AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Traffic Control => Topic started by: webny99 on February 16, 2018, 08:16:22 AM

Title: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on February 16, 2018, 08:16:22 AM
Do you think it is possible to actually measure signage quality to an extent that we can actually rank all the states from 1 to 50?
Some criteria would be error volume, message clarity, ability to identify location, and so forth.

For starters, some states that would be in the top ten, IMO:
Ohio/Minnesota/North Dakota

And the bottom ten (from what's been said on the forum, not personal experience):
Oklahoma/New Mexico
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: hotdogPi on February 16, 2018, 08:24:42 AM
Vermont ranks near top.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: wriddle082 on February 16, 2018, 09:25:46 AM
Here is a ranking of states I have sufficient knowledge of, off the top of my head, which could be a good baseline for further discussion:

Vermont
New York
Ohio
West Virginia
Texas
Maryland
Illinois
Virginia
Pennsylvania
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Indiana
Wisconsin
Florida
North Carolina
South Carolina
Kansas
Missouri
Michigan
Colorado
Arkansas
Kentucky
Alabama
Louisiana
Nevada
Tennessee
Georgia
Mississippi
District of Columbia

Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: mrcmc888 on February 16, 2018, 09:53:50 AM
From the states I've been to, here are my rankings.

Vermont
South Dakota
Ohio
Maryland
North Carolina
New York
Florida
Kentucky
Delaware
Alabama
Virginia
Tennessee
Georgia
Oklahoma

Obviously not all, but roughly where each one compares to the others.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 16, 2018, 09:59:11 AM
New Mexico is probably the grand champion of bad, but really it is the whole highway system as a whole.  California is bad due to inconsistent signing among each district, it gets even worse on the Signed County Route level.  There a ton of Signs in California from decades ago given the huge amount of button copy still around.  Florida, Michigan, Arizona, and Minnesota has the best signage levels I've seen.  Wisconsin is probably the strangest with all the wooden single piece signs. 
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on February 16, 2018, 10:10:10 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2018, 08:16:22 AM
Do you think it is possible to actually measure signage quality to an extent that we can actually rank all the states from 1 to 50?
Some criteria would be error volume, message clarity, ability to identify location, and so forth.

For starters, some states that would be in the top ten, IMO:
Ohio/Minnesota/North Dakota

And the bottom ten (from what's been said on the forum, not personal experience):
Oklahoma/New Mexico
I would agree in regards to OK. There are some signs that are completely faded white.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: mrcmc888 on February 16, 2018, 10:20:18 AM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on February 16, 2018, 10:10:10 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2018, 08:16:22 AM
Do you think it is possible to actually measure signage quality to an extent that we can actually rank all the states from 1 to 50?
Some criteria would be error volume, message clarity, ability to identify location, and so forth.

For starters, some states that would be in the top ten, IMO:
Ohio/Minnesota/North Dakota

And the bottom ten (from what's been said on the forum, not personal experience):
Oklahoma/New Mexico
I would agree in regards to OK. There are some signs that are completely faded white.
Oklahoma's sign fails are enough to fill an entire thread and keep it going for years.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: MNHighwayMan on February 16, 2018, 10:25:00 AM
Just going to add my opinion of the two states with which I'm most familiar.

I'd rank Minnesota #1, but I'm probably a bit biased. :biggrin: Definitely at/near the top, though. For Iowa, probably slightly above average. Its highways are typically signed well, but I hate wooden sign posts and there are some areas with old and faded signage that should probably be replaced.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on February 16, 2018, 10:35:50 AM
It might prove beneficial to first identify a solid top ten and bottom ten.

Then we can hash out the order of those, and fill in the remaining thirty states based on above- or below-average.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Scott5114 on February 16, 2018, 01:13:15 PM
Kansas, Tennessee, and Wisconsin belong up top.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on February 16, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 16, 2018, 01:13:15 PM
Kansas, Tennessee, and Wisconsin belong up top.

Tennessee definitely does, but I don't recall anything outstanding above average in Wisconsin. Maybe that's just me not being attentive enough though.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: wriddle082 on February 16, 2018, 06:49:23 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 16, 2018, 01:13:15 PM
Kansas, Tennessee, and Wisconsin belong up top.

Tennessee definitely does, but I don't recall anything outstanding above average in Wisconsin. Maybe that's just me not being attentive enough though.

I have a lot of nitpicks about Tennessee signage having lived there most of my life.  Very rarely do they post Bridge Icing or equivalent signage, many instances of sign rot (though mostly in the Middle TN region), spotty acknowledgment of route multiplexes, and the list goes on.  They generally spend more money on maintaining acceptable pavement quality than they do on signage.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on February 16, 2018, 07:10:19 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on February 16, 2018, 06:49:23 PMVery rarely do they post Bridge Icing or equivalent signage.

Very rarely do bridges ice in Tennessee. I find "Bridge Ices Before Road" signs to be excessive, especially in PA. After the 18th bridge, we get the message.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: wriddle082 on February 16, 2018, 07:43:21 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2018, 07:10:19 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on February 16, 2018, 06:49:23 PMVery rarely do they post Bridge Icing or equivalent signage.

Very rarely do bridges ice in Tennessee. I find "Bridge Ices Before Road" signs to be excessive, especially in PA. After the 18th bridge, we get the message.

Bridges do ice over frequently in TN during the winter months.  I should know as I've slid on them several times but fortunately done no damage.  It's generally a good warning that a bridge is coming up and to be cautious if the rest of the road is clear while the bridge may not be.  Pretty much every state touching TN with the exceptions being I think MO and VA regularly place those signs before every bridge.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: TBKS1 on February 16, 2018, 07:50:07 PM
Arkansas is not very good at marking concurrent highways. Just saying.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: hbelkins on February 16, 2018, 09:45:43 PM
In terms of consistency statewide, West Virginia is good. There are lots of individual places where signs are missing, but in general the way signage is placed is the same in Welch as it is in Wheeling.

Kentucky's consistency varies across the 12 districts, since each has its own sign shop.

I second the comments about Tennessee's poor signage of concurrencies.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: freebrickproductions on February 16, 2018, 10:50:44 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on February 16, 2018, 06:49:23 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2018, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 16, 2018, 01:13:15 PM
Kansas, Tennessee, and Wisconsin belong up top.

Tennessee definitely does, but I don't recall anything outstanding above average in Wisconsin. Maybe that's just me not being attentive enough though.

I have a lot of nitpicks about Tennessee signage having lived there most of my life.  Very rarely do they post Bridge Icing or equivalent signage, many instances of sign rot (though mostly in the Middle TN region), spotty acknowledgment of route multiplexes, and the list goes on.  They generally spend more money on maintaining acceptable pavement quality than they do on signage.
Yea, when I've driven on I-65 early in the morning prior to sunrise, it was kinda hard to read many of the signs due to the reflective sheeting peeling, though the sign looked fine during the day.

SM-G900V

Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: cjk374 on February 17, 2018, 08:34:52 AM
Louisiana is sinking toward the bottom of the list. Their new black & white state shields (and other signs using black digits/letters) are peeling worse than sun blistered skin. Also, the black is fading quickly to white...making the signs unreadable.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on February 17, 2018, 12:59:32 PM
I don't think I've ever driven on a concurrency in Tennessee, so that could be influencing my perception.

The signage on I-75 is great as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: mrcmc888 on February 17, 2018, 06:57:42 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 17, 2018, 12:59:32 PM
I don't think I've ever driven on a concurrency in Tennessee, so that could be influencing my perception.

The signage on I-75 is great as far as I'm concerned.
US-25W has a 10 or so mile concurrency with I-75, then I-640, then I-40, in Knoxville and you would never know it.  It's a major arterial that's about the only way to get to Powell/Clinton/Lake City, so why it wouldn't be signed is baffling.  Especially since its concurrencies with I-75 near LaFollette are indeed signed.

Generally, signs throughout Tennessee are inconsistent.  The signage in West and Middle TN is good, along with the Tri-Cities area, but Knoxville and Chattanooga have some pretty major failsigns (that awful one on the Cherry Street exit of I-40 being one I can remember haunting me for my entire childhood).

Delaware's signage is perfectly fine...for 10 years ago.  DelDOT is more interested in trying to build yet another toll freeway in Kent County than actually bothering to update the signs in the Wilmington area.  DE-2 signs still remain on Main Street in Newark despite the fact that it hasn't run on there in 6 years, and recently a new set even got put in!

Virginia would get a higher spot if not for those butt-ugly font choices.  When there's a route sign, you've basically got a 50/50 chance at whether the font will be correct and legible, or those wide spaced, thin stick numbers you can't read until you're right up on them.

West Virginia is also a pretty high rank for me as the signage is probably some of the most uniform in the nation.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Rothman on February 18, 2018, 12:34:28 AM
Always liked the Super-sized BGSes on the Mountain Parkway in Kentucky.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Brandon on February 18, 2018, 11:48:50 AM
Illinois varies depending on DOT district.  D1 is pretty good and mostly consistent.  Downstate, it's a different story.  D8 and D9 are pretty bad at times.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: hbelkins on February 18, 2018, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2018, 12:34:28 AM
Always liked the Super-sized BGSes on the Mountain Parkway in Kentucky.

Those were installed in the mid-1970s. A few of them have been replaced, but a few still survive.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: csw on February 18, 2018, 04:14:33 PM
I don't have a ton of experience with signage in states outside of Indiana and Illinois, but I think Michigan and Missouri are above average.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 18, 2018, 05:53:35 PM
Quote from: csw on February 18, 2018, 04:14:33 PM
I don't have a ton of experience with signage in states outside of Indiana and Illinois, but I think Michigan and Missouri are above average.

