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

[jakeroot]

I didn't mind the old sign, but the new one just doesn't seem right to me.

...

What exactly do you find not right about it? It seems fine to me.

Please don't respond with "I don't know". There has to be something. Shield too small? Text too big? Narrow it down, please.

[ipeters61]

I didn't mind the old sign, but the new one just doesn't seem right to me.

...

What exactly do you find not right about it? It seems fine to me.

Please don't respond with "I don't know". There has to be something. Shield too small? Text too big? Narrow it down, please.

Sorry I'm not being specific, I was staring at it for a while to get what just didn't feel right.  The "476" feels like it's too small (I know in some states, like CT and MD, smaller fonts are shown on older shields - using Steve Alpert's photos) and the "Interstate" on the shield feels too wide.

[jakeroot]

I didn't mind the old sign, but the new one just doesn't seem right to me.

...

What exactly do you find not right about it? It seems fine to me.

Please don't respond with "I don't know". There has to be something. Shield too small? Text too big? Narrow it down, please.

Sorry I'm not being specific, I was staring at it for a while to get what just didn't feel right.  The "476" feels like it's too small (I know in some states, like CT and MD, smaller fonts are shown on older shields - using Steve Alpert's photos) and the "Interstate" on the shield feels too wide.

I see; thanks.

The 3di shield is supposed to have a wider "INTERSTATE" than the 2di shield, but they often don't for whatever reason. The first sign actually has a design error in that the "interstate" text is too narrow.

I personally prefer the newer sign's shield, as it has more blue area around the route number. I hate when the route number is pushed to the borders of the shield, as it starts to blend in with the border, and makes the numbers less recognizable and/or readable from a distance.

[ipeters61]

I didn't mind the old sign, but the new one just doesn't seem right to me.

...

What exactly do you find not right about it? It seems fine to me.

Please don't respond with "I don't know". There has to be something. Shield too small? Text too big? Narrow it down, please.

Sorry I'm not being specific, I was staring at it for a while to get what just didn't feel right.  The "476" feels like it's too small (I know in some states, like CT and MD, smaller fonts are shown on older shields - using Steve Alpert's photos) and the "Interstate" on the shield feels too wide.

I see; thanks.

The 3di shield is supposed to have a wider "INTERSTATE" than the 2di shield, but they often don't for whatever reason. The first sign actually has a design error in that the "interstate" text is too narrow.

I personally prefer the newer sign's shield, as it has more blue area around the route number. I hate when the route number is pushed to the borders of the shield, as it starts to blend in with the border, and makes the numbers less recognizable and/or readable from a distance.

I understand why there is a wider "Interstate" on 3di shields, but it doesn't feel right seeing it like that.  Granted, I also really don't like wide fonts.  Maybe if it was written like "I N T E R S T A T E" I'd be a bit more comfortable (with slightly less dramatic spacing).

I agree that the numbers/text should have a margin around it, but at the same time that shield just seems to have too much blue space.  Part of it could be my desire to write "Pennsylvania" on the top part of the blue.  I wish state-name Interstate shields were still being made widely...

[paulthemapguy]

There's something kind of offputting about this sign:

The control city text looks to be too large.  Either that, or the content at the top is too small or cramped.

[jakeroot]

I didn't mind the old sign, but the new one just doesn't seem right to me.

...

What exactly do you find not right about it? It seems fine to me.

Please don't respond with "I don't know". There has to be something. Shield too small? Text too big? Narrow it down, please.

Sorry I'm not being specific, I was staring at it for a while to get what just didn't feel right.  The "476" feels like it's too small (I know in some states, like CT and MD, smaller fonts are shown on older shields - using Steve Alpert's photos) and the "Interstate" on the shield feels too wide.

I see; thanks.

The 3di shield is supposed to have a wider "INTERSTATE" than the 2di shield, but they often don't for whatever reason. The first sign actually has a design error in that the "interstate" text is too narrow.

I personally prefer the newer sign's shield, as it has more blue area around the route number. I hate when the route number is pushed to the borders of the shield, as it starts to blend in with the border, and makes the numbers less recognizable and/or readable from a distance.

I understand why there is a wider "Interstate" on 3di shields, but it doesn't feel right seeing it like that.  Granted, I also really don't like wide fonts.  Maybe if it was written like "I N T E R S T A T E" I'd be a bit more comfortable (with slightly less dramatic spacing).

I agree that the numbers/text should have a margin around it, but at the same time that shield just seems to have too much blue space.  Part of it could be my desire to write "Pennsylvania" on the top part of the blue.  I wish state-name Interstate shields were still being made widely...

