Roadgeek annoyments

[index]

Inspired by TheHighwayMan394's post. Searching "annoying" and checking the first five pages reveals nothing for this topic, similar searches yielded similar results, so here I go...


What are some of the most annoying things you've experienced as a roadgeek? Or other parts of roadgeeking, or being a roadgeek, in general that are just annoying, frustrating, et cetera... One thing that particularly bugs me is getting a GSV blocked by a truck and there not being any historical GSVs of that location available.  Getting teasted by GSV not being available for a location or find that looks potentially interesting or unavailable GSV for a real-life find is also rather annoying...

[Rothman]

Bad signage.  I-495 WB at MD 5 / Branch Ave is a good example of bad signage.

Poor MPT for construction.  On the recent MassPike work west of the exit for Lee, EB, the merge signage was after the merge and lane markings were indecipherable.

[webny99]

This is barely different than "roadgeek disappointments". Searching a for single word and coming up empty-handed doesn't mean there hasn't been related discussion; the forum's search function doesn't work that way. You need to search multiple combinations of multiple words before you can conclude anything about past discussion.

So, yeah, basically half of the threads on the entire forum are the result of someone being annoyed about something, even if the poster didn't use the word "annoying" (actually "annoyed" would be the more likely tense anyways).

[jon daly]

Annoyances is the proper term, but if the discussion was over two months ago, it seems like the powers that be want you to have a very good reason for bumping the topic.

I think there's a distinction between annoyance and a disappointment. I'm not a big road photographer, but I can see someone looking to document a sign BITD and then realizing there was no film in the camera or they left their lenscap. That's a disappointment. Heavy traffic on the way to the sign would be an annoyance.

[Max Rockatansky]

I wouldn't exactly say this is an "annoying" aspect of roadgeeking but something that I kind of find slightly puzzling given that this is generally a road borne hobby.  A observation I've had in the years I've been on this forum and others is that a great percentage of the folks in the hobby are way more into things like signage standards, grid perfect numbering conventions, and modern freeway projects.  It just seems someone contrarian that the hobby doesn't have more of a lean towards things like scenic drives, the adventure aspect of road travel, or even the aspect of historical routings/highway history.

For me the best times I've had on the road have been either driving somewhere really scenic or chasing down something like an abandoned US Route alignment.  A lot of my other hobbies tend to lean towards things like hiking, finding ghost towns, finding historical infrastructure, or even stuff that is rail related.  Personally I tend to find most freeways (especially the overwhelming majority of the Interstate System) to be incredibly boring and generic to what came before it.  Generally I'll go out of my way to take a route that is substantially more time consuming in the interest of having a more interesting drive. 

Granted, I collect signs and generally at least check major new projects like I-11 or the West Side Parkway in California...I guess it's just a different flavor for everyone.

Also it seems like dirt/gravel roads or off-highway travel hardly ever comes up in the roadgeek hobby.  Conservely the crowd that frequents that sort of travel hardly is ever interested in anything road related I've found.

[jon daly]

"It just seems someone contrarian that the hobby doesn't have more of a lean towards things like scenic drives, the adventure aspect of road travel, or even the aspect of historical routings/highway history. "

Before I knew there was such a term as roadgeekery, I'd drive all over Conn. and western Mass.; mainly on state highways which weren't limited access. The site that made me realize that I wasn't the only one into roads was kurumi.com and my favorite part of it was the history of Connecticut roads. Why there aren't more here like me and you, I do not know. I know there are some RMCA members here and sparker is into maps. That's another part of the hobby and I'm surprised that there isn't more discussion on roadmaps. Maybe there isn't much to say about them.

[jon daly]

WRT to unimproved roads, I'd like to learn more about the New London Turnpike in RI. It is a beeline and I'm not sure why RI-3 wasn't routed on it.