Michigan might be the grand champion of over-signing routes.  I swear some state trunklines have reassurance shields at every single cross-street.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: csw on February 18, 2018, 09:00:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 18, 2018, 05:53:35 PM
Quote from: csw on February 18, 2018, 04:14:33 PM
I don't have a ton of experience with signage in states outside of Indiana and Illinois, but I think Michigan and Missouri are above average.

Michigan might be the grand champion of over-signing routes.  I swear some state trunklines have reassurance shields at every single cross-street.
And that's a bad thing..?  :)
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 18, 2018, 09:17:52 PM
Quote from: csw on February 18, 2018, 09:00:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 18, 2018, 05:53:35 PM
Quote from: csw on February 18, 2018, 04:14:33 PM
I don't have a ton of experience with signage in states outside of Indiana and Illinois, but I think Michigan and Missouri are above average.

Michigan might be the grand champion of over-signing routes.  I swear some state trunklines have reassurance shields at every single cross-street.
And that's a bad thing..?  :)

Sure is on M-22 with all the sign theft. 
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: corco on February 18, 2018, 09:46:29 PM
I can rank the west and plains pretty  well:

1. Idaho
2. Kansas
3. North Dakota
4. Texas
5. Arizona
6. Washington
7. Nebraska
8. Wyoming
9. Colorado
10. South Dakota
11. Nevada
12. Utah
13. Montana
14. Oregon
15. California
16. Oklahoma
17. New Mexico
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on February 19, 2018, 09:43:39 AM
Quote from: corco on February 18, 2018, 09:46:29 PM
I can rank the west and plains pretty  well:

1. Idaho

Any bias at all?  ;-)

Also, what's wrong with Montana and Oregon?
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on February 19, 2018, 04:25:23 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 18, 2018, 05:53:35 PM
Quote from: csw on February 18, 2018, 04:14:33 PM
I don't have a ton of experience with signage in states outside of Indiana and Illinois, but I think Michigan and Missouri are above average.

Michigan might be the grand champion of over-signing routes.  I swear some state trunklines have reassurance shields at every single cross-street.

At the county level, Anoka County, MN is a little overzealous with its signage in some spots. You can pass several reassurance markers within a few hundred feet wherever multiple county roads quickly intersect the route you're on.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: 21stCenturyRoad on February 19, 2018, 05:01:52 PM
In my experience, Florida and Arizona has great signage.
California has a lot of old/worn out signage
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: roadman on February 20, 2018, 10:09:25 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2018, 07:10:19 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on February 16, 2018, 06:49:23 PMVery rarely do they post Bridge Icing or equivalent signage.

Very rarely do bridges ice in Tennessee. I find "Bridge Ices Before Road" signs to be excessive, especially in PA. After the 18th bridge, we get the message.
My guess is that PA considers "Bridge Ices Before Road" signs to be both a warning to drivers and an advisory to plow operators that they're approaching a bridge (much like the "Plows Use Caution" signs in MA).
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: corco on February 20, 2018, 02:48:01 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2018, 09:43:39 AM
Quote from: corco on February 18, 2018, 09:46:29 PM
I can rank the west and plains pretty  well:

1. Idaho

Any bias at all?  ;-)

Also, what's wrong with Montana and Oregon?

Nope, Idaho's signage is consistently excellent - all state highways are signed consistently, errors are few and far between, signage is legible and well produced, and so forth. I've lived all over the west as an adult - just because I live in Idaho now does not mean I'm biased towards it.

Oregon has a lot of peeling legend, weird control cities, inconsistent signage from region to region,  and some state highways are poorly signed or unsigned. The criticism of Montana is much the same (except the control city issue) - though I tend to find Montana signage more aesthetically pleasing.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on February 20, 2018, 03:45:49 PM
Quote from: corco on February 20, 2018, 02:48:01 PM
I've lived all over the west as an adult - just because I live in Idaho now does not mean I'm biased towards it.

Of course. Hence the  ;-)
I just found the combination mildly amusing, and since I'm making a list to summarize, I decided to be safe and make sure you weren't joking (I've never been to Idaho).

QuoteOregon has a lot of peeling legend, weird control cities, inconsistent signage from region to region,  and some state highways are poorly signed or unsigned. The criticism of Montana is much the same (except the control city issue) - though I tend to find Montana signage more aesthetically pleasing.

I've never been to Oregon, but many of those issues sound similar to issues I have with PA signage - flimsy looking (because extruded panels), old and faded at times, weird fonts, etc. I never noticed any of those things in Montana, but I've only visited one region so I can't comment on consistency.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: formulanone on February 20, 2018, 09:04:21 PM
I think this works better in tiers, although your mileage by vary based on interpretation of "quality". Everyone is going to see a stinker or two, and maybe that's what you'll remember. Or maybe you like a little variety, stuff that bends the rules a little, or good 'ol legacy stuff.

I'll just rate the ones I've spent at least 10 days at.

Paragon Park - you can set your watch to these examples, but they're also rather repetitive
North Carolina, Texas, Michigan, Kansas, Iowa

Anonymous Majority - usually in same tier as above, but a little variety doesn't hurt and we all goof up a bit
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, South Carolina, Indiana, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New Hampshire

Tale of Two Control Cities - when it's good, it's awesome...when it's bad, it's probably just inconsistent (see below on a bad day)
Florida, New York, Maine, Kentucky, California, Connecticut, Ohio, Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Maryland

What Happens In Vagueness - stays in vagueness...could improve; on a good day, any of these jump up a level
Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia

Department of Public Worsts - inconsistent at most anything
New Mexico, Georgia, Rhode Island, Oklahoma
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Eth on February 20, 2018, 10:17:10 PM
I'm not gonna try to claim that Georgia's signage is great or anything, but I admit surprise at seeing it consistently showing up around the likes of Oklahoma and New Mexico in here. Not all of our signs are APLs.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: MNHighwayMan on February 20, 2018, 10:31:10 PM
Quote from: Eth on February 20, 2018, 10:17:10 PM
I'm not gonna try to claim that Georgia's signage is great or anything, but I admit surprise at seeing it consistently showing up around the likes of Oklahoma and New Mexico in here. Not all of our signs are APLs.

It's so good that you get a free state route with every US Route!
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 20, 2018, 10:46:59 PM
I'm just amazed at how much better signage gets when I cross the border from CT into MA or NY.  CT's remaining reflective button copy looks like something out of the 1960's with the non-painted backgrounds on US and state shields.  Where it is worn out, it is downright illegible at night.  While highway lighting is extensive in urban areas, reflectors in rural areas leave much to be desired. NY and MA signage is clean looking, very reflective, and legible (except for some areas of NYC).   Looking for a milepost on a highway whose signage hasn't been upgraded?  Good luck.  By contrast, NY and (especially) MA do a great job with mileposting their highway system, even on non-limited access highways.  And so many signage errors (CT 6 signs all over the place on I-84 in the Hartford area, CT 202 signage on a new sign replacement contract), and omissions of mentioning a duplex in places (no mention of US 6 on I-84 in the Hartford area on BGS's either on the highway itself or on entrances or exits from another highway).  By contrast, MA and New York do a great job of signing duplexes. 
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: formulanone on February 21, 2018, 08:11:15 AM
Quote from: Eth on February 20, 2018, 10:17:10 PM
I'm not gonna try to claim that Georgia's signage is great or anything, but I admit surprise at seeing it consistently showing up around the likes of Oklahoma and New Mexico in here. Not all of our signs are APLs.

Their shields are usually kind of misaligned and uneven. Road quality and safety is pretty good on most numbered routes (take a hint, Alabama).
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: PHLBOS on February 22, 2018, 01:52:11 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 20, 2018, 10:46:59 PMAnd so many signage errors (CT 6 signs all over the place on I-84 in the Hartford area, CT 202 signage on a new sign replacement contract)
MA has its share incorrect route shields here and there as well; including MA 202 shields for US 202 (see Belchertown).
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on February 26, 2018, 12:59:30 PM
So far, we have the following:

Definite top ten: Kansas, Vermont, Idaho
Definite above-average: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Maryland, Arizona, Florida
Controversial/around average: Tennessee, Pennsylvania
Definite below-average: California, Louisiana
Definite bottom ten: Oklahoma, New Mexico
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 26, 2018, 01:21:29 PM
Here is how I rank some:

Excellent:
Good:
Average:
Poor:
Bad:
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Avalanchez71 on February 26, 2018, 01:43:32 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 16, 2018, 01:13:15 PM
Kansas, Tennessee, and Wisconsin belong up top.
The problem with Tennessee is that the surface business routes are not signed very well.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Avalanchez71 on February 26, 2018, 01:45:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 16, 2018, 09:59:11 AM
New Mexico is probably the grand champion of bad, but really it is the whole highway system as a whole.  California is bad due to inconsistent signing among each district, it gets even worse on the Signed County Route level.  There a ton of Signs in California from decades ago given the huge amount of button copy still around.  Florida, Michigan, Arizona, and Minnesota has the best signage levels I've seen.  Wisconsin is probably the strangest with all the wooden single piece signs.
California does a lousy job with signing Interstate Business Loops off the interstate.  They usually just have those dinky banners that say Route 5 Business.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Avalanchez71 on February 26, 2018, 01:52:28 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 16, 2018, 07:10:19 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on February 16, 2018, 06:49:23 PMVery rarely do they post Bridge Icing or equivalent signage.

