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

[hbelkins]

I can't recall ever seeing a route marker without a directional banner on it, so it seems odd to give someone credit for using it...shouldn't they always be using it!?

Kentucky's District 3 (Bowling Green) is notorious for posting reassurance markers without directional banners.

[MNHighwayMan]

Interesting. I've mentioned before about this being rare in my area, so I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly. I can't recall ever seeing a route marker without a directional banner on it, so it seems odd to give someone credit for using it...shouldn't they always be using it!?

In an ideal world, yes, but I suspect for a lot of counties, not posting them is one way of saving a bit of dough on signage costs. Especially in large counties, like Itasca and St. Louis, where they have hundreds of numbered county roads (the latter has almost 1000 - I assume they didn't number this one CR-995 just because they liked the number! ), or for counties that have a lot of roads that zig-zag and don't primarily go along one directional axis.

[Eth]

I can't recall ever seeing a route marker without a directional banner on it, so it seems odd to give someone credit for using it...shouldn't they always be using it!?

Kentucky's District 3 (Bowling Green) is notorious for posting reassurance markers without directional banners.

I always used to call this practice "South Carolina style", because that was the only state where I ever saw it. More recently, I've seen it in a few places here in the Atlanta area, but it's still not common by any means.

(State highways in both cases, just to be clear; neither state has signed county roads, at least in the traditional sense.)

[Mapmikey]

Some counties in southeastern North Carolina also have bannerless primary route postings at intersections.

[odditude]

in NJ, 600-series county routes are more likely than not to be without directional banners.

[chays]

These are all over Downtown Orlando's residential neighborhoods.

[MNHighwayMan]

Maybe not terribly unusual, but Stearns CR-75, in the vicinity of St. Joseph, MN has these signs posted near a couple of bridges:



Also interesting, on that very same road, was this sign after crossing the St. Joseph city limits. People from Minnesota might recognize this sign, as they were posted for various qualifying cities across the state, but I thought pretty much all of them were taken down years ago. This one still exists, however.

[jakeroot]

I can't recall ever seeing a route marker without a directional banner on it, so it seems odd to give someone credit for using it...shouldn't they always be using it!?

Kentucky's District 3 (Bowling Green) is notorious for posting reassurance markers without directional banners.

I always used to call this practice "South Carolina style", because that was the only state where I ever saw it. More recently, I've seen it in a few places here in the Atlanta area, but it's still not common by any means.

(State highways in both cases, just to be clear; neither state has signed county roads, at least in the traditional sense.)

I'd like to clarify that I'm aware of other places not using directional banners (be it on a large or small scale). I was referring specifically to Washington in my comment above (post #3300), which makes a bit more sense when you include the first part of the quote that was cut out: "I've mentioned before about this being rare in my area, so I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly".

On second thought, never mind "rare". I'm not aware of any route shields without directional banners anywhere in Washington. Same for BC.

[TBKS1]

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.6686187,-82.1386719,3a,15y,132.32h,89.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc2kepJ4ImPA0cAj4jX7fTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I don't know why but I love this.

Post Edit: Here's another one that I found at the very, very end of the Dalton Highway in Northern Alaska https://www.google.com/maps/@70.2066984,-148.4396998,3a,15y,58.77h,88.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYoTK7kqAdoMyeJ-Wois-Tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[jakeroot]

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.6686187,-82.1386719,3a,15y,132.32h,89.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc2kepJ4ImPA0cAj4jX7fTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I don't know why but I love this.

I've seen this posted here before, but I can't remember when or where. I think we came to the conclusion that it wasn't enforceable. Or at least I did, since the colors are incorrect for a speed limit sign, and the design is incorrect for an advisory limit sign.

Post Edit: Here's another one that I found at the very, very end of the Dalton Highway in Northern Alaska https://www.google.com/maps/@70.2066984,-148.4396998,3a,15y,58.77h,88.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYoTK7kqAdoMyeJ-Wois-Tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That's taking the optional flourescent-yellow/green color to a new level (a non-permitted level, that is).

[MNHighwayMan]

Post Edit: Here's another one that I found at the very, very end of the Dalton Highway in Northern Alaska https://www.google.com/maps/@70.2066984,-148.4396998,3a,15y,58.77h,88.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYoTK7kqAdoMyeJ-Wois-Tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That's taking the optional flourescent-yellow/green color to a new level (a non-permitted level, that is).

I imagine it's that color for the purpose of standing out against snow.

[jakeroot]

Post Edit: Here's another one that I found at the very, very end of the Dalton Highway in Northern Alaska https://www.google.com/maps/@70.2066984,-148.4396998,3a,15y,58.77h,88.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYoTK7kqAdoMyeJ-Wois-Tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That's taking the optional flourescent-yellow/green color to a new level (a non-permitted level, that is).

I imagine it's that color for the purpose of standing out against snow.

Could be. I've proposed highway shields for Washington State with a similar color scheme for just that purpose:

Warning: Shameless Self Promotion ahead...

Made some additional modifications. Tightened up the top-side radii to make the cardinal direction and arrows look less ridiculous...

[Tom958]

New APL, Georgian in its level of screwed-uppedness, though I think that even GDOT hasn't made this particular mistake.This is very recent- - it's a still from the last of FreewayJim's new Birmingham videos. This APL replaces a fondly-regarded slatted installation with an outdated (but arguably easier to understand) design. The linked Streetview is from July 2016: the latest, from April 2017, shows no overhead at all. 