[Max Rockatansky]

"It just seems someone contrarian that the hobby doesn't have more of a lean towards things like scenic drives, the adventure aspect of road travel, or even the aspect of historical routings/highway history. "

Before I knew there was such a term as roadgeekery, I'd drive all over Conn. and western Mass.; mainly on state highways which weren't limited access. The site that made me realize that I wasn't the only one into roads was kurumi.com and my favorite part of it was the history of Connecticut roads. Why there aren't more here like me and you, I do not know. I know there are some RMCA members here and sparker is into maps. That's another part of the hobby and I'm surprised that there isn't more discussion on roadmaps. Maybe there isn't much to say about them.

Ironically enough Sparker is one of the more common members I interact here in regards to map discussions given we're both out in California.  We had a lot of discussion going back on Pacific Southwest about a year ago but a lot of members joined and just fell off the grid.  Really it was too bad, it was a lot of fun tossing stuff out there to see who had a different source or just information that I didn't have and/or was looking for.  Fortunately as far as California stuff goes there is a lot of map discussion on the California Historic Highways and California History Facebook pages.  To that end I haven't found too many outlets on the Facebook groups for map and history discussion regarding other states. 

Granted I'm well aware that Adam, Doug, in addition to myself discuss highway history all the time for all sorts of states on the Gribblenation Facebook page.

[Bruce]

Coming across documents, maps, and newspaper articles pertaining to certain highways but are totally unavailable online or at a nearby library. Or worse, ones that are digitized but behind a paywall.

[Scott5114]

I wouldn't exactly say this is an "annoying" aspect of roadgeeking but something that I kind of find slightly puzzling given that this is generally a road borne hobby.  A observation I've had in the years I've been on this forum and others is that a great percentage of the folks in the hobby are way more into things like signage standards, grid perfect numbering conventions, and modern freeway projects.  It just seems someone contrarian that the hobby doesn't have more of a lean towards things like scenic drives, the adventure aspect of road travel, or even the aspect of historical routings/highway history.

For me the best times I've had on the road have been either driving somewhere really scenic or chasing down something like an abandoned US Route alignment.  A lot of my other hobbies tend to lean towards things like hiking, finding ghost towns, finding historical infrastructure, or even stuff that is rail related.  Personally I tend to find most freeways (especially the overwhelming majority of the Interstate System) to be incredibly boring and generic to what came before it.  Generally I'll go out of my way to take a route that is substantially more time consuming in the interest of having a more interesting drive.

That's because that's the easiest thing to talk about. Scenic drives and alignment hunting is really, really fun, but it's something you really have to do and not write about on a road forum. If you go on a successful, really fun trip, what is there to say about it other than "I had a good time?" Unless something unusual happens or you find a really cool sign or bridge that nobody knew about, but then you're posting about that instead of your trip.

Signs are interesting to roadgeeks because they're the "voice" of a road. Any two paved roads will look more or less the same unless they have a shield or a distance sign next to them. Signs are what give a road context.

You'll find more of the adventuring kind of stuff in the Travel board than General Highway Talk.

The roadgeek community is not so big, but there are different niches in it. Hang out in #wikipedia-en-roads sometime, and you'll find the roadgeeks that are most excited about digging up where and when highways were realigned. Many of them don't travel at all, they just get their road kicks from poring over PDF scans of 1962 state DOT maps.

Also it seems like dirt/gravel roads or off-highway travel hardly ever comes up in the roadgeek hobby.  Conservely the crowd that frequents that sort of travel hardly is ever interested in anything road related I've found.

Probably because most interesting things that are road-related are going to show up on the state highways (apart from the more creative interpretations of road standards by county road departments). States just have bigger budgets to do interesting infrastructure with. Anyone who chooses a gravel road over a highway is probably doing it for the scenery, which is a valid reason to make that choice, but it's not really 'road-related'; after all, looking at scenery means you're looking away from the road!

[US71]

Perfectly good bridges replaced simply because they are "old". 

[jon daly]

"Signs are what give a road context. "

I agree, but I'm surprised at how much more emphasis there is on green signs (which, admittedly, are more important,) than other visible signage landmarks such as



or



or




There are some exits that I identify by those or similar landmarks instead of exit numbers; probably because that's how I drive surface streets. I don't find the blades very helpful.

