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

[SignGeek101]

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.330742,-81.810068,3a,18.7y,142.23h,106.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxDRH5GtLHhE5cwBj1tupgw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Shouldn't they have just taken that sign down entirely if all they were going to do was white-out everything on it?

Found another blank sign. Looks like a stub to a road nearby that was closed for some reason.

https://goo.gl/maps/QFIUZ

EDIT: according to past satellite views of the area, it looks like that stub was never built.

[freebrickproductions]

Saw this up in Nashville, TN recently:
Odd Keep Right Sign by freebrickproductions, on Flickr

[Stratuscaster]

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.330742,-81.810068,3a,18.7y,142.23h,106.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxDRH5GtLHhE5cwBj1tupgw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Shouldn't they have just taken that sign down entirely if all they were going to do was white-out everything on it?

Believe that's a "TRUCKS MUST USE 2 RIGHT LANES" type of sign, and it's covered for the construction happening.

[PurdueBill]

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.330742,-81.810068,3a,18.7y,142.23h,106.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxDRH5GtLHhE5cwBj1tupgw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Shouldn't they have just taken that sign down entirely if all they were going to do was white-out everything on it?

Believe that's a "TRUCKS MUST USE 2 RIGHT LANES" type of sign, and it's covered for the construction happening.

That is indeed exactly what it is, and once the lanes reopen, the white-out is removed to reveal the message again.  Same thing with the large white signs with everything whited out is present right now in several work zones on the Ohio Turnpike where the signs are over closed lanes for the time being.

[Pete from Boston]

Some cases of the wrong-color-diamond blues:

Main St. in Walpole, Mass.:



Also on Main St. in Walpole, but these can also be found up the street in Norwood:



Vineyard Haven, Mass., at the Steamship Authority terminal (note the correct sign across the road):

[thenetwork]

Also on Main St. in Walpole, but these can also be found up the street in Norwood:

So what necessitated this sign?  The only reason I could see is that when traffic on the main street is stopped/backed up they purposely block entrance/egress from the side streets. But since this is Massachusetts, based on my experiences, this sign is preaching to the choir.  A better sign (on a regulatory black-on-white sign) would simply say "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION(S)"

[Pete from Boston]

Also on Main St. in Walpole, but these can also be found up the street in Norwood:

So what necessitated this sign?  The only reason I could see is that when traffic on the main street is stopped/backed up they purposely block entrance/egress from the side streets. But since this is Massachusetts, based on my experiences, this sign is preaching to the choir.  A better sign (on a regulatory black-on-white sign) would simply say "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION(S)"

I don't know anything about it.  There were at least half a dozen of these over several miles.

[vtk]

I wonder if those signs were made with the consideration that white on blue is the photographic negative of black on yellow...

[hotdogPi]

I wonder if those signs were made with the consideration that white on blue is the photographic negative of black on yellow...

Blue, opposite yellow: blue, yellow
Color of sign: blue, orange

The difference in blue may seem slight, but there is a large difference in what the opposite looks like.

[Rothman]

Also on Main St. in Walpole, but these can also be found up the street in Norwood:

So what necessitated this sign?  The only reason I could see is that when traffic on the main street is stopped/backed up they purposely block entrance/egress from the side streets. But since this is Massachusetts, based on my experiences, this sign is preaching to the choir.  A better sign (on a regulatory black-on-white sign) would simply say "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION(S)"

My favorite sign was at I-90/I-95 on the Mass Pike EB at the toll plaza: "DO NOT BACK UP"

[Pete from Boston]

Also on Main St. in Walpole, but these can also be found up the street in Norwood:

So what necessitated this sign?  The only reason I could see is that when traffic on the main street is stopped/backed up they purposely block entrance/egress from the side streets. But since this is Massachusetts, based on my experiences, this sign is preaching to the choir.  A better sign (on a regulatory black-on-white sign) would simply say "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION(S)"

My first thought was, how would one convey this without words?

[riiga]

Kinda like this one, reminds me of European crosswalk signs.

[Brandon]

Kinda like this one, reminds me of European crosswalk signs.

Also it's sort of like the Ontario school crossing signs.

I have an idea.  The black on yellow signs could be used for the advance signage.  The white on blue signs could be used for the actual crossing.  This would eliminate the stupid "AHEAD" and "<-" plaques we currently see in the MUTCD.

[vtk]

I wonder if those signs were made with the consideration that white on blue is the photographic negative of black on yellow...

Blue, opposite yellow: blue, yellow
Color of sign: blue, orange

But the yellow used on road signs is in fact much oranger than RGB "yellow". Furthermore, color is a lot more complicated than a trio of integers in the range [0—255].  Simply subtracting from 255 and calling that the "negative" doesn't take into consideration the nonlinear nature of the sRGB colorspace.  Even taking samples from a digital photo in sRGB as canonical representation of an object's color is fallacy, as the camera's whitepoint and exposure settings have a significant influence on the numbers you'll get, and consequently a [perceptually even greater] influence on what you see when you take a "negative" of the image in a digital RGB colorspace.

