Seeing beyond the road

[J N Winkler]

I had a list roughly 80% complete of each state's markers and 95% accurate of where all the US highways and Interstates went. I needed this list to draw maps - I preferred not to reuse existing highway numbers so that the place would be truly fictional, and enjoyed drawing them all over the country. Finding this information online was an incredible moment.

Long before there was a Web, let alone James Lin's page, it was possible to order a leaflet from FHWA which contained, in addition to pattern-accurate renderings of the "new" symbol signs (which came out in 1972!), drawings of state route markers from all 50 states.

Ordering it, however, meant knowing (1) that it existed at all and (2) which address to write to for further information--before the Internet, both of these things were nearly impossible without being already in the loop somehow for traffic-related material.  I do have a copy of this leaflet, but I don't think I obtained it until after I had already learned of the MUTCD through online sources.

The Internet has made things much better, but it also sets the bar higher.  The problem has changed from not knowing what various states' route markers look like to not having fully dimensioned drawings of them for all 50 states (cases in point:  Louisiana guide-sign marker; Montana state secondary route marker . . .).

[Scott5114]

In a way, I think sometimes the roadgeek bug enhances our view of scenery, interesting places, etc. because we end up in places that a "normal" traveler wouldn't be. If we weren't into roads/clinching counties, chances are we wouldn't have visited most of the places we have. I would not know what the Panhandle of Oklahoma looks like, because I have never had any reason to go there but to collect the three counties comprising it. I would not know what Dill City, Oklahoma looked like, because the only reason I went there was to clinch OK-42. I wouldn't have ever been to Yates Center, Kansas, because I would have just stuck to the Kansas Turnpike instead of taking US-75. I wouldn't have ever been to Lake Keystone because I wouldn't have been on the old alignment of US-64 that literally leads into it.

[kphoger]

In a way, I think sometimes the roadgeek bug enhances our view of scenery, interesting places, etc. because we end up in places that a "normal" traveler wouldn't be. If we weren't into roads/clinching counties, chances are we wouldn't have visited most of the places we have. I would not know what the Panhandle of Oklahoma looks like, because I have never had any reason to go there but to collect the three counties comprising it. I would not know what Dill City, Oklahoma looked like, because the only reason I went there was to clinch OK-42. I wouldn't have ever been to Yates Center, Kansas, because I would have just stuck to the Kansas Turnpike instead of taking US-75. I wouldn't have ever been to Lake Keystone because I wouldn't have been on the old alignment of US-64 that literally leads into it.

A very good point.  A roadgeek's travels do frequently take him farther off the beaten path than most people–and I'm a fan of getting off the beaten path.  But, while you were there (say, in the Oklahoma panhandle), did you actually see it or experience it to the same level that most people would have?  By which I mean how much of your attention was on the road and how much of it was on the human element?  I think most people focus little attention on the actual road, and more on the human element; and I wonder if that makes us somehow antisocial.

[huskeroadgeek]

In a way, I think sometimes the roadgeek bug enhances our view of scenery, interesting places, etc. because we end up in places that a "normal" traveler wouldn't be. If we weren't into roads/clinching counties, chances are we wouldn't have visited most of the places we have. I would not know what the Panhandle of Oklahoma looks like, because I have never had any reason to go there but to collect the three counties comprising it. I would not know what Dill City, Oklahoma looked like, because the only reason I went there was to clinch OK-42. I wouldn't have ever been to Yates Center, Kansas, because I would have just stuck to the Kansas Turnpike instead of taking US-75. I wouldn't have ever been to Lake Keystone because I wouldn't have been on the old alignment of US-64 that literally leads into it.

