Erroneous road signs

[Rover_0]

With UDOT responding to my email about the erroneous "UT-89"/US-91 sign setup at the north end of UT-165 in Providence/South Logan, it's been fixed:


Compare to the old sign:


However, they said that the US-89 signs would be put up when it was ordered and delivered, implying a newer sign. The US-89 sign here, however, doesn't look so new.

[agentsteel53]

how long had that UT-89 sign been up in error?  the corresponding 91 is a '61 spec shield, which Utah stopped using sometime in the mid-90s or so.

[okroads]

I spotted a U.S. 19 error shield on northbound Lake Shore Drive (U.S. 41) today. It should be an IL 19 shield.

[Sanctimoniously]

I should've gotten a picture, but I saw a "US HWY 210" street blade on NC 210 near Surf City. It was a private installation for a subdivision.

[kphoger]

OK, this is not technically a sign, but.....

My wife and I were watching an old season of Storm Chasers on Netflix last night, and the chasers were in north-central Missouri.  I keep my atlas next to me during episodes so I can track their movements.  I asked where they were at one point and she said, "Interstate 63 in Missouri".  Sure enough, we backed up and read the caption on the screen.  Interstate 63 Missouri.  Good grief!  Someone had to specifically choose not to put Highway 63, and stick Interstate in there instead.  Grrrr....

[bassoon1986]

Didn't have a camera with me but I saw I shield for BUS US 380 where the Dallas North Tollway ends north of Frisco. I think the nearest BUS 380 route is in Decatur or Bridgeport

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

Another one from Louisiana; this one is a little less obvious at first glance:
Image snipped again

I'll defer to Urban Praire Schoner, pertaining to Louisiana signage and routing, but I believe there to be two sign errors at that intersection.

LA 30 NB ends at that intersection, LA 30 SB begins at Government and St. Phillip Streets, and the block of Government between the two ends is also considered LA 30.  (LA 73 simply ends at Government and St. Louis Streets.) Until 2000, LA 30 used to continue west and north along Gov't Street and River Road to Florida Street (US 61/190 BUS). This roadway (and LA 37 west of Airline Hwy) was turned back to the city at that time so that the state could assume maintenance of Bluebonnet Blvd (LA 1248). The LA 30 northern terminus is therefore a loop utilizing St. Louis-Goverment-St. Phillip Streets - as the signage reflects.

[PurdueBill]

Not sure where this really goes since it's not signage per se, but the designers of the graphics used on Gannett-owned TV stations must either be in Florida or associated with Florida?  If it's a toll road, it gets a Florida-style Toll shield, which looks way out of place in Ohio. 

http://www.wkyc.com/video/1575582980001/0/Woman-killed-in-Turnpike-bus-accident-identified-nine-hurt

And somehow I-90 even gets a "Toll 90" shield after it leaves the Ohio Turnpike.  Note that there are also both I-80 and "Toll 80" shields.

I've thought about complaining but it's probably something that came from ownership nationally, not locally, and they will say that they can not change it. I wish they would lose those wacky shields though.

No one around here refers to "Toll 80", "Toll 90", etc.....it's rare for me to even hear anyone refer to the Ohio Turnpike by any numbers at all.  It's just the Turnpike.

[Stratuscaster]

WFLD-TV Fox Channel 32 in Chicago uses those "FL-style" TOLL route shields on their map graphics as well.

My guess? It's a service supplying the graphics to whoever pays for it, and they just don't know any better.

[Anonymity Lane]

The graphics are generated by Denver-based Gannett Graphics Group (Denver is where KUSA, Gannett's flagship station, is), and much of the core package (at least how it looked back when it was introduced in the fall of 2008) was done by a New York City-based company named Pyburn Films.

Which would render the Florida shields' presence more bizarre (though Gannett owns three stations in the state).

[formulanone]

WFLD-TV Fox Channel 32 in Chicago uses those "FL-style" TOLL route shields on their map graphics as well.

My guess? It's a service supplying the graphics to whoever pays for it, and they just don't know any better.

We just need to go after your boring-square state route shields, and the conversion will be complete...as long as nobody from southwestern Illinois minds a section going missing.

[CentralCAroadgeek]

I just think the "TO" on this sign is placed on the wrong place. I think it is better to be placed between the 205 and 580 shield, so to say "205 TO 580."

However, I think this sign used to say "TO 580 | 205," just like the sign above, which I think is also weird. How would it be "TO" 205 if the exit is already 205?

[myosh_tino]

I just think the "TO" on this sign is placed on the wrong place. I think it is better to be placed between the 205 and 580 shield, so to say "205 TO 580."

While I agree the "TO" is in the wrong place, this advanced guide sign's layout matches the exit direction sign further upstream and the new exit direction sign is a carbon copy of the old sign that got replaced as part of the I-205 widening project.  Here's the old sign...


and here is new sign...


I would have preferred to see the I-205 exit sign laid out like this...


EDIT: There's another goof I just noticed.  The I-5 pull-through sign should have been widened to show 3 down arrows as there are 3 through lanes.

[connroadgeek]

Don't like signs indicating an exit without an exit tab. Why does CA do this? Exits should stand out above the rest of the information in some way whether by tab or horizontal line across the entire sign like Illinois. Also think the new left exit banner in the tabs is lame. Definitely grabs attention better the way it used to be.

[Scott5114]

Don't like signs indicating an exit without an exit tab. Why does CA do this? Exits should stand out above the rest of the information in some way whether by tab or horizontal line across the entire sign like Illinois. Also think the new left exit banner in the tabs is lame. Definitely grabs attention better the way it used to be.

