Erroneous road signs

[jwolfer]

No, that's not the right order.

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.

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

[paulthemapguy]

Speaking of US 34, 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

[74/171FAN]

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).

[tckma]

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.

[noelbotevera]

how do i order sign



how do i do maths



source: http://www.psnw.com/~walksfar/caltrans.html

[hotdogPi]

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

[US71]

I'm not sure that's what he meant.

[kphoger]

how do i order sign



how do i do maths



source: 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.

[noelbotevera]

how do i order sign



how do i do maths



source: 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.

[SignGeek101]

No respect for Ontario's second most (primary) highway, as it gets demoted to secondary status:



Ironic how the erroneous sign is in sight of an MTO truck inspection station 
The sign going westbound is correct however; it uses a primary shield. Secondary shields are only used for the 500-600 numbers.



GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/p9y7tn3YXV12

[formulanone]

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.

[roadfro]

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:

The 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...)

[amroad17]

No, that's not the right order.

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.

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.

[bzakharin]

The 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".

[kphoger]

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.

[roadfro]

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.

[SidS1045]

As 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.

[freebrickproductions]

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

[WillWeaverRVA]

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...

[kphoger]

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.

[roadfro]

^ 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.

[bzakharin]

^ 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.

[DevalDragon]

I wonder if there is a mile marker on I-40 with a I-44 shield?

(maybe they got swapped)

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

[okroads]

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:

DSC00007 by Eric Stuve, on Flickr

[peterj920]

In Escanaba, MI