This is generally how I feel. I've never felt like my interest in roadgeek stuff limits my enjoyment of anything else while traveling. So many people see traveling as just point A to point B. They really don't know or don't care where they've been inbetween. I've always felt like I have an advantage over those people in enjoying a trip because I feel like I benefit from knowing just exactly where I've traveled. And I've never been so engrossed in roadgeek stuff on a trip that I don't enjoy the scenery-stop to see sights, etc.
Some of the differences among roadgeeks that we see here comes from differences in how we approach the whole roadgeek phenomenon. There are different things that lead us to have an interest in roads, signs and the like. For me, it is a love of geography and of traveling. I think an interest in roads naturally follows. But since my interest in roads follows from my general interest in geography and traveling, it means that my interest in geography and traveling is first. Thus, I am not going to let an interest in roads interfere with my interest in seeing the sights. Also, I have other interests besides roadgeeking, one of which is an interest in history(I was a history major in college). So I'm certainly not going to go on a trip and be so engrossed in roadgeeking stuff that I'm going to miss out on anything of an important historical nature anywhere I am going.

Basically, roadgeeking to me is more of a means to an end and not an end in itself. Rather than limiting my enjoyment of anything, I feel it enhances it.

[bugo]

I like driving, so I like to keep moving when I am on roadtrips.  I hate to stop, and I usually don't stop at scenic turnarounds or other touristy places.

[bugo]

I wouldn't have ever been to Lake Keystone because I wouldn't have been on the old alignment of US-64 that literally leads into it.

[Scott5114]

In a way, I think sometimes the roadgeek bug enhances our view of scenery, interesting places, etc. because we end up in places that a "normal" traveler wouldn't be. If we weren't into roads/clinching counties, chances are we wouldn't have visited most of the places we have. I would not know what the Panhandle of Oklahoma looks like, because I have never had any reason to go there but to collect the three counties comprising it. I would not know what Dill City, Oklahoma looked like, because the only reason I went there was to clinch OK-42. I wouldn't have ever been to Yates Center, Kansas, because I would have just stuck to the Kansas Turnpike instead of taking US-75. I wouldn't have ever been to Lake Keystone because I wouldn't have been on the old alignment of US-64 that literally leads into it.

A very good point.  A roadgeek's travels do frequently take him farther off the beaten path than most people–and I'm a fan of getting off the beaten path.  But, while you were there (say, in the Oklahoma panhandle), did you actually see it or experience it to the same level that most people would have?  By which I mean how much of your attention was on the road and how much of it was on the human element?  I think most people focus little attention on the actual road, and more on the human element; and I wonder if that makes us somehow antisocial.

What is the "human element", though? I ate lunch in Guymon. Is that enough to "experience" it? How far do I have to go to meet that bar? Do I have to stop at a museum? Is there any way to 'experience' a town that doesn't have anything like that?  Do I have to seek out the local greasy spoon and chat with the overall-wearing guys that inhabit it and hunt down random residents and talk to them about what living in Boise City is like? (Not likely to happen...I have trouble with talking to strangers in Norman, much less the Panhandle.) I'm not all that interested in that sort of thing–chances are they are farmers or ranchers and I'm already familiar that lifestyle because of growing up in Goldsby.

I stayed two nights in DC in 2007. I looked at the Treasury Building, the White House, the Capitol, the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, and the Washington Monument. I had a brief encounter with a DC resident, who said that she hoped I enjoyed my visit to the city. Did I experience DC even though I was just sightseeing in the touristy part of town, and never went in any of the buildings? I bought a camera at Staples. Does that change anything? On the way out of town I made a wrong turn and briefly ended up in Anacostia. Does that enhance my experience?

One town that I feel like I truly experienced was Ann Arbor, Michigan, which I consider to be the town that I've visited that has had the greatest contrast from Norman. I have a friend who lived there at the time, who gave me a rather thorough tour of the place and brought us to several great restaurants and interesting bits of local culture. But the only way I had that experience was because I knew someone there to guide me to the places that are worth seeing. I don't have a friend that is able or willing to do that in most cities.

