News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

Erroneous road signs

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

Previous topic - Next topic

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.


Scott5114

Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 13, 2019, 07:16:22 PM
Oh, I thought that you were referring to the tab in the middle, cause tabs are supposed to be on the right, you know? But maybe that used to be a circle? OK used to use a circle for its state routes. There is a similarly faded sign on NJ-181.

Very avant-garde quote placement.

No, there was never a circle here. This sign was erected after a construction project well into the meat-cleaver era.

Fading couldn't cause a CT 51 shield to appear in Oklahoma in most cases anyway–Oklahoma cut out their circles, unlike NJ.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

roadman

Quote from: kphoger on January 02, 2020, 07:04:12 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 02, 2020, 06:27:05 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 02, 2020, 05:00:55 PM

Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 02, 2020, 04:43:19 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4750871,-78.6294163,3a,16.1y,36.41h,81.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFpkH2drn2HbJ7RtVaUY3vQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

Are the numbers on this height sign too small?

Not an erroneous road sign.

I bet it's off by a few inches. :D

I believe that's standard practice.  Nobody signs overpasses at exactly the correct height.
The MUTCD allows heights posted on clearance signs to be up to 3 inches less than the actual clearance.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

SectorZ


Brandon

"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Tom958

I came through Snellville on GA 124 northbound yesterday and noticed an LGS lying on the ground, apparently awaiting installation. Then a friend posted some other stuff about signage at the US 78-GA 124 intersection, so I decided to go back and have another look, and... wow. Another bud says that the LGS has been installed, taken down, and now installed again, and that people often try to make that dangerous, illegal right turn. We both notified GDOT District 1  about this, so hopefully it'll be corrected promptly.

mrsman

Quote from: Tom958 on January 10, 2020, 11:26:50 PM
I came through Snellville on GA 124 northbound yesterday and noticed an LGS lying on the ground, apparently awaiting installation. Then a friend posted some other stuff about signage at the US 78-GA 124 intersection, so I decided to go back and have another look, and... wow. Another bud says that the LGS has been installed, taken down, and now installed again, and that people often try to make that dangerous, illegal right turn. We both notified GDOT District 1  about this, so hopefully it'll be corrected promptly.


GDOT shouldn't direct people to a location if the turn is not permitted, so the sign should be adjusted.

But what makes this turn dangerous?  This is a right turn at a traffic signal.  Even if sight lines aren't desirable, the usual fix would be No turn on red, not outlawing the right turn altogether.

Perhaps you can elaborate.  I'm not from the area, and old GSV images indicate the right turn being permitted, with a right turn only lane.

US71


Should be TO I-40 along US 67/167


Error on a technicality: I-540 ends at US 271. They do not run concurrent.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Tom958

Quote from: mrsman on January 12, 2020, 10:24:55 AMBut what makes this turn dangerous?  This is a right turn at a traffic signal.  Even if sight lines aren't desirable, the usual fix would be No turn on red, not outlawing the right turn altogether.

Perhaps you can elaborate.  I'm not from the area, and old GSV images indicate the right turn being permitted, with a right turn only lane.

Yes, I can. The intersection ahead is a displaced left turn intersection (sometimes confusingly referred to as a continuous flow intersection). Only the left turns from the intersecting road are displaced, and... to reduce the footprint, no bypass roadway was built for the prohibited right turn movement in my photo. That means that anyone turning right there would be head-on to left-turning traffic from the direction of Loganville. Any driver who's unfamiliar with the situation will likely believe, as you did, that there's no compelling reason for the right turn prohibition, and that they'll just sneak on through. In fact, I'm told by someone who frequents the area that it happens all the time.

The correct way to head toward Loganville or Stone Mountain is to turn at the previous intersection. The sign in my photo needs to be relocated there, if there's not one there already.

mrsman

Quote from: Tom958 on January 12, 2020, 12:26:33 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 12, 2020, 10:24:55 AMBut what makes this turn dangerous?  This is a right turn at a traffic signal.  Even if sight lines aren't desirable, the usual fix would be No turn on red, not outlawing the right turn altogether.

Perhaps you can elaborate.  I'm not from the area, and old GSV images indicate the right turn being permitted, with a right turn only lane.

Yes, I can. The intersection ahead is a displaced left turn intersection (sometimes confusingly referred to as a continuous flow intersection). Only the left turns from the intersecting road are displaced, and... to reduce the footprint, no bypass roadway was built for the prohibited right turn movement in my photo. That means that anyone turning right there would be head-on to left-turning traffic from the direction of Loganville. Any driver who's unfamiliar with the situation will likely believe, as you did, that there's no compelling reason for the right turn prohibition, and that they'll just sneak on through. In fact, I'm told by someone who frequents the area that it happens all the time.