Well, I don't know what to tell you. Your gripes lie with the MUTCD, since (as far as I'm concerned) that new 476 shield is perfect. Any bigger text, and it would be on the verge of bleeding into the border. The "6" in particular is already quite close to the border, and shifting the numbers to the left to lower them more would make the whole thing look funny. The numbers would have to be smaller to fit a state name in there.

I think the wider "interstate" text probably looks weird because so few agencies seem to do it properly, that we've been trained to believe that the narrow text is correct in all instances.

[hotdogPi]

I think the perceived problem might be that the all-caps letters are smaller than the lowercase letters.

[ipeters61]

I didn't mind the old sign, but the new one just doesn't seem right to me.

...

What exactly do you find not right about it? It seems fine to me.

Please don't respond with "I don't know". There has to be something. Shield too small? Text too big? Narrow it down, please.

Sorry I'm not being specific, I was staring at it for a while to get what just didn't feel right.  The "476" feels like it's too small (I know in some states, like CT and MD, smaller fonts are shown on older shields - using Steve Alpert's photos) and the "Interstate" on the shield feels too wide.

I see; thanks.

The 3di shield is supposed to have a wider "INTERSTATE" than the 2di shield, but they often don't for whatever reason. The first sign actually has a design error in that the "interstate" text is too narrow.

I personally prefer the newer sign's shield, as it has more blue area around the route number. I hate when the route number is pushed to the borders of the shield, as it starts to blend in with the border, and makes the numbers less recognizable and/or readable from a distance.

I understand why there is a wider "Interstate" on 3di shields, but it doesn't feel right seeing it like that.  Granted, I also really don't like wide fonts.  Maybe if it was written like "I N T E R S T A T E" I'd be a bit more comfortable (with slightly less dramatic spacing).

I agree that the numbers/text should have a margin around it, but at the same time that shield just seems to have too much blue space.  Part of it could be my desire to write "Pennsylvania" on the top part of the blue.  I wish state-name Interstate shields were still being made widely...

Well, I don't know what to tell you. Your gripes lie with the MUTCD, since (as far as I'm concerned) that new 476 shield is perfect. Any bigger text, and it would be on the verge of bleeding into the border. The "6" in particular is already quite close to the border, and shifting the numbers to the left to lower them more would make the whole thing look funny. The numbers would have to be smaller to fit a state name in there.

I think the wider "interstate" text probably looks weird because so few agencies seem to do it properly, that we've been trained to believe that the narrow text is correct in all instances.

Eh I guess.  I'm not saying that the numbers on the shield should be bigger in the sense of just increasing the point size.  I mean I'd prefer if they were taller (like in the old sign).

We can argue all day, I'm just saying that the sign feels off to me.  It may be perfect by MUTCD standards (though I agree with paulthemapguy that the control cities also look too big), but it doesn't jive with me.  That's all.  Of course, the average motorist barely would notice.

Now about the NJTP going to MUTCD....  https://goo.gl/maps/kCXdAV93rU12

[Eth]

The control city text looks to be too large.  Either that, or the content at the top is too small or cramped.

Possibly both?

Zooming in on this sign in GMSV and taking some rough measurements, it looks like that I-476 shield is 36" tall and the destination text is in the neighborhood of 20"/15" UC/LC. That destination text size is Georgia's current standard, carried over from our days of using Series D, but if I'm not mistaken the MUTCD calls for smaller text (16"/12", I think?). Georgia spec would differ in that the Interstate shield would be 48" rather than 36", but I can't recall if that's in the federal MUTCD or not.

[US71]

The GPS lies, near Arlington, MO

[MNHighwayMan]

Is it correct for the shield to separate a single statement [toll road]? Seems like the 476 shield should be to the left, with [toll road] to its right.

Shouldn't it just be "TOLL I-476" / "I-476 TOLL" anyway?

[ErmineNotyours]

The GPS lies, near Arlington, MO

I wasn't even using a GPS, just a new paper atlas my sister had given me.  I was on a walk that turned out to be way longer than I thought, and I just wanted a shortcut to Gig Harbor so I could take a bus back to my car, and then I found this sign: Your GPS is wrong!  I wish I had taken a picture of it, but another resident was out in his yard looking at me.  When I got home, I checked the Pierce County property website and saw that public corridors did connect ahead.  They may not be paved as roads, but as a pedestrian I had a right to walk on them.  Instead I had to walk the long way around to finally get into town.   Since then, they have properly done a street vacation to turn a bit of the street into private property.

