Erroneous road signs

[jmd41280]

Wow, that's a screw-up. About how many markers are we talking here? Like every 0.1 mile?

It actually was every 0.1 mile. That being said, I just noticed today that the markers in question have been replaced with the correct version.

But isn't the notion of US-70 an upgrade to any concept of I-70 in Pennsylvania?  Whether it be Town Hill or Breezewood or Speers Bridge or Little Washington, it was like I-70 was a stepchild to everything else in Pennsylvania.  My old car that got all scratched up from the tar-and-chip repairs on I-70 somewhere around Belle Vernon in the late 1980s just died in a puff of smoke a few weeks ago.

Forget US 70. (Insert state here) Highway 70 would be an upgrade. I have the misfortune of having the substandard portion of I-70 as my daily commute. That being said, there have been projects along that stretch (from I-79 in Washington to I-76 in New Stanton) to upgrade it to modern standards. They still have a very long way to go to finish that stretch, though. In the meantime, we still have stop signs on the onramps from both North Belle Vernon and PA 51.

[SkyPesos]

The opposite of the error above: US 65 became I-65. I can't say I'm too surprised, given that even the local media has called the freeway as such. Only two mile markers were affected by this error.

GSV from 2017

I know it's the wrong route, but it's weird seeing an I-65 shield on a green enhanced mile markers. The states I-65 goes through I drove on (IN, KY, TN) all uses blue mile markers.

[bwana39]

I mean, I'd at least call the supervisor and say "Hey, I think this might be the wrong sign." But I've also worked with enough people that would say "Eh, that's what they gave us", put it up, and move on.

The subs who do this work only get paid if they hang the signs. If the people who made / inspected the signs were responsible to pay the crews who are out there hanging them (and the hourly workers should get paid for being there), pay for the equipment rented to hang them, etc.  Ie indemnify the losses, I would support them not hanging signs they know are somehow incorrect.

I can tell you all the ways this doesn't work, but....

[roadman65]

This one on US 21 Business in Beaufort, SC states that SC 281 is to the right at the light ahead.  False as the SC designation is the second signal.

[SkyPesos]

This one has since been removed, but anyone interested driving on this unknown freeway in Ohio called State Route 71?

[kphoger]

Please, for the love of Doug...

US/State mixup shield error signs

As of this post, the Erroneous Road Signs thread has 161 pages (I use the default of 25 posts per page), and it will just continue to grow. To reduce its rate of growth, errors that are solely US/state route mixups go here instead of in the Erroneous Road Signs and Worst of Road Signs threads.

Something similar was done a few years ago when "Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs" was created to reduce the number that went into the Worst of Road Signs thread.

If you recently posted in any of these threads with a US/state mixup, you may move the post to here by deleting the other one and pasting the content in this thread. (It doesn't have to be recent, but I'm assuming that the more recent ones will be more easily found.)

In addition to posting US/state mixups, you can post your opinion on whether this thread is necessary, at least for the first few pages.

[Scott5114]

That's not a US/State mixup, it's an Interstate/State mixup. So it doesn't go in that thread.

[jakeroot]

Speaking of: that thread really ought to be for all mix-ups.

Title it: Route Designation Mixups

I'd post my suggestion in that thread directly, but I couldn't possibly care about these mixups enough to permanently attach myself to that reply chain.

[hotdogPi]

Speaking of: that thread really ought to be for all mix-ups.

Title it: Route Designation Mixups

I'd post my suggestion in that thread directly, but I couldn't possibly care about these mixups enough to permanently attach myself to that reply chain.

I'll change it, but I want to make sure there isn't opposition first.

[roadman65]

One of them has to be erroneous.




Both on US 441 several miles apart.

[SkyPesos]

One of them has to be erroneous.




Both on US 441 several miles apart.

First one is. From some measuring, Okeechobee is 35 miles north of Canal Point on 441, and that sign is south of Canal Point by a mile, so should be 36.

[kphoger]

Please, for the love of Doug...

US/State mixup shield error signs

As of this post, the Erroneous Road Signs thread has 161 pages (I use the default of 25 posts per page), and it will just continue to grow. To reduce its rate of growth, errors that are solely US/state route mixups go here instead of in the Erroneous Road Signs and Worst of Road Signs threads.

Something similar was done a few years ago when "Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs" was created to reduce the number that went into the Worst of Road Signs thread.

If you recently posted in any of these threads with a US/state mixup, you may move the post to here by deleting the other one and pasting the content in this thread. (It doesn't have to be recent, but I'm assuming that the more recent ones will be more easily found.)

In addition to posting US/state mixups, you can post your opinion on whether this thread is necessary, at least for the first few pages.

That's not a US/State mixup, it's an Interstate/State mixup. So it doesn't go in that thread.