Very rarely do bridges ice in Tennessee. I find "Bridge Ices Before Road" signs to be excessive, especially in PA. After the 18th bridge, we get the message.
I have driven on a few iced bridges in Tennessee.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Avalanchez71 on February 26, 2018, 03:35:07 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 26, 2018, 12:59:30 PM
So far, we have the following:

Definite top ten: Kansas, Vermont, Idaho
Definite above-average: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Maryland, Arizona, Florida
Controversial/around average: Tennessee, Pennsylvania
Definite below-average: California, Louisiana
Definite bottom ten: Oklahoma, New Mexico
Florida seems to do a good job by county.  I would say signage in Miami-Dade County is inconsistent.  The state also doesn't do a good job marking county roads off of state highways either.  CR 5A is not marked anywhere but it is on the FL DOT map.  Copans RD was marked at one time but I don't think it is anymore.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Eth on February 26, 2018, 04:10:44 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 26, 2018, 03:35:07 PMThe state also doesn't do a good job marking county roads off of state highways either.  CR 5A is not marked anywhere but it is on the FL DOT map.  Copans RD was marked at one time but I don't think it is anymore.

I wonder if this varies from district to district. They seem to be pretty good at it in the Panhandle, for instance, based on what I've seen.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Rothman on February 27, 2018, 12:18:01 AM
Doesn't VT have the mismash of green and black state route shields?  Why definitely the top?
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Brian556 on February 27, 2018, 12:46:04 AM
Ive said this before... Tennessee is one of the worst.
Reasons:
1. US Highway Shields omitted from BGS at multiple locations around
Chattanooga
2. Signage on non-interstate roads beaten, tattered, and torn.
3. Improper signage. Signage that should be there is not.
4. Stop signs left up after signals installed. Seen two instances of this myself.
5. No bridge may ice signs. Everybody else has them, so TN should too
6. They allow small towns to set speed limits on state highways that are way too low, even on rural sections. They allow the towns to post the small 18x24 speed limit signs, which is wrong

The multiplexes around Chattanooga are well signed. I will give them that.

Oklahoma:
Postitves: Basically all state maintained signs are in good condition. Large stop signs at basically all state highway/state highway intersections
Negative: BGS format issues. Shoddy signing of relocated US 62 on I-44 and on the west end
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: US 89 on February 27, 2018, 12:53:18 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 26, 2018, 12:59:30 PM
So far, we have the following:

Definite top ten: Kansas, Vermont, Idaho
Definite above-average: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Maryland, Arizona, Florida
Controversial/around average: Tennessee, Pennsylvania
Definite below-average: California, Louisiana
Definite bottom ten: Oklahoma, New Mexico

I’d put Utah probably near the bottom of the “average” category. Often the wrong font is used on BGSs, and there are several different variations of the beehive SR shield in common use. Also, concurrency signage is pretty bad. But otherwise, the signage looks good, and new interstate shields are all state-named.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on February 27, 2018, 10:54:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2018, 12:18:01 AM
Doesn't VT have the mismash of green and black state route shields?  Why definitely the top?

That's a problem with visual appeal, but not a problem with guidance. So far, all the reviews of Vermont have been rave, and that's what I'm going off of. I haven't been there, so I can't say.

Quote from: Brian556 on February 27, 2018, 12:46:04 AM
Ive said this before... Tennessee is one of the worst.

People seem to be opinionated about Tennessee. Scott said it belongs up top, and I'd tend to agree, but then there have been a lot of negative comments. That's why I put it at "controversial/around average". I've been to 23 states, and Tennessee is definitely not at the bottom, though it may have its issues.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: SidS1045 on February 27, 2018, 11:17:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2018, 12:18:01 AMDoesn't VT have the mismash of green and black state route shields?

Not a mishmash at all, it's by design.  Green shields with the state name are state-maintained roads, B&W shields designate city- or town-maintained roads.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Rothman on February 27, 2018, 11:52:59 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on February 27, 2018, 11:17:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2018, 12:18:01 AMDoesn't VT have the mismash of green and black state route shields?

Not a mishmash at all, it's by design.  Green shields with the state name are state-maintained roads, B&W shields designate city- or town-maintained roads.
Meh.  Mishmash by design. :D
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: doorknob60 on February 27, 2018, 05:49:13 PM
Nevada is below average IMO. Not in terms of quality of the signs itself, but in terms of what is signed. On my trip to Las Vegas, I made two significant mistakes I can blame on signage.

1. I was planning on exiting I-15 to stop at In-N-Out on Craig Rd (NV-573). I was only aware of the state route, not the road name. No mention of the route anywhere on the freeway (not to mention, I don't remember seeing a logo sign for In-N-Out either), I missed it.

2. Driving from Vegas to Ely, I missed the turn off for NV-318. It was 10 PM and I'd had a long day, so I know I wasn't fully mentally aware (in my normal state, I know that 318 and 375 are the turn off, I knew that, I just didn't process it in my state). But I am almost sure the signs I saw only mentioned NV-375, and not NV-318. And I know for a fact that they don't sign 318 with the control city of Ely from US-93 (I was aware of this, and fully planned on using NV-318). Due to this, I passed it and ended up taking a ~40 mile longer route. As I was already tired, this really put me in a bad mood (and I gunned it up to 85 to try to make up some time, which is probably a bad idea at night in December when it was below freezing and it started to snow; but the road was nearly empty). This is the biggest direction mistake I have ever made while driving in my life, and I can definitely blame the signage for it.

I'd put it like this, for only the states I'm fairly familiar with:
1. Idaho
2. Washington
3-4. Not sure between Montana and Oregon (I'll have a better idea once I drive through MT again in April)
5. Utah
6-7. Cant decide between Nevada and California (CA is so big, and while I don't have any bad examples like the above, I know they have a lot of issues and inconsistencies, though I find CA signage super interesting for that reason)

I'd say 1-5 are all average or better, 6-7 below average.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: roadfro on February 28, 2018, 02:47:08 AM
I'd rate Nevada as average. Older signage practices seem to be a bit inconsistent in design and application, but newer projects tend to have much more consistent design and layout.


Quote from: doorknob60 on February 27, 2018, 05:49:13 PM
Nevada is below average IMO. Not in terms of quality of the signs itself, but in terms of what is signed. On my trip to Las Vegas, I made two significant mistakes I can blame on signage.

1. I was planning on exiting I-15 to stop at In-N-Out on Craig Rd (NV-573). I was only aware of the state route, not the road name. No mention of the route anywhere on the freeway (not to mention, I don't remember seeing a logo sign for In-N-Out either), I missed it.

2. Driving from Vegas to Ely, I missed the turn off for NV-318. It was 10 PM and I'd had a long day, so I know I wasn't fully mentally aware (in my normal state, I know that 318 and 375 are the turn off, I knew that, I just didn't process it in my state). But I am almost sure the signs I saw only mentioned NV-375, and not NV-318. And I know for a fact that they don't sign 318 with the control city of Ely from US-93 (I was aware of this, and fully planned on using NV-318). Due to this, I passed it and ended up taking a ~40 mile longer route. As I was already tired, this really put me in a bad mood (and I gunned it up to 85 to try to make up some time, which is probably a bad idea at night in December when it was below freezing and it started to snow; but the road was nearly empty). This is the biggest direction mistake I have ever made while driving in my life, and I can definitely blame the signage for it.

1. Most 500- and 600-series urban routes are not signed from BGSs on freeways. These are local collector/arterial roads that happen to be under NDOT ownership & maintenance and have a state route number simply because of that (a remnant of the restructured federal aid system/classifications brought about during the 1976 renumbering). For these routes, posting a route number serves no navigational value to the average motorist, they tend to be scarcely signed, and as a result locals never refer to these routes by route number. NDOT has been seeking to decommission many of these routes. In fact, a significant chunk of Craig Road/SR 573 was relinquished to local control in the mid-2000s–the In-N-Out you sought just west of I-15 is on a section of Craig Road no longer designated SR 573.

I know the Craig Road exit on I-15 has several logo signs. It's possible you just missed In-N-Out being listed (or also possible that they didn't have a logo on the sign).


2. If you were coming from Vegas on that trip, there are signs indicating the junction with SR 318–or at least there were about 6 years ago. If I recall, there was a 1/2-mile advance "junction SR 318" BGS, and a LGS that said "SR 318 / SR 375" in text just before the turn. What could have been confusing is that the BGS in between these listing destinations tells you to continue straight (on US 93) for Pioche and Ely and turn left for Rachel and Tonopah (which are both destinations reachable via SR 375) without listing any destinations for SR 318 or indicating that SR 318 is the shortcut to Ely. That particular junction is unique in that it is lacking the typical route junction assemblies in the northbound direction (at least when I was last through there).
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 28, 2018, 11:11:04 AM
My rankings focus more on maintenance quality, attention to repairs, and coverage.  I tried to base my opinions less on aesthetic preferences and more on how good of a job each state does at keeping signage intact.  Not totally sold on these rankings so take this as a grain of salt.

Excellent:  West Virginia, Minnesota, Idaho, Ohio, New York, Texas
Very nice:  South Dakota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Maine, Michigan
Pretty Good:  Utah, Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas
Average:  Indiana, California, Washington, New Hampshire, Nevada, Arizona
Lackluster:  Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Oregon, Connecticut
Really bad:  Tennessee, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Kentucky, South Carolina
The worst:  Oklahoma, New Mexico
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: freebrickproductions on March 03, 2018, 01:50:18 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 28, 2018, 11:11:04 AM
My rankings focus more on maintenance quality, attention to repairs, and coverage.  I tried to base my opinions less on aesthetic preferences and more on how good of a job each state does at keeping signage intact.  Not totally sold on these rankings so take this as a grain of salt.