They have some sort of bullshit rationale involving wind loading.

[myosh_tino]

Really?  Are we going to have this discussion AGAIN?!?!?  

[CentralCAroadgeek]

Not to seem biased,  but I actually like CA-style exit tabs.  Makes the sign look nice in my opinion and makes the gantry look consistent (in sign size).! It is also pretty distinctive.

[Scott5114]

Really?  Are we going to have this discussion again?!?!?   

Yeah, you're right, let's not.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3294.25

[wytout]

HOT off the sign presses.  Part of the new Signing project on CT -20 Bradley connector.  EB there have always been "TO - I91" signs separately of the CT-20 Reassurance Markers.  However now they've combined them in 1 assembly.  The problem is the Order.  The Assembly indicates it's TO 91 AND EAST 20.  when in fact it's EAST 20 TO 91.  The to and 91 shields should appear under the EAST 20 signs.


IMG_1933 by wytout, on Flickr

[Ian]

Erroneous US 140 (supposed to be NJ 140) on US 40 westbound in Deepwater, NJ

[PurdueBill]

I just think the "TO" on this sign is placed on the wrong place. I think it is better to be placed between the 205 and 580 shield, so to say "205 TO 580."

There is a long-standing erroneously-placed "TO" on a sign at Lowell St. and US 1 in Peabody, Mass.  All of the BGS at that interchange are strange oddballs, both on US 1 and on Lowell St.  The old sign in question was replaced in the very early 90s by the current weirdo, which does not include button copy in the I-shield as this was just before that really caught on.  The old sign was a classic, with even a state-name I-shield.  I-shields dominated at the interchange on Lowell St., with US 1 signed as "TO I-95" both north and southbound.  All were replaced in about 1990, and I only wish I had taken pictures.  (The old paddle signs were replaced with new ones that don't have shields, near the end of that before they started using shields instead of text on paddle signs.)  The new sign has the US 1 and I-95 shields tightly squeezed on either side of NORTH instead of on either side of TO.  Even my non-roadgeek brother noticed that was a mistake when they first erected the sign.  The current sign is somewhat visible in the Google Street View link above, but below is a cartoon of the old vs. existing signage.  I miss that old sign...having once lived less than 2 miles away from it when it was replaced, I saw it a lot and took it for granted.  The existing sign also has an oddly long arrow, while I remember that the old sign had a properly tapered and sized arrow.

(Note that the overheads on US 1 also have wacky arrows, and they even put a sign pointing down at a lane that doesn't yet exist for the exit.  Oddly low quality for then-MassHighway.)

[PHLBOS]

There is a long-standing erroneously-placed "TO" on a sign at Lowell St. and US 1 in Peabody, Mass.  All of the BGS at that interchange are strange oddballs, both on US 1 and on Lowell St.  The old sign in question was replaced in the very early 90s by the current weirdo, which does not include button copy in the I-shield as this was just before that really caught on.  The old sign was a classic, with even a state-name I-shield.  I-shields dominated at the interchange on Lowell St., with US 1 signed as "TO I-95" both north and southbound.  All were replaced in about 1990, and I only wish I had taken pictures.  (The old paddle signs were replaced with new ones that don't have shields, near the end of that before they started using shields instead of text on paddle signs.)  The new sign has the US 1 and I-95 shields tightly squeezed on either side of NORTH instead of on either side of TO.  Even my non-roadgeek brother noticed that was a mistake when they first erected the sign.  The current sign is somewhat visible in the Google Street View link above, but below is a cartoon of the old vs. existing signage.  I miss that old sign...having once lived less than 2 miles away from it when it was replaced, I saw it a lot and took it for granted.  The existing sign also has an oddly long arrow, while I remember that the old sign had a properly tapered and sized arrow.

(Note that the overheads on US 1 also have wacky arrows, and they even put a sign pointing down at a lane that doesn't yet exist for the exit.  Oddly low quality for then-MassHighway.)

The old sign actually was narrower than what's depicted above.  The US 1, TO & I-95 shields and lettering were spaced in such a way that it did not extend beyond the "NORTH" message.  The shields weren't that much larger than the "TO" lettering and the spacings between the "NORTH" letting were widerthan normal as well.

[PurdueBill]

The old sign actually was narrower than what's depicted above.  The US 1, TO & I-95 shields and lettering were spaced in such a way that it did not extend beyond the "NORTH" message.  The shields weren't that much larger than the "TO" lettering and the spacings between the "NORTH" letting were widerthan normal as well.

Yes, all of what you said.  It was the best "cartoon" I could conjure up from my memories and from my poor sign rendering skillz.  The shields on the old sign were smaller than is usual now, probably the sizes of shields for independent mounting, but it was getting to be too much to try to be accurate to what I thought might be false recollection. 

I'm just glad someone else remembers that sign!  (And as you probably recall, it had a counterpart facing EB traffic which was identical except for the arrow direction.)

I miss that old sign and hate the new one to this day for replacing it, especially with the errors.

[Quillz]

Erroneous US 140 (supposed to be NJ 140) on US 40 westbound in Deepwater, NJ

It always annoyed me that New Jersey keeps the black background behind the route shields on their BGS.

[on_wisconsin]

Bypass I-894 does not exist:
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n208/triplemultiplex/Mitchell%20Interchange%2018%20Nov%2011/IMG_1623.jpg?t=1321655212