
https://goo.gl/maps/DhDhicecCTxhZ39b9

Wow, that's a new one. One of those instances of "how on earth does this happen?" From the sign shop, to the crew that installed it.

Even better, if you go back in time on GMSV, the sign has been there for at least 15 years, including its post being re-up righted at least once. Never change, ODOT.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 05, 2022, 11:07:02 PM
Spotted today, a replacement for this sign on I-64 that had a KY 55 marker instead of a KY 53 marker. Couldn't get a pic, but I'll be going back that way in a few days, so I'll be sure to grab a photo.

(https://storage.googleapis.com/kytc-photolog-data/Van5_Mandli_Data_2022/03-15-2022/2022_V5_056-I-64E/2022_V5_056-I-64E/Right/Dir_070/F_07013.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on December 14, 2022, 10:05:54 PM
I suppose this is not technically a "road" sign, but it fits the thread otherwise. It's in the parking garage at Union Station in DC. Spotted it tonight on my way home from New York. I'd never used the elevator before, only the escalator, but I had to park a level further up than normal.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221215/74bab0b31e84e62c79eb7f03ebe3a2ea.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on December 14, 2022, 10:24:15 PM
Omg  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on December 15, 2022, 01:00:34 AM
Northbound M-39 at I-94 in Allen Park.  This first exit is really a C/D lane and you have to use it to access the Van Born Road exit, but you wouldn't know that from these signs.

The rightmost sign used to include Van Born Road underneath the I-94 control cities (where the greenout now is), and the sign for exit 3 Outer Drive was where the exit 2 Van Born Road sign is now.  I don't know why it was changed to this.

(https://i.imgur.com/4lSmQ5g.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 15, 2022, 10:07:33 PM
Until last month when I-80 Exit 163 opened, this sign was not an error.  I presume this error will be fixed when the I-99 free-flowing interchange is complete.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218015633382908&set=a.10218015778106526

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on December 15, 2022, 11:21:35 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on December 15, 2022, 01:00:34 AM
Northbound M-39 at I-94 in Allen Park.  This first exit is really a C/D lane and you have to use it to access the Van Born Road exit, but you wouldn't know that from these signs.

The rightmost sign used to include Van Born Road underneath the I-94 control cities (where the greenout now is), and the sign for exit 3 Outer Drive was where the exit 2 Van Born Road sign is now.  I don't know why it was changed to this.

My photo shown on Steve's site (M-39 page https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/mi/m-39/) has the 1-mile advance back in 2007; Detroit and Chicago were on one line and Van Born was on there too, but the highlight was the MICH state name in the shield.  It was later replaced with Clearview and a bland shield...it didn't make it to the greenout phase.
(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/mi/m-39/n1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ClassicHasClass on December 20, 2022, 04:00:49 PM
Oh, Caltrans, not yet. (It's still CA 15.)

https://goo.gl/maps/aZS6v6kVBdQWYnqX7
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on December 20, 2022, 11:19:24 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 20, 2022, 04:00:49 PM
Oh, Caltrans, not yet. (It's still CA 15.)

https://goo.gl/maps/aZS6v6kVBdQWYnqX7

That appears to be a very old reassurance shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on December 20, 2022, 11:29:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 20, 2022, 11:19:24 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 20, 2022, 04:00:49 PM
Oh, Caltrans, not yet. (It's still CA 15.)

https://goo.gl/maps/aZS6v6kVBdQWYnqX7

That appears to be a very old reassurance shield.

Yeah, looks like Caltrans has been wishful for a while there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 21, 2022, 09:09:42 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 20, 2022, 04:00:49 PM
Oh, Caltrans, not yet. (It's still CA 15.)

https://goo.gl/maps/aZS6v6kVBdQWYnqX7

Looks like a compressed 3DI shield too. I didn't think they did too much of that back in the day.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kirbykart on December 21, 2022, 09:34:24 AM
The bottom line of this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/vvPfVp2n1RNEUrbB8) was once correct but is now erroneous, as I-680 has been truncated to this junction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kniwt on December 23, 2022, 02:36:58 PM
Spotted these opposing signs at the north (east) end of UT 7 in Hurricane. Apologies for the bicycle "dashcam" video still-shot. :)

These have been there presumably since the highway opened in mid-2021, although I never noticed them until I was editing my video.

(https://i.imgur.com/WZdO4Wf.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on December 23, 2022, 09:38:22 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on December 21, 2022, 09:34:24 AM
The bottom line of this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/vvPfVp2n1RNEUrbB8) was once correct but is now erroneous, as I-680 has been truncated to this junction.

This shouldn't be erroneous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 26, 2022, 09:14:03 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/TaYiRdMU8Kt8KYuw8
The arrows on the US 22 and PA 611 shields are erroneous. They should be like the US 22 East arrow on the mast arm guide as up and then left as the street crossing here is a one way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 01, 2023, 07:54:30 PM
The SR 691 arrow is pointed in the wrong direction.  It should be pointed to the right.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218063559461030&set=a.10218064669408778
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 02, 2023, 03:14:25 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/qp32qtRXbfw5oJaVA
CT 12 SOUTH is not to the left.  CT 12 begins to the right a slight ways and starts its northward journey.

To the left is NB US 1 that takes over CT 12 after it ends.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on January 02, 2023, 08:29:05 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52601115926_d4a88e5352_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o9btaQ)2022 road trip photos - 835 (https://flic.kr/p/2o9btaQ) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

This is on eastbound I-64, and is erroneous because it should be KY 55, not KY 53.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52601620323_e48b4b32d0_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o9e47k)2022 road trip photos - 884 (https://flic.kr/p/2o9e47k) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52601102406_278d988746_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o9bp9J)2022 road trip photos - 883 (https://flic.kr/p/2o9bp9J) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

Both of these signs are erroneous. The route is Business US 31E in Mt. Washington, Ky., so obviously the Kentucky state route marker is erroneous (these are eastbound on KY 44; there are two state route markers for the route westbound) but there's another error here. The "x" is an internal designation for a business route and isn't supposed to be signed. In most places there would be a "Business" banner above the route marker, but for some reason the "x" got signed here. And in the US route marker, the letters are lowercase instead of uppercase.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on January 03, 2023, 07:06:46 AM
The signage saga of 31EX keeps getting weirder.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on January 03, 2023, 08:42:35 PM
US 31 Example?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on January 03, 2023, 11:19:26 PM
Quote from: plain on January 03, 2023, 08:42:35 PM
US 31 Example?

No, it's signage for former (ex-) US 31.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on January 04, 2023, 08:17:24 PM
US Federal Route 31ex, business traffic near a shopping complex

(Dear Calrog, this is a parody.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on January 05, 2023, 01:42:46 AM
https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/highway-project-completed-but-still-restaurant-owner-over-a-barrel-with-odot-delaware-county-ohio-department-of-transportation-pandemic-construction-road-closures-clydesdale-stonehaus

Interesting sign error in one of the photos included with the story....
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on January 05, 2023, 08:58:47 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on January 05, 2023, 01:42:46 AM
https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/highway-project-completed-but-still-restaurant-owner-over-a-barrel-with-odot-delaware-county-ohio-department-of-transportation-pandemic-construction-road-closures-clydesdale-stonehaus

Interesting sign error in one of the photos included with the story....

Is it US Route 42 being labelled "south"? Not super familiar with this area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rlb2024 on January 05, 2023, 09:10:14 PM
Saw this today on Interstate 55 southbound just south of Hernando, MS.  The sign should read "Next Rest Area 38 Miles" instead of implying that the rest area goes on all the way to Batesville.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8185486,-89.974082,3a,75y,181.18h,91.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS27wyHjCkZ6AcbiB9wNpDQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8185486,-89.974082,3a,75y,181.18h,91.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS27wyHjCkZ6AcbiB9wNpDQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on January 05, 2023, 09:11:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 05, 2023, 08:58:47 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on January 05, 2023, 01:42:46 AM
https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/highway-project-completed-but-still-restaurant-owner-over-a-barrel-with-odot-delaware-county-ohio-department-of-transportation-pandemic-construction-road-closures-clydesdale-stonehaus

Interesting sign error in one of the photos included with the story....

Is it US Route 42 being labelled "south"? Not super familiar with this area.

3rd photo shows US 42 South going both directions
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on January 05, 2023, 10:35:43 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on January 05, 2023, 09:10:14 PM
Saw this today on Interstate 55 southbound just south of Hernando, MS.  The sign should read "Next Rest Area 38 Miles" instead of implying that the rest area goes on all the way to Batesville.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8185486,-89.974082,3a,75y,181.18h,91.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS27wyHjCkZ6AcbiB9wNpDQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8185486,-89.974082,3a,75y,181.18h,91.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS27wyHjCkZ6AcbiB9wNpDQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Oh, that's a funny one!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on January 06, 2023, 12:48:30 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 05, 2023, 09:11:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 05, 2023, 08:58:47 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on January 05, 2023, 01:42:46 AM
https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/highway-project-completed-but-still-restaurant-owner-over-a-barrel-with-odot-delaware-county-ohio-department-of-transportation-pandemic-construction-road-closures-clydesdale-stonehaus

Interesting sign error in one of the photos included with the story....

Is it US Route 42 being labelled "south"? Not super familiar with this area.

3rd photo shows US 42 South going both directions

Oh, I see it now. Didn't notice that the first time!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JoePCool14 on January 06, 2023, 09:39:33 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2023, 12:48:30 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 05, 2023, 09:11:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 05, 2023, 08:58:47 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on January 05, 2023, 01:42:46 AM
https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/highway-project-completed-but-still-restaurant-owner-over-a-barrel-with-odot-delaware-county-ohio-department-of-transportation-pandemic-construction-road-closures-clydesdale-stonehaus

Interesting sign error in one of the photos included with the story....

Is it US Route 42 being labelled "south"? Not super familiar with this area.

3rd photo shows US 42 South going both directions

Oh, I see it now. Didn't notice that the first time!

When I eventually get some signs up in a garage or something, I should do something like that just to mess with people.  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 09, 2023, 01:03:14 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/JZ6W2eRYyHWWegKh9
North Bridge Street to Somerville is not straight ahead. It's a right turn onto the RIRO you see where the sign is placed.

https://goo.gl/maps/bWWZSMUknqg78gRN9
In 2019 it was correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 14, 2023, 02:42:55 PM
PA 443 has apparently been extended to replace a segment of US 209.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218147734285348&set=a.10218147800607006)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 16, 2023, 11:15:40 PM
Recently saw this set of erroneous signs in Teays Valley, West Virginia: 
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.449868,-81.9403305,3a,15y,51.94h,92.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQAj8jyr22Ru_w8LWsSo2QA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4507223,-81.939529,3a,15y,277.1h,90.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNU8RnljcRjpC6ff3ZpjpDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

CR-46 at this location is now incorrectly shown as "Scott Depot Road".  It was previously shown correctly as "Poplar Fork Road" in 2015:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4498834,-81.9403716,3a,15y,64.1h,88.78t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sa2Mj0D5NKsGTlR6hD1B0Uw!2e0!5s20150901T000000!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4507379,-81.9395626,3a,23.4y,279.62h,87.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYk31cPOeZgp2rkmm97khkg!2e0!5s20150901T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Indeed, where CR-46 intersects US-60 on Coal Mountain the road is correctly signed as "Scott Depot Road":  https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3994873,-81.899637,3a,15y,292.58h,98.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZlrYhkxl-fVe5h-1NYFBpQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Scott Depot Road used to run from Coal Mountain over to the Scott Lane grade crossing adjacent to the Scott depot on the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway, now CSXT (in Scott Depot, of course).  WVDOH still shows the right-of-way for Scott Depot Road as CR-46/2 as "primitive road" coming off the paved CR-46 and headed over the mountain.  There is a new McMansion using this road as part of their loop driveway, then the road fades into oblivion. 



Sure enough, the other end of CR-46/2 in Scott Depot is also erroneous:  https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4472863,-81.9113365,3a,15y,303.21h,89.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s14_hGEqRicJWYrej6oYH2A!2e0!5s20211101T000000!7i16384!8i8192

The sign for Scott Lane should be pointed the other direction and the route number should be CR-46/2.  This was correctly posted in the opposite direction back as shown back in 2015:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4472514,-81.9118423,3a,15y,105.36h,83.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3UU4cxiTCS-lrI_CtQ7g7w!2e0!5s20150901T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Note the streetblade for Tiger Lane is also technically wrong, as it is a private street sign.  Tiger Lane (named after the local elementary school mascot) is indeed CR-33/7 and ends near I-64 to the north.  So this sign should say "Tiger Lane" instead of "Scott Lane".  Scott Lane continues across the railroad tracks and follows the old route of Scott Depot Road for a short distance before it also fades into oblivion.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CovalenceSTU on January 24, 2023, 04:53:55 PM
St. Helens, OR off of US-30 - either I took a portal to the South or the state finally got the Astoria-Portland freeway it wanted in the 50's :-D
(https://i.imgur.com/Iq5cWPu.png)

There's at least 2 more identical signs further down the road: https://goo.gl/maps/Ltte7hF7gtGC7HkY8
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ClassicHasClass on January 24, 2023, 05:47:10 PM
^^^

Shades of the infamous BR 54 in El Cajon, CA. ( http://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/54/#sec_32 for the uninitiated.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on January 24, 2023, 07:10:10 PM
Is the speed limit 35 or 40?  :confused:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/fwV33KjwFhEv5CqbA

https://maps.app.goo.gl/PQj2uKmgdWYTC9PN6
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 24, 2023, 11:42:06 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/VR5R29iixSC3aTYH7
The arrow for NJ 94 south points in a direction  there is no road here.