Excellent:  West Virginia, Minnesota, Idaho, Ohio, New York, Texas
Very nice:  South Dakota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Maine, Michigan
Pretty Good:  Utah, Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas
Average:  Indiana, California, Washington, New Hampshire, Nevada, Arizona
Lackluster:  Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Oregon, Connecticut
Really bad:  Tennessee, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Kentucky, South Carolina
The worst:  Oklahoma, New Mexico
Where would you put Alabama in your list? Personally, I'd rank them as "lackluster" when it comes to state signage and either "Really bad" or "The worst" when it comes to local (county/town/city) signage.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 04, 2018, 01:51:01 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on March 03, 2018, 01:50:18 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 28, 2018, 11:11:04 AM
My rankings focus more on maintenance quality, attention to repairs, and coverage.  I tried to base my opinions less on aesthetic preferences and more on how good of a job each state does at keeping signage intact.  Not totally sold on these rankings so take this as a grain of salt.

Excellent:  West Virginia, Minnesota, Idaho, Ohio, New York, Texas
Very nice:  South Dakota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Maine, Michigan
Pretty Good:  Utah, Florida, North Carolina, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas
Average:  Indiana, California, Washington, New Hampshire, Nevada, Arizona
Lackluster:  Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Oregon, Connecticut
Really bad:  Tennessee, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Kentucky, South Carolina
The worst:  Oklahoma, New Mexico
Where would you put Alabama in your list? Personally, I'd rank them as "lackluster" when it comes to state signage and either "Really bad" or "The worst" when it comes to local (county/town/city) signage.

I should clarify that my rankings focus on DOT signage...I can't really judge all of the local agencies in a state; that would be way too difficult.  Alabama I'd probably put as average or lackluster.  They're very active about making sure every relevant route is signed, leading to a lot of big salads--the extra attention is great, but the salads are overwhelming and therefore bad.  That leads me to a feeling of ambivalence.  There's attention to high-quality sign sheeting and reinforcement, but a lot of signs are still bent and leaning, again contributing to my ambivalence.  Alabama isn't the best, but certainly not the worst.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on March 07, 2018, 02:05:38 PM
States we haven't heard much from:

Missouri - Arkansas - Indiana - Ohio - South Carolina - Connecticut - Rhode Island - Maine

The west has been covered fairly extensively, so once the remaining eastern states are covered, I can submit a full list and see what the thoughts are on it  :)

Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 07, 2018, 02:30:48 PM
Connecticut and Rhode Island are both pretty bad.  Both have haggard ancient signage and if I recall correct Rhode Island doesn't sign a lot of routes.  I thought people were saying Missouri was pretty good?...South Carolina definitely does a decent job and has unique shields.  Indiana and Ohio seemed middle of the road to me, nothing too bad or all that spectacular.  Arkansas seemed okay when I lasted visited in 2014 and I haven't been Maine since the 1990s 
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: cjk374 on March 07, 2018, 06:17:29 PM
Arkansas signage APPEARANCE is fine. Arkansas signage USAGE would be graded as an F - - -. The bad grade is for the lack of concurrency signage on most highways...interstate, US, or state routes.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: MNHighwayMan on March 07, 2018, 07:06:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 07, 2018, 02:30:48 PM
I thought people were saying Missouri was pretty good?

I've been through northern Missouri a couple times, and I thought the signage was excellent, but I don't know if that can be generalized to the entire state.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 09, 2018, 03:21:32 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2018, 02:05:38 PM
States we haven't heard much from:

Missouri - Arkansas - Indiana - Ohio - South Carolina - Connecticut - Rhode Island - Maine

The west has been covered fairly extensively, so once the remaining eastern states are covered, I can submit a full list and see what the thoughts are on it  :)

I'm not super knowledgeable about any of these states, but to me, Ohio, Maine, and Missouri are above average.  Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Arkansas are below average.  Indiana I'd label as average, and I know nothing about South Carolina.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: doorknob60 on March 12, 2018, 03:46:21 PM
Quote from: roadfro on February 28, 2018, 02:47:08 AM
I'd rate Nevada as average. Older signage practices seem to be a bit inconsistent in design and application, but newer projects tend to have much more consistent design and layout.



1. Most 500- and 600-series urban routes are not signed from BGSs on freeways. These are local collector/arterial roads that happen to be under NDOT ownership & maintenance and have a state route number simply because of that (a remnant of the restructured federal aid system/classifications brought about during the 1976 renumbering). For these routes, posting a route number serves no navigational value to the average motorist, they tend to be scarcely signed, and as a result locals never refer to these routes by route number. NDOT has been seeking to decommission many of these routes. In fact, a significant chunk of Craig Road/SR 573 was relinquished to local control in the mid-2000s–the In-N-Out you sought just west of I-15 is on a section of Craig Road no longer designated SR 573.

I know the Craig Road exit on I-15 has several logo signs. It's possible you just missed In-N-Out being listed (or also possible that they didn't have a logo on the sign).


2. If you were coming from Vegas on that trip, there are signs indicating the junction with SR 318–or at least there were about 6 years ago. If I recall, there was a 1/2-mile advance "junction SR 318" BGS, and a LGS that said "SR 318 / SR 375" in text just before the turn. What could have been confusing is that the BGS in between these listing destinations tells you to continue straight (on US 93) for Pioche and Ely and turn left for Rachel and Tonopah (which are both destinations reachable via SR 375) without listing any destinations for SR 318 or indicating that SR 318 is the shortcut to Ely. That particular junction is unique in that it is lacking the typical route junction assemblies in the northbound direction (at least when I was last through there).

1. Fair enough. Though in Idaho for example, Eagle Rd (what locals call it) and ID-55 are both well signed. But that's not apples to apples because ID-55 is an important route outside urban areas as well. I guess Google Maps is ultimately to blame there: if no signage exists at all for it, it probably should not be shown on Google Maps. About the logo signs, it didn't help that I-15 was under construction at the time, so it's possible that the signs were temporarily missing (or hard to see). Not sure if I saw the logo signs or not. Or In-N-Out may simply not be on it.

2. Yeah Google Street View shows what you recall, as well, but it's also like 8 years old imagery. I can say for sure that I didn't see what's shown on GSV, though it's possible that it was there and I somehow missed it (which is very possible driving 70 MPH at night when kind of tired). I wish GSV would re-visit a lot of the rural US highways out here (as in, all over the region, it's a problem in NV, ID, and OR in some places), the imagery for many of them is super blurry, you can barely make out signage.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: formulanone on March 14, 2018, 06:38:18 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2018, 02:05:38 PM
Missouri - Arkansas - Indiana - Ohio - South Carolina - Connecticut - Rhode Island - Maine

Missouri, Indiana, Maine: Fairly accurate and neat signage. A couple odd shield shapes here and there for MO and ME (excluding old font styles in Maine).

Arkansas: a little off, though not terribly inconsistent in BGS work. A little below average on shield consistency, if it's not completely missing.

Ohio and Connecticut: Call me biased, but there's all sorts of weird and old varieties in these states, and I appreciate that. Plenty of old button copy left. In both cases, it seems like there's another route marker just half a mile away.

South Carolina: standalone shields are fairly accurate and consistent, though BGSs look weird with the thick black borders and inconsistent Series' usage.

Rhode Island seems to be a trove of inconsistent signage sizes, fonts, alignment, shapes, odd warnings. The exception is I-95, which is actually pretty good (and looks to be fairly recent).
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on April 17, 2018, 09:13:20 AM
Michigan has excellent signage. Really stands out next to their crippled and failing infrastructure  :-D
They are definitely a top-ten candidate, at least from what I've seen.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on May 02, 2019, 03:21:54 PM
I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to post a full list of my own and see what others thought. I included all of the lower 48 and it ended up a lot more top heavy than I thought it would, so I reread the thread and made some changes. Obviously, I am going mainly by others comments for states I haven't been to, while my placement for states I have been to is a bit more nuanced. However, I am very much open for suggestions!  :)

Tier 1 - The Best
Idaho, Michigan, Ohio, North Dakota, Vermont

Tier 2 - Good
Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin

Tier 3 - Average
Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

Tier 4 - Poor
Arkansas, California, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon

Tier 5 - The Worst
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island

Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: hotdogPi on May 02, 2019, 04:07:20 PM
What's "poor" about MA? They're pretty good about getting you where you need to go.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Rothman on May 02, 2019, 04:22:38 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2019, 04:07:20 PM
What's "poor" about MA? They're pretty good about getting you where you need to go.
What Massachusetts are you talking about?  Not the one I grew up in.  Try following MA 122A from start to finish, or MA 141 or MA 116 in the Chicopee and Holyoke areas.  MA is terrible at posting reassurance signage.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: roadman on May 02, 2019, 04:41:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2019, 04:22:38 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2019, 04:07:20 PM
What's "poor" about MA? They're pretty good about getting you where you need to go.
What Massachusetts are you talking about?  Not the one I grew up in.  Try following MA 122A from start to finish, or MA 141 or MA 116 in the Chicopee and Holyoke areas.  MA is terrible at posting reassurance signage.

Blame that on the state's practice of "musical jurisdictions".  Just because a secondary roadway is a numbered route doesn't automatically mean it's owned by the states.  And most local communities have an aversion to signs.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Rothman on May 02, 2019, 04:52:35 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 02, 2019, 04:41:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2019, 04:22:38 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2019, 04:07:20 PM
What's "poor" about MA? They're pretty good about getting you where you need to go.
What Massachusetts are you talking about?  Not the one I grew up in.  Try following MA 122A from start to finish, or MA 141 or MA 116 in the Chicopee and Holyoke areas.  MA is terrible at posting reassurance signage.

