News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Erroneous road signs

Started by FLRoads, January 20, 2009, 04:01:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Revive 755

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.


J3ebrules

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.




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.
Counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike - they’ve all come to look for America! (Simon & Garfunkel)

ErmineNotyours


STLmapboy

Teenage STL area roadgeek.
Missouri>>>>>Illinois

JoePCool14

Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 03, 2020, 10:03:59 PM
Oops!



Reminds me of when someone from IDOT installed a Left Turn Only sign for a Right Turn Only lane. High quality workmanship indeed.

:) Needs more... :sombrero: Not quite... :bigass: Perfect.
JDOT: We make the world a better place to drive.
Travel Mapping | 60+ Clinches | 260+ Traveled | 8000+ Miles Logged

jakeroot

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.

ari-s-drives

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"

"UCSD Northpoint Drwy"

bwana39

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.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

ErmineNotyours

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.


ErmineNotyours

^^  Maybe it's the missing New Jersey Highway 99 from "Tweeter and the Monkey Man."

ErmineNotyours

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.


US71

Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Bobby5280


JoePCool14


:) Needs more... :sombrero: Not quite... :bigass: Perfect.
JDOT: We make the world a better place to drive.
Travel Mapping | 60+ Clinches | 260+ Traveled | 8000+ Miles Logged

Ned Weasel

This wasn't erroneous before, but now it is: https://goo.gl/maps/kkf8qiqKqsGz36UQ9 .  Funny how that works.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

JoePCool14

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.

:) Needs more... :sombrero: Not quite... :bigass: Perfect.
JDOT: We make the world a better place to drive.
Travel Mapping | 60+ Clinches | 260+ Traveled | 8000+ Miles Logged

Ned Weasel

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
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

jakeroot

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.

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?

kphoger

Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

US71

Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

JoePCool14

Quote from: kphoger on October 20, 2020, 04:18:40 PM
Quote from: US71 on October 18, 2020, 12:59:44 PM



Should be US 62

US/State mixup shield error signs

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, but I'm not going to around policing what goes where anymore.

:) Needs more... :sombrero: Not quite... :bigass: Perfect.
JDOT: We make the world a better place to drive.
Travel Mapping | 60+ Clinches | 260+ Traveled | 8000+ Miles Logged

Ned Weasel

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.

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.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

jakeroot

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.

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 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.

mrsman

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.

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 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 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

ErmineNotyours

Along those lines, these signs seem to contradict each other, until you consider that they are correct from each lane's point of view.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.