The correct way to head toward Loganville or Stone Mountain is to turn at the previous intersection. The sign in my photo needs to be relocated there, if there's not one there already.

That sounds reasonable.  Clear directions should be provided on how one is supposed to reach Loganville to avoid the illegal right turn.

TheGrassGuy

Quote from: Tom958 on January 12, 2020, 12:26:33 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 12, 2020, 10:24:55 AMBut what makes this turn dangerous?  This is a right turn at a traffic signal.  Even if sight lines aren't desirable, the usual fix would be No turn on red, not outlawing the right turn altogether.

Perhaps you can elaborate.  I'm not from the area, and old GSV images indicate the right turn being permitted, with a right turn only lane.

Yes, I can. The intersection ahead is a displaced left turn intersection (sometimes confusingly referred to as a continuous flow intersection). Only the left turns from the intersecting road are displaced, and... to reduce the footprint, no bypass roadway was built for the prohibited right turn movement in my photo. That means that anyone turning right there would be head-on to left-turning traffic from the direction of Loganville. Any driver who's unfamiliar with the situation will likely believe, as you did, that there's no compelling reason for the right turn prohibition, and that they'll just sneak on through. In fact, I'm told by someone who frequents the area that it happens all the time.

The correct way to head toward Loganville or Stone Mountain is to turn at the previous intersection. The sign in my photo needs to be relocated there, if there's not one there already.
According to Google Maps, there seems to be some sort of construction going on; in particular, it seems that there is some widening work being done to US 78. Could you please elaborate on this by any chance?
If you ever feel useless, remember that CR 504 exists.

cjk374

Quote from: Brandon on January 03, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 03, 2020, 05:05:33 PM
Don't know if this has been posted. It can also go in worst of, too.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5641475,-71.448436,3a,18.2y,242.24h,87.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUo38plkL2KxxTL4O3oj8yA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Beautiful shape, nice font, great layout, but it's just plain fucking wrong.

They even have a reassurance marker down the road from the upcoming intersection:

1353 Union Ave
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zvwd2L8EnUqVSaTPA
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

Eth

Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 14, 2020, 08:51:08 AM
Quote from: Tom958 on January 12, 2020, 12:26:33 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 12, 2020, 10:24:55 AMBut what makes this turn dangerous?  This is a right turn at a traffic signal.  Even if sight lines aren't desirable, the usual fix would be No turn on red, not outlawing the right turn altogether.

Perhaps you can elaborate.  I'm not from the area, and old GSV images indicate the right turn being permitted, with a right turn only lane.

Yes, I can. The intersection ahead is a displaced left turn intersection (sometimes confusingly referred to as a continuous flow intersection). Only the left turns from the intersecting road are displaced, and... to reduce the footprint, no bypass roadway was built for the prohibited right turn movement in my photo. That means that anyone turning right there would be head-on to left-turning traffic from the direction of Loganville. Any driver who's unfamiliar with the situation will likely believe, as you did, that there's no compelling reason for the right turn prohibition, and that they'll just sneak on through. In fact, I'm told by someone who frequents the area that it happens all the time.

The correct way to head toward Loganville or Stone Mountain is to turn at the previous intersection. The sign in my photo needs to be relocated there, if there's not one there already.
According to Google Maps, there seems to be some sort of construction going on; in particular, it seems that there is some widening work being done to US 78. Could you please elaborate on this by any chance?

Intersection reconfiguration. The general mess Tom refers to is a new state of affairs here. I haven't been through it myself yet, but OSM is updated with what this all looks like now.

Tom958

#4513
Quote from: Eth on January 14, 2020, 04:26:14 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 14, 2020, 08:51:08 AMAccording to Google Maps, there seems to be some sort of construction going on; in particular, it seems that there is some widening work being done to US 78. Could you please elaborate on this by any chance?

Intersection reconfiguration. The general mess Tom refers to is a new state of affairs here. I haven't been through it myself yet, but OSM is updated with what this all looks like now.

Indeed. Thanks, Eth!  Construction of the DLT is complete except for moving that sign to south of Clower Boulevard where it goes, which multiple sources say will happen. Yay, me!

