Interstate Highway Numbering Nonsense

[Quillz]

But mile markers do reset. Even on a cross country interstate like 80, mile markers drop to 0 in each state, there's no mile marker 2500 somewhere in Jersey. So what do you mean by that exactly?

If they realign the second mile so it's now only a half-mile long (as is often the case as roads generally straighten out over time due to better engineering), they're not going to renumber the mile marker to something like "1.5," they'll just leave it at "2." Likewise, if they add like 10 miles between mile marker 74 and 75, they might do something like R75, R76, R77 (standing for "realigned") and then you'll see "75" again. Because it doesn't really matter. As long as the values are unique, that is what is important.

Mile makers, at best, give a very rough sense of the route's length or where you are. It's not intended for real navigation, and never was.

Most states are a bit less obvious about it than California is...

I actually dislike how California does things and much prefer the federal standard of just using "Mile X" instead of the weird county postmile thing California does.

Well, I was referring more to the R- prefixes. Most states seem like they don't draw attention to it when the mileposts are "rigged". Like, if you add a mile of road between MP 74 and MP 75, just make 74 and 75 1½ miles each. Maybe nobody will notice...

I agree that the postmile system is weird, although some of California's counties are so big that resetting at county lines at least makes some degree of sense if you squint at it. If they're going to do that, though, I wish they'd at least steal Nevada's giant enhanced postmile. I love those things. I never realized until I saw one of California's postmiles in person how utterly unreadable and inscrutable they are, especially the ones that use the stenciled text instead of FHWA Series.

Oh, when you explain it like that, it makes sense. I would actually agree. The number just needs to be unique. If it's not actually a mile or so, I don't think anyone would notice or care. And I do like enhanced mile markers, they should come here. Although I do prefer black-on-white as far as color schemes go for any sort of mile marker system.

[kphoger]

(in music, rehearsal numbers/letters are a must -- "15 after the double bar/8 before the Tempo Primo" is even more abstract lol).

FWIW, this is exactly how it sometimes happens in non-classical contexts.  On chord charts, the music is generally just given sections names like "Bridge 2" or "Chorus 3", but the piano player might be playing from full-on sheet music with the sections labeled differently (Chorus 3 on the chord chart might be called Chorus 5 on the sheet music, depending on how repeated sections are handled).

There are times during rehearsal at church that the starting point has to be called out as something like "halfway through the second time of the repeated chorus that's right after the bridge".  (And sometimes, the next question is "OK, and what part are you calling the bridge?" because maybe the piano music labels that as Chorus 3c or something wacky like that.)  Yes, the band leader could simply call it "measure 59", but that wouldn't mean anything to the other members of the band, who aren't reading from full sheet music–and that's assuming he had gone through both sets of music and matched up measure numbers with section names ahead of time–and also that the measure numbering is the same for piano as it is for cello and for keyboard, which isn't always the case.

And then there's that one song we play whose music was written out in full sheet music, but with no measure numbers or rehearsal marks or section names or anything–just three pages of unidentified measures...

[kphoger]

I was about to suggest also numbering exits in opposite directions for each side of the road, so everything you enter a state, regardless of which way you are going, will always start with 1, but based on some of the reactions here, I think I'm going to pump my brakes on that one.

As I mentioned earlier on the forum, I can't actually come up with a solid argument against it.  But personally, I'd rather the numbers start at the high end and work their way down to zero.

Hey, here's a fun argument against doing this:

– [driver] I just witnessed a car crash, and it looks pretty bad.  One vehicle rolled into the ditch, and the other spun out and hit the median barrier.

– [911 dispatcher] And what is your location, sir?

– [driver] I'm heading west on highway 204, but the accident was on the eastbound side.

– [911 dispatcher] And what is the approximate mile marker for the location where you witnessed the accident?

[J N Winkler]

There are actually countries where each direction has a separate distance-marking scheme.  In Britain, for example, most motorways have A and B carriageways, where A goes away from London while B goes to London.  (Other letters are used for, e.g., ring roads.)  These designators appear on driver location signs (the British equivalent to enhanced location reference markers) along with the kilometerpoint.  I think part of the reason we don't use such a system in the US is that inclusion of the cardinal direction suffices to differentiate up and down carriageways.  Ramps also typically have their own location reference signing.

[Bickendan]

(in music, rehearsal numbers/letters are a must -- "15 after the double bar/8 before the Tempo Primo" is even more abstract lol).

FWIW, this is exactly how it sometimes happens in non-classical contexts.  On chord charts, the music is generally just given sections names like "Bridge 2" or "Chorus 3", but the piano player might be playing from full-on sheet music with the sections labeled differently (Chorus 3 on the chord chart might be called Chorus 5 on the sheet music, depending on how repeated sections are handled).