[Beltway]

Traffic signals.

[english si]

One thing that particularly bugs me is getting a GSV blocked by a truck and there not being any historical GSVs of that location available.

Also bad is only historical GSVs available, especially when it's the low-def stuff that you can barely read signs from.

Getting teasted by GSV not being available for a location or find that looks potentially interesting or unavailable GSV for a real-life find is also rather annoying...

Worst tease is looking for a sign, seeing the back of it in recentish GMSV, then move to see the front and then the imagery is from 2011 or something, before the sign was put up.

I've moved forward (on a bit without junction at that point) on an upgraded road from 2017 to get closer to a sign I wanted to read what it said, an then jumped back to 2009 when the sign didn't exist. Makes alignment hunting for routes (eg Historic US routes / scenic / tourist routes for travelmapping) sometimes really annoying to do from behind a screen.

Any two paved roads will look more or less the same unless they have a shield or a distance sign next to them. Signs are what give a road context.

You haven't seen Truvelo do a "where am I?" quiz (where signs are either blurred, or not in the picture, else it would be too easy)! He's usually explicitly not allowed to answer in public to give others a chance. He got one I posted from Pasadena, CA by the sun position, foilage, and the Whole Foods in the background, within 5 minutes (and it took him about 2 from seeing it)!

The longest I've seen a WAI quiz that wasn't a joke one deliberately designed to be impossible last on SABRE without being solved by someone (other than Truvelo) is about two days - because even generic paved roads still have clues around them as to where they are.

Stuff like horizontal and vertical alignment, the landscape around (climate, hilliness, usage) and amount of traffic, also give roads context.

[bugo]

The way some road enthusiasts have been treated by "leaders" of the hobby. They have had their names run into the ground and crucified for daring to have different opinions.

[Max Rockatansky]

I wouldn't exactly say this is an "annoying" aspect of roadgeeking but something that I kind of find slightly puzzling given that this is generally a road borne hobby.  A observation I've had in the years I've been on this forum and others is that a great percentage of the folks in the hobby are way more into things like signage standards, grid perfect numbering conventions, and modern freeway projects.  It just seems someone contrarian that the hobby doesn't have more of a lean towards things like scenic drives, the adventure aspect of road travel, or even the aspect of historical routings/highway history.

For me the best times I've had on the road have been either driving somewhere really scenic or chasing down something like an abandoned US Route alignment.  A lot of my other hobbies tend to lean towards things like hiking, finding ghost towns, finding historical infrastructure, or even stuff that is rail related.  Personally I tend to find most freeways (especially the overwhelming majority of the Interstate System) to be incredibly boring and generic to what came before it.  Generally I'll go out of my way to take a route that is substantially more time consuming in the interest of having a more interesting drive.

That's because that's the easiest thing to talk about. Scenic drives and alignment hunting is really, really fun, but it's something you really have to do and not write about on a road forum. If you go on a successful, really fun trip, what is there to say about it other than "I had a good time?" Unless something unusual happens or you find a really cool sign or bridge that nobody knew about, but then you're posting about that instead of your trip.

Signs are interesting to roadgeeks because they're the "voice" of a road. Any two paved roads will look more or less the same unless they have a shield or a distance sign next to them. Signs are what give a road context.

You'll find more of the adventuring kind of stuff in the Travel board than General Highway Talk.

The roadgeek community is not so big, but there are different niches in it. Hang out in #wikipedia-en-roads sometime, and you'll find the roadgeeks that are most excited about digging up where and when highways were realigned. Many of them don't travel at all, they just get their road kicks from poring over PDF scans of 1962 state DOT maps.

Also it seems like dirt/gravel roads or off-highway travel hardly ever comes up in the roadgeek hobby.  Conservely the crowd that frequents that sort of travel hardly is ever interested in anything road related I've found.