The plot thickens: codyg1985 supplied this from the plans he'd downloaded. Correctly designed, incorrectly implemented. WTF? 

[MNHighwayMan]

Could be. I've proposed highway shields for Washington State with a similar color scheme for just that purpose:

Warning: Shameless Self Promotion ahead...

[image quote snipped]

I really like that middle one. I do wish that more states would experiment with non-square/rectangular shields–that would allow for a ton more variety between states. But, as with all cool ideas, it comes down to cost...

[cjk374]

New APL, Georgian in its level of screwed-uppedness, though I think that even GDOT hasn't made this particular mistake.This is very recent- - it's a still from url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qgWNfnvjtU]the last of FreewayJim's new Birmingham videos[/url]. This APL replaces a fondly-regarded slatted installation with an outdated (but arguably easier to understand) design. The linked Streetview is from July 2016: the latest, from April 2017, shows no overhead at all. 



The plot thickens: codyg1985 supplied this from the plans he'd downloaded. Correctly designed, incorrectly implemented. WTF? 

That is a lot of wasted metal & materials. The old slotted signs had it right the first time.

[wanderer2575]

New APL, Georgian in its level of screwed-uppedness, though I think that even GDOT hasn't made this particular mistake.This is very recent- - it's a still from url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qgWNfnvjtU]the last of FreewayJim's new Birmingham videos[/url]. This APL replaces a fondly-regarded slatted installation with an outdated (but arguably easier to understand) design. The linked Streetview is from July 2016: the latest, from April 2017, shows no overhead at all. 

Okay, I'll bite -- what's technically "screwed up" with this?  It appears there's no option lane for the left exit, so why is it a mistake for it to be on a separate sign?  (Plans and readability aside.)

[Eth]

I'm gonna go with "someone at ALDOT realized the originally-designed version was so big it would kill a dozen people if it fell for any reason" and chose this as a compromise. Not that this is much better.

[MNHighwayMan]

I'm gonna go with "someone at ALDOT realized the originally-designed version was so big it would kill a dozen people if it fell for any reason" and chose this as a compromise. Not that this is much better.

I'm pretty sure that's still true even for the slightly reduced main panel.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm gonna go with "someone at ALDOT realized the originally-designed version was so big it would kill a dozen people if it fell for any reason" and chose this as a compromise. Not that this is much better.

I don't think the killability of a sign or structure is taken into account.  They design it to not fall in the first place.

[roadfro]

New APL, Georgian in its level of screwed-uppedness, though I think that even GDOT hasn't made this particular mistake.This is very recent- - it's a still from url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qgWNfnvjtU]the last of FreewayJim's new Birmingham videos[/url]. This APL replaces a fondly-regarded slatted installation with an outdated (but arguably easier to understand) design. The linked Streetview is from July 2016: the latest, from April 2017, shows no overhead at all. 



The plot thickens: codyg1985 supplied this from the plans he'd downloaded. Correctly designed, incorrectly implemented. WTF? 

Interesting that the plan spec doesn't show the destination name letter heights correctly, but it was done correctly on the actual sign.

What's really surprising to me is that neither of these puts the I-20 and I-59 shields on the same line, despite there being plenty of space to do so. It would have saved at least 120 square feet of unnecessary material area on the big panel.

[cjk374]

Interesting that the plan spec doesn't show the destination name letter heights correctly, but it was done correctly on the actual sign.

What's really surprising to me is that neither of these puts the I-20 and I-59 shields on the same line, despite there being plenty of space to do so. It would have saved at least 120 square feet of unnecessary material area on the big panel.

Exactly what I was thinking. Is it a MUTCD no-no to do that with the shields?

[jakeroot]

New APL, Georgian in its level of screwed-uppedness, though I think that even GDOT hasn't made this particular mistake.This is very recent...

https://i.imgur.com/VTk843z.png?1

The height is absurd, given that the 20/59 shields could be placed next to each other (as pointed out above by roadfro), but I think it's important to give ALDOT some credit here. The left exit could have been part of the sign, as the plan specs indicated. But ALDOT went a step further and made it into it's own sign, and I think that's actually a brilliant move. I wish that was standard practice. There's no reason it needed to be part of the larger APL. The sign would be better if the left and right panels were the same height, but it's a step in the right direction. Although also a step back putting the shields on top of each other.

Is it a MUTCD no-no to [put shields next to each other]?

Definitely not. I see it all the time. I think it's more common for the cardinal direction to be placed over the shield in those instances, but I'm sure I've seen signs where it was [shield][cardinal_direction][gap][shield][cardinal_direction].

[Big John]

That APL sign appears to be in Alabama by Birmingham. Can't blame GDOT for that one.

[adventurernumber1]

That APL sign appears to be in Alabama by Birmingham. Can't blame GDOT for that one.

I think he meant it was just similar to a lot of mistakes that GDOT has made on its signs, and that he was surprised Georgia had not made that particular mistake, but not that those actual signs in the picture were in Georgia.

[TBKS1]

This arrow seems... a little bit big. I guess that's a good thing.



Large Arrow by TheInstrumentalist, on Flickr