There are times during rehearsal at church that the starting point has to be called out as something like "halfway through the second time of the repeated chorus that's right after the bridge".  (And sometimes, the next question is "OK, and what part are you calling the bridge?" because maybe the piano music labels that as Chorus 3c or something wacky like that.)  Yes, the band leader could simply call it "measure 59", but that wouldn't mean anything to the other members of the band, who aren't reading from full sheet music–and that's assuming he had gone through both sets of music and matched up measure numbers with section names ahead of time–and also that the measure numbering is the same for piano as it is for cello and for keyboard, which isn't always the case.

And then there's that one song we play whose music was written out in full sheet music, but with no measure numbers or rehearsal marks or section names or anything–just three pages of unidentified measures...

I feel every part of this x.x

...in 9/8

[kphoger]

...in 9/8

That's just fancy 3/4 ...

(Speaking of which, have you ever noticed that 6/4 is somewhat common, whereas 18/8 is almost unheard of?)

[SD Mapman]

...in 9/8

That's just fancy 3/4 ...

(Speaking of which, have you ever noticed that 6/4 is somewhat common, whereas 18/8 is almost unheard of?)

That gives me anxiety just looking at it, and I haven't played my instrument regularly in years.

[kphoger]

It would basically be 6/4 time, just with triplets.  You'd think it would be somewhat common, but there are very few examples of its having been used.

Notably, JS Bach used 18/16 time in one of his works–but only in the right hand.

[pianocello]

It would basically be 6/4 time, just with triplets.  You'd think it would be somewhat common, but there are very few examples of its having been used.

I wonder if it's because if the music is written with triplets in mind, the composer is more likely to have it in 6/8 or 3/8 to begin with? The only time I recall seeing 18/8 is in the Rachmaninoff Cello Sonata, and that was only a handful of isolated measures.

Now that I think about it, I think it might be more common to see 4-beat groups split up into two bars of 6/8 bars than one of 12/8. I didn't take enough music theory in college to figure out why that is though.

[Bickendan]

12/8 is still relatively common, particularly if the desired effect is a four-beat in compound time (compare 4/4 vs 2/4). I typically count 4/4 and even 12/8 in cut time while playing though, as it makes it easier to listen for the musical phrase when counting rests.
I'm currently playing Arturo Marquez's Danzon 2 in band, which has clave beat patterns in 4/4, with 2 bar phrases alternating between 2+2+2+2 and 3+3+2. Very fun piece

@SD Mapman, I encourage you to listen to Pat Metheny Group's The First Circle. It starts and ends in 22/8, which the lead sheet breaks into 12/8+10/8 for ease of reading... and the 12/8 is 5 beats (3+2+3+2+2) and the 10/8 4 (3+3+2+2).

[kurumi]

Here's an Adam Neely video justifying how signatures like 7/12 and 8/12 are, in some situations, the clearer solution and not contrived nonsense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9yI4dtuGQ.

It's mainly so the tempo is preserved through meter changes. Picture a song in 4/4 but with triplets (12 of them per measure). Then you want a few bars where 4 of them are dropped, leaving 8. Calling this 8/8 doesn't help. You'd have to change the tempo from e.g. ♩=120 to ♪=360 which really implies that the tempo is changing.

Googling for 8/12 is difficult because most of the results are actually 12/8.

High school band geeks might have played Percy Grainger's Lincolnshire Posy, where the Lord Melbourne movement switches meters almost every measure, and includes gems like 1½/4 and 2½/4.

[hotdogPi]

LOL someone criticized me on the Jersey Turnpike thread saying tolls discussions were "off topic" yet what is all this in my thread?

That looked like an admin overstepping his powers to me.

[kphoger]

It would basically be 6/4 time, just with triplets.  You'd think it would be somewhat common, but there are very few examples of its having been used.

I wonder if it's because if the music is written with triplets in mind, the composer is more likely to have it in 6/8 or 3/8 to begin with?

I think it's actually more likely to be divided into two measures of 9/8.

[Scott5114]

LOL someone criticized me on the Jersey Turnpike thread saying tolls discussions were "off topic" yet what is all this in my thread?

If it's in purple, it's not someone criticizing you, it's forum management telling you what to do.

That looked like an admin overstepping his powers to me.

To me it looked like MMM having a fictional idea that was no more related to the NJTP than any other toll road, and Steve was trying to re-rail the thread to focus on the NJTP. That sort of thing is what we're here for.

[MultiMillionMiler]

I know it was an admin, but no I was intending to only talk about the Turnpike. I was comparing the length and cost to other toll roads to show how outrageously expensive it is per mile. All the U-turn stuff had to do with the effect on tolls.

[Scott5114]

Whatever your intent, it's just an idea you had and not anything to do with anything the NJTA intends to implement, so he was justified in ending debate on the subject.