Blame that on the state's practice of "musical jurisdictions".  Just because a secondary roadway is a numbered route doesn't automatically mean it's owned by the states.  And most local communities have an aversion to signs.
Doesn't change the fact that signage in MA sucks.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 02, 2019, 04:54:05 PM
I've got lost trying to follow MA 141 from Chicopee Falls to US 5 in Holyoke because of the unmarked turns and crosses of the Connecticut River.  Until a few years ago, MassDOT was pretty bad about numbering the MA 183 segment southeast of US 7 (the portion concurrent with MA 23 and MA 57, and the standalone segment between MA 57 and the CT border.  Maps were even horrible at showing it as well.  For years, I wondered if there was a connection between the Great Barrington-Lenox segment and CT 183.  Finally decided to take that way home from Great Barrington one day and sure enough, it was well signed. 

CT signage quality is getting better, but a lot of it is absolutely horrible and illegible.  The Phase III signage on CT 2 coming back from the casinos is so illegible due to broken reflectors, many often miss their exits at night.  CT 9 is also pretty awful.  Also, some of the route signage through cities (US 1 through Stamford, Bridgeport, New Haven, and New London) leaves much to be desired, and I wish CTDOT would put concurrent US routes on the BGS's along with the thru route (why US 7 in the Danbury area gets this treatment but every other US route concurrency statewide gets relegated to reassurance shields I'm not sure). 
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: sprjus4 on May 02, 2019, 05:45:39 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 02, 2019, 03:21:54 PM
I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to post a full list of my own and see what others thought. I included all of the lower 48 and it ended up a lot more top heavy than I thought it would, so I reread the thread and made some changes. Obviously, I am going mainly by others comments for states I haven't been to, while my placement for states I have been to is a bit more nuanced. However, I am very much open for suggestions!  :)

Tier 1 - The Best
Idaho, Michigan, Ohio, North Dakota, Vermont

Tier 2 - Good
Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin

Tier 3 - Average
Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

Tier 4 - Poor
Arkansas, California, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon

Tier 5 - The Worst
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island
I'm not familiar with most, though I have to disagree with the positions of North Carolina and Virginia. I'd flip them IMHO. The signage in Virginia is generally okay on the interstate system (I hate the new font they've been using the past 10 yrs or so), but any freeway or interchange not on the interstate system has a huge variety. The newer interchanges are the worst. They just opened an interchange on US-58 at Courtland, and the signage is so poor. Some of the new signage on the bypasses nearby are also very poor and inconsistent with standard signage. Another example is on US-17 in Chesapeake. It was recently expanded from a two-lane road into a four-lane freeway with a high rise bridge, and while the signage recently put on it is better than the one at Courtland, it's still not consistent with traditional signage (the fact the "EXIT 1/2 MILE" signage is in the exit number tab as opposed to below the road name). VA-168 in Chesapeake is way better IMHO, though it is older. Has mileage based exit numbers, traditional interstate-style signage, etc.

In North Carolina however, they still use the older font, and signage is consistent on every exit in the state, freeway, interstate, rural arterial interchange, whatever it is, it's interstate-style standard signage for the most part - even the new ones stick with the traditional style & older font. And most exits have mileage based exit numbers, which Virginia lacks on most (I say most because a few do have exit numbers, though not mileage based) highways that aren't an interstate.

I've just personally always felt North Carolina has way better signage, in terms in consistency and conforming to traditional standards, then Virginia.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: thspfc on May 02, 2019, 06:10:31 PM
Wisconsin is generally good. All state routes, US routes, and Interstates are well signed. County routes are very well signed too, but business routes are not - especially the ones that are left up to the cities, which is almost all of them.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on May 02, 2019, 06:45:56 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2019, 04:07:20 PM
What's "poor" about MA? They're pretty good about getting you where you need to go.

I don't recall any signs with great aesthetics or otherwise outstanding from my trip there in 2014. Others comments convinced me to choose poor for now, but I may revise it.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Occidental Tourist on May 03, 2019, 10:50:10 AM
If California's idiotic method of retrofitting exit numbers combined with switching to retroreflective signs at around the same time–which created a whole generation of frankensigns–doesn't put California at the bottom of everyone's list, I'm going to start drinking early today.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on May 03, 2019, 11:50:48 AM
MN's only real sin is being crappy about control cities in the Twin Cities area, especially at the Fish Lake interchange. I'd like to see Madison/St. Cloud on 694 and Albert Lea/Bloomington and Madison on 494. Should also add Duluth at 35W/694, which wouldn't be out of character for current practice.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on May 03, 2019, 03:32:30 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 03, 2019, 11:50:48 AM
MN's only real sin is being crappy about control cities in the Twin Cities area, especially at the Fish Lake interchange.

I believe Minnesota has very high internal standards, and it definitely shows. Their guidance on rural state routes is a lot better than almost any other state (IMO). You mentioned the lack of control cities, which I also find annoying, and I would add that signage doesn't usually look quite as sharp as it does in, say, Michigan or Ohio. Those are the only reasons why I ranked it "good" instead of "excellent".
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: plain on May 03, 2019, 07:05:55 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 02, 2019, 05:45:39 PM
I've just personally always felt North Carolina has way better signage, in terms in consistency and conforming to traditional standards, then Virginia.

Agreed.

And VDOT aside, several independent cities suck so bad at signage it brings the entire state down.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: sprjus4 on May 03, 2019, 07:07:40 PM
Quote from: plain on May 03, 2019, 07:05:55 PM
And VDOT aside, several independent cities suck so bad at signage it brings the entire state down.
Agreed, but that doesn't leave VDOT in the clear. They've done poor signage as well on non-interstate freeways & arterial interchanges.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: plain on May 03, 2019, 07:12:17 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2019, 07:07:40 PM
Quote from: plain on May 03, 2019, 07:05:55 PM
And VDOT aside, several independent cities suck so bad at signage it brings the entire state down.
Agreed, but that doesn't leave VDOT in the clear. They've done poor signage as well on non-interstate freeways & arterial interchanges.

Oh no doubt. I probably should've said "And besides VDOT".
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on May 04, 2019, 08:41:41 AM
I'll probably flip Virginia and North Carolina with my next revision. I am actually surprised there have not been more specific recommendations for promotion or demotion.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: MNHighwayMan on May 04, 2019, 09:48:38 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 03, 2019, 03:32:30 PM
I would add that signage [in Minnesota] doesn't usually look quite as sharp as it does in, say, Michigan or Ohio.

In what specific ways?
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on May 04, 2019, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 04, 2019, 09:48:38 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 03, 2019, 03:32:30 PM
I would add that signage [in Minnesota] doesn't usually look quite as sharp as it does in, say, Michigan or Ohio.

In what specific ways?

Was thinking the same, especially since my memories of Ohio off-Turnpike are a lot of grody, old signs.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on May 04, 2019, 01:39:58 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 04, 2019, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 04, 2019, 09:48:38 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 03, 2019, 03:32:30 PM
I would add that signage [in Minnesota] doesn't usually look quite as sharp as it does in, say, Michigan or Ohio.
In what specific ways?
Was thinking the same, especially since my memories of Ohio off-Turnpike are a lot of grody, old signs.

Hard to answer without posting examples (which I will do later) but the biggest thing is that I vastly prefer the font Ohio and Michigan use (clearview?  :paranoid:). Also, they use a lot more control cities in suburban areas, which I really like. I think signs with no controls, like at 494/35W, are ugly. And I'm not a fan of MN's state route shield; its too similar to the Interstate shield, and clashes badly with "exit only" banners (IMO).

I'll get to see more Ohio signs next week in the new territory I cover on my trip to Tennessee, but thus far almost all of what I've seen in the Cleveland and Columbus areas has been highly consistent and looks brand new. Off of the interstates, there is no question MN does a superior job, but Ohio's newer installs on I-90 and I-71 set a pretty high standard.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: vdeane on May 04, 2019, 05:57:32 PM
Rhode Island is definitely last.  A state this small should not have this many signage issues.  It's as if RIDOT thinks it's a city DOT.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on May 04, 2019, 06:09:30 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 04, 2019, 05:57:32 PM
Rhode Island is definitely last.  A state this small should not have this many signage issues.  It's as if RIDOT thinks it's a city DOT.

I've heard the gas tax isn't required to be used on roads or transportation in RI, so it generally gets directed to other things.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: vdeane on May 04, 2019, 06:12:51 PM
It wouldn't cost any more to make the signs right rather than with font issues and whatnot.  Adding the shields for route signage omitted on overlaps might cost something, but definitely a lot less than most other transportation work.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: oscar on May 04, 2019, 07:16:04 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 26, 2018, 01:45:01 PM
California does a lousy job with signing Interstate Business Loops off the interstate.  They usually just have those dinky banners that say Route 5 Business.

That's pretty good, visible enough and avoids confusion between red-and-blue regular Interstate markers and (sometimes badly faded) green business route markers. Since most business routes in California are locally-maintained, once you get off the freeway, business route signage is very inconsistent. Sometimes the locality stops caring about its business route (having gotten over being bypassed by the freeway), the business route signage goes away, then Caltrans will take the hint and remove its own business route signage from the freeway.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Super Mateo on May 04, 2019, 08:56:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 02, 2019, 05:45:39 PM
I've just personally always felt North Carolina has way better signage, in terms in consistency and conforming to traditional standards, then Virginia.

I can't say much for Virginia, as unless it's on US 52 or I-77, I haven't seen it.  North Carolina, though, has some flaws over in the Sandhills region.  My biggest peeve with it is that the cross streets at stoplights are only labeled with small street blades, if at all.  NC 211/Yadkin is barely labeled at all.  Good luck finding ANY sign with Yadkin on it.  NC 211 is followable, but the signage isn't great.  I don't know is this is the state DOT or the Sandhills area DOT, but it's hard to find major intersections.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: PurdueBill on May 04, 2019, 10:46:49 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 04, 2019, 01:39:58 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 04, 2019, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 04, 2019, 09:48:38 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 03, 2019, 03:32:30 PM
I would add that signage [in Minnesota] doesn't usually look quite as sharp as it does in, say, Michigan or Ohio.
In what specific ways?
Was thinking the same, especially since my memories of Ohio off-Turnpike are a lot of grody, old signs.