I see the need for the shield so drivers don't make the first right onto that the side road, but it shows that there is a road straight across the intersection.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on January 25, 2023, 07:00:39 AM


Quote from: roadman65 on January 24, 2023, 11:42:06 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/VR5R29iixSC3aTYH7
The arrow for NJ 94 south points in a direction  there is no road here.

I see the need for the shield so drivers don't make the first right onto that the side road, but it shows that there is a road straight across the intersection.

I don't see the issue given the lane and intersection configuration.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on February 02, 2023, 03:46:43 PM
I actually don't mind these Pennsylvania Turnpike "hybrids", but that 276 is supposed to be an Interstate shield:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52659889817_bd9330e22d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oenGAM)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 02, 2023, 04:16:51 PM
That photo is not showing that hybrid you speak of.

This though looks like US 13 in Bristol where the Jersey Jughandle is past Route 413, I'm guessing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on February 02, 2023, 06:00:23 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 02, 2023, 04:16:51 PM
That photo is not showing that hybrid you speak of.

This though looks like US 13 in Bristol where the Jersey Jughandle is past Route 413, I'm guessing.

Try panning the photo to the right...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on February 03, 2023, 10:45:44 AM
Quote from: formulanone on February 02, 2023, 03:46:43 PM
I actually don't mind these Pennsylvania Turnpike "hybrids", but that 276 is supposed to be an Interstate shield:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52659889817_bd9330e22d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oenGAM)

I've seen those for 76 and 476 as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 26, 2023, 12:15:36 PM
US 17 SB apparently turns north as you head towards Hertford. (https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10218354842822932&set=a.10218354958585826)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on February 28, 2023, 08:15:28 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/gG11QgfWR4CdJM5W9

https://goo.gl/maps/c3eNnY9sCbxTU3Nj6

This sign should be the other way around. Del. Mem. Br. Use Turnpike South.

Though one could argue that it refers to the Delaware Turnpike as if both New Jersey and Delaware Turnpikes are continuous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Declan127 on March 03, 2023, 11:23:33 PM

https://maps.app.goo.gl/iFYZCAG2Bun6dejC7 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/iFYZCAG2Bun6dejC7)

Same issue here, just on a newer sign. Also note the new state-name I-295 Shield on the right
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: odditude on March 05, 2023, 08:38:00 PM
I don't think it's an issue; if you know you're supposed to be getting on the Turnpike south until you're in DE, but you don't that "Del Mem Br" is where you should be headed, the signs add value.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeekteen on March 05, 2023, 08:41:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2023, 08:15:28 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/gG11QgfWR4CdJM5W9
This sign should be the other way around. Del. Mem. Br. Use Turnpike South.

Though one could argue that it refers to the Delaware Turnpike as if both New Jersey and Delaware Turnpikes are continuous.
My guess would be that NJDOT is refering to the Delaware Turnpike. But is the name "Delaware Turnpike" colloquially used in the area?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on March 05, 2023, 11:06:34 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 05, 2023, 08:41:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2023, 08:15:28 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/gG11QgfWR4CdJM5W9
This sign should be the other way around. Del. Mem. Br. Use Turnpike South.

Though one could argue that it refers to the Delaware Turnpike as if both New Jersey and Delaware Turnpikes are continuous.
My guess would be that NJDOT is refering to the Delaware Turnpike. But is the name "Delaware Turnpike" colloquially used in the area?
Pfft.  Most people would think it just refers to the NJ Turnpike at this point.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on March 05, 2023, 11:11:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 05, 2023, 11:06:34 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 05, 2023, 08:41:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2023, 08:15:28 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/gG11QgfWR4CdJM5W9
This sign should be the other way around. Del. Mem. Br. Use Turnpike South.

Though one could argue that it refers to the Delaware Turnpike as if both New Jersey and Delaware Turnpikes are continuous.
My guess would be that NJDOT is refering to the Delaware Turnpike. But is the name "Delaware Turnpike" colloquially used in the area?
Pfft.  Most people would think it just refers to the NJ Turnpike at this point.
I mean, it leads to a turnpike, whether it's NJ's or DE's isn't really important.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 7/8 on March 14, 2023, 02:24:09 PM
Here's one on Huron Road in Kitchener, ON (street view (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.3840917,-80.4787338,3a,15y,105.65h,90.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVNDguaD1hY2c82FUC_CrTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)):

The current sign is a Wa-14 "T-Intersection Sign (Uncontrolled)" rotated 90 degrees CCW. The proper sign would be a Wa-13A "Intersection Sign (Controlled)":
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2464/4005/products/Screen_Shot_2018-12-21_at_9.58.23_AM_352x.png?v=1545404327)

In reality, it's a pretty minor difference that most people wouldn't notice, but as a roadgeek, it bugs me a bit. :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 14, 2023, 02:30:58 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on March 14, 2023, 02:24:09 PM
Here's one on Huron Road in Kitchener, ON (street view (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.3840917,-80.4787338,3a,15y,105.65h,90.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVNDguaD1hY2c82FUC_CrTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)):

The current sign is a Wa-14 "T-Intersection Sign (Uncontrolled)" rotated 90 degrees CCW. The proper sign would be a Wa-13A "Intersection Sign (Controlled)":
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2464/4005/products/Screen_Shot_2018-12-21_at_9.58.23_AM_352x.png?v=1545404327)

In reality, it's a pretty minor difference that most people wouldn't notice, but as a roadgeek, it bugs me a bit. :)

FYI, that's a perfect candidate for this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15172.msg2054622#msg2054622).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on March 29, 2023, 02:20:40 PM
Very minor, but this is Munroe St., not Monroe St.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.815515,-70.8839321,3a,27.4y,15.36h,86.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skQxM0dcyCYSgo7sZEYiMgA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.815515,-70.8839321,3a,27.4y,15.36h,86.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skQxM0dcyCYSgo7sZEYiMgA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

There's another street blade (on Kent St.) where they clearly changed one spelling to the other, but you can't tell which direction they changed it. GSV only shows 2012 there (and spelled correctly), so I can't link to it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on March 29, 2023, 07:23:42 PM
On I-70 in Colorado, near the Utah border CDOT recently did a mass replacement of nearly all signs on the freeway late last summer.

By the weigh station/points of entry, they made a glaring error in BOTH directions with the same sign.  Only the eastbound GSV has the most recent sign and error.

I-70
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9s5n8wJYkaQFm9TR9

At first, I was thinking of informing them, but I want to see how long it takes them to fix them.

Not holding my breath, as there are CDOT sign errors all over Western Colorado. Just the same old status quo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 30, 2023, 10:32:52 AM
It took me a minute to see the error, but I eventually did.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on April 01, 2023, 02:52:40 AM
I wonder if "commerical" is a homophone for "chimerical".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on April 03, 2023, 01:01:25 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2023, 02:52:40 AM
I wonder if "commerical" is a homophone for "chimerical".

It's for fantastic creatures and cryptids that sold out.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on April 10, 2023, 10:12:18 PM
Nitpicking to the most anal degree:  Inkster Road on the Southfield/Farmington Hills border goes under I-696.

(https://i.imgur.com/GnAcCTI.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hunty2022 on April 12, 2023, 09:35:39 PM
Erroneous directions for US 33, from northbound US 29.

East/West should be swapped.

(https://i.postimg.cc/K8jmkBky/05142-B35-E9-F1-4584-B4-BB-478-D419-D570-D.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on April 18, 2023, 08:34:35 PM
"Stars and Strips" sounds like a patriotic gentleman's club.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52828298406_61b72fe2e4_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oufQB9)

For reference...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50953268498_67bdb71025_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kCyPxh)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on April 18, 2023, 09:55:17 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 18, 2023, 08:34:35 PM
"Stars and Strips" sounds like a patriotic gentleman's club.
What kind of name is Stars and Stripes Way anyways? Why not just have it be Patriots Way or any other unnecessarily American name?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on April 19, 2023, 05:50:52 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 18, 2023, 09:55:17 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 18, 2023, 08:34:35 PM
"Stars and Strips" sounds like a patriotic gentleman's club.
What kind of name is Stars and Stripes Way anyways? Why not just have it be Patriots Way or any other unnecessarily American name?

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the typical names had already been used somewhere nearby (it's in the Dallas-Fort Worth area).

Besides, you can get a star and two stripes in the Lone Star flag, so nobody gets offended.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rlb2024 on April 19, 2023, 01:01:51 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 19, 2023, 05:50:52 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 18, 2023, 09:55:17 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 18, 2023, 08:34:35 PM
"Stars and Strips" sounds like a patriotic gentleman's club.
What kind of name is Stars and Stripes Way anyways? Why not just have it be Patriots Way or any other unnecessarily American name?

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the typical names had already been used somewhere nearby (it's in the Dallas-Fort Worth area).

Besides, you can get a star and two stripes in the Lone Star flag, so nobody gets offended.
"Stars and Strips" could very easily be a gentleman's club in the DFW area . . .
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 19, 2023, 01:07:31 PM
Normal for NJ, but not many other places. Plus North Avenue heads to both I-95 and the NJ Turnpike. Really the “TO” is misplaced, but delivering an erroneous message.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4127/5085876733_07f0d3ac23_w.jpg)



Then NJ 21 in front of US 22? It’s normal for NJDOT to treat all designations as simple routes thus all equal. Thus then the shields are by ascending order of numbers rather than by designation ranking per MUTCD.  They did though get I-78 placed in correct sequence.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4108/5085877033_92867474f8_w.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 19, 2023, 01:12:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 19, 2023, 01:07:31 PM
Then NJ 21 in front of US 22? It's normal for NJDOT to treat all designations as simple routes thus all equal. Thus then the shields are by ascending order of numbers rather than by designation ranking per MUTCD.  They did though get I-78 placed in correct sequence.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4108/5085877033_92867474f8_w.jpg)


So not erroneous?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 19, 2023, 01:19:33 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2023, 01:12:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 19, 2023, 01:07:31 PM
Then NJ 21 in front of US 22? It's normal for NJDOT to treat all designations as simple routes thus all equal. Thus then the shields are by ascending order of numbers rather than by designation ranking per MUTCD.  They did though get I-78 placed in correct sequence.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4108/5085877033_92867474f8_w.jpg)


So not erroneous?

According to the MUTCD yes.

True it's better for the odd thread, but some here worship the MUTCD.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 19, 2023, 01:22:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 19, 2023, 01:19:33 PM
True it's better for the odd thread, but some here worship the MUTCD.

No, it's better for the Signs With Design Errors (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.0) thread.  AFAIK, nothing on that sign is inaccurate.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on April 19, 2023, 01:26:53 PM
I believe people might be more apt to navigate primarily by number rather than route type.

In this Newark Airport example from 2013, the order is US 1-9, then NJ 21, and US 22.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4656/28345322549_a9a2cf87dc_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KbMbRK)

From 2019, leaving the airport, shields in numerical order.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52343902697_bb06fe9385_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nKsbCZ)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4698/39061264564_119a2afb71_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22vHc5G)

Side road along the airport perimeter, also in order.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4171/34425668795_d0ef9c152f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Us5xXH)

So maybe the Port Authority likes it that way? Well, not always...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4719/38872224985_f8a41814bb_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22e1jcB)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 19, 2023, 01:28:13 PM
I can't find it.  Would someone please link to the MUTCD guidance that says US Route shields should be to the left of State Route shields?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 19, 2023, 01:41:43 PM
I personally don't have a problem with Route 21 first. I grew up in NJ and this is how I was raised. Just like having three destinations on one guide is normal to me as other states forbid it as information overload. Sadly the NJTA disappointed me in the Parkway at Exit 98 changing the SB control cities by eliminating Manasquan so it reads Belmar Brielle now.  But that's another story, but I'm not against the jersey way except for mileage signs and lack of shield placement on some roads.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on April 19, 2023, 01:45:17 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 19, 2023, 01:26:53 PM
From 2019, leaving the airport, shields in numerical order.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4698/39061264564_119a2afb71_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22vHc5G)


Well, except for 95 and 78...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 19, 2023, 01:53:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2023, 01:45:17 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 19, 2023, 01:26:53 PM
From 2019, leaving the airport, shields in numerical order.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4698/39061264564_119a2afb71_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22vHc5G)


Well, except for 95 and 78...

And considering that I-78 East goes to I-95 and the NJ Turnpike it should be first with TO over the I-95 and Turnpike shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 21, 2023, 09:56:59 PM
Looks like US 6 in CT was demoted and rerouted

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52835186682_fd4bbe6b5f.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ouS9fw)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on April 23, 2023, 12:49:52 AM
Regarding the NJ routes, it looks like every instance where the shields are out of order, they appear after a "TO". Could it simply be that they're listing the routes in the order you would encounter them?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on April 23, 2023, 12:56:56 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2023, 01:28:13 PM
I can't find it.  Would someone please link to the MUTCD guidance that says US Route shields should be to the left of State Route shields?