Probably because most interesting things that are road-related are going to show up on the state highways (apart from the more creative interpretations of road standards by county road departments). States just have bigger budgets to do interesting infrastructure with. Anyone who chooses a gravel road over a highway is probably doing it for the scenery, which is a valid reason to make that choice, but it's not really 'road-related'; after all, looking at scenery means you're looking away from the road!

My travels I've typically found that signage outside of limited access hasn't been really what makes the road.  The flip side (at least) for me is that it's hard to find anything to say about a road that conforms to limited access unless it's there is some sort historical context.  The trouble then with limited access driving is that it by design is meant to separate you from anything but the grade at hand, hence removal from historical context.  The back side to it then is that unless you want do a lot of reading and map research there isn't much to see/do.

That said there are ocassional exceptions like the Alaskan Way Viaduct which have such unique designs that they are an attraction that draws interest just from that alone.  What I've found myself talking about mostly over the years is surface highways of all variations.  Generally you're still right in the middle of what makes the road purposeful and generally the context of what put it there to begin with.  The reason I take road photos as opposed to videos is that it almost impossibly to illustrate things like; communities, important buildings, structures, historic markers, railroads, and all the other things that went into why a roadway exists.

To that end I do find enjoyment in signage and found that it has accentuated the way I take road albums in addition to how I write road blogs.  That said, I always felt as those I had plenty to say or capture my interest before I put an emphasis on signage.  I guess it comes down to tastes and what is interesting for the individual. 

Interestingly regarding your observation about how a great many who do map and alignment research don't travel I always found that kind of odd.  For me it's hard to fully understand the context of what I see on a map unless I somehow interact with it first hand.  To that end there almost always ends up being something that I find among roadways that can't be spotted on the GSV or even a through search on the net. 

[hbelkins]

The way some road enthusiasts have been treated by "leaders" of the hobby. They have had their names run into the ground and crucified for daring to have different opinions.

Are you speaking of road-related things, or other subjects? Because if it's the latter, you're certainly among the majority of political thought in this hobby.

[jon daly]

Rereading Scott5114's post:

"You'll find more of the adventuring kind of stuff in the Travel board than General Highway Talk."

I recently posted a thread about a trip on CT/MA/NH-32 in the Northeast Regional Board. Would it have fit better in Travel? I'm still fuzzy on some AARoads norms.

Also, people still use IRC?

[Beltway]

The way some road enthusiasts have been treated by "leaders" of the hobby. They have had their names run into the ground and crucified for daring to have different opinions.

Are you speaking of road-related things, or other subjects? Because if it's the latter, you're certainly among the majority of political thought in this hobby.

The majority of those who openly promote it, perhaps...

[bugo]

The way some road enthusiasts have been treated by "leaders" of the hobby. They have had their names run into the ground and crucified for daring to have different opinions.

Are you speaking of road-related things, or other subjects? Because if it's the latter, you're certainly among the majority of political thought in this hobby.

Either/or. Or both.

[hbelkins]

The way some road enthusiasts have been treated by "leaders" of the hobby. They have had their names run into the ground and crucified for daring to have different opinions.

Are you speaking of road-related things, or other subjects? Because if it's the latter, you're certainly among the majority of political thought in this hobby.

Either/or. Or both.

I've always considered you to be one of the seminal individuals and leaders in this hobby. I'd hate to start naming names, because I'd leave someone out unintentionally, but to me, any list of seminal (or any other synonym one might prefer) roadgeeks (or any other synonym you might prefer) would have you high on the list.

[Henry]

When you think you've clinched an entire road, but then realize that a new section is being built. (I-69 and I-74 come to mind)

[silverback1065]

urban highways being terribly signed.

california in general has the worst freeway signage i've ever seen.

[kurumi]

A lot of good historical information is available in hardcopy only, in an archive 3,000 miles away

[Interstate Trav]

Playing American Truck Simulator and being annoyed at the wrong Control Cities in California, and bad representation of the freeways of Los Angeles.  Wanting to redesign it myself.

Still getting annoyed that the SR 210 isn't just signed as I-210 and that I-210 East doesnt list Palm Springs or Indio as a Control City