I think the key thing to remember here is that as much as we play up the differences, a lot of places are really rather similar. You live in Wichita and I live in Norman, but we probably both shop at Walmart and sometimes eat at McDonalds and Red Lobster. We get office supplies from places like Office Depot or Staples and probably keep our money in places like Chase or Bank of America. (Even Ann Arbor had at least a Five Guys.) I don't go to downtown every day and ride a boat down the canal–I did it once and that was enough for me, though if I had someone in from out of town I'd probably offer to take them on the canal, since that's something different to do that you don't have in every city. But it's not part of the everyday OKC experience. And isn't that the experience you're really wanting to know about?

[Kacie Jane]

In a way, I think sometimes the roadgeek bug enhances our view of scenery, interesting places, etc. because we end up in places that a "normal" traveler wouldn't be. If we weren't into roads/clinching counties, chances are we wouldn't have visited most of the places we have.

One of my favorite drives I've ever taken was over White Pass, and I would never have had a reason to go there if I weren't clinching US 12 in the state and/or taking pictures for Wikipedia.

[bugo]

(Even Ann Arbor had at least a Five Guys.)

Tulsa is getting a Five Guys.  It's going to be at 96th and Riverside, across the road from the Jenks bridge.  If Tulsa is getting one, I wouldn't be surprised if OKC did too.

[Scott5114]

(Even Ann Arbor had at least a Five Guys.)

Tulsa is getting a Five Guys.  It's going to be at 96th and Riverside, across the road from the Jenks bridge.  If Tulsa is getting one, I wouldn't be surprised if OKC did too.

Norman has had one for a while. The point I intended to make is that even Ann Arbor, which plays itself up as being full of unique, independent places, can't avoid the chain restaurants.

[Beltway]

Do any of you on here sometimes feel like they're missing out on part of life because you're a roadgeek?  Let me try and explain what I mean a little bit.

I have had over 30 major interests during my life, many of which could be called a "hobby".  Usually only about 5 or so are in the "forefront" at any one time.

Road transportation is probably the longest and most consistent, 40 years.

No, I don't think I am missing out on part of life due to roads interest ... too many other things to stimulate!

[kphoger]

In a way, I think sometimes the roadgeek bug enhances our view of scenery, interesting places, etc. because we end up in places that a "normal" traveler wouldn't be. If we weren't into roads/clinching counties, chances are we wouldn't have visited most of the places we have. I would not know what the Panhandle of Oklahoma looks like, because I have never had any reason to go there but to collect the three counties comprising it. I would not know what Dill City, Oklahoma looked like, because the only reason I went there was to clinch OK-42. I wouldn't have ever been to Yates Center, Kansas, because I would have just stuck to the Kansas Turnpike instead of taking US-75. I wouldn't have ever been to Lake Keystone because I wouldn't have been on the old alignment of US-64 that literally leads into it.

A very good point.  A roadgeek's travels do frequently take him farther off the beaten path than most people–and I'm a fan of getting off the beaten path.  But, while you were there (say, in the Oklahoma panhandle), did you actually see it or experience it to the same level that most people would have?  By which I mean how much of your attention was on the road and how much of it was on the human element?  I think most people focus little attention on the actual road, and more on the human element; and I wonder if that makes us somehow antisocial.

What is the "human element", though?

I don't have a concrete answer for you.  As I said, this is a fairly nebulous thought.  But, I think it has to do with the way in which we primarily think about the world.  When I think of Boise City, I immediately think of the downtown traffic circle/square; Tulsa, the expressways; Guymon, how long it takes to drive US-54 through town, and the sign salad north of town at the junction of OK-136; Liechtenstein, yellow shoulder lines and white center line; most places, where they are located on the map.  Other facets of society–what the people are like, relative wealth or poverty, politics of the area, social norms, etc.–come to mind secondarily.  I can't help but think that I have it backwards.