Quote from: MUTCD Section 2D.09, "Numbered Highway Systems"
Standard:
05 Route systems shall be given preference in this order: Interstate, United States, State, and county. The preference shall be given by installing the highest-priority legend on the top or the left of the sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Stephane Dumas on April 24, 2023, 07:21:29 PM
At Leduc, Alberta on AB-2A, they put a divided highway begins sign above a end divided highway sign.
https://goo.gl/maps/G1RwRpAjxYbVLGcf8
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on April 24, 2023, 08:50:38 PM
^^ Installed upside down
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 01, 2023, 05:44:21 PM
FL 539 SB apparently is also FL 539 NB now:  https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218644208256887&set=a.10218644425342314

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53419032587_40d2380ac3_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2023, 05:56:34 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/RTt1Qgy6zAyHmwnG6
TO NJ 47 SOUTH, I think not.  It is NJ 47 South here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on May 05, 2023, 09:13:55 AM
It's a pavement marking, not a road sign, but turning right is allowed here.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8464303,-70.9104297,3a,75y,267.51h,77.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1subFrins3eTSfCyClf6Z-GQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on May 05, 2023, 09:36:31 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 05, 2023, 09:13:55 AM
It's a pavement marking, not a road sign, but turning right is allowed here.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8464303,-70.9104297,3a,75y,267.51h,77.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1subFrins3eTSfCyClf6Z-GQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

In the same area, US 95 has moved to the East Coast (https://goo.gl/maps/EhRrMYS91PpojJ6j9)!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on May 08, 2023, 12:02:53 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52881106519_47fff37c31_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oyVuBR)Ã,rret d'autobus (sic) (https://flic.kr/p/2oyVuBR) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr

Ã,rret d'autobus (should be Arrêt d'autobus).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hunty2022 on May 10, 2023, 11:01:26 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on April 12, 2023, 09:35:39 PM
Erroneous directions for US 33, from northbound US 29.

East/West should be swapped.

(https://i.postimg.cc/K8jmkBky/05142-B35-E9-F1-4584-B4-BB-478-D419-D570-D.jpg)

Update:
This sign has been fixed, with the directions being correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 11, 2023, 04:58:46 PM
Has this sign been up since this project started?

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218696676608563&set=a.10218696719409633

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53420133213_2279691413_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on May 11, 2023, 06:21:17 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 05, 2023, 09:36:31 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 05, 2023, 09:13:55 AM
It's a pavement marking, not a road sign, but turning right is allowed here.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8464303,-70.9104297,3a,75y,267.51h,77.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1subFrins3eTSfCyClf6Z-GQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

In the same area, US 95 has moved to the East Coast (https://goo.gl/maps/EhRrMYS91PpojJ6j9)!

Nice catch. I've driven out of that lot multiple times on to 110 but never from that exit.

You've probably found by now that private entities in the USA provide a near-endless supply of confusing what routes are at what level.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on May 11, 2023, 07:23:58 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 11, 2023, 06:21:17 PM
You've probably found by now that private entities in the USA provide a near-endless supply of confusing what routes are at what level.
It's not just the USA. Would you believe me if I told you this is meant to be A-30, not US 30?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52890310641_d5ed791903_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ozJEFB)Le P'tit Pub de la 30 (https://flic.kr/p/2ozJEFB) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr

I guess that's payback for the time US 30 became QC 366 (https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/route-30-incorrectly-labeled-quebec-route-366-by-google-maps/).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 12, 2023, 05:03:58 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/h7X2Xa3P26wb3HPj8
US 1-9 does not lead to US 46 as it is US 46 here.

US 46 already begun on the nearby GWB, so it's concurrent with US 1-9.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on May 12, 2023, 10:46:13 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 11, 2023, 07:23:58 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 11, 2023, 06:21:17 PM
You've probably found by now that private entities in the USA provide a near-endless supply of confusing what routes are at what level.
It's not just the USA. Would you believe me if I told you this is meant to be A-30, not US 30?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52890310641_d5ed791903_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ozJEFB)Le P'tit Pub de la 30 (https://flic.kr/p/2ozJEFB) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr

I guess that's payback for the time US 30 became QC 366 (https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/route-30-incorrectly-labeled-quebec-route-366-by-google-maps/).

It still looks better than those damn PA acorn shields!!!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on May 13, 2023, 09:00:11 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 11, 2023, 07:23:58 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 11, 2023, 06:21:17 PM
You've probably found by now that private entities in the USA provide a near-endless supply of confusing what routes are at what level.
It's not just the USA. Would you believe me if I told you this is meant to be A-30, not US 30?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52890310641_d5ed791903_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ozJEFB)Le P'tit Pub de la 30 (https://flic.kr/p/2ozJEFB) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr

I guess that's payback for the time US 30 became QC 366 (https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/route-30-incorrectly-labeled-quebec-route-366-by-google-maps/).

It's not Nova Scotia Trunk 30?

(I guess the trunk routes started with the current US shields though)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CovalenceSTU on May 16, 2023, 01:50:17 PM
Something random I noticed:
(https://i.imgur.com/VcpzTXa.png)

This route is actually OR-104S (https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Data/Documents/SLC_Hwy485.pdf) (although it doesn't appear on any signs), and there hasn't been an alternate US-101 in the state since 1976.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dirt Roads on May 20, 2023, 12:32:17 AM
I was driving eastbound on New Bern Avenue in Raleigh last week on a dark rainy night when I spied this "Blast from the Past" (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7916137,-78.5858915,3a,25.9y,45.45h,94.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siKINLxxpxbo_pZ_KT_RBPQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DiKINLxxpxbo_pZ_KT_RBPQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D164.7881%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) that still says I-495.  It's I-97 now.  New Bern Avenue may be unnumbered, but it is still one of the major routes [out of] downtown Raleigh.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 20, 2023, 06:56:18 PM
"Sidewalk Closed"?  No, the sidewalk ends.

(https://i.imgur.com/yefjOUv.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on May 21, 2023, 11:17:21 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 20, 2023, 06:56:18 PM
"Sidewalk Closed"?  No, the sidewalk ends.

(https://i.imgur.com/yefjOUv.jpg)
If you wanna be technical, no sidewalk = closed sidewalk.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ClassicHasClass on May 21, 2023, 04:07:46 PM
^^^

Maybe it's implying that the sidewalk is a closed finite set of concrete slabs.  :hmmm:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on May 21, 2023, 04:20:26 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 21, 2023, 04:07:46 PM
^^^

Maybe it's implying that the sidewalk is a closed finite set of concrete slabs.  :hmmm:

...or they LITERALLY roll-up the sidewalks between certain hours.  At this particular time, that sidewalk was closed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 23, 2023, 07:28:55 PM
Exit 95B on OH 104 NB is for US 33 WB so it really should not be mentioned on this sign.

(https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218778760300604&set=a.10218778780941120)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53419083157_6d774c9da7_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on May 25, 2023, 05:27:21 PM
https://twitter.com/13NewsNow/status/1661841076699668506
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 26, 2023, 06:07:57 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

FWIW, I was told it was as a child, but it was definitely on the lower end of curse words. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on May 26, 2023, 06:09:38 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

Doesn't Quebec have a whole premium tier of profanity nobody else gets access to?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on May 26, 2023, 06:15:16 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 26, 2023, 06:09:38 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

Doesn't Quebec have a whole premium tier of profanity nobody else gets access to?
Pardon my French?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on May 26, 2023, 06:58:18 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?
The American Universe.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 12:58:12 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 26, 2023, 06:09:38 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

Doesn't Quebec have a whole premium tier of profanity nobody else gets access to?
Yes. Ever heard of "tabarnak", "câlice" and "osti"?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 26, 2023, 02:31:34 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

In my youth, there were four major cuss words/swear words/profanities/obscenities: h3ll, d@mn, sh1t, and f*ck.

Others included b1tch (as in "son of a b1tch"), b@st@rd, and f@rt.

I'm amazed at the degradation of society to the point where only one of those words is not freely used on network television.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on May 26, 2023, 02:50:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 26, 2023, 02:31:34 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

In my youth, there were four major cuss words/swear words/profanities/obscenities: h3ll, d@mn, sh1t, and f*ck.

Others included b1tch (as in "son of a b1tch"), b@st@rd, and f@rt.

I'm amazed at the degradation of society to the point where only one of those words is not freely used on network television.

Don't you consider "c0v1d" and v@cc1n3" swear words to the point where you censor them, too?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 26, 2023, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

You gotta go back to 1929, but that's when the first curse word was uttered in a movie. It was 'Damn', and it was shocking. 

I'm not sure if Damn can be uttered in a G rated movie today, or if that automatically bumps up a movie to a PG rating. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on May 26, 2023, 04:06:31 PM
The first three "curse words" I learned as a kid were "damn, fuck, and shit" (in that order) and I remember all too well the day my mother heard me say them when I was outside playing with the other kids (she had the window open). The soap did not taste good.

Down South, the combination of "damn" with "God" is considered a very serious profanity, to the point where people say "GD" when referring to that word. (It amuses me at Washington Capitals games to see an ad for something called "GDIT" on the boards because I've spent enough time in the South to read that as a mild profanity: "GD it!")
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on May 26, 2023, 04:23:55 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

For one, if the structure fails, the area will be flooded with the alphabet's fourteenth letter.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 27, 2023, 09:22:55 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 26, 2023, 02:50:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 26, 2023, 02:31:34 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

In my youth, there were four major cuss words/swear words/profanities/obscenities: h3ll, d@mn, sh1t, and f*ck.

Others included b1tch (as in "son of a b1tch"), b@st@rd, and f@rt.

I'm amazed at the degradation of society to the point where only one of those words is not freely used on network television.

Don't you consider "c0v1d" and v@cc1n3" swear words to the point where you censor them, too?

That was done to get around the limitations of social media (particularly Facebook) that resulted in annoying tags and "fact checks" being applied to posts.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 27, 2023, 10:40:28 PM
Except that the Shop Rd Gate is actually a right at the signal.  (on SR 630 SB)

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218792243517676&set=a.10218792402641654

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53420020136_af3a22e09d_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on May 28, 2023, 10:05:44 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 27, 2023, 09:22:55 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 26, 2023, 02:50:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 26, 2023, 02:31:34 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

In my youth, there were four major cuss words/swear words/profanities/obscenities: h3ll, d@mn, sh1t, and f*ck.

Others included b1tch (as in "son of a b1tch"), b@st@rd, and f@rt.

I'm amazed at the degradation of society to the point where only one of those words is not freely used on network television.

Don't you consider "c0v1d" and v@cc1n3" swear words to the point where you censor them, too?

That was done to get around the limitations of social media (particularly Facebook) that resulted in annoying tags and "fact checks" being applied to posts.
How dare facts get in the way of opinion...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 28, 2023, 03:49:03 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/16365039049
The misplaced TO banners make it look like the road ahead isn't US 90 West and that US 98 East is actually to the left at US 31's southern terminus.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 30, 2023, 11:18:25 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/ymNQuAeUYNaRFgJLA
Bloomfield Avenue don't go anywhere near Livingston if you turn right ahead.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hunty2022 on June 01, 2023, 05:29:44 PM
This is North NC-87, not south.

(https://i.postimg.cc/vmGbTT9W/57-E224-A2-D1-A3-4-A22-886-E-E0-A4619-D8708.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on June 05, 2023, 06:30:01 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

This reminds me of when a few years ago I was listening to some syndicated music show on a rural FM station. They played "Life in the Fast Lane" by the Eagles and dumped the profanity from "we've been up and down this highway, haven't seen a goddamn thing". I thought it was pretty funny.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 05, 2023, 07:14:05 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 05, 2023, 06:30:01 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

This reminds me of when a few years ago I was listening to some syndicated music show on a rural FM station. They played "Life in the Fast Lane" by the Eagles and dumped the profanity from "we've been up and down this highway, haven't seen a goddamn thing". I thought it was pretty funny.

Cox Media Group seems to dub out the word BS on Pink Floyd's Money on their radio stations that feature Classic Rock. Sounds weird with a word missing when played.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 25, 2023, 11:06:15 PM
https://www.aaroads.com/nj/080/i-080_eb_exit_068_05.jpg
I-95 South on I-80 East is NOT the last exit in New Jersey.

One final exit remains in Fort Lee connecting to NJ 67 before the GWB.
(https://www.aaroads.com/nj/080/i-080_eb_exit_068_05.jpg)
Courtesy AA Roads.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on June 25, 2023, 11:30:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 25, 2023, 11:06:15 PM
https://www.aaroads.com/nj/080/i-080_eb_exit_068_05.jpg
I-95 South on I-80 East is NOT the last exit in New Jersey.

One final exit remains in Fort Lee connecting to NJ 67 before the GWB.
(https://www.aaroads.com/nj/080/i-080_eb_exit_068_05.jpg)
Courtesy AA Roads.
That's why it's only marked for the express lanes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 25, 2023, 11:40:57 PM
Express lanes especially as you can still access NJ 67 before the bridge without being forced on to it from those lanes.
Quote from: Rothman on June 25, 2023, 11:30:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 25, 2023, 11:06:15 PM
https://www.aaroads.com/nj/080/i-080_eb_exit_068_05.jpg
I-95 South on I-80 East is NOT the last exit in New Jersey.