Here I've performed an approximate linear-light negative operation, using the value #B0A5A2 (sampled from the back of whatever sign is behind the blue pedestrian icon sign) as a reference white.  That is, #000000 becomes #B0A5A2 and #B0A5A2 becomes #000000, and the colors in between are transposed not based on the simple sRGB numerical values, but on the light-intensity values those numbers represent.

Note the sign in question looks much like a normal black-on-yellow road sign, albeit a bit washed out.

[Pete from Boston]

Kinda like this one, reminds me of European crosswalk signs.

Also it's sort of like the Ontario school crossing signs.

I have an idea.  The black on yellow signs could be used for the advance signage.  The white on blue signs could be used for the actual crossing.  This would eliminate the stupid "AHEAD" and "<-" plaques we currently see in the MUTCD.

But blue is already assigned an implicit meaning in the MUTCD, and it is not "warning."

[jakeroot]

Kinda like this one, reminds me of European crosswalk signs.

Also it's sort of like the Ontario school crossing signs.

I have an idea.  The black on yellow signs could be used for the advance signage.  The white on blue signs could be used for the actual crossing.  This would eliminate the stupid "AHEAD" and "<-" plaques we currently see in the MUTCD.

But blue is already assigned an implicit meaning in the MUTCD, and it is not "warning."

I agree with Brandon about perhaps expanding the use of color in our signs, particularly blue since even color blind people can identify it (so far as I know), but perhaps instead of "AHEAD", we use a distance, such as 100 yards?

[Rothman]

Kinda like this one, reminds me of European crosswalk signs.

Also it's sort of like the Ontario school crossing signs.

I have an idea.  The black on yellow signs could be used for the advance signage.  The white on blue signs could be used for the actual crossing.  This would eliminate the stupid "AHEAD" and "<-" plaques we currently see in the MUTCD.

But blue is already assigned an implicit meaning in the MUTCD, and it is not "warning."

I agree with Brandon about perhaps expanding the use of color in our signs, particularly blue since even color blind people can identify it (so far as I know), but perhaps instead of "AHEAD", we use a distance, such as 100 yards?

Blue's a tricky color when it comes to colorblindness.  When you have the really poorly-named "red-green" colorblindness, it actually means you don't see as much red and green as other people.  This does not only affect red and green.  In fact, blue and purple can be incredibly difficult to differentiate since you don't see the red in the purple.  Everything becomes blue.

[Pete from Boston]

Kinda like this one, reminds me of European crosswalk signs.

Also it's sort of like the Ontario school crossing signs.

I have an idea.  The black on yellow signs could be used for the advance signage.  The white on blue signs could be used for the actual crossing.  This would eliminate the stupid "AHEAD" and "<-" plaques we currently see in the MUTCD.

But blue is already assigned an implicit meaning in the MUTCD, and it is not "warning."

I agree with Brandon about perhaps expanding the use of color in our signs, particularly blue since even color blind people can identify it (so far as I know), but perhaps instead of "AHEAD", we use a distance, such as 100 yards?

There's a good reason to keep color meanings consistent, and it's the primary guiding principle of all sign design–conveying meaning as simply as is practicable is the safest practice for motorists whose primary attention should be on the road.

Consistent color use is a very basic and direct way to achieve this.  It's an unwise standard to start muddying given the critical cues the driving population has learned to take from it.

[jakeroot]

Kinda like this one, reminds me of European crosswalk signs.

Also it's sort of like the Ontario school crossing signs.

I have an idea.  The black on yellow signs could be used for the advance signage.  The white on blue signs could be used for the actual crossing.  This would eliminate the stupid "AHEAD" and "<-" plaques we currently see in the MUTCD.

But blue is already assigned an implicit meaning in the MUTCD, and it is not "warning."

I agree with Brandon about perhaps expanding the use of color in our signs, particularly blue since even color blind people can identify it (so far as I know), but perhaps instead of "AHEAD", we use a distance, such as 100 yards?

There's a good reason to keep color meanings consistent, and it's the primary guiding principle of all sign design–conveying meaning as simply as is practicable is the safest practice for motorists whose primary attention should be on the road.

Consistent color use is a very basic and direct way to achieve this.  It's an unwise standard to start muddying given the critical cues the driving population has learned to take from it.

I didn't necessarily mean to imply ignorance of the basic rules of sign design. I understand how colors are important for identification, of course, I'm simply saying some colors and shapes should not necessarily be assigned to their present meanings anymore. For example, I hate that the round shape is reserved for railroad crossings. I understand its importance 50 years ago, when there were many more unsignalized crossings, but nowadays the signs go mostly ignored as most important crossings have gates. As for the color blue, I think it's a very valuable color that is capable of so much more than just providing info. IMO, info signs should be black on white and regulatory signage should be white on blue. I will expand on this later but I have to go to work now.