[corco]

In a way, I think sometimes the roadgeek bug enhances our view of scenery, interesting places, etc. because we end up in places that a "normal" traveler wouldn't be. If we weren't into roads/clinching counties, chances are we wouldn't have visited most of the places we have. I would not know what the Panhandle of Oklahoma looks like, because I have never had any reason to go there but to collect the three counties comprising it. I would not know what Dill City, Oklahoma looked like, because the only reason I went there was to clinch OK-42. I wouldn't have ever been to Yates Center, Kansas, because I would have just stuck to the Kansas Turnpike instead of taking US-75. I wouldn't have ever been to Lake Keystone because I wouldn't have been on the old alignment of US-64 that literally leads into it.

A very good point.  A roadgeek's travels do frequently take him farther off the beaten path than most people–and I'm a fan of getting off the beaten path.  But, while you were there (say, in the Oklahoma panhandle), did you actually see it or experience it to the same level that most people would have?  By which I mean how much of your attention was on the road and how much of it was on the human element?  I think most people focus little attention on the actual road, and more on the human element; and I wonder if that makes us somehow antisocial.

What is the "human element", though?

I don't have a concrete answer for you.  As I said, this is a fairly nebulous thought.  But, I think it has to do with the way in which we primarily think about the world.  When I think of Boise City, I immediately think of the downtown traffic circle/square; Tulsa, the expressways; Guymon, how long it takes to drive US-54 through town, and the sign salad north of town at the junction of OK-136; Liechtenstein, yellow shoulder lines and white center line; most places, where they are located on the map.  Other facets of society–what the people are like, relative wealth or poverty, politics of the area, social norms, etc.–come to mind secondarily.  I can't help but think that I have it backwards.

But how many people think of anything when they think of Boise City? You at least kind of know what it looks like- I'd bet well over half the population doesn't know it exists, and most of the other rest just knows it's a city on the panhandle. It's not like being a roadgeek is forcing you to miss out on knowledge you would otherwise have- odds are if you didn't like roads you wouldn't think of anything when you thought of Boise City.

And since you've at least driven through it, I bet you know a bit more about social aspects of Boise City than most- you probably know it's an agriculture town, gives off a vibe that it's barely clinging on as a remote outpost. If you bought gas or went into a convenience store to use the bathroom, you might have noticed that slight Texas panhandle- rural plains accent. The courthouse circle tells you that it's a city that took pride in its county courthouse- and that like many rural Texas towns, the courthouse is the focal point of the city. These are things that somebody who has never even been wouldn't feel.  You might be consciously focusing on the roads, but I bet you're subconsciously aware of more than you think.

For me, if I'm discussing the experience with a roadgeek, the road things come to mind. If my mother asks me what I thought of Boise City, the first thing that comes to mind is going to be what I was subconsciously processing as I drove through. Maybe I can't speak in a lot of depth, but not many people can anyway.

[kphoger]

But how many people think of anything when they think of Boise City? You at least kind of know what it looks like- I'd bet well over half the population doesn't know it exists, and most of the other rest just knows it's a city on the panhandle. It's not like being a roadgeek is forcing you to miss out on knowledge you would otherwise have- odds are if you didn't like roads you wouldn't think of anything when you thought of Boise City.

And since you've at least driven through it, I bet you know a bit more about social aspects of Boise City than most- you probably know it's an agriculture town, gives off a vibe that it's barely clinging on as a remote outpost. If you bought gas or went into a convenience store to use the bathroom, you might have noticed that slight Texas panhandle- rural plains accent. These are things that somebody who has never even been wouldn't feel. 

Ah, but it's very possible to love travelling and not be a roadgeek.  My father was with me at the time we drove through Boise City (in fact, I don't remember if I was old enough to drive at the time), and I would bet you he remembers more than just the traffic circle.  Remember, I'm not trying to bash roadgeeking per se–simply to suggest that it might be a narrow window through which to view the world.  I certainly am not trying to start an argument.  I was just curious if anyone else had ever felt that way.