[odditude]

Regarding the I-476 sign:

• I-476 shield:
  
  
  • shield is undersized compared to sign legend
  • numerals appear small compared to shield body
  • shield uses new standard with wider text for "INTERSTATE" text (which I am not a fan of)
• instead of TOLL [I-476] ROAD, it should probably be yellow [TOLL] banner either above or to the right of both [I-476] and [PA TPK] shields (this the NE Extension)
• would have to double-check the spec, but it looks like there should be additional vertical whitespace between:
  
  
  • the shield(s) and the destinations
  • the destinations and the distance message
• numerals on exit tab are misaligned

[MNHighwayMan]

I wish I had taken a picture of it, but another resident was out in his yard looking at me.

If I knew I were on public property I would've just taken it anyway.

[US71]

The GPS lies, near Arlington, MO

I wasn't even using a GPS, just a new paper atlas my sister had given me.  I was on a walk that turned out to be way longer than I thought, and I just wanted a shortcut to Gig Harbor so I could take a bus back to my car, and then I found this sign: Your GPS is wrong!  I wish I had taken a picture of it, but another resident was out in his yard looking at me.  When I got home, I checked the Pierce County property website and saw that public corridors did connect ahead.  They may not be paved as roads, but as a pedestrian I had a right to walk on them.  Instead I had to walk the long way around to finally get into town.   Since then, they have properly done a street vacation to turn a bit of the street into private property.

In Phelps County's instance, the bridge washed out about 10 years ago and was never replaced. Residents were eventually successful in having the road officially closed, but GPS still shows it as open.

[PHLBOS]

Is it correct for the shield to separate a single statement [toll road]? Seems like the 476 shield should be to the left, with [toll road] to its right.

Such is/was SOP with signage for the PA Turnpike... although there's usually a PA Turnpike shield placed next to the route shield per the below-example for the East/West (I-76) part of the Turnpike.

Photo from Alpsroads.net

The likely reasoning why that BGS (the one for I-476) and its predecessor only having one shield was due to the earlier signage (w/button-copy lettering) featured just the PA Turnpike shield placed in the middle en lieu of a route shield.  The old BGS I'm referring to predated the Northeast Extension receiving a route number (PA 9 circa 1980, I-476 circa 1996).

[jakeroot]

Is it correct for the shield to separate a single statement [toll road]? Seems like the 476 shield should be to the left, with [toll road] to its right.

Shouldn't it just be "TOLL I-476" / "I-476 TOLL" anyway?

Yes, I suppose it should be. Wouldn't be an eye-catching error to me, though. Just an old standard operating procedure in Pennsylvania (according to PHLBOS above me).

[tckma]

New Hampshire's "A TOLL ROAD" verbiage always bothered me for some reason, probably because other states don't use it:

https://goo.gl/maps/dAcqhzuu9Q82

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

New Hampshire's "A TOLL ROAD" verbiage always bothered me for some reason, probably because other states don't use it:

https://goo.gl/maps/dAcqhzuu9Q82

Indefinite article on a traffic sign... ew.

[ipeters61]

New Hampshire's "A TOLL ROAD" verbiage always bothered me for some reason, probably because other states don't use it:

https://goo.gl/maps/dAcqhzuu9Q82

Indefinite article on a traffic sign... ew.

I don't like that either.  Though it could be worse... http://alpsroads.net/roads/fl/osceola/

[PHLBOS]

New Hampshire's "A TOLL ROAD"

... "by Henry Gibson" 

For those that may not get the above-reference.

[formulanone]

New Hampshire's "A TOLL ROAD" verbiage always bothered me for some reason, probably because other states don't use it:

https://goo.gl/maps/dAcqhzuu9Q82

Indefinite article on a traffic sign... ew.

I don't like that either.  Though it could be worse... http://alpsroads.net/roads/fl/osceola/

Osceola Parkway: A Toll Road (with one grade separation and some traffic lights).

[roadman65]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/29436167498/in/dateposted-public/ Missouri's historic sites guides on interstates are kind of interesting.

[ErmineNotyours]

Button copy is interesting, but the real challenge is to find marble type in the wild.  This is the closest I've found: a marble abutment warning on a bridge north of Enumclaw, Washington.  GSV.  Of the four corners of the bridge, this panel is the best preserved.  The others are broken or painted over.

Reflective marble warning panel, Veazie Cumberland Road, Enumclaw, Washington by Arthur Allen, on Flickr

[roadfro]

Is it correct for the shield to separate a single statement [toll road]? Seems like the 476 shield should be to the left, with [toll road] to its right.

Shouldn't it just be "TOLL I-476" / "I-476 TOLL" anyway?

Yes, I suppose it should be. Wouldn't be an eye-catching error to me, though. Just an old standard operating procedure in Pennsylvania (according to PHLBOS above me).

And by 2009 MUTCD standards, that "TOLL" wording is supposed to be a black on yellow placard (like the "LEFT" for left exits).