Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs aka The good, the bad, and the ugly

[LilianaUwU]

Holy recycling, Batman.

[Big John]

Inactive thread for this: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7203.0

[Amaury]

While not wrong, on WA 20 eastbound before the junction with WA 153 southbound, this sign doesn't make sense to me: https://goo.gl/maps/68MLT8ChcMe53rKn9 Both ways take you to US 97, and, regardless of which way to take, you have access to both northbound and southbound US 97, so I don't know why that sign says northbound US 97 via WA 20 eastbound and southbound US 97 via WA 153 southbound. If it were me, I would probably just remove that sign and modify the sign farther up and have WA 153 South TO US 97 and WA 20 East TO US 97. Like what is done here in Quincy and other places: https://goo.gl/maps/nqRWptLBYbX9gvQs6

[FrCorySticha]

While not 100% wrong, on WA 20 eastbound before the junction with WA 153 southbound, this sign makes no sense: https://goo.gl/maps/68MLT8ChcMe53rKn9 Both ways take you to US 97, and, regardless of which way to take, you have access to both northbound and southbound US 97, so I don't know why that sign says northbound US 97 via WA 20 eastbound and southbound US 97 via WA 153 southbound. If it were me, I would probably just remove that sign and modify the sign farther up and have WA 153 South TO US 97 and WA 20 East TO US 97. Like what is done here in Quincy and other places: https://goo.gl/maps/nqRWptLBYbX9gvQs6

If you're using WA 20 to get to Wenatchee from Bellingham (for example), it does make perfect sense. It's really no different than this sign outside of George, WA, except for distance from the highway: https://goo.gl/maps/NMhKrUhnCSdNGsiX9 Both ways allow you to go east or west on I-90, but one is just a bit more direct than the other. In the case of US 97, taking WA 153 to go south is much shorter than WA 20, and vice versa heading north of WA 20 on US 97. The only situation where you might want to ignore the sign is if your destination is on US 97 between WA 20 and WA 153.

[Amaury]

Coincidentally, I actually brought up that example earlier in this thread here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11045.msg2856870#msg2856870

For me personally, the one with I-90 via WA 281 is a little more problematic than the US 97 via WA 20 or 153 example I just provided earlier. Since interstates are controlled-access highways with a barrier or median dividing them, that sign makes it seem like there is only access to westbound I-90 by continuing straight on WA 281 or only access to eastbound I-90 by turning left and taking WA 281 Spur, which is not the case at all since both ways have entrance ramps for both directions.

There are cases where there are only entrance or exit ramps for one direction, but not the other (or both). For example, Exit 52 on I-90 on Snoqualmie Pass here in Washington. Exit 52 only exists for the eastbound side. There is no Exit 52 for the westbound side. Likewise, at that same place, there is a westbound entrance ramp in that same location, but there is no eastbound entrance ramp. If you want to get back on the freeway after taking Exit 52 on eastbound I-90 and continue east, you'll need to take WA 906 eastbound down to the Exit 53 area and take the eastbound entrance ramp there. Vice-versa, if you want to be in the Exit 52 area while going westbound on I-90, you'll need take Exit 53 from westbound I-90 and take WA 906 westbound up to that area.

[kkt]

I'm not familiar with the area, obviously, but is it also supposed to be Mundy's Corner? (The apostrophe.)

It is Mundys Corner.  The US Board of Geographical Names does not like apostrophes and permits very few exceptions (Martha's Vineyard is one of them).

Which is dumb. Theres no reason to omit apostrophes. Why was this apostrophe ban even implemented anyways?

Yes.  Just because the U.S. Board of Geographic Names is going to ignore the rules that the rest of the English-speaking world follows is no reason for me or anyone else to do so too.

[FrCorySticha]

For me personally, the one with I-90 via WA 281 is a little more problematic than the US 97 via WA 20 or 153 example I just provided earlier. Since interstates are controlled-access highways with a barrier or median dividing them, that sign makes it seem like there is only access to westbound I-90 by continuing straight on WA 281 or only access to eastbound I-90 by turning left and taking WA 281 Spur, which is not the case at all since both ways have entrance ramps for both directions.

This situation is fairly common, and signs like this are very helpful to the motorist. There are plenty of circumstances where you have 2 ways to get to the same highway, and one way is shorter for the direction of travel you want to go. A guide sign (not regulatory) is perfect to show the driver that turning will take you one direction, while going straight will take you the other way.

Montana generally doesn't use the highway shield signage to convey this information, but rather control cities. This is a good example in Big Timber, MT: https://goo.gl/maps/pPEWNQetgY4WYuhV6 Either route will take you to Billings via I-90, and either route will take you to Livingston via I-90, but neither route is only Billings or only Livingston. This sign could just as easily be replaced with the sign in George, WA, and convey the same information.

I disagree that these signs imply "only", as they are guide signs that show the best route. Regardless whether the exit is full access or one direction, make this turn to go this direction. Pretty simple, straight forward. If anything, it makes it easier for the motorist to understand which way to go without worrying about if they can go both ways. I'd argue just "To I-90" or "To US 97" pointing both directions would make things more confusing for the motorist.

There are cases where there are only entrance or exit ramps for one direction, but not the other (or both). For example, Exit 52 on I-90 on Snoqualmie Pass here in Washington. Exit 52 only exists for the eastbound side. There is no Exit 52 for the westbound side. Likewise, at that same place, there is a westbound entrance ramp in that same location, but there is no eastbound entrance ramp. If you want to get back on the freeway after taking Exit 52 on eastbound I-90 and continue east, you'll need to take WA 906 eastbound down to the Exit 53 area and take the eastbound entrance ramp there. Vice-versa, if you want to be in the Exit 52 area while going westbound on I-90, you'll need take Exit 53 from westbound I-90 and take WA 906 westbound up to that area.