* kphoger slinks away with his tail between his legs.

[interstatefan990]

This one on US 21 Business in Beaufort, SC states that SC 281 is to the right at the light ahead.  False as the SC designation is the second signal.

I almost thought the top part of that sign was fluorescent yellow-green upon first sight.

[US71]

Yellville, AR along US 62


2002 (should be AR 59)

MO 176

[kphoger]

:facepalm:

[jakeroot]

:facepalm:

The never-ending fight rolls on...

[roadfro]

This one on US 21 Business in Beaufort, SC states that SC 281 is to the right at the light ahead.  False as the SC designation is the second signal.

This one becomes an error because of its MUTCD violation. The advance turn arrow is not to be used when there is an intersection between the sign and the intended turn. (2009 MUTCD Sec. 2D.31 p06)

[formulanone]

Slight error on this one in Waukesha...the "south" should go over the WI-164 shield and the US 18 should have the "west" directional banner:

[kphoger]

Slight error on this one in Waukesha...the "south" should go over the WI-164 shield and the US 18 should have the "west" directional banner:

And, because it's Wisconsin, one cannot simply switch the tabs around.

[ran4sh]

The opposite of the error above: US 65 became I-65. I can't say I'm too surprised, given that even the local media has called the freeway as such. Only two mile markers were affected by this error.

GSV from 2017

I know it's the wrong route, but it's weird seeing an I-65 shield on a green enhanced mile markers. The states I-65 goes through I drove on (IN, KY, TN) all uses blue mile markers.

If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.

[SkyPesos]

If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.

Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction to the full sized ones, both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.

[PurdueBill]

If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.

Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction to the full sized ones, both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.

Interestingly, there has been a rash of new-style ones with the initial letter only for the direction, usually in Series B or C which is narrower than what was on the original design. 

I would be surprised if ODOT changed them all over statewide just to turn blue to green.

It is interesting that ODOT went through a phase of the whole number markers being green and the others blue.  Those were put up at the same time, and interestingly, the values changed by 6/10 mile when they did.  (If you move back in time, you can see 22.6 where 22.0 now is.  Also, the old 22.6 was an interesting one with a W direction but both 76 and 77 shields; they all had that along the duplex.)

[SkyPesos]

If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.

Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction to the full sized ones, both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.

It is interesting that ODOT went through a phase of the whole number markers being green and the others blue.  Those were put up at the same time, and interestingly, the values changed by 6/10 mile when they did.  (If you move back in time, you can see 22.6 where 22.0 now is.  Also, the old 22.6 was an interesting one with a W direction but both 76 and 77 shields; they all had that along the duplex.)

I think the whole number green enhanced markers might be exclusive to Akron (or ODOT district 4), as I don't see them anywhere else in the state. Also interesting is that the .0 is omitted on the Akron ones you linked. Normally, the state keeps the .0 on whole miles; this one-off in Toledo was the only one I knew about that omitted the .0 before seeing the Akron ones. The other cities (well, Cincy, Columbus, Dayton and Cleveland at least) have the standard vertical number green mile marker on the right side of the road for whole miles in addition to the blue mile marker in the median.

[PurdueBill]

If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.

Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction to the full sized ones, both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.

It is interesting that ODOT went through a phase of the whole number markers being green and the others blue.  Those were put up at the same time, and interestingly, the values changed by 6/10 mile when they did.  (If you move back in time, you can see 22.6 where 22.0 now is.  Also, the old 22.6 was an interesting one with a W direction but both 76 and 77 shields; they all had that along the duplex.)

I think the whole number green enhanced markers might be exclusive to Akron (or ODOT district 4), as I don't see them anywhere else in the state. Also interesting is that the .0 is omitted on the Akron ones you linked. Normally, the state keeps the .0 on whole miles; this one-off in Toledo was the only one I knew about that omitted the .0 before seeing the Akron ones. The other cities (well, Cincy, Columbus, Dayton and Cleveland at least) have the standard vertical number green mile marker on the right side of the road for whole miles in addition to the blue mile marker in the median.

Some of the newest .0 ones show .0; it seems that it is flavor of the month with them.  The recently-completed project on 76/77 includes a new 22.0 marker with Mile 22 traditional markers on the roadside; other whole numbers nearby are missing and possibly because of the 6/10 shift (which itself is odd).  It is almost like they are seeing how many permutations they can come up with.  It was never this way when they were all the old design.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

This F'n gantry in Chicago, suggesting a two-lane exit for I-294 SB with an option lane. And then you get there, and surprise! It's just a one-lane exit ramp.

I guess it is IDiOT.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9089792,-87.9287183,3a,75y,125.15h,105.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sejc_jh3OdIwPYtmGej9Nfw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192