Hard to answer without posting examples (which I will do later) but the biggest thing is that I vastly prefer the font Ohio and Michigan use (clearview?  :paranoid:). Also, they use a lot more control cities in suburban areas, which I really like. I think signs with no controls, like at 494/35W, are ugly. And I'm not a fan of MN's state route shield; its too similar to the Interstate shield, and clashes badly with "exit only" banners (IMO).

I'll get to see more Ohio signs next week in the new territory I cover on my trip to Tennessee, but thus far almost all of what I've seen in the Cleveland and Columbus areas has been highly consistent and looks brand new. Off of the interstates, there is no question MN does a superior job, but Ohio's newer installs on I-90 and I-71 set a pretty high standard.

Ohio is off Clearview except for signs planned before Clearview.  The current ODOT Sign Design Manual uses only FHWA lettering.  That said, new ODOT signs generally look pretty good.  Clearview tended to appear in places it did not belong (EXIT ONLY fields, for example) as seen in Akron where signs designed before Clearview was eliminated and then at least temporarily reinstated are seen.

Indiana has a lot of problems lately with signs with improper border spacing--shields very close to the top of the sign and then awkward spacing below.  This often happens on signs that have been refaced on existing metal from older signs.  What is sad is that the layout of the previous sign (which all they had to do is carbon copy) which was in button copy or even in 15-20 year-old reflective copy was perfect.  It seems to be a recurring problem in Indiana lately.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: plain on May 04, 2019, 11:59:20 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on May 04, 2019, 08:56:39 PM
My biggest peeve with it is that the cross streets at stoplights are only labeled with small street blades, if at all.

I actually agree about the blades, they are very undersized. You'd think a place like Charlotte for example would have blades you could easily see before reaching a major intersection (and of course it's even worse at night). Looks like they just used normal ground-mounted blades and put them up on the mast arms & wire spans  :-/
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 05, 2019, 08:17:55 PM
CT:  Boy, they really used to not care how anything looked.  They always used the cheapest metal for regular road signs and exit gores.  The worst is when they put one up for a memorial or a park.  They're like "oh, yea, that's important, I guess.  Let's just slap some paint and text on it and call it done."  Their lack of borders around exit tabs always bothered me for some reason.  But they finally changed the spec book so that they have them.

Other oddities:

-Inconsistent SR shield borders, either bold or regular, or nonexistent on some BGSs
-Inconsistent sign replacement.  You could go five miles through a set of new ones and then have everything revert back to the way it was for the next five.
-Lack of pull-through signs at busy intersections.  Like, you're on your own if you've never been here before.  Figure it out
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: index on May 05, 2019, 08:58:30 PM
To add to the earlier discussion on uniformity, in terms of uniform styles of signage throughout the state, (and you can tack uniformity of roads in general across the state on to this as well) North Carolina does very well at that. Whether you're in Asheville or Wilmington or wherever, signage generally looks the same with little to no deviation or style changes.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 07, 2019, 02:37:17 PM
I'd say going by visual, proportions and spacing, CT does very well.   Button copy was always well designed and the new signage is visually appealing.  No bubble interstate shields at all. No Clearview. Speaking of interstate shields in BGSs, the fonts in CT are well proportioned. Not to fat or thin.  I noticed the new 3Di sheilds in BGSs in NY and Massachusetts are too thin.  (Drove up I-684 lately in Brewster, NY? Horrible "684" fonts in new signage near I-84)

Florida also does well.  I like the exit tabs in both states, seperate with a border around the whole exit tab. 

I don't like NY's exit tabs with no bottom border and they tend to use bubble shields too.  Even MA's exit tabs are kind odd with the bottom being connected to the main sign.



Aside from the non-blue background of the service panels, this new BGS sign in CT is really well done. I like how the border of the exit tab is a little more thin than the main sign.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7825/32666480557_9ee73c3d8a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RLCfA2)

An example of NY exit tabs....notice how it just pops up with no bottom border. It's like that even on non button copy signs in NY.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/906/39847782620_22a891dcd2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23HdiuQ)
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: SidS1045 on May 07, 2019, 04:26:24 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2019, 04:52:35 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 02, 2019, 04:41:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2019, 04:22:38 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2019, 04:07:20 PM
What's "poor" about MA? They're pretty good about getting you where you need to go.
What Massachusetts are you talking about?  Not the one I grew up in.  Try following MA 122A from start to finish, or MA 141 or MA 116 in the Chicopee and Holyoke areas.  MA is terrible at posting reassurance signage.

Blame that on the state's practice of "musical jurisdictions".  Just because a secondary roadway is a numbered route doesn't automatically mean it's owned by the states.  And most local communities have an aversion to signs.
Doesn't change the fact that signage in MA sucks.

I'm seeing some gradual improvement, so I'd rate it as average.  Replacement signs of all types are generally pretty good.  IMO what's holding it back is some of the old stuff, and the tendency to literally forget about replacing some signs which are decades past their usable life.

The contractor from a few years back who completely botched the replacement reassurance markers in Boston didn't help matters.  Signing north-south routes as east-west and vice versa, signing north as south or east as west, placing reassurance markers on streets which were not numbered at all...and their excuse was that they didn't orient the maps properly when determining sign placement.  Really???
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: PHLBOS on May 07, 2019, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 07, 2019, 02:37:17 PM
I noticed the new 3Di shields in BGSs in NY and Massachusetts are too thin.  (Drove up I-684 lately in Brewster, NY? Horrible "684" fonts in new signage near I-84)
The I-684 shield signs (reassurance markers) your speak of with the narrower font are in Series C; which is actually quite acceptable for 3-digit routes that don't contain a 1 in them.  The issue with those particular I-684 shields may be that the numerals could be an inch or two taller size-wise.  I-shields as of late, everywhere, seem to be sporting lower height numerals.  As a result, there seems to be more blue-space than previously and there's a tendency for the numerals to be placed either too low or too high.

The worst offenders in terms of I-shields (I don't believe any exist in NY) are those with the narrower Series B numerals; such are much harder to read from a distance.  IMHO, those shields w/the Series B numerals are a flat-out abomination and need to go.

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 07, 2019, 02:37:17 PM
An example of NY exit tabs....notice how it just pops up with no bottom border. It's like that even on non button copy signs in NY.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/906/39847782620_22a891dcd2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23HdiuQ)
FWIW, that tab was added on over two decades later than the main panel, which dates back to when I-684 (originally I-87) was built.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: MNHighwayMan on May 08, 2019, 10:21:42 AM
Quote from: roadman on May 08, 2019, 10:14:29 AM
To counter this, designers often manually change the numeral height from 18 inches (for a 36 inch shield) for 15 inches.

The FHWA Standard Highway Signs standard for a 36" Interstate shield is 15" numerals though. Using 18" numerals is either state-specific or non-standard.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: roadman on May 08, 2019, 11:41:00 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on May 08, 2019, 10:21:42 AM
Quote from: roadman on May 08, 2019, 10:14:29 AM
To counter this, designers often manually change the numeral height from 18 inches (for a 36 inch shield) for 15 inches.

The FHWA Standard Highway Signs standard for a 36" Interstate shield is 15" numerals though. Using 18" numerals is either state-specific or non-standard.

Yes, you are correct.  When I first started in this profession (34+ years ago), the 'rule of thumb" I was taught for route shields was that the number was half the height of the shield, regardless of whether the shield was for an Interstate, US, or State route.  Apparently, SignCAD follows the same "rule of thumb".  And old MassDPW specs for Interstate Route shields (before they deferred to the MUTCD and SHS book for such details) show a 15 inch numeral for a 36 inch shield.

In light of this, I've deleted my original post.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Roadsguy on May 15, 2019, 09:54:37 PM
From what little I've seen in Street View and signage plans, NC's freeway signage has improved a lot within the past 10 years or so. Most of the signage that I see in the plans for major projects is excellent. I haven't seen enough surface road signage to really have an opinion on that, considering how few times I've actually been to NC.

PennDOT's freeway signage varies by district, with some being excellent and others inconsistent at best. District 8's newer signage is some of the most consistently excellent that I've seen much of, Clearview aside (the few new District 8 Highway Gothic signs are excellent), but a lot of the western districts still occasionally use the ugly and wrong oversized first letter style with their Clearview signs. District 9 just used it on the new US 219 expressway. Districts 5 and 6 are usually okay.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: ce929wax on May 16, 2019, 12:03:36 AM
I would say my personal top 5 are:
Michigan
Indiana
Tennessee
Texas
Illinois

I would say my personal bottom 5 are:
Ohio
Kentucky
Georgia
South Carolina
Alabama

Honorable mention for being unique (imo):
New Mexico
Utah
California

I generally don't like clearview, which is why Kentucky is on my list because I don't think they do it well.  I'm not a fan of the cramped street names next to the highway shield in Kentucky being in clearview.  Ohio has tiny exit tabs, which just don't look right, especially when centered.  Georgia's signage on interstates is just plain weird, plus their state route shields seem to be tiny.  The only thing I like about Georgia's signage is when they tell you when you are leaving one county for another.  In South Carolina (and New York for that matter) I HATE the exit tabs being off the edge of the sign.  I didn't include New York on my list because I haven't been there (I have only seen pictures) and the rest of their signage is average to good.  Alabama's signage just looks like they put a mishmash of panels together and called it good.  I will say that Alabama's black signage is unique.