[corco]

I think there's definitely validity to what you're saying- I just think everyone is weird. Put a few different people in a car through Boise City

1. Roadgeek- notices roads, maybe subconsciously processes the rest
2. Travel-lover- probably notices roads a little bit, focuses more on sociodemographics.
3. Middle ground- knows where they are, doesn't mind it, engaged in conversation- gets a little exposure to everything without getting a lot of exposure to anything.
4. Apathetic to travel- may sort of realize they were there, more focused on getting out of town than getting through it.  Probably is talking to their friend, not paying much attention to what's going on.
5. Hates travel- watches DVD while going through town, doesn't even know they were in Boise City

Which one of those people is processing incorrectly? I think you could make an argument that all of them are, and that none of them are. Even if you exclude roads as being a "priority," everybody is neglecting somebody. The topophiles are probably neglecting their fellow passengers and moving more slowly, wasting time in the eyes of others, and the topophobes are talking to their friends or watching a movie and maybe learning something new/staying entertained, moving quickly, and not processing what they're seeing.

[NE2]

But how many people think of anything when they think of Boise City?

Now that the truck trarffic is elimtanted, there's no reason for its existence.

[1995hoo]

I've never been to Boise City, but I recall a goofy Car and Driver article where one of them (I assume it must have been John Phillips) drove a Smart Fortwo there.

[formulanone]

Ah, I remember that article...I recall they mentioned a snake museum and the pronunciation of the town name. They occasionally still discuss driving and road trips, but seemingly less so as the years go by...losing roughly 40 pages an issue in the past decade marginalized some of the off-beat stuff.

[agentsteel53]

One of my favorite drives I've ever taken was over White Pass, and I would never have had a reason to go there if I weren't clinching US 12 in the state and/or taking pictures for Wikipedia.

I'm totally necroing this thread, just to note that one can see a lot just by sticking to one numbered route which isn't a freeway.  for example, US-6 is a great drive across the country... I wholeheartedly recommend such an activity to anyone who wants to see the world.  Pick a number, and go.

as for missing out, really the one worst thing one can do is stay on the interstate, especially I-80 in Nebraska, which gives the entire Eisenhower system the stereotypical "connecting nothing to nowhere, really quickly" reputation.  Just five miles away is US-30, which is infinitely more interesting.

[NE2]

"Besides," said the man, "there's no traffic passes through 6. If you want to go to Chicago you'd do better going across the Holland Tunnel in New York and head for Pittsburgh," and I knew he was right. It was my dream that screwed up, the stupid hearthside idea that it would be wonderful to follow one great red line across America instead of trying various roads and routes.

[Ned Weasel]

What is the "human element", though? I ate lunch in Guymon. Is that enough to "experience" it? How far do I have to go to meet that bar? Do I have to stop at a museum? Is there any way to 'experience' a town that doesn't have anything like that?  Do I have to seek out the local greasy spoon and chat with the overall-wearing guys that inhabit it and hunt down random residents and talk to them about what living in Boise City is like? (Not likely to happen...I have trouble with talking to strangers in Norman, much less the Panhandle.) I'm not all that interested in that sort of thing–chances are they are farmers or ranchers and I'm already familiar that lifestyle because of growing up in Goldsby.

I stayed two nights in DC in 2007. I looked at the Treasury Building, the White House, the Capitol, the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, and the Washington Monument. I had a brief encounter with a DC resident, who said that she hoped I enjoyed my visit to the city. Did I experience DC even though I was just sightseeing in the touristy part of town, and never went in any of the buildings? I bought a camera at Staples. Does that change anything? On the way out of town I made a wrong turn and briefly ended up in Anacostia. Does that enhance my experience?

One town that I feel like I truly experienced was Ann Arbor, Michigan, which I consider to be the town that I've visited that has had the greatest contrast from Norman. I have a friend who lived there at the time, who gave me a rather thorough tour of the place and brought us to several great restaurants and interesting bits of local culture. But the only way I had that experience was because I knew someone there to guide me to the places that are worth seeing. I don't have a friend that is able or willing to do that in most cities.