One final exit remains in Fort Lee connecting to NJ 67 before the GWB.
(https://www.aaroads.com/nj/080/i-080_eb_exit_068_05.jpg)
Courtesy AA Roads.
That's why it's only marked for the express lanes.
https://goo.gl/maps/hdXmTnep8X2idC3d6
From the Express lanes to the Upper Level of the GWB beyond the pictured Last Exit in NJ.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 27, 2023, 05:24:32 PM
Looks like PA 68 WB turned east   :spin:  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218929534989877&set=a.10218929793836348)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53420042586_43784ed672_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 28, 2023, 02:25:01 PM
Approaching the end of the Highroad, near Branson, drivers encounter this erroneous sign (https://goo.gl/maps/ARYtoRtx1KRxsUC66).  Nearer the end, however, they see this one, which is correct (https://goo.gl/maps/S3yBZdXHCPQhG3ebA).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on June 29, 2023, 12:08:42 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 28, 2023, 02:25:01 PM
Approaching the end of the Highroad, near Branson, drivers encounter this erroneous sign (https://goo.gl/maps/ARYtoRtx1KRxsUC66).  Nearer the end, however, they see this one, which is correct (https://goo.gl/maps/S3yBZdXHCPQhG3ebA).

Erroneous on a future-proofing technicality. If what appears to be a planned future expansion of the freeway actually occurs, then the sign is suddenly no longer erroneous. (I prefer "next exit" instead of "next right" for these types of signs.)

One could also argue that you first turn right (along the loop) before making the actual left turn.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 29, 2023, 12:41:45 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 29, 2023, 12:08:42 PM
If what appears to be a planned future expansion of the freeway actually occurs, then the sign is suddenly no longer erroneous.

It's been this way for twenty years now and, as far as I'm aware, Phase 2 was scrapped.  I'm not aware of any official discussion about extending the Highroad since 2010.

Related thread:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2244.0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 29, 2023, 01:38:29 PM
Outside Boston on I-90.  There is no Exit 46 but there is an Exit 45.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52994955605_9b914c6614_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: flan on June 30, 2023, 11:42:05 AM
I saw this east of Alexandria, MN, on I-94 westbound

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdeW0zns.jpg&hash=788df31f161d75bf4a54b15eeadd1e34526c2397)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 30, 2023, 03:03:08 PM
Quote from: flan on June 30, 2023, 11:42:05 AM
I saw this east of Alexandria, MN, on I-94 westbound

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdeW0zns.jpg&hash=788df31f161d75bf4a54b15eeadd1e34526c2397)

That's not where I-34 goes!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on June 30, 2023, 03:07:45 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 30, 2023, 03:03:08 PM
That's not where I-34 goes!

But they're working on it.   :awesomeface:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 01, 2023, 02:11:44 AM
I'm guessing it's not all that uncommon for people to get so messed up after coming out of Vegas they don't know where they are, but I didn't expect it to happen to I-15.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2672835,-115.0664198,3a,47.6y,63.34h,109.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss9YCR6_BcA3x6n3-F-dEDA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

(Jake Bear found this in person and commented on it, which led me to check and make sure he saw what he saw...sure enough, that's a Utah I-15 shield two states away in Nevada!)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 01, 2023, 07:36:33 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 01, 2023, 02:11:44 AM
I'm guessing it's not all that uncommon for people to get so messed up after coming out of Vegas they don't know where they are, but I didn't expect it to happen to I-15.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2672835,-115.0664198,3a,47.6y,63.34h,109.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss9YCR6_BcA3x6n3-F-dEDA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

(Jake Bear found this in person and commented on it, which led me to check and make sure he saw what he saw...sure enough, that's a Utah I-15 shield two states away in Nevada!)

I fail to see the problem.  It's a control route to match the control city.  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on July 01, 2023, 04:24:33 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 01, 2023, 07:36:33 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 01, 2023, 02:11:44 AM
I'm guessing it's not all that uncommon for people to get so messed up after coming out of Vegas they don't know where they are, but I didn't expect it to happen to I-15.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2672835,-115.0664198,3a,47.6y,63.34h,109.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss9YCR6_BcA3x6n3-F-dEDA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

(Jake Bear found this in person and commented on it, which led me to check and make sure he saw what he saw...sure enough, that's a Utah I-15 shield two states away in Nevada!)

I fail to see the problem.  It's a control route to match the control city.  :biggrin:

From TWO states away???  Then there should be a Washington I-5 NB shield on a sign somewhere in San Diego.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 01, 2023, 07:00:03 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on July 01, 2023, 04:24:33 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 01, 2023, 07:36:33 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 01, 2023, 02:11:44 AM
I'm guessing it's not all that uncommon for people to get so messed up after coming out of Vegas they don't know where they are, but I didn't expect it to happen to I-15.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2672835,-115.0664198,3a,47.6y,63.34h,109.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss9YCR6_BcA3x6n3-F-dEDA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

(Jake Bear found this in person and commented on it, which led me to check and make sure he saw what he saw...sure enough, that's a Utah I-15 shield two states away in Nevada!)

I fail to see the problem.  It's a control route to match the control city.  :biggrin:

From TWO states away???  Then there should be a Washington I-5 NB shield on a sign somewhere in San Diego.

I made the comment as a funny ha-ha, but now I ask seriously:  What's the problem with the shield if it's acceptable that the control city is the same number of states away?  The shield is more a constant than the named city.  A North Dakota I-94 shield on eastbound I-94 in Michigan would be unusual and incorrect, but it wouldn't faze or confuse anyone at all.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on July 01, 2023, 07:15:56 PM
^^ Even if EB I-94 in Michigan does not lead you to North Dakota?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 01, 2023, 09:27:49 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 01, 2023, 07:15:56 PM
^^ Even if EB I-94 in Michigan does not lead you to North Dakota?

Yes, even.  People may raise an eyebrow if they actually see the state name on the shield, but I-94 is I-94 -- that's what I meant when I said the shield is a constant.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 02, 2023, 04:43:06 AM
The reason that the shield has the state name on it is to give credit to the state for maintaining the federally-designated highway. (This was apparently necessary to get some states to buy into the US route system, and that idea carried over to the Interstate shield since the US route shield still had the state name on it at the time the Interstate shield was designed.) So...no, UDOT does not maintain the section of I-15 immediately north of CR 215. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on July 02, 2023, 07:05:49 AM
Unless there's a "TO" adjacent to the shield, the shields represent the current route. I-15 in Utah is not in Nevada :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rlb2024 on July 02, 2023, 04:11:50 PM
This is looking across from the eastbound lanes of I-12 near Mandeville, LA to the signage on the westbound lanes.  Image is from April 2023, right after the highway widening was complete between US 190 and LA 59.  (The latest images from westbound I-12 are from December 2022 before the new signage was installed.)  The sign for US 190 West to Covington (Exit 63B) shows the right lane as Exit Only -- which it was for a short time during construction but is that lane is now a through lane now that construction on this segment and the one between US 190 and LS 21 is complete.  The overhead sign at the offramp also has an Exit Only indication -- over a through lane as well.

Also, the mileposts for Mile Marker 65 are 1/10 mile apart between the eastbound and westbound lanes -- even though the ones for mile markers 64.5 and 65.5 are together . . .

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4236403,-90.0626337,3a,48y,319h,97.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srVlSFOYAWuDbpuLk4EpT_Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4236403,-90.0626337,3a,48y,319h,97.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srVlSFOYAWuDbpuLk4EpT_Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on July 02, 2023, 04:24:44 PM
Speaking of I-12 and the wrong state on state name Interstate shields, a Mississipi I-12 shield lasted until at least 2022 on MS 607 NB:

(https://i.imgur.com/RmPy4sq.png)

(Street View link (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3134176,-89.5949765,3a,15y,341.31h,89.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sejUh8cCFJ6kd41k6NpUkGw!2e0!5s20210201T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu))
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rlb2024 on July 02, 2023, 04:29:13 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 02, 2023, 04:24:44 PM
Speaking of I-12 and the wrong state on state name Interstate shields, a Mississipi I-12 shield lasted until at least 2022 on MS 607 NB:

(https://i.imgur.com/RmPy4sq.png)

(Street View link (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3134176,-89.5949765,3a,15y,341.31h,89.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sejUh8cCFJ6kd41k6NpUkGw!2e0!5s20210201T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu))
Yep, I went through there a couple of months ago and was going to get a picture, but they have changed all the I-12 shields to generic with no name.  All the I-10 ones still have Mississippi on them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 02, 2023, 04:37:30 PM
Unsure why we have a business banner for AR 190 here:  https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218940721629536&set=a.10218940900834016

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53420380549_b8b041c013_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on July 02, 2023, 05:33:48 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 01, 2023, 02:11:44 AM
I'm guessing it's not all that uncommon for people to get so messed up after coming out of Vegas they don't know where they are, but I didn't expect it to happen to I-15.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2672835,-115.0664198,3a,47.6y,63.34h,109.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss9YCR6_BcA3x6n3-F-dEDA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

(Jake Bear found this in person and commented on it, which led me to check and make sure he saw what he saw...sure enough, that's a Utah I-15 shield two states away in Nevada!)

This is also curious because, generally, you don't see state-named interstate shields on BGSs in Nevada.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 02, 2023, 05:40:28 PM
AR 190 EB actually goes straight here on Harding Ave instead of continuing south on Ohio St:  https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218940753630336&set=a.10218940900834016

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53420502225_fb68992ae8_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on July 02, 2023, 11:35:20 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 29, 2023, 12:08:42 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 28, 2023, 02:25:01 PM
Approaching the end of the Highroad, near Branson, drivers encounter this erroneous sign (https://goo.gl/maps/ARYtoRtx1KRxsUC66).  Nearer the end, however, they see this one, which is correct (https://goo.gl/maps/S3yBZdXHCPQhG3ebA).

Erroneous on a future-proofing technicality. If what appears to be a planned future expansion of the freeway actually occurs, then the sign is suddenly no longer erroneous. (I prefer "next exit" instead of "next right" for these types of signs.)

One could also argue that you first turn right (along the loop) before making the actual left turn.

The NEXT RIGHT made a lot more sense when there was the exit BGS and the exit gore sign.  Now that they have it signed as a curve basically, not a forced exit, the NEXT RIGHT sign should be changed too.  When they signed the forced exit as an exit, "next right" for the exit made at least some sense.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on July 06, 2023, 09:01:34 PM
I saw that a temporary sign was laying on the ground, so I decided to lift it up... good thing I did, because it contained an error: "Dollorama" instead of "Dollarama". Granted, people pronounce the name as such, but that's not the name of the store.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53028526755_4e57f1158b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oMX4w4)"Dollorama" (sic) (https://flic.kr/p/2oMX4w4) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 07, 2023, 08:18:12 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 06, 2023, 09:01:34 PM
I saw that a temporary sign was laying on the ground, so I decided to lift it up... good thing I did, because it contained an error: "Dollorama" instead of "Dollarama". Granted, people pronounce the name as such, but that's not the name of the store.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53028526755_4e57f1158b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oMX4w4)"Dollorama" (sic) (https://flic.kr/p/2oMX4w4) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr

At least they didn't spell it "Dolorama", which would imply that it's a place of great distress or sorrow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on July 07, 2023, 12:16:20 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 07, 2023, 08:18:12 AM
At least they didn't spell it "Dolorama", which would imply that it's a place of great distress or sorrow.
With what they sell being so low quality... it would make sense.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 14, 2023, 06:51:41 AM
Talk about a sign goof in Christiansburg, VA.  I had to turn around when I saw this one. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218973337284907&set=a.10218973377685917)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53420268143_9518107d7a_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on July 14, 2023, 07:17:34 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 14, 2023, 06:51:41 AM
Talk about a sign goof in Christiansburg, VA.  I had to turn around when I saw this one. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218973337284907&set=a.10218973377685917)
The west 11 or the 11 on a 3dus shield?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 14, 2023, 07:27:18 AM
Quote from: Big John on July 14, 2023, 07:17:34 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 14, 2023, 06:51:41 AM
Talk about a sign goof in Christiansburg, VA.  I had to turn around when I saw this one. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218973337284907&set=a.10218973377685917)
The west 11 or the 11 on a 3dus shield?

The west US 11 and the south US 460 BUS.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 14, 2023, 01:11:25 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 14, 2023, 07:27:18 AM
Quote from: Big John on July 14, 2023, 07:17:34 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 14, 2023, 06:51:41 AM
Talk about a sign goof in Christiansburg, VA.  I had to turn around when I saw this one. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218973337284907&set=a.10218973377685917)
The west 11 or the 11 on a 3dus shield?

The west US 11 and the south US 460 BUS.

To be fair, those banners do reflect 11 and 460's actual directions at that point. ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 14, 2023, 11:53:24 PM
US A! US A!

https://maps.app.goo.gl/iXo28wPka9UVBUxT8?g_st=ic
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on July 15, 2023, 12:50:31 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 14, 2023, 11:53:24 PM
US A! US A!

https://maps.app.goo.gl/iXo28wPka9UVBUxT8?g_st=ic

So Kansas can make stinkers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 15, 2023, 12:59:00 AM
Apparently that's supposed to be a sign for US-69 Business. How the heck did that happen?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: moabdave on July 15, 2023, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 15, 2023, 12:59:00 AM
Apparently that's supposed to be a sign for US-69 Business. How the heck did that happen?
Well technically the sign is correct. There is A junction with a US Highway in 1/2 mile.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: moabdave on July 15, 2023, 01:29:53 AM
I'd call this more misleading rather than erroneous. But while overall Nevada's signage is better than average in the USA, they do have this whopper. Driving west on US 50 about 10 miles west of Fallon Nevada, US-50 and US-50A separate. Traffic defaults onto US-50A and to stay on mainline US-50 you need to enter the left turn lane with blinkers on.  You'd think there would be a US-50 shield with a left arrow somewhere in the vicinity but you'd be wrong. There are only 2 signs for this interchange, the first useless unless you get the subtle hint it contains, and the 2nd is small, barely visible, and too late once you see it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5085811,-118.9296587,3a,15y,320.93h,89.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sePa_7ZAnYaAeZQFwhAJ03Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5126208,-118.9381326,3a,15y,320h,86.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp5L6G7KKZMSvsUTZADpckg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on July 15, 2023, 06:21:50 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 15, 2023, 12:59:00 AM
Apparently that's supposed to be a sign for US-69 Business. How the heck did that happen?