If anything, this refutes your argument. WSDOT could put up a sign in front of the Snoqualmie Pass rest area that has "To West I-90" pointing towards exit 52 and "To East I-90" pointing towards exit 53. It doesn't matter if exit 53 has both eastbound and westbound entrances to I-90, just that it's best to head west towards exit 52 to continue westbound and east towards exit 53 to continue eastbound. If you're heading westbound, and there's an exit that heads your direction, does it really matter to you as a motorist that the exit behind you which would add some distance (whether a mile or 30 miles) can also be used?

[Rothman]

While not 100% wrong, on WA 20 eastbound before the junction with WA 153 southbound, this sign makes no sense: https://goo.gl/maps/68MLT8ChcMe53rKn9 Both ways take you to US 97, and, regardless of which way to take, you have access to both northbound and southbound US 97, so I don't know why that sign says northbound US 97 via WA 20 eastbound and southbound US 97 via WA 153 southbound. If it were me, I would probably just remove that sign and modify the sign farther up and have WA 153 South TO US 97 and WA 20 East TO US 97. Like what is done here in Quincy and other places: https://goo.gl/maps/nqRWptLBYbX9gvQs6

If you're using WA 20 to get to Wenatchee from Bellingham (for example), it does make perfect sense. It's really no different than this sign outside of George, WA, except for distance from the highway: https://goo.gl/maps/NMhKrUhnCSdNGsiX9 Both ways allow you to go east or west on I-90, but one is just a bit more direct than the other. In the case of US 97, taking WA 153 to go south is much shorter than WA 20, and vice versa heading north of WA 20 on US 97. The only situation where you might want to ignore the sign is if your destination is on US 97 between WA 20 and WA 153.

^This.  I don't see the issue.

[J N Winkler]

I can see one potential issue:  there is a population of drivers that will prefer driving additional miles in order to make the connection via an itinerary that is (1) simpler or (2) has a higher proportion of access-controlled roadway.  These considerations matter much less in deep rural locations such as the Washington examples cited, but they come into play at urban locations in California such as the north end of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, where Caltrans encourages drivers to connect from northbound US 101 to southbound I-580 using Sir Francis Drake Blvd. (a surface road with traffic lights) rather than the direct ramp between the two freeways.

[Rothman]

Might have been mentioned before somewhere, but this gem's in the Ontario Service Plaza on the Thruway:

Ontario Travel Plaza

[74/171FAN]

On US 15 NB in Dillsburg, PA.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/EeiqaWZnLo8AkS2RA
US 74 ALT is ignored here.

I can see it being a bannered route and to avoid sine salad on overheads, but it was once mainline US 74and it makes me wonder if NCDOT ignored US 74 then like Tennessee still does for that particular route.

[machias]

Might have been mentioned before somewhere, but this gem's in the Ontario Service Plaza on the Thruway:

Ontario Travel Plaza

I feel like that I-56 sign used to be an I-787 sign modified with the magic of photoshop.

[ClassicHasClass]

Why 56?

[Bobby5280]

Why did they set the "56" in Futura Condensed? And do so on a 3-digit Interstate shield?

[formulanone]

Why did they set the "56" in Futura Condensed? And do so on a 3-digit Interstate shield?

Because they thought "well, fifty people will care, but a million others will not" and so they took the path of least resistance instead of downloading another font. Amazingly, they got the state name in there for a place that's all but deprecated it.

[Jim]

And it's hours away from US 9.

[vdeane]

Why did they set the "56" in Futura Condensed? And do so on a 3-digit Interstate shield?

Because they thought "well, fifty people will care, but a million others will not" and so they took the path of least resistance instead of downloading another font. Amazingly, they got the state name in there for a place that's all but deprecated it.

I'm with machias.  That "I-56" shield is probably a photoshoped I-787 shield.  In fact, I'll take it a step farther and say that it's probably a photoshoped version of this specific I-787 shield.

[jakeroot]

Why did they set the "56" in Futura Condensed? And do so on a 3-digit Interstate shield?

Because they thought "well, fifty people will care, but a million others will not" and so they took the path of least resistance instead of downloading another font. Amazingly, they got the state name in there for a place that's all but deprecated it.

I'm with machias.  That "I-56" shield is probably a photoshoped I-787 shield.  In fact, I'll take it a step farther and say that it's probably a photoshoped version of this specific I-787 shield.

Well found, that lines up exactly. Including the faded effect on the right edge of the US-9 shield, and the slightly tilted directional banners.

[ClassicHasClass]

In Albany, no less. Someone probably just walked down the street and took a picture.

[74/171FAN]

I wonder if this SR 716 shield in Damascus, VA, is still there. 

[Amaury]

Moses Lake, Washington, is so cool that you enter it twice on Interstate 90 westbound.

Just after milepost 180, just before Exit 179: https://goo.gl/maps/sJYM64JVZeYv4yCr7
After milepost 177, just before Exit 176: https://goo.gl/maps/CHm78Nyxx7ShmELw9

[jakeroot]

Moses Lake, Washington, is so cool that you enter it twice on Interstate 90 westbound.

Just after milepost 180, just before Exit 179: https://goo.gl/maps/sJYM64JVZeYv4yCr7
After milepost 177, just before Exit 176: https://goo.gl/maps/CHm78Nyxx7ShmELw9

There is something very...unofficial...about that first example.

[Amaury]

Correction: It's Interstate 90 westbound. Westbound, not eastbound. My bad.

[Streetman]

These two signs don't belong on the same post.

(Sometime after I took the picture the "bus stop" sign was removed.)