I think the key thing to remember here is that as much as we play up the differences, a lot of places are really rather similar. You live in Wichita and I live in Norman, but we probably both shop at Walmart and sometimes eat at McDonalds and Red Lobster. We get office supplies from places like Office Depot or Staples and probably keep our money in places like Chase or Bank of America. (Even Ann Arbor had at least a Five Guys.) I don't go to downtown every day and ride a boat down the canal–I did it once and that was enough for me, though if I had someone in from out of town I'd probably offer to take them on the canal, since that's something different to do that you don't have in every city. But it's not part of the everyday OKC experience. And isn't that the experience you're really wanting to know about?

This is one of the most illuminating points on this thread.  I also feel compelled to add my own take on this (a month later)--

I think being roadgeeks allows us to see beauty in places and objects that others tend to find banal or ugly.  What may be a horrific tangle of concrete and asphalt to some may be a masterwork of the applied arts to us.  While an extensive array of green signs may be just background texture that slips from most commuters' everyday notice, to us it can be the drumbeat that gives continuity to and defines the rhythm of spatial/temporal creations that we consciously experience (consciously, because that is something we focus on).  No piece of land or object on the landscape is inherently more or less worthy of anyone's attention.  Beauty is something that only the individual observer can rightly take from something and give to himself or herself, and it follows that being roadgeeks is our gift to ourselves, just as nature lovers, train enthusiasts, bird watchers, or localized cuisine aficionados present such gifts to themselves.  And while one may argue that we're roadgeeks not because we find roads beautiful but because we find them fascinating, I think the two concepts overlap more than they are dissimilar.

I think Scott's post alludes to the idea that the Generic City is most often the human experience of places--and this need not be a malady to be somehow corrected or stamped out.  If being a roadgeek gives us a gift here, it is that it allows us to see elements that are interesting or unique in landscapes that are popularly deemed boring or "cookie-cutter" (or, my least favorite, "placeless").  We can discover our own sensibilities, our own aesthetics, through our interest in the topic in question, however esoteric it may be.  And we should not discount the potential of road enthusiasm as a gateway to other enthusiasms.  While it can be true that a roadgeek misses something that others travel hundreds of miles to see, the same is true of those who see roads in purely utilitarian terms.

Besides, how many others would ever give more than a brief moment's thought to Breezewood, Pennsylvania?

[cpzilliacus]

This is one of the most illuminating points on this thread.  I also feel compelled to add my own take on this (a month later)--

I think being roadgeeks allows us to see beauty in places and objects that others tend to find banal or ugly.  What may be a horrific tangle of concrete and asphalt to some may be a masterwork of the applied arts to us.  While an extensive array of green signs may be just background texture that slips from most commuters' everyday notice, to us it can be the drumbeat that gives continuity to and defines the rhythm of spatial/temporal creations that we consciously experience (consciously, because that is something we focus on).  No piece of land or object on the landscape is inherently more or less worthy of anyone's attention.  Beauty is something that only the individual observer can rightly take from something and give to himself or herself, and it follows that being roadgeeks is our gift to ourselves, just as nature lovers, train enthusiasts, bird watchers, or localized cuisine aficionados present such gifts to themselves.

That's probably why more than a few roadgeeks like the northern segments of the New Jersey Turnpike, even though Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike asserted that it is "so bad that it's good," making specific reference to the petroleum processing operations in Carteret and the general "look and feel" of Elizabeth (a large swath of which was condemned when the Turnpike was constructed) and past Newark Liberty International Airport.

And while one may argue that we're roadgeeks not because we find roads beautiful but because we find them fascinating, I think the two concepts overlap more than they are dissimilar.