They got your idea from what you posted yesterday.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33204.msg2855614#msg2855614
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 15, 2023, 08:20:31 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on July 15, 2023, 12:50:31 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 14, 2023, 11:53:24 PM
US A! US A!

https://maps.app.goo.gl/iXo28wPka9UVBUxT8?g_st=ic

So Kansas can make stinkers.

There's not even a Missouri Secondary Route A nearby.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 15, 2023, 09:21:40 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 14, 2023, 11:53:24 PM
US A! US A!

https://maps.app.goo.gl/iXo28wPka9UVBUxT8?g_st=ic
:-D :hyper: I love that!

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on July 15, 2023, 04:40:30 PM
Quote from: moabdave on July 15, 2023, 01:29:53 AM
I'd call this more misleading rather than erroneous. But while overall Nevada's signage is better than average in the USA, they do have this whopper. Driving west on US 50 about 10 miles west of Fallon Nevada, US-50 and US-50A separate. Traffic defaults onto US-50A and to stay on mainline US-50 you need to enter the left turn lane with blinkers on.  You'd think there would be a US-50 shield with a left arrow somewhere in the vicinity but you'd be wrong. There are only 2 signs for this interchange, the first useless unless you get the subtle hint it contains, and the 2nd is small, barely visible, and too late once you see it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5085811,-118.9296587,3a,15y,320.93h,89.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sePa_7ZAnYaAeZQFwhAJ03Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5126208,-118.9381326,3a,15y,320h,86.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp5L6G7KKZMSvsUTZADpckg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu

I've made so many drives between Vegas and Reno along this route, and never really thought about this before. It does meet what would be expected from the MUTCD signage, but you would expect more substantive signage...NDOT signing practices are typically better than that. For example, this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/oP7Ldtq4JrsRSeuk9) at the Coaldale Junction where the US 6/95 concurrency splits and US 6 takes the left turn. Or this more extreme example (https://goo.gl/maps/6bmNtUhVywMZDBqT9) on US 93 north, where the mainline turns left and through traffic defaults to US 93 Alt, which employs a freeway-quality overhead sign structure on a rural two-lane highway.

Also, the second sign is perhaps the only time I've ever seen an instance of incorrectly signing Carson City as "Carson".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 20, 2023, 03:18:53 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/HNHsXBofxPw3RVMM8
What is a commercial trick? :-D

At least they eventually corrected it as presently a brand new sign spells " trucks"  correctly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on July 20, 2023, 03:20:58 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2023, 03:18:53 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/HNHsXBofxPw3RVMM8
What is a commercial trick? :-D

At least they eventually corrected it as presently a brand new sign spells " trucks"  correctly.

This appears to be a GSV stitching error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 20, 2023, 03:31:40 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 20, 2023, 03:20:58 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2023, 03:18:53 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/HNHsXBofxPw3RVMM8
What is a commercial trick? :-D

At least they eventually corrected it as presently a brand new sign spells " trucks"  correctly.

This appears to be a GSV stitching error.

Well it's a good error as one could easily think that a typical human error could have occurred here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on July 20, 2023, 07:02:17 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2023, 03:31:40 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 20, 2023, 03:20:58 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2023, 03:18:53 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/HNHsXBofxPw3RVMM8
What is a commercial trick? :-D

At least they eventually corrected it as presently a brand new sign spells " trucks"  correctly.

This appears to be a GSV stitching error.

Well it's a good error as one could easily think that a typical human error could have occurred here.

One click forward immediately reveals there is no error, though. Did you not click around much?

https://goo.gl/maps/DcYQVgYsHnb7nBBG7
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 20, 2023, 09:41:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2023, 03:31:40 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 20, 2023, 03:20:58 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2023, 03:18:53 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/HNHsXBofxPw3RVMM8
What is a commercial trick? :-D

At least they eventually corrected it as presently a brand new sign spells " trucks"  correctly.

This appears to be a GSV stitching error.

Well it's a good error as one could easily think that a typical human error could have occurred here.

No.  It's not.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on July 21, 2023, 07:23:33 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2023, 03:18:53 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/HNHsXBofxPw3RVMM8
What is a commercial trick? :-D

From what I hear, it's a popular activity in the darker corners of truck stops...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on July 23, 2023, 09:12:17 PM
A double whammy. First, the QC 138 half of the assembly is missing a straight arrow. Then, the QC 371 half of the assembly shouldn't exist at all, as this part of QC 371 was decommissioned in 2005. This assembly was put up between September 2017 and October 2018 per Street View.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53066990009_f06ab196bd_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oRmciB)QC 138 at old QC 371 - 1 (https://flic.kr/p/2oRmciB) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 10:28:12 AM


https://goo.gl/maps/B985U5BiKnYKjdqPA

The JCT banner should be for CR 616. This is EB CR 501 here turning left from Amboy Avenue to King George Road in Fords, NJ.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bruce on August 03, 2023, 05:22:20 AM
A 1991 version of this thread, sadly with poor scan quality: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-only-in-la-sign/129354939/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rlb2024 on August 03, 2023, 03:23:03 PM
Not sure if this has been posted in the previous 200-plus pages, but this is on the US-12 bridge from Clarkston, WA to Lewiston, ID.  US-12, not WA 12 . . .
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.4203564,-117.03744,3a,75y,90.06h,86.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVQuyiULSE_X0iKuhiH6Jxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@46.4203564,-117.03744,3a,75y,90.06h,86.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVQuyiULSE_X0iKuhiH6Jxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 03, 2023, 04:19:03 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/G4DCnW6H32rEL5oH6
The TO banner is not needed. This is US 60 EB.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bruce on August 03, 2023, 04:26:52 PM
Quote from: rlb2024 on August 03, 2023, 03:23:03 PM
Not sure if this has been posted in the previous 200-plus pages, but this is on the US-12 bridge from Clarkston, WA to Lewiston, ID.  US-12, not WA 12 . . .
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.4203564,-117.03744,3a,75y,90.06h,86.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVQuyiULSE_X0iKuhiH6Jxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@46.4203564,-117.03744,3a,75y,90.06h,86.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVQuyiULSE_X0iKuhiH6Jxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)

That belongs in the mixups thread, and was already posted before.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on August 03, 2023, 04:58:55 PM
Construction contractor error shield on US 31 for Alabama SR 119 using a Georgia blank. (Location, no shield posted. (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2205578,-86.7979923,3a,54.3y,154.71h,87.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTwRPTpvGT4p1kKeD6ht7ig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu))

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53091910094_bdd7dc5ba5_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oTxVbf)

There's a Shelby County Road sign up ahead, which aren't used in Georgia...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on August 03, 2023, 05:35:42 PM
Alabama traffic signal posts. So can't be GA. The Peach State uses round concrete posts for their span wires.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kirbykart on August 03, 2023, 06:43:09 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 03, 2023, 05:35:42 PM
Alabama traffic signal posts. So can't be GA. The Peach State uses round concrete posts for their span wires.

Yes, formulanone already knew and clearly stated it was in Alabama.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on August 10, 2023, 08:19:51 AM
See below from the "Virginia" thread. This was on the local news last night and VDOT had said they were going to fix it overnight. I agree with forum member FLAVORTOWN that the signs have clearly been patched with greenout, especially the eastbound sign. Makes me wonder what the signs' original intended purpose was.

Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on August 09, 2023, 10:17:19 PM
How on earth did this happen

The way the sign looks it looks like someone changed the sign to make it wrong  :confused: :confused:

https://twitter.com/AdamTuss/status/1689294361786249216
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 22, 2023, 06:28:41 AM
Dillsburg is missing an "l".  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219273006376447&set=a.10218247474178783)  (On US 15 NB just north of PA 94)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53402829465_a4e7fff840_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hotdogPi on August 31, 2023, 09:01:11 AM
I didn't get a photo, and I can't get GSV because GSV cars can't use bus-only roads, but there's an "I-376 South" banner on the West Busway near Pittsburgh on the south end directing you to I-376. It's erroneous because I-376 is east-west.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on September 01, 2023, 12:12:10 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 26, 2023, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

You gotta go back to 1929, but that's when the first curse word was uttered in a movie. It was 'Damn', and it was shocking. 

I'm not sure if Damn can be uttered in a G rated movie today, or if that automatically bumps up a movie to a PG rating. 

Yet, Frank Butler was frankly not giving a damn by 1939.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jakeroot on September 01, 2023, 04:59:39 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2023, 09:01:11 AM
I didn't get a photo, and I can't get GSV because GSV cars can't use bus-only roads, but there's an "I-376 South" banner on the West Busway near Pittsburgh on the south end directing you to I-376. It's erroneous because I-376 is east-west.

You can just barely make it out here:

https://goo.gl/maps/YiN2yFfadVgLyNyw9
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on September 01, 2023, 05:07:55 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2023, 09:01:11 AM
I didn't get a photo, and I can't get GSV because GSV cars can't use bus-only roads, but there's an "I-376 South" banner on the West Busway near Pittsburgh on the south end directing you to I-376. It's erroneous because I-376 is east-west.

This is something that shouldn't be wrong, as I-376 now is pretty much a north-south route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on September 02, 2023, 04:26:20 PM
For some reason, Boulevard Guillaume-Couture in Lévis (QC 132) has two upside down horizontal traffic lights. Here's one of the two, at Avenue Taniata (QC 275):

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53156865387_557c490393_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oZhQ86)Upside down traffic light, Boul. Guillaume-Couture/Av. Taniata - 1 (https://flic.kr/p/2oZhQ86) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53156865367_28ed9700d4_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oZhQ7K)Upside down traffic light, Boul. Guillaume-Couture/Av. Taniata - 2 (https://flic.kr/p/2oZhQ7K) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: flan on September 18, 2023, 12:45:26 PM
I noticed this one yesterday, but I didn't stop for a picture, so here's a screenshot from Google Maps

(https://i.imgur.com/FMFRaDb.png)

This is just north of Loretto, MN. It should be Hennepin, not Hennipen.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ErmineNotyours on September 20, 2023, 06:10:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 01, 2023, 12:12:10 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 26, 2023, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

You gotta go back to 1929, but that's when the first curse word was uttered in a movie. It was 'Damn', and it was shocking. 

I'm not sure if Damn can be uttered in a G rated movie today, or if that automatically bumps up a movie to a PG rating. 

Yet, Frank Butler was frankly not giving a damn by 1939.

Welcome to Movie Rating Talk!

The family movie Madeline was rated PG in 1998 for the single use of the word "damn," and it was out at the same time as Gone With The Wind which retains its 1971 G rating.  See this Roger Ebert Movie Answer Man, second question down: https://www.rogerebert.com/answer-man/movie-answer-man-08091998
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JayhawkCO on September 25, 2023, 05:28:32 PM
An "END US40" sign in Oakley, KS. (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1194322,-100.8065,3a,75y,129h,88.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stp6xf3_5jzZPaejdxGVD1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) No, it doesn't end here. It just merges onto I-70.

(https://i.postimg.cc/1RD7kJ6w/US40.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 30, 2023, 01:54:05 PM
Well at least one of these signs on OH 57 SB is misspelled. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219476850312418&set=a.10219476293498498)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53419225627_86a94799c2_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53419225617_5dbe806c96_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53419225682_153ba45289_c.jpg)



Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on October 01, 2023, 11:34:37 AM
A right arrow is missing here for QC 175. Seen on Boulevard Hochelaga EB today.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53225365592_89422d5140_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2p6kUR7)A-740 NB begins - 1 (https://flic.kr/p/2p6kUR7) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cockroachking on October 04, 2023, 12:18:04 AM
Someone from the UK has infiltrated MDOT SHA! (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2450934,-76.4558887,3a,48.8y,315.98h,88.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1VpwmWzuyxfaMPf7G0HObg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu)  :-D
(https://i.imgur.com/hWcXux2.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 04, 2023, 10:35:13 AM
Quote from: cockroachking on October 04, 2023, 12:18:04 AM
Someone from the UK has infiltrated MDOT SHA! (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2450934,-76.4558887,3a,48.8y,315.98h,88.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1VpwmWzuyxfaMPf7G0HObg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu)  :-D
(https://i.imgur.com/hWcXux2.png)


I'm trying to remember...  Aren't drivers expected to obey signs over pavement markings?  Therefore, all drivers are required to keep left at that point?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on October 06, 2023, 02:37:32 PM
Here's a street name blade that says Rue 18e Rue, which should be just 18e Rue.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53239309240_00ddbcb532_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2p7znNQ)Rue 18e Rue (https://flic.kr/p/2p7znNQ) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 06, 2023, 02:41:01 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 06, 2023, 02:37:32 PM
Here's a street name blade that says Rue 18e Rue, which should be just 18e Rue.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53239309240_00ddbcb532_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2p7znNQ)Rue 18e Rue (https://flic.kr/p/2p7znNQ) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr


Geez, you didn't have to knock it down just for that!  Settle down!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on October 06, 2023, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 06, 2023, 02:41:01 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 06, 2023, 02:37:32 PM
Here's a street name blade that says Rue 18e Rue, which should be just 18e Rue.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53239309240_00ddbcb532_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2p7znNQ)Rue 18e Rue (https://flic.kr/p/2p7znNQ) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr


Geez, you didn't have to knock it down just for that!  Settle down!
I plead the fifth.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 06, 2023, 02:52:22 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 06, 2023, 02:47:35 PM
the fifth

Does not apply in your location.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mvcg66b3r on October 06, 2023, 07:06:43 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 06, 2023, 02:37:32 PM
Here's a street name blade that says Rue 18e Rue, which should be just 18e Rue.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53239309240_00ddbcb532_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2p7znNQ)Rue 18e Rue (https://flic.kr/p/2p7znNQ) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr

There's a thread for that: Department of Redundancy Department
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11212.0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 11, 2023, 09:40:09 PM
Someone got distracted in Intercourse, PA, and signed PA 340 EB in the WB direction.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219554987265793&set=a.10219555039387096)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53420481759_a9cc32c6de_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ClassicHasClass on October 12, 2023, 09:58:39 PM
Always best to avoid doing signage during Intercourse.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on October 12, 2023, 10:13:27 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 12, 2023, 09:58:39 PM
Always best to avoid doing signage during Intercourse.