[SignGeek101]

Kinda like this one, reminds me of European crosswalk signs.

Also it's sort of like the Ontario school crossing signs.

Only Ontario stopped using the blue crosswalk in 2009.

[jeffandnicole]

Kinda like this one, reminds me of European crosswalk signs.

Also it's sort of like the Ontario school crossing signs.

I have an idea.  The black on yellow signs could be used for the advance signage.  The white on blue signs could be used for the actual crossing.  This would eliminate the stupid "AHEAD" and "<-" plaques we currently see in the MUTCD.

But blue is already assigned an implicit meaning in the MUTCD, and it is not "warning."

I agree with Brandon about perhaps expanding the use of color in our signs, particularly blue since even color blind people can identify it (so far as I know), but perhaps instead of "AHEAD", we use a distance, such as 100 yards?

There's a good reason to keep color meanings consistent, and it's the primary guiding principle of all sign design–conveying meaning as simply as is practicable is the safest practice for motorists whose primary attention should be on the road.

Consistent color use is a very basic and direct way to achieve this.  It's an unwise standard to start muddying given the critical cues the driving population has learned to take from it.

I didn't necessarily mean to imply ignorance of the basic rules of sign design. I understand how colors are important for identification, of course, I'm simply saying some colors and shapes should not necessarily be assigned to their present meanings anymore. For example, I hate that the round shape is reserved for railroad crossings. I understand its importance 50 years ago, when there were many more unsignalized crossings, but nowadays the signs go mostly ignored as most important crossings have gates. As for the color blue, I think it's a very valuable color that is capable of so much more than just providing info. IMO, info signs should be black on white and regulatory signage should be white on blue. I will expand on this later but I have to go to work now.

So a train using an unimportant crossing won't kill anyone?

Isn't the advanced notice good for buses and hazmats that need to stop at crossings?

Who says no one pays attention to the signs anymore?  That statement is based on what?

[jakeroot]

So a train using an unimportant crossing won't kill anyone?

No but crossings without roundels do not necessarily correlate with an increased chance of a collision.

Isn't the advanced notice good for buses and hazmats that need to stop at crossings?...Who says no one pays attention to the signs anymore?  That statement is based on what?

Fair enough. Gross assumption. But the few people who rely on railroad identification can just as easily identity the crossing by the saltire next to the tracks. And shapes are very important for users facing the Back of a sign (see Stop signs) but in some cases it's not necessary. This is one of those cases where identification of the sign from the other side is not necessary, as you'll already be past the crossing by the time you see it.

My point being, a rectangular sign with the same symbol would likely be just as effective.

[cjk374]

So a train using an unimportant crossing won't kill anyone?

No but crossings without roundels do not necessarily correlate with an increased chance of a collision.

Isn't the advanced notice good for buses and hazmats that need to stop at crossings?...Who says no one pays attention to the signs anymore?  That statement is based on what?

Fair enough. Gross assumption. But the few people who rely on railroad identification can just as easily identity the crossing by the saltire next to the tracks. And shapes are very important for users facing the Back of a sign (see Stop signs) but in some cases it's not necessary. This is one of those cases where identification of the sign from the other side is not necessary, as you'll already be past the crossing by the time you see it.

My point being, a rectangular sign with the same symbol would likely be just as effective.

Not all important crossings have lights & gates. In fact, I personally deem all crossings important enough that they need the round advance warning signs. As jeffandnicole said, buses & haz-mat truck drivers need to know ahead of time that tracks are coming up so they can turn their hazard-flashers on and warn the people following them so they will be ready to stop. This helps prevent rear endings.

In fact, the round shape is also used for hurricane evacuation route signs.

[jakeroot]

Not all important crossings have lights & gates. In fact, I personally deem all crossings important enough that they need the round advance warning signs. As jeffandnicole said, buses & haz-mat truck drivers need to know ahead of time that tracks are coming up so they can turn their hazard-flashers on and warn the people following them so they will be ready to stop. This helps prevent rear endings.

I agree, recognition is good, but the signs don't necessarily need to be round for them to recognize the crossing. Those driving buses and semis have commercial driver's licences, and thus are held to a much higher standard of health than the rest of the populace. In general, states require 20/40 vision in both eyes, and colorblind individuals can only acquire a licence using a medical waiver (generally, they have to pass a test showing that they can still recognize the colors even with their deficiency).

Here are some other ways you could advertise a crossing ahead, without a roundel (#1 is used in Canada):

[D-Dey65]

Spotted in Philadelphia, I present to you - the CONSTRUCTION APL with negative contrast Clearview, and not one control city for I-95:

I've seen something similar on southbound I-95 at the Fayetteville, North Carolina business loop, although I haven't posted any pictures of them because they all turned out like crap.