I think Scott's post alludes to the idea that the Generic City is most often the human experience of places--and this need not be a malady to be somehow corrected or stamped out.  If being a roadgeek gives us a gift here, it is that it allows us to see elements that are interesting or unique in landscapes that are popularly deemed boring or "cookie-cutter" (or, my least favorite, "placeless").  We can discover our own sensibilities, our own aesthetics, through our interest in the topic in question, however esoteric it may be.  And we should not discount the potential of road enthusiasm as a gateway to other enthusiasms.  While it can be true that a roadgeek misses something that others travel hundreds of miles to see, the same is true of those who see roads in purely utilitarian terms.

Another attraction of the New Jersey Turnpike is the great contrast in landscapes from south to north.  There's not much in the way of hills and dales along the Turnpike, but the landscape of Salem County is about as extreme in its rural appearance as the industrialization that's present as the motorist drives further north.

Besides, how many others would ever give more than a brief moment's thought to Breezewood, Pennsylvania?

If not for the danger and inconvenience of the place (to benefit a few well-connected Pennsylvania land owners), it would not bother me so much.

[formulanone]

I think being roadgeeks allows us to see beauty in places and objects that others tend to find banal or ugly [...] to us it can be the drumbeat that gives continuity to and defines the rhythm of spatial/temporal creations that we consciously experience...

Stepping aside somewhat, the masses of numbers and words we encounter and remember from roadgeeking, evoke a picture in my mind, helping to serve as a mnemonic when having to recall a certain number(s). The experience to travelling road numbered foo or bar come in handy to having to remember foo-bar (or bar-foo)  later on. That's not to say that the numbers couldn't come from some other personal interest or importance, but it does help me in a realm outside the road-and-highway world.

[agentsteel53]

"Besides," said the man, "there's no traffic passes through 6

I've always wondered about that quote.  what did all the trucks take across northern Pennsylvania?  no Turnpike in 1937... did they choose US-20 instead?

[1995hoo]

This is one of the most illuminating points on this thread.  I also feel compelled to add my own take on this (a month later)--

I think being roadgeeks allows us to see beauty in places and objects that others tend to find banal or ugly.  What may be a horrific tangle of concrete and asphalt to some may be a masterwork of the applied arts to us.  While an extensive array of green signs may be just background texture that slips from most commuters' everyday notice, to us it can be the drumbeat that gives continuity to and defines the rhythm of spatial/temporal creations that we consciously experience (consciously, because that is something we focus on).  No piece of land or object on the landscape is inherently more or less worthy of anyone's attention.  Beauty is something that only the individual observer can rightly take from something and give to himself or herself, and it follows that being roadgeeks is our gift to ourselves, just as nature lovers, train enthusiasts, bird watchers, or localized cuisine aficionados present such gifts to themselves.

That's probably why more than a few roadgeeks like the northern segments of the New Jersey Turnpike, even though Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike asserted that it is "so bad that it's good," making specific reference to the petroleum processing operations in Carteret and the general "look and feel" of Elizabeth (a large swath of which was condemned when the Turnpike was constructed) and past Newark Liberty International Airport.

....

A Car and Driver article once used the memorable description "miles and miles of universal fart" in referring to that area. I'll concur in that description because on one trip to New York, I rode with my brother and he insisted on keeping the windows down.....and then we got stuck in stopped traffic on the Goethals Bridge. I don't think I've come so close to puking from just a bad smell as I did that afternoon.

I think your comments underscore something somebody recently said in another thread about how variance in signs (whether because of different local standards or because somebody made a mistake) is to be treasured because it's part of what keeps things interesting out there. What I find interesting is that it's not just roadgeeks who notice some of the variations. I recall when my parents and brother came down to Duke for a visit during my law school days we were driving to Chapel Hill and my father commented on a sign saying "REDUCE SPEED AHEAD" instead of the "REDUCED" wording that's standard in Virginia. But then, my mother was an English teacher and my father was also an English major, so they'd be more likely to notice such things.