At least they left room on the street for everyone to pull out.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CovalenceSTU on October 12, 2023, 11:29:50 PM
This curve sign in Oakland, OR (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bzGnBTjPNyqvdids7) somehow got flipped when bridge construction started:
(https://i.imgur.com/v5RSNjI.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 13, 2023, 10:51:30 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 12, 2023, 09:58:39 PM
Always best to avoid doing signage during Intercourse.

Always best to avoid signing in the middle of Intercourse.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 15, 2023, 10:02:04 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/xmkVBrMzvgcVDUoZ9
I-287 does not lead to US 46.  The exit road leads to both via I-80 Exit 43. The TO should be above both I-287 and US 46.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/2g9SmREeykohKhw9A
Again the same mistake on I-80 on the Beverwyck Road overpass.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 24, 2023, 04:52:30 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RifztXhttCRQMxyf6
TN SR 319 should have a triangular shield and not a TN primary shield as it's part of the secondary route series. Plus it's the only shield of this kind as others are triangular.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 24, 2023, 09:54:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2023, 04:52:30 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RifztXhttCRQMxyf6
TN SR 319 should have a triangular shield and not a TN primary shield as it's part of the secondary route series. Plus it's the only shield of this kind as others are triangular.

File that one under the "will lead zero people astray" category, I suppose.

Where do you look to find out if a TN route is primary or secondary?  What's your source?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on October 24, 2023, 07:27:33 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2023, 09:54:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2023, 04:52:30 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RifztXhttCRQMxyf6
TN SR 319 should have a triangular shield and not a TN primary shield as it's part of the secondary route series. Plus it's the only shield of this kind as others are triangular.

File that one under the "will lead zero people astray" category, I suppose.

Where do you look to find out if a TN route is primary or secondary?  What's your source?

The TDOT highway maps (https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/long-range-planning/maps/updated-functional-class-maps/33aChattanooga.pdf), I'd assume.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 24, 2023, 08:14:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2023, 09:54:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2023, 04:52:30 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RifztXhttCRQMxyf6
TN SR 319 should have a triangular shield and not a TN primary shield as it's part of the secondary route series. Plus it's the only shield of this kind as others are triangular.

File that one under the "will lead zero people astray" category, I suppose.

Where do you look to find out if a TN route is primary or secondary?  What's your source?

No different than NY signing US routes with NY Route shields.

However TN uses the triangle for TN 319, so this is an error here. Although there are some numbers that use both designations along the route depending on what nature the highway serves at a given point.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 24, 2023, 08:41:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2023, 08:14:09 PM

Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2023, 09:54:57 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2023, 04:52:30 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RifztXhttCRQMxyf6
TN SR 319 should have a triangular shield and not a TN primary shield as it's part of the secondary route series. Plus it's the only shield of this kind as others are triangular.

File that one under the "will lead zero people astray" category, I suppose.

Where do you look to find out if a TN route is primary or secondary?  What's your source?

No different than NY signing US routes with NY Route shields.

However TN uses the triangle for TN 319, so this is an error here. Although there are some numbers that use both designations along the route depending on what nature the highway serves at a given point.

Sure there's a difference.  There is only one TN 319.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 25, 2023, 10:13:12 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/N9Q3A1ccG1pN3KAz6
TN 58 gets the triangle near Lookout Mountain.

So TN 58 is like FL 54 in Wesley Chapel, FL. It is signed with either state or county pentagon shields depending on location. Nevertheless, the same route.

Though apples and oranges as Florida dumped their secondary route system and gave the jurisdiction to the counties decades ago. So CR 54 and SR 54 in the Sunshine State are one Route but different maintenance jurisdictions unlike Tennessee whose state maintains the primary and secondary systems.

Triangle shields are like Texas FM shields in Texas are to them
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 25, 2023, 10:26:36 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 25, 2023, 10:13:12 AM
Triangle shields are like Texas FM shields in Texas are to them

I know I'm being nit-picky here, but...  No, they aren't.

The shields may denote different classes of highway, as in Texas, but using the wrong blank in Tennessee cannot indicate the wrong highway in Tennessee.  This is because, as I said, there is only one TN 319.  Unless I'm mistaken, there is only one of any Tennessee state route.  There is no duplication between Tennessee's primary and secondary highway numbers, except as different sections of the same overall route.

This is unlike Texas, where there is plenty of duplication between the systems.  TX-138 is north of Austin, while FM-138 is northeast of Nacogdoches, so using the wrong blank would actually indicate a different highway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 25, 2023, 06:24:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 25, 2023, 10:26:36 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 25, 2023, 10:13:12 AM
Triangle shields are like Texas FM shields in Texas are to them

I know I'm being nit-picky here, but...  No, they aren't.

The shields may denote different classes of highway, as in Texas, but using the wrong blank in Tennessee cannot indicate the wrong highway in Tennessee.  This is because, as I said, there is only one TN 319.  Unless I'm mistaken, there is only one of any Tennessee state route.  There is no duplication between Tennessee's primary and secondary highway numbers, except as different sections of the same overall route.

This is unlike Texas, where there is plenty of duplication between the systems.  TX-138 is north of Austin, while FM-138 is northeast of Nacogdoches, so using the wrong blank would actually indicate a different highway.

Whatever it's still an erroneous shield.  Just like state shields for US routes in New York. If NY 209 is posted instead of US 209, even though there is one 209 within the Empire State, it's still the wrong.

I'm not like some guys on here who nit pick over wrong control cities, wrong chosen route number, and others who will lose sleep over wrong shields. I could care less about this, hence why I haven't yet written TNDOT about nor will I.  Even erroneously signed Route 209 in New York, yes it's wrong but to worry? No.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on October 25, 2023, 06:55:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 25, 2023, 06:24:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 25, 2023, 10:26:36 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 25, 2023, 10:13:12 AM
Triangle shields are like Texas FM shields in Texas are to them

I know I'm being nit-picky here, but...  No, they aren't.

The shields may denote different classes of highway, as in Texas, but using the wrong blank in Tennessee cannot indicate the wrong highway in Tennessee.  This is because, as I said, there is only one TN 319.  Unless I'm mistaken, there is only one of any Tennessee state route.  There is no duplication between Tennessee's primary and secondary highway numbers, except as different sections of the same overall route.

This is unlike Texas, where there is plenty of duplication between the systems.  TX-138 is north of Austin, while FM-138 is northeast of Nacogdoches, so using the wrong blank would actually indicate a different highway.

Whatever it's still an erroneous shield.  Just like state shields for US routes in New York. If NY 209 is posted instead of US 209, even though there is one 209 within the Empire State, it's still the wrong.

I'm not like some guys on here who nit pick over wrong control cities, wrong chosen route number, and others who will lose sleep over wrong shields. I could care less about this, hence why I haven't yet written TNDOT about nor will I.  Even erroneously signed Route 209 in New York, yes it's wrong but to worry? No.

The Tennessee primary/secondary mix-up is quite common; it's like seeing an rectangle shield in a state where they usually only use squares for all route numbers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on October 25, 2023, 08:32:26 PM
Tennessee no longer distinguishes between state secondary and state primary routes, even though they still use the separate shields on maps and in signage.  Maps' legends now define both map symbols as just state highways instead of state secondary and state primary.

https://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/tennessee/state/tnstatemain.html

So technically there are no shield errors with state route types anymore. Only US-state route shield mixups.

No idea why they haven't been transitioning to just using one type of shield...it's been 15 years.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on October 25, 2023, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 25, 2023, 08:32:26 PM
Tennessee no longer distinguishes between state secondary and state primary routes, even though they still use the separate shields on maps and in signage.  Maps' legends now define both map symbols as just state highways instead of state secondary and state primary.

https://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/tennessee/state/tnstatemain.html

So technically there are no shield errors with state route types anymore. Only US-state route shield mixups.

No idea why they haven't been transitioning to just using one type of shield...it's been 15 years.
I don't know about that source, despite being someone from Tennessee's DOT.  Few states distinguished between primary and secondary state routes, let alone NHS primary and secondary (way, way before my time).  NHS never had that much of an influence on actual state route designations.  NHS was designated by FHWA with partial consideration with State input (see the infamous Willett Point Blvd "NHS Connector" in NY, which NYSDOT has been snickering about ever since FHWA insisted on it), while state route shielding was left up to the states themselves.  Still, if TN made that distinction with its state routes, that's just weird since US 11 is probably not on the NHS down there for a lot of it just like up here in NY -- if NHS isn't tightly correlated to certain designations anyway, why bother to try to match them up?

For the n00bs on the forum:  No, NHS =/= US Highways, although I believe it does include all Interstates (even those exempt from the long-gone Interstate Maintenance funding or exempt from the 90/10 share of NHPP (e.g., certain stretches in Brooklyn/Queens due to Congressional stupidity)).  It is essentially a hidden designation on all sorts of federal-aid eligible roads and classes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 26, 2023, 10:55:08 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 25, 2023, 09:00:17 PM

Quote from: Mapmikey on October 25, 2023, 08:32:26 PM
Tennessee no longer distinguishes between state secondary and state primary routes, even though they still use the separate shields on maps and in signage.  Maps' legends now define both map symbols as just state highways instead of state secondary and state primary.

https://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/tennessee/state/tnstatemain.html

So technically there are no shield errors with state route types anymore. Only US-state route shield mixups.

No idea why they haven't been transitioning to just using one type of shield...it's been 15 years.

I don't know about that source, despite being someone from Tennessee's DOT.

I note especially that Bill Burmaster used the 2007 TDOT map as his source for claiming there is no longer a distinction between primary and secondary, yet the TDOT map linked to upthread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg2878811#msg2878811) is from 2018 and does distinguish between primary and secondary.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mapmikey on October 26, 2023, 11:14:12 AM
like i said, they still use separate symbols on the maps but they both mean the same thing in the legend (since 2007).  Map linked above is no different.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 26, 2023, 11:28:42 AM
TDOT's 2022 tourism map (https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/maps/state-maps/2022_Tourism_Map.pdf) does still distinguish between primary and secondary highways in the legend.

FWIW, TDOT also still makes primary/secondary corrections on its maps to ensure they're correct.

Quote from: TDOT — New 2019 State Maps Now Available — 28-FEB-2019
There have been several improvements and additions to the 2019 Tennessee State Transportation Map in order to increase its accuracy and usability. These include improvements in divided and undivided roadways, as well as segments which have been added or modified for clarity - such as an extension of the Tennessee Parkway designation along SR-52 in Fentress County. More additions include an exit ramp on I-40 in Fayette County, and an update to the alignment for SR-362 in Carter County. Additionally, several primary and secondary designation corrections were made to the roads on the map to accurately represent all state routes across Tennessee, such as SR-67 changing to from secondary to primary in Washington County.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 27, 2023, 09:49:24 PM
So this does not exactly qualify as it is a GIS map, but the Mercer County, WV, (https://mercercowv.interactivegis.com/map/) GIS map shows VA route shields. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 31, 2023, 07:48:48 AM
PA 290 actually continues west on PA 5 here despite the END sign.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217818905544835&set=a.10217819107389881)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53420350808_dc351b0040_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on October 31, 2023, 10:34:16 AM
What is "black detour"?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 31, 2023, 10:59:02 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 31, 2023, 10:34:16 AM
What is "black detour"?

That is one of PA's colored detours for when I-90 has emergency closures.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: chrisg69911 on October 31, 2023, 10:08:15 PM
NYCDOT (maybe PANYNJ) signing the entrance to the outbound Lincoln Tunnel as NY/NJ 495 as I-495
https://maps.app.goo.gl/e1rK8KbZjzSKUPTh9
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 05, 2023, 09:29:44 PM
Not sure how I-76 got a north-south section in Akron, OH.  I think this is Ohio DOT throwing all shields on detour signs and not changing them correctly.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219177843957446&set=a.10219178075083224)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53420649420_c8e7360c09_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: PurdueBill on November 12, 2023, 02:08:30 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 05, 2023, 09:29:44 PM
Not sure how I-76 got a north-south section in Akron, OH.  I think this is Ohio DOT throwing all shields on detour signs and not changing them correctly.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219177843957446&set=a.10219178075083224)

(https://scontent.fagc1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/364036798_10219177843717440_2491444825471198808_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=-bkwV4J-UfsAX-Poo8j&_nc_ht=scontent.fagc1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBNn8ePqI2CGMkMX0aPSgB8qF-HtYHvQEOJnkizTG3k5Q&oe=654D43BF)

With so much crazy stuff going on around Akron lately with overlapping projects, it's hard to know if they meant North 77 or West 76 (or maybe even a different direction/route combo).  They have too many projects overlapping each other these days--although it's nice to get the work done, it's been years and years of hell with years to go still.  :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 12, 2023, 04:41:36 PM
At least, you would have been able to clinch I-76, I-77 and I-277 the last time I visited Akron in July 2023.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: GaryA on November 15, 2023, 02:38:43 PM
Here's one I came across on this weekend's drive:  https://maps.app.goo.gl/Hhz1s19jzpGavX5T6 (approaching south end of CA 43)

Top to bottom:  black-on-white double arrow (<-->), black-on-white "EAST", white-on-green CA 119 shield.