I went down there yet again on Sunday to assess whether it'd be feasible to add that bypass lane to re-legalize that right turn if the displaced left turn roadway was narrowed to one lane instead of two ("not really" is my assessment). On my way out of town, I saw a cop perched on a rise over US 78, looking for hands-free law violators, so I approached her and asked her how the new intersection was working out. She said that it'd had a rocky start, but that things had calmed down now. Her big concern now is with the two-lane right turn movement from Clower Boulevard onto US 78 east, which is under construction in the current Google satellite view. Right turns on red are allowed after a stop, but apparently a problematic number of motorists execute a rolling stop or no stop at all, causing crashes. She said that GDOT says that they'll be banning right turns except on green arrows there.

SectorZ

Quote from: cjk374 on January 14, 2020, 01:28:16 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 03, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 03, 2020, 05:05:33 PM
Don't know if this has been posted. It can also go in worst of, too.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5641475,-71.448436,3a,18.2y,242.24h,87.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUo38plkL2KxxTL4O3oj8yA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Beautiful shape, nice font, great layout, but it's just plain fucking wrong.

They even have a reassurance marker down the road from the upcoming intersection:

1353 Union Ave
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zvwd2L8EnUqVSaTPA

So I posted mine 1/3, the day I was last up there. We either shamed NHDOT or I had interesting timing, because today (20 days later) both signs have been replaced with the correct signs. No other apparent signs in the area were replaced.

Based on Streetview, the signs went up between 2013 and 2018.

formulanone

Minor banner mix-up in Pendelton, Indiana...US36 and IN67 switched directions for a moment:


It's corrected later throughout the route...

MNHighwayMan

Quote from: formulanone on January 28, 2020, 08:10:05 AM
Minor banner mix-up in Pendelton, Indiana...US36 and IN67 switched directions for a moment:

That's one of those kind of mistakes where I'd be really tempted to get a ladder and socket set and fix it for them. ;-)

ModernDayWarrior

An erroneous sign I spotted today: Sainte Genevieve County, MO, Route O at MO-32. A right turn will actually take you to "Weingarten," one word.


MarkF

Quote from: MarkF on December 02, 2019, 02:04:38 AM
Quote from: kendancy66 on October 05, 2019, 11:25:19 PM
Can anyone explain why a divided highway sign would be placed in this location on the shoulder on I-405 South?

https://goo.gl/maps/AsiqjnXjsfijC7Co9

That sign went up when it was a construction area, and was left there after it completed.  Made no sense to have it there then or now.  My guess is a speed limit sign is supposed to be there.  You wonder how this stuff happens, maybe they see it as a joke?

I drove through that stretch of 405 south of Culver last weekend.  The sign was laying on the shoulder, someone hit it.  Wonder if Caltrans will blindly put it back up?

US71

ARDOT finally fixed this a couple months ago. Should be US 412.



Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

CovalenceSTU

Here's the weirdest one I've seen: a Left Lane Ends sign was installed upside-down and used instead of an Added Lane sign.


jakeroot

Quote from: CovalenceSTU on April 05, 2020, 02:09:25 AM
Here's the weirdest one I've seen: a Left Lane Ends sign was installed upside-down and used instead of an Added Lane sign.



Kelso, WA for anyone interested.

This one is kind of interesting. I'm not sure if it's a "goof". It's not in the MUTCD, so there really is no error being committed in how it was installed, since it was clearly installed this way on purpose. Maybe more unique/odd/interesting? I could see both arguments.

1995hoo

^^^^^

I've seen that sort of thing in several places over the years, though off the top of my head I couldn't tell you where. Never really struck me as all that weird because it is accurate.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

roadfro

Quote from: CovalenceSTU on April 05, 2020, 02:09:25 AM
Here's the weirdest one I've seen: a Left Lane Ends sign was installed upside-down and used instead of an Added Lane sign.


Quote from: 1995hoo on April 05, 2020, 02:24:13 PM
^^^^^

I've seen that sort of thing in several places over the years, though off the top of my head I couldn't tell you where. Never really struck me as all that weird because it is accurate.

The depiction here is still incorrect. The road simply expands to two lanes beyond the intersection, and there's not a standard sign to depict that--and I don't think it's something that needs a warning sign.

An added lane sign isn't appropriate here, because it's not two roadways converging (e.g. a freeway mainline and onramp).
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

US71

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 05, 2020, 02:24:13 PM
^^^^^

I've seen that sort of thing in several places over the years, though off the top of my head I couldn't tell you where. Never really struck me as all that weird because it is accurate.

Same here. I think some rural roads in Arkansas may have these.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast



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.