Michigan and Texas, OTOH, do clearview well.  Michigan can get a little overzealous in its signing, such as signs that tell you what the next intersection is and what the name of the road is on the overpass.  I also don't think non state maintained county roads need "no passing zone" and "do not pass" signs along with "pass with care" (I'm looking at you Kalamazoo and Calhoun Counties; Allegan County for just "no passing zone").  Indiana is super consistent with its signing, although I am not liking some of the fat new exit tabs I am seeing.  Tennessee interstate signage is consistent on the interstate, on state and US Highways, I wish Tennessee gave the mileage to the next town more often, I also don't like that the mile markers reset at county lines (also looking at you Kentucky and Ohio).   Illinois is pretty consistent too, but I don't like that they are getting rid of their centered exit tabs in favor of right handed tabs in clearview.

New Mexico, much like Alabama is often a mishmash of panels slapped together, but their state shield is unique (for being a circle) and I like that each highway has mile markers that run continuous the length of the highway.  Utah also has a unique state route marker, but their signing is slightly better than New Mexico.   California needs no explanation.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: sprjus4 on May 16, 2019, 07:27:22 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 15, 2019, 09:45:58 PM
I really didn't have any qualms with what I saw of Virginia's signage on Monday, so I am not going to flip its rank with NC - at least not until I've been to NC and/or seen more of their signage.
Referencing your post in the I-81 thread, if you were simply on the I-81 corridor when traveling through Virginia, that's a bit unfair to say. The interstates in Virginia have great signage, I fully agree with that. You need to travel down roads like US-29, US-58, US-460, US-17 and other arterial highways that have arterial interchanges or arterial bypasses with interchanges. That's when the signage gets really inconsistent, and doesn't get anywhere close to the proper, standard interstate-style signage you'd see on I-81 per se.

This is different in North Carolina, where any interchange / freeway in the state has proper, standard interstate-style signage on any interchange whether it be an arterial interchange, or a full blown interstate highway. There's no differences, everything is consistent, etc.

Plus, and this is just a personal opinion, NCDOT doesn't use Clearview font, which, again IMHO, makes the signs look nicer. Also, since NCDOT uses exit numbers on every interchange almost in the state and not just the interstates (and certain arterial freeways) like VDOT does, it helps to make the signage even more consistent.

I'm not saying you're going to change it, but I'm just asking please consider something other than I-81, because of course you'll see good signage on there. Try US-58, US-29, US-460, US-17, or any other arterial highway for 100+ miles, and you'll see the difference big time. Especially new interchanges, those have the worst signage.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: kphoger on May 16, 2019, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: ce929wax on May 16, 2019, 12:03:36 AM
Michigan and Texas, OTOH, do clearview well. 

Texas should be in charge of all Clearview signage nationwide.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on May 16, 2019, 02:45:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 16, 2019, 07:27:22 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 15, 2019, 09:45:58 PM
I really didn't have any qualms with what I saw of Virginia's signage on Monday, so I am not going to flip its rank with NC - at least not until I've been to NC and/or seen more of their signage.
Referencing your post in the I-81 thread, if you were simply on the I-81 corridor when traveling through Virginia, that's a bit unfair to say. The interstates in Virginia have great signage, I fully agree with that. You need to travel down roads like US-29, US-58, US-460, US-17 and other arterial highways that have arterial interchanges or arterial bypasses with interchanges.

Interstates definitely get the most weight, due to their importance. Other freeways are important, too, but a standalone interchange with bad signage doesn't mean that much to me.

Here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9506695,-76.9776577,3a,41.4y,191.24h,87.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTNPXVQQwTBRS4_quI6Ztcg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), for example, is a random cloverleaf in Upstate NY. I think it has terrible signage - standalone shields, seriously!? - and all caps on the distance sign!? - but the signage here doesn't affect my overall ranking for NY's signage because neither of these roads are full freeways.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on May 16, 2019, 02:50:09 PM
Quote from: ce929wax on May 16, 2019, 12:03:36 AM
I would say my personal top 5 are:
Michigan

I would say my personal bottom 5 are:
Ohio

I think that needs some explaining, because out of all 50 states in the US, Michigan and Ohio have among the most similar signage to each other. I can't think of one single major and/or fundamental difference, and I've done a fair bit of traveling in both states.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: sprjus4 on May 16, 2019, 04:33:56 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2019, 02:45:03 PM
Other freeways are important, too, but a standalone interchange with bad signage doesn't mean that much to me.
This isn't just one example. There are numerous examples throughout the state that have poor signage.

North Carolina is consistent everywhere on the other hand.

I think interstates + arterial + other freeway interchanges being consistent over interstate consistency & arterial + other freeway interchanges being inconsistent would weight North Carolina higher in that regard.

In my experience in driving on thousands of Virginia and North Carolina interstates, arterials, other freeways, etc, I've found NC's signage to be overall better.

Just my two cents.

Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2019, 02:45:03 PM
Here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9506695,-76.9776577,3a,41.4y,191.24h,87.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTNPXVQQwTBRS4_quI6Ztcg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), for example, is a random cloverleaf in Upstate NY. I think it has terrible signage - standalone shields, seriously!? - and all caps on the distance sign!? - but the signage here doesn't affect my overall ranking for NY's signage because neither of these roads are full freeways.
Seen that a lot in Virginia too. On arterial freeway (5+ miles long) bypasses too. Never in North Carolina though  :hmmm:
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 16, 2019, 07:39:32 PM
As someone who lives in Illinois, I'd like to ask everyone why Illinois is on the good side of the spectrum in their eyes. Because I do not see it.

Anytime I'm approaching an expressway (except a tollway, thanks ISTHA), I have no idea which way to turn if I'm unfamiliar with the interchange. There are no signs until the last minute.

IDOT signage appears cheap in my opinion. Most sides look like they have a "curve" on them (i.e., aren't flat).

Signs are installed poorly. That could include poor locations where the sign is guaranteed to be run over and not replaced or replaced in the exact same fashion as before, weak posts that can't even withstand some snow from a plow being thrown, and my all-time favorite, I've seen several instances of where IDOT crews are incapable of even getting the screws in the pre-punched holes. I've seen crooked signs, "bowing" signs (screws are too close to each other, so the sign bends outward), signs nailed to utility poles much too far from the roadway to be visible. And don't even get me started on the atrocious Clearview signs we were graced with for years. Although, thankfully they rarely used Clearview off the highways.

I could go on, and on about IDOT's awful practices. I'm very curious as to why people give them an okay.

Also, I vote Michigan as one of the best signage states. Their roads leave a lot to be desired, but at least the signs are pleasant to look at and very informative.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: ce929wax on May 16, 2019, 09:41:38 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2019, 02:50:09 PMI think that needs some explaining, because out of all 50 states in the US, Michigan and Ohio have among the most similar signage to each other. I can't think of one single major and/or fundamental difference, and I've done a fair bit of traveling in both states.

No offense, but I don't see how you could even say that.  Michigan signage and Ohio signage are nothing alike.  Ohio's sign panels are a darker green for one, and for two, Ohio still has a fair amount of button copy signs, which Michigan hasn't had in decades,  if ever.  Michigan's exit tabs are normal sized, and Ohio's are tiny to the point of being almost unreadable at high speeds.  Ohio's state route marker (which is horrible, Ohio is not a good state for an outline marker) is typically over sized unless it is a one or two digit shield.  The only similarity between Michigan and Ohio is the design of the gantries that interstate signs are put on.  Ohio does not label the name of the road on their overpasses like Michigan does (save for the Turnpike), Ohio 's signs are made out of metal and put on metal poles, whereas Michigan's signs are some kind of wood and typically on wooden poles.   

I would be more inclined to think Ohio and Indiana's signage are more similar than Ohio and Michigan's, especially the blue logo signs.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: plain on May 16, 2019, 10:56:15 PM
If anything, MI & NC are related. Both use diamonds as their state route shields (minus the "M" in NC but from what I've seen on this forum that's been disappearing in MI, I haven't been in MI since '06) and both have the all caps "DOWNTOWN" on BGS'.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: ce929wax on May 16, 2019, 11:26:55 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 16, 2019, 07:39:32 PM
As someone who lives in Illinois, I'd like to ask everyone why Illinois is on the good side of the spectrum in their eyes. Because I do not see it.

Speaking for myself, I put Illinois in my top five because I really didn't have a good 5th option.  In the past I would have put Missouri in that spot, but since they have started putting ginormous BGS' on their highways that knocked them out.  I don't have enough experience in Wisconsin to say one way or another, but they could replace Illinois on that list based on what I have seen.  I personally haven't stepped foot in Wisconsin since 1996.  Oklahoma has good interstate signage, but their turnpike signage is not so great. 
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Scott5114 on May 16, 2019, 11:48:14 PM
Quote from: ce929wax on May 16, 2019, 11:26:55 PM
Oklahoma has good interstate signage, but their turnpike signage is not so great. 

Haha! No, we don't.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: kphoger on May 17, 2019, 01:47:15 PM
Quote from: plain on May 16, 2019, 10:56:15 PM
If anything, MI & NC are related. Both use diamonds as their state route shields (minus the "M" in NC but from what I've seen on this forum that's been disappearing in MI, I haven't been in MI since '06) and both have the all caps "DOWNTOWN" on BGS'.