Here we see a double-arrow used with a single direction, using black-on-white placards with a CA state route shield, and an unusual ordering of sign elements.

This part of CA 119 was US 399 until 1964, but these placards look quite recent (including a larger E in EAST), so that can't explain the black-on-white placards.

Also, is it proper to use that double-arrow when the intersection has a roundabout?  (The roundabout is a recent change.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on November 15, 2023, 11:02:30 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fDbraifmTbgNde5N6

This has been there for years. I think someone in the Petersburg public works department is red-green colorblind, because recently this one (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7BfshbzLGkfKP2on7) was also replaced with one that was installed upside-down.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 25, 2023, 09:24:58 AM
If you follow the SR 731 arrow, you will drive straight onto I-295 if you can plow through the bushes.... (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219696286558187&set=a.10219696357719966)   :banghead: :spin:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53420547754_46c5904214_c.jpg)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on December 06, 2023, 08:06:48 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GNEJ1LWCcteyxbJ79
TO US 45 should be NORTH.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on December 12, 2023, 05:39:01 PM
Found an error on my way back home, QC 170 is signed as going EST (eastbound) when it should be OUEST (westbound).

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53393020482_14f8f18926_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pmabNE)QC 138 WB at QC 170 WB (not EB) (https://flic.kr/p/2pmabNE) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CovalenceSTU on December 13, 2023, 01:54:34 PM
Bubble shield I-495 for NY-495 at the Lincoln Tunnel:
(https://i.imgur.com/jsdnApl.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 25, 2023, 11:26:53 AM
On US 360 BUS WB at VA 156 SB/VA 638 NB? (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219790353189794&set=a.10219791255612354)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53420682520_e176012588_c.jpg)

VA 197 is supposed to end heading eastbound here at US 1/US 301, but Richmond thinks that VA 197 continues and that US 1/US 301 may not technically be here.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219799312373768&set=a.10219799429736702)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53423053183_ed71b349ca_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53421975357_6e0698a258_c.jpg)

I did not know that US 158 WB went to Yanceville, NC.  I thought it was Yanceyville, NC. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219773808536188&set=a.10219774726079126)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53423840187_3b671c1abf_c.jpg)

SR 602 on the River Rd street blade should match the shield and state SR 1107.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219784837131896&set=a.10219785162300025)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53438557235_858d453f3c_c.jpg)

VA 3 BUS WB turns right up ahead from US 360 WB not EB  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219786442892039&set=a.10219786613056293)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53441212964_0c83c70b49_c.jpg)

The second sign is an error as SR 681 is truly W Hundred Rd if you turn right here.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219791158569928&set=a.10219791255612354)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53443498084_168e15530a_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53443498074_86888f465c_c.jpg)

SR 619 on the Old Happy Hill Rd sign should be SR 4964.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219793016176367&set=a.10219794100283469)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53444557250_f60e4ef1e7_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CovalenceSTU on January 10, 2024, 03:55:05 PM
Apiary Rd/Old Rainier Rd (https://maps.app.goo.gl/4SyT38myNintvfmq9) - missing a TO, US-30 hasn't been here for many decades.
(https://i.imgur.com/Qmyd7vk.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: elsmere241 on January 11, 2024, 04:52:16 AM
Delaware has a bunch of signs now that lack the "TO".  It seems to have become the new norm here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on January 12, 2024, 06:34:09 PM
Considering the idea of TO (well, VERS) is completely nonexistent here in Québec, I don't think I mind this. After all, you do end up on that highway eventually, no?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 13, 2024, 11:29:43 AM
On VA 156 SB at SR 616 (Laurel Spring Rd) around 2010, if you turned left, you would drive into a cornfield.  SR 616 has a short implied concurrency with VA 156 to Pole Run Rd up ahead where SR 616 turns left. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219861980300427&set=a.10216218268569911)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53461362438_6a4e721b5d_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SilverMustang2011 on January 15, 2024, 03:48:51 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vnNvnBoZ4FwyrWLu7

Not sure if this has been posted before but there used to be a turn lane here onto a side street that allowed traffic from WB State Road 24 to go to EB State Road 226, hence the sign. In 2018 they removed it for additional left turn lane space for the traffic signal to the east on State Road 24 but kept the sign up for a nonexistent turn.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on January 15, 2024, 06:21:17 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on January 15, 2024, 03:48:51 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vnNvnBoZ4FwyrWLu7

Not sure if this has been posted before but there used to be a turn lane here onto a side street that allowed traffic from WB State Road 24 to go to EB State Road 226, hence the sign. In 2018 they removed it for additional left turn lane space for the traffic signal to the east on State Road 24 but kept the sign up for a nonexistent turn.

They just need to move it back to North-South ...er, Gale Lemerand Drive. I used that old cut-thru on Shealy dozens of times to get onto SW 16th Avenue. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SilverMustang2011 on January 16, 2024, 02:36:38 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 15, 2024, 06:21:17 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on January 15, 2024, 03:48:51 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vnNvnBoZ4FwyrWLu7

Not sure if this has been posted before but there used to be a turn lane here onto a side street that allowed traffic from WB State Road 24 to go to EB State Road 226, hence the sign. In 2018 they removed it for additional left turn lane space for the traffic signal to the east on State Road 24 but kept the sign up for a nonexistent turn.

They just need to move it back to North-South ...er, Gale Lemerand Drive. I used that old cut-thru on Shealy dozens of times to get onto SW 16th Avenue.

I'm surprised they didn't do that, although I think a whole 10 other UF students know and care that SW 16th is a state road. I've used that cut several times going from SW 16th to Gale Lemerand. The fun part is trying to catch a glimpse of the Gale Lemerand and Archer traffic light on 16th before you hit Shealy and gauge if it's faster to go through the light on Gale Lemerand or go right on Archer and make a left at the arrow since all the commuter traffic entering UF gives the arrow a long runtime.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 17, 2024, 07:15:44 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/PfZzfby3mjohAp4EA
https://maps.app.goo.gl/FfghYTAcP8MYC4XEA

This part of Goldenrod Road in Orlando is not FL 551.  FL 551is technically Old Goldenrod Road one block away that stems only north from FL 15 here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs - GA 23!?
Post by: chrislopezz on January 18, 2024, 09:23:30 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/I-985_signage_error_GA369_East.jpg)
An erroneous SR 23 shield was previously posted along SR 369 (Jesse Jewell Parkway) east ahead of the diamond interchange with Interstate 985. 10/15/2001
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on January 18, 2024, 09:42:10 AM
Quote from: chrislopezz on January 18, 2024, 09:23:30 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/I-985_signage_error_GA369_East.jpg)
An erroneous SR 23 shield was previously posted along SR 369 (Jesse Jewell Parkway) east ahead of the diamond interchange with Interstate 985. 10/15/2001
Fits better in the US/state route mixup thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 23, 2024, 05:11:09 PM
Where are the "TO" Banners?  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219891941369435&set=a.10219892151334684)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53482359067_d725db4aee_c.jpg)

(https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219891971490188&set=a.10219892151334684) (PA 307 is the next interchange heading south.)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53483777900_d646755ab3_c.jpg)

On I-95 NB south of Wagner Rd.  The sign should state Exit 48B instead of Exit 46B.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219917660052386&set=a.10219917684252991)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53495774736_754fc0c125_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on January 30, 2024, 05:16:23 PM
GA 37 is not only to the left as the ground shields say.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53498961693_fcec8857e3_c.jpg)
The overheads are correct to say its both left and straight as a concurrency begins ahead.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 04, 2024, 10:53:36 AM
I think someone turned the arrow left on Eisenhower Blvd NB here.  Who would go left to get to I-81? (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219934461432410&set=a.10219934523073951)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53508310551_e478e61791_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on February 04, 2024, 11:40:57 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 04, 2024, 10:53:36 AM
I think someone turned the arrow left on Eisenhower Blvd NB here.  Who would go left to get to I-81? (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219934461432410&set=a.10219934523073951)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53508310551_e478e61791_c.jpg)
That's bizarre.  What's strange is if you take the hard left, it looks like there are proper directional trailblazers for other routes at the next intersection, but I can't see where they were going with this one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Lukeisroads on February 04, 2024, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: GaryA on November 15, 2023, 02:38:43 PM
Here's one I came across on this weekend's drive:  https://maps.app.goo.gl/Hhz1s19jzpGavX5T6 (approaching south end of CA 43)

Top to bottom:  black-on-white double arrow (<-->), black-on-white "EAST", white-on-green CA 119 shield.

Here we see a double-arrow used with a single direction, using black-on-white placards with a CA state route shield, and an unusual ordering of sign elements.

This part of CA 119 was US 399 until 1964, but these placards look quite recent (including a larger E in EAST), so that can't explain the black-on-white placards.

Also, is it proper to use that double-arrow when the intersection has a roundabout?  (The roundabout is a recent change.)
Its worse in bako missing 58 sheild and white west and south https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3776323,-119.0445678,3a,15y,218.26h,91.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOdr0PeY8XuA0sHiQuFD5VQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 04, 2024, 12:42:40 PM
Looking east on Paxton St towards 40th St and Eisenhower Blvd in response to Rothman's post. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219934469912622&set=a.10219934523073951)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53508968665_d479203e93_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53508543006_d64760745d_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53507656312_025f7156f6_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53508710333_75751fe5e5_c.jpg)

Back to true errors, Exit 29B is gone.  The exit for PA 61 from I-78/US 22 is just Exit 29 now. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219947224871488&set=a.10219947253192196)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53519702845_a41de6f3f1_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53519716205_efcf016bb9_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53519602404_f743a79da1_c.jpg)

On I-78 WB/US 22 WB approaching PA 183 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219947230351625&set=a.10219947253192196)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53519324686_294defb818_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on February 17, 2024, 06:29:32 PM
Just spotted this error (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1903801,-81.1943375,3a,15y,330.35h,88.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seIcxbko9SnwWtc1dC7BYkw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) at the DDI on I-95 just north of Savannah, GA.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on February 17, 2024, 08:00:46 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 17, 2024, 06:29:32 PM
Just spotted this error (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1903801,-81.1943375,3a,15y,330.35h,88.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seIcxbko9SnwWtc1dC7BYkw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) at the DDI on I-95 just north of Savannah, GA.
This is the type of errors that can kill people.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on February 23, 2024, 08:35:01 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on February 17, 2024, 08:00:46 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 17, 2024, 06:29:32 PM
Just spotted this error (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1903801,-81.1943375,3a,15y,330.35h,88.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seIcxbko9SnwWtc1dC7BYkw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) at the DDI on I-95 just north of Savannah, GA.
This is the type of errors that can kill people.
Agreed. I have seen versions of that sign with the arrow squiggling to the left of the median blob.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on February 23, 2024, 10:04:51 AM
Quote from: formulanone on February 23, 2024, 08:35:01 AM

Quote from: LilianaUwU on February 17, 2024, 08:00:46 PM

Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 17, 2024, 06:29:32 PM
Just spotted this error (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1903801,-81.1943375,3a,15y,330.35h,88.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seIcxbko9SnwWtc1dC7BYkw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) at the DDI on I-95 just north of Savannah, GA.

This is the type of errors that can kill people.

Agreed. I have seen versions of that sign with the arrow squiggling to the left of the median blob.

Yeah, it's called R4-8.

↓  R4-7  ↓
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/MUTCD_R4-7.svg/192px-MUTCD_R4-7.svg.png)

↓  R4-8  ↓
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/MUTCD_R4-8.svg/192px-MUTCD_R4-8.svg.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on February 23, 2024, 09:27:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 23, 2024, 10:04:51 AM
Quote from: formulanone on February 23, 2024, 08:35:01 AM

Quote from: LilianaUwU on February 17, 2024, 08:00:46 PM

Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 17, 2024, 06:29:32 PM
Just spotted this error (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1903801,-81.1943375,3a,15y,330.35h,88.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seIcxbko9SnwWtc1dC7BYkw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) at the DDI on I-95 just north of Savannah, GA.

This is the type of errors that can kill people.

Agreed. I have seen versions of that sign with the arrow squiggling to the left of the median blob.

Yeah, it's called R4-8.

↓  R4-7  ↓
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/MUTCD_R4-7.svg/192px-MUTCD_R4-7.svg.png)

↓  R4-8  ↓
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/MUTCD_R4-8.svg/192px-MUTCD_R4-8.svg.png)

I've long thought of it as the "eye patch" median sign since I was a kid, but I thought that would be an even more confusing description.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Big John on February 23, 2024, 09:47:18 PM
I wish the W4-8 sign would be redesigned to make it clear it means left as it is too easily confused with the opposite W4-7 sign
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kkt on February 24, 2024, 11:18:15 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on September 20, 2023, 06:10:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 01, 2023, 12:12:10 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 26, 2023, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 26, 2023, 01:25:23 AM
In which universe is the word "damn" profane?

You gotta go back to 1929, but that's when the first curse word was uttered in a movie. It was 'Damn', and it was shocking. 

I'm not sure if Damn can be uttered in a G rated movie today, or if that automatically bumps up a movie to a PG rating. 

Yet, Frank Butler was frankly not giving a damn by 1939.

Welcome to Movie Rating Talk!

The family movie Madeline was rated PG in 1998 for the single use of the word "damn," and it was out at the same time as Gone With The Wind which retains its 1971 G rating.  See this Roger Ebert Movie Answer Man, second question down: https://www.rogerebert.com/answer-man/movie-answer-man-08091998

Interesting, thank you.  Too bad that does not illuminate why GWTW got a G rating in 1971.  There were PG ratings then.  I don't object to Butler's "damn" but the piles of wounded seem pretty harsh for young children.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 26, 2024, 01:11:54 PM
Virginia Beach's incompetence knows no bounds. This is supposed to be US 58 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8550263,-75.9947537,3a,75y,78.69h,88.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFQUmbNeMhtyHCgwin-xb-Q!2e0!5s20230601T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).

(https://i.postimg.cc/W4HRb525/us-40.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on February 26, 2024, 05:37:48 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 26, 2024, 01:11:54 PM
Virginia Beach's incompetence knows no bounds. This is supposed to be US 58 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8550263,-75.9947537,3a,75y,78.69h,88.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFQUmbNeMhtyHCgwin-xb-Q!2e0!5s20230601T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).

(https://i.postimg.cc/W4HRb525/us-40.png) (https://postimages.org/)
how the fuck
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SectorZ on February 26, 2024, 06:08:29 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on February 26, 2024, 05:37:48 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 26, 2024, 01:11:54 PM
Virginia Beach's incompetence knows no bounds. This is supposed to be US 58 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8550263,-75.9947537,3a,75y,78.69h,88.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFQUmbNeMhtyHCgwin-xb-Q!2e0!5s20230601T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).

(https://i.postimg.cc/W4HRb525/us-40.png) (https://postimages.org/)
how the fuck

Concur, that is one of the more nonsensical errors I've seen in a while.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 26, 2024, 06:21:24 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 26, 2024, 06:08:29 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on February 26, 2024, 05:37:48 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 26, 2024, 01:11:54 PM
Virginia Beach's incompetence knows no bounds. This is supposed to be US 58 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8550263,-75.9947537,3a,75y,78.69h,88.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFQUmbNeMhtyHCgwin-xb-Q!2e0!5s20230601T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).

(https://i.postimg.cc/W4HRb525/us-40.png) (https://postimages.org/)
how the fuck

Concur, that is one of the more nonsensical errors I've seen in a while.

The worst part is there used to be a US 58 shield here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 26, 2024, 06:32:49 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 26, 2024, 06:21:24 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 26, 2024, 06:08:29 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on February 26, 2024, 05:37:48 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 26, 2024, 01:11:54 PM
Virginia Beach's incompetence knows no bounds. This is supposed to be US 58 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8550263,-75.9947537,3a,75y,78.69h,88.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFQUmbNeMhtyHCgwin-xb-Q!2e0!5s20230601T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).

(https://i.postimg.cc/W4HRb525/us-40.png) (https://postimages.org/)
how the fuck

Concur, that is one of the more nonsensical errors I've seen in a while.

The worst part is there used to be a US 58 shield here.

Even a US 30, US 31, or US 32 shield would have made infinitely more sense.   :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on February 26, 2024, 07:16:32 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 26, 2024, 06:32:49 PM
Even a US 30, US 31, or US 32 shield would have made infinitely more sense.   :banghead:

Why would that be?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 26, 2024, 07:21:04 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 26, 2024, 07:16:32 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 26, 2024, 06:32:49 PM
Even a US 30, US 31, or US 32 shield would have made infinitely more sense.   :banghead:

Why would that be?

Because US 58 basically splits into 30th St, 31st St (Laskin Rd), and 32nd St entering the Oceanfront Area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: plain on February 26, 2024, 09:26:07 PM
I probably would've understood if VA 40 entered VA Beach somewhere and they accidentally slapped a US 40 shield here, but that route is nowhere near here either. This is one of the biggest goofs I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: GenExpwy on February 27, 2024, 06:11:12 AM
Well, US 40 is the example pictured in the MUTCD...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on February 27, 2024, 01:21:51 PM
Quote from: GenExpwy on February 27, 2024, 06:11:12 AM
Well, US 40 is the example pictured in the MUTCD...

Ohhh . . . myyyy . . . do you really suppose that might be the reason?  It would be hilarious if so.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on February 27, 2024, 01:40:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 27, 2024, 01:21:51 PM
Quote from: GenExpwy on February 27, 2024, 06:11:12 AM
Well, US 40 is the example pictured in the MUTCD...

Ohhh . . . myyyy . . . do you really suppose that might be the reason?  It would be hilarious if so.

I was thinking, "maybe the speed limit is 40 and they ordered the wrong sign"....nope, it's 45.

Just baffling.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 27, 2024, 02:19:02 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 27, 2024, 01:21:51 PM
Quote from: GenExpwy on February 27, 2024, 06:11:12 AM
Well, US 40 is the example pictured in the MUTCD...

Ohhh . . . myyyy . . . do you really suppose that might be the reason?  It would be hilarious if so.

Virginia Beach is famous for putting in the least effort possible.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: freebrickproductions on February 27, 2024, 02:48:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 27, 2024, 01:21:51 PM
Quote from: GenExpwy on February 27, 2024, 06:11:12 AM
Well, US 40 is the example pictured in the MUTCD...

Ohhh . . . myyyy . . . do you really suppose that might be the reason?  It would be hilarious if so.

I mean, it ain't like there ain't precedent for that happening...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hunty2022 on February 27, 2024, 11:11:38 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 26, 2024, 01:11:54 PM
Virginia Beach's incompetence knows no bounds. This is supposed to be US 58 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8550263,-75.9947537,3a,75y,78.69h,88.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFQUmbNeMhtyHCgwin-xb-Q!2e0!5s20230601T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).

(https://i.postimg.cc/W4HRb525/us-40.png) (https://postimages.org/)

VDOT should take control of signage for US Routes and some Primary Routes in the state now. No reason to screw up this bad, Virginia Beach.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 28, 2024, 01:18:08 PM
4th View Ave should be 4th View St..... (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220042591535595&set=a.10220042611176086)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53558130973_f0fbb76ca7_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 28, 2024, 01:34:00 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 28, 2024, 01:18:08 PM
4th View Ave should be 4th View St..... (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220042591535595&set=a.10220042611176086)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53558130973_f0fbb76ca7_c.jpg)

At least it doesn't say "4Th" like a lot of signs in this area do.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 28, 2024, 01:53:49 PM
Another City of Hopewell masterpiece. (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2851073,-77.2989395,3a,15y,114.54h,87.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slZL1qD27aQV6T3GbCJvjZQ!2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)

(https://i.postimg.cc/4nCq3MT6/tresspassing.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on February 28, 2024, 02:08:52 PM
The message is not erroneous.  It's just some typos.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on February 28, 2024, 07:30:54 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 28, 2024, 01:53:49 PM
Another City of Hopewell masterpiece. (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2851073,-77.2989395,3a,15y,114.54h,87.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slZL1qD27aQV6T3GbCJvjZQ!2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)

(https://i.postimg.cc/4nCq3MT6/tresspassing.png)

Is there something in the water supply the City of Hopewell should know about?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LilianaUwU on February 28, 2024, 10:28:58 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 28, 2024, 01:53:49 PM
Another City of Hopewell masterpiece. (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2851073,-77.2989395,3a,15y,114.54h,87.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slZL1qD27aQV6T3GbCJvjZQ!2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)

(https://i.postimg.cc/4nCq3MT6/tresspassing.png)
This is the exact opposite of the "Nothing personnel, kid (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/teleports-behind-you-nothing-personal-kid)" meme.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 06, 2024, 07:47:41 AM
SR 602 on this sign blade should be SR 36. There are quite a few of these errors along VA 36 east of the transition to/from SR 602. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220044934874177&set=a.10220045064317413)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53571117266_3fe1f2db2d_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rothman on March 06, 2024, 08:19:35 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 06, 2024, 07:47:41 AM
SR 602 on this sign blade should be SR 36. There are quite a few of these errors along VA 36 east of the transition to/from SR 602. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220044934874177&set=a.10220045064317413)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53571117266_3fe1f2db2d_c.jpg)
I'm pretty sure we could fill thousands of posts in this thread with errors like these in VA and PA.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mglass87 on March 06, 2024, 11:29:47 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 28, 2024, 01:53:49 PM
Another City of Hopewell masterpiece. (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2851073,-77.2989395,3a,15y,114.54h,87.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slZL1qD27aQV6T3GbCJvjZQ!2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)

(https://i.postimg.cc/4nCq3MT6/tresspassing.png)

What makes this even worse is the fact that it looks like this replaced another sign with the exact same mistake:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/BwHXRBdmAzgFoC3j9
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 07, 2024, 08:42:49 AM
Quote from: mglass87 on March 06, 2024, 11:29:47 PM
What makes this even worse is the fact that it looks like this replaced another sign with the exact same mistake:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/BwHXRBdmAzgFoC3j9

I'm impressed, usually when Hopewell replaces a sign, they make the new sign worse somehow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 07, 2024, 11:27:23 AM
How can you tell those aren't the exact same sign, not an original and replacement?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 07, 2024, 11:47:50 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 07, 2024, 11:27:23 AM
How can you tell those aren't the exact same sign, not an original and replacement?

Actually, upon further review it does appear to be the same sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mglass87 on March 07, 2024, 11:59:26 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 07, 2024, 11:47:50 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 07, 2024, 11:27:23 AM
How can you tell those aren't the exact same sign, not an original and replacement?

Actually, upon further review it does appear to be the same sign.

Interesting. So they basically went back and added "property of the" but still failed to fix the actual error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 07, 2024, 12:02:15 PM
Quote from: mglass87 on March 07, 2024, 11:59:26 AM

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 07, 2024, 11:47:50 AM

Quote from: kphoger on March 07, 2024, 11:27:23 AM
How can you tell those aren't the exact same sign, not an original and replacement?

Actually, upon further review it does appear to be the same sign.

Interesting. So they basically went back and added "property of the" but still failed to fix the actual error.

I take it back.  Upon further further review, I'm no sure there was enough of a gap to squeeze "PROPERTY OF THE" into.  It does seem to be a replacement.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 09, 2024, 12:01:29 PM
Phipps Bend Rd is the correct name for the road on the left side of US 11W here.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220075488157990&set=a.10220075698883258)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53577364290_d92d1138d2_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53576919256_e2d1a67f31_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53576919251_8703eec845_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mglass87 on March 11, 2024, 04:40:45 PM
Backwards off-ramp arrows (this was recently fixed):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/o6d8D3TK13gm3twA8
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 11, 2024, 05:02:34 PM
Quote from: mglass87 on March 11, 2024, 04:40:45 PM
Backwards off-ramp arrows (this was recently fixed):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/o6d8D3TK13gm3twA8

Functionally the same, I'd argue, as it doesn't really matter which road is considered to be the curvy arrow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CovalenceSTU on March 12, 2024, 04:02:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 11, 2024, 05:02:34 PM
Quote from: mglass87 on March 11, 2024, 04:40:45 PM
Backwards off-ramp arrows (this was recently fixed):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/o6d8D3TK13gm3twA8

Functionally the same, I'd argue, as it doesn't really matter which road is considered to be the curvy arrow.
Only if it were an Entering Added Lane sign (W4-6L) as W4-3L means an added lane from the left - but in this case it's doubly erroneous as it's a merge and not an added lane.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kphoger on March 12, 2024, 04:29:50 PM
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on March 12, 2024, 04:02:30 PM
Only if it were an Entering Added Lane sign (W4-6L) as W4-3L means an added lane from the left - but in this case it's doubly erroneous as it's a merge and not an added lane.

Do W4-6L and W4-3L even actually exist in the MUTCD?  I see designs for them, but I see no guidance for them in the actual manual.  All I see are the non-suffixed W4-6 and W4-3.

At any rate, the pertinent part of the MUTCD uses "should" language, not "shall" language, meaning the orientation isn't actually a requirement.

Quote from: MUTCD, 11th Edition
Section 2C.46 — Added Lane Signs (W4-3 and W4-6)

02 — When an Added Lane (W4-3) sign is installed on a major roadway, the symbol should be oriented right or left as appropriate to depict the side from which the entering roadway converges, with the straight arrow representing the major roadway and the curved arrow representing the entering roadway. The sign should be located on the side of the major roadway from which the entering roadway converges.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 17, 2024, 08:39:15 PM
I am pretty sure that TN 8 should not be signed here.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220089359344761&set=a.10220089517188707)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53594638669_8df2f9d889_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53594308941_77afccd160_c.jpg)

On US 23 NB/US 58 ALT EB in Big Stone Gap due to US 58 ALT currently being detoured (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220095364854895&set=a.10220095521778818)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53599627937_8c5551c089_c.jpg)

WVDOH is trying to make me think that CR 707 is WV 707 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220097769915020&set=a.10220097830236528)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53605627727_96e05b2376_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53606840374_307305b334_c.jpg)