The shape of a route marker and the capitalization of a single word...  I'm not exactly blown away by the significance of those similarities.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: index on May 17, 2019, 02:45:48 PM
Quote from: plain on May 16, 2019, 10:56:15 PM
If anything, MI & NC are related. Both use diamonds as their state route shields (minus the "M" in NC but from what I've seen on this forum that's been disappearing in MI, I haven't been in MI since '06) and both have the all caps "DOWNTOWN" on BGS'.


After a little bit of GSVing, looks like the slow disappearance of the 'M' on Michigan's BGSes is happening, plenty newer-looking ones lack them.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on May 17, 2019, 03:25:45 PM
Quote from: ce929wax on May 16, 2019, 09:41:38 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2019, 02:50:09 PMI think that needs some explaining, because out of all 50 states in the US, Michigan and Ohio have among the most similar signage to each other. I can't think of one single major and/or fundamental difference, and I've done a fair bit of traveling in both states.
No offense, but I don't see how you could even say that.  Michigan signage and Ohio signage are nothing alike.
I've been to 25 states. It's possible that the 25 states I haven't been to happen to all be right in between Ohio and Michigan, while the other 23 states I have been to are on the far end(s) of the spectrum, but I'm very skeptical.

QuoteMichigan's exit tabs are normal sized, and Ohio's are tiny to the point of being almost unreadable at high speeds.
Ummm... I don't think so. If anything, Michigan's are oversized, especially those weird ones that needlessly span the entire width of the sign. Here's two that I picked at random: Michigan (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2947288,-84.0264898,3a,39.5y,266.95h,100.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssGKjZz9REXGmT-4YI9RebQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and Ohio (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4052665,-82.1095457,3a,75y,267.75h,87.68t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sL6-YR4xA1mSCeo4DcCY8Zg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DL6-YR4xA1mSCeo4DcCY8Zg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D75.415146%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100). Not a whole lot of difference, and the exit tabs are, for all practical purposes, identical.

QuoteI would be more inclined to think Ohio and Indiana's signage are more similar than Ohio and Michigan's, especially the blue logo signs.
That's a pretty major insult to Ohio, if you ask me.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: plain on May 17, 2019, 04:28:33 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 17, 2019, 01:47:15 PM
Quote from: plain on May 16, 2019, 10:56:15 PM
If anything, MI & NC are related. Both use diamonds as their state route shields (minus the "M" in NC but from what I've seen on this forum that's been disappearing in MI, I haven't been in MI since '06) and both have the all caps "DOWNTOWN" on BGS'.

The shape of a route marker and the capitalization of a single word...  I'm not exactly blown away by the significance of those similarities.

Closest thing I can think of Michigan being "related" to another state as far as signage.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 17, 2019, 05:28:02 PM
Quote from: ce929wax on May 16, 2019, 11:26:55 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 16, 2019, 07:39:32 PM
As someone who lives in Illinois, I'd like to ask everyone why Illinois is on the good side of the spectrum in their eyes. Because I do not see it.

Speaking for myself, I put Illinois in my top five because I really didn't have a good 5th option.  In the past I would have put Missouri in that spot, but since they have started putting ginormous BGS' on their highways that knocked them out.  I don't have enough experience in Wisconsin to say one way or another, but they could replace Illinois on that list based on what I have seen.  I personally haven't stepped foot in Wisconsin since 1996.  Oklahoma has good interstate signage, but their turnpike signage is not so great.

Fair enough, that's understandable. I can assure you though that Wisconsin is better than Illinois.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: ce929wax on May 17, 2019, 06:37:54 PM
Again, not to be rude, webny99, but you are wrong.  I'll give you the example you gave in your post, but there are still plenty of instances where there are tiny exit tabs on Ohio signage.  I live in Michigan, I see Michigan signage every day.  I have personal ties to Ohio and am there fairly often. 



Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on May 17, 2019, 07:43:42 PM
Quote from: ce929wax on May 17, 2019, 06:37:54 PM
Again, not to be rude, webny99, but you are wrong.  I'll give you the example you gave in your post, but there are still plenty of instances where there are tiny exit tabs on Ohio signage.  I live in Michigan, I see Michigan signage every day.  I have personal ties to Ohio and am there fairly often.

I too have been to Ohio many times and to Michigan around five times or so.

I think at this point it is a matter of personal experience and preference. Overall, Michigan is a bit more consistent, but Ohio's new installs are quite comparable to what you find in Michigan.

I would be interested to see some examples of these tiny exit tabs. Most of my travels have been in northern Ohio and I honestly can't even picture what you're talking about. I know I could find countless examples of regular, standard sized tabs on I-90, the Turnpike, and I-71.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on May 17, 2019, 08:13:27 PM
I've never been a fan of Michigan's giant ground mounted assemblies using 4-5 signs where 2 or 3 is sufficient. (And yes, some states do this worse)

https://goo.gl/maps/UMNsaHN2PEhucJiU8
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: ce929wax on May 17, 2019, 11:20:18 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2019, 07:43:42 PMI too have been to Ohio many times and to Michigan around five times or so.

I think at this point it is a matter of personal experience and preference. Overall, Michigan is a bit more consistent, but Ohio's new installs are quite comparable to what you find in Michigan.

I would be interested to see some examples of these tiny exit tabs. Most of my travels have been in northern Ohio and I honestly can't even picture what you're talking about. I know I could find countless examples of regular, standard sized tabs on I-90, the Turnpike, and I-71.

http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/ohio/interstate/470oh.html  has an example of what I am talking about third picture from the bottom.  I did a cursory search on GSV where I thought there might be one, but it seems Ohio has put up a bunch of new signs since I was there last.

I apologize if it seemed like I jumped down your throat.  I'm remembering the olden days of Ohio roads, as the new signs you have pointed out do, in fact, look similar to Michigan signs.  No hard feelings?
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Ned Weasel on May 18, 2019, 01:00:18 AM
Here's a not very methodically ranked list based on personal opinion and preference, with a probable bias in favor of states in which I've driven more.  From best to worst:
Michigan
Arizona
Georgia
Pennsylvania
Kansas
Ohio
Nebraska
New Jersey
Maryland
West Virginia
Virginia
North Carolina
Florida
Minnesota
Texas (big points lost for sub-standard signing of important lane drops)
Tennessee (points lost for icky diagrammatic signs)
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Delaware
New York
Kentucky
Wisconsin
Indiana
North Dakota
New Hampshire (state in which I've driven the least--hard to rank)
South Carolina
Missouri (points lost due to bad maintenance)
South Dakota
Oregon
Montana
Utah
Illinois
Iowa
Idaho
Colorado
Mississippi
Louisiana
Arkansas
Alabama
Wyoming
California
Washington
New Mexico
Oklahoma

States in which I haven't driven:
Alaska
Hawaii
Maine
Nevada
Rhode Island
Vermont
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: ilpt4u on May 18, 2019, 02:23:47 AM
Quote from: ce929wax on May 16, 2019, 12:03:36 AM
I would say my personal top 5 are:
Michigan
Indiana
Tennessee
Texas
Illinois
Sorry, I have to knock Indiana out of the Top 5, for the poor signing on I-69 between Bloomington and Evansville...Is it that hard to add in Destination/Distance signs? And there is no reason to not use Indy as a Northbound Control now, instead of Controlless

Also the fact that InDOT (in addition to KYTC) having to yet "unify"  the I-265 designation...have they even applied to AASHTO to designate the East End Crossing as I-265? Better Controls on I-265/IN 265/KY 841 should also be added, to signify the route is a functioning Bypass now

Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 16, 2019, 07:39:32 PM
As someone who lives in Illinois, I'd like to ask everyone why Illinois is on the good side of the spectrum in their eyes. Because I do not see it.
My criticisms of IDOT (and ISTHA when needed) signage involve:
1) Use of Control States in D1 instead of Cities
2) Using both East St Louis and St Louis as Local and Major Controls, especially on Destination/Mileage signage, on the 3 Interstates approaching St Louis. Since they are literally the width of the river away from each other, St Louis is fine
3) I-24 only "kinda"  having a West Control of St Louis. It should be Fully Signed and on Destination/Mileage signs, just like it is across the Ohio in KY
4) The whole "Suburbs"  (since removed) or "*directional* Suburbs"  as acceptable Controls - IDOT and ISTHA are both Guilty here. Also I-355 @ I-55 not having Controls - just greenout from where "Suburbs"  used to be

D8 & D9 tend to not use Directional Banners on more rural reassurance shields...not every reassurance shield really needs the Directional Banner

I think IDOT does a pretty darn good job with signage, otherwise. I'm trying to visualize which Expressway Interchange you feel is poorly signed...I-57 @ I-80 is about the worst I've noticed, and its not horrid

ISTHA added standard Exit Numbers and Mile Markers (which involved "flipping"  the Jane Addams Tollway MMs).
IDOT and ISTHA sign Freeway Exits well, IMHO, including the Tab placement shifted Left or Right, depending on the Exit side.
IDOT surface intersections are typically well shielded, in addition to having "IL Route ##"  or "US Route ##"  on the Street Blade
Speed Limit, Stop Signs, Passing Zone, Destination/Mileage, the IDOT County-based MMs, Advisory signage, Reassurance Shields (including Multiplexes) - all fine and dandy

Illinois does pretty well on its signage, but it could be slightly better
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Ben114 on May 18, 2019, 03:49:54 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 02, 2019, 03:21:54 PM
I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to post a full list of my own and see what others thought. I included all of the lower 48 and it ended up a lot more top heavy than I thought it would, so I reread the thread and made some changes. Obviously, I am going mainly by others comments for states I haven't been to, while my placement for states I have been to is a bit more nuanced. However, I am very much open for suggestions!  :)

Tier 1 - The Best
Idaho, Michigan, Ohio, North Dakota, Vermont

Tier 2 - Good
Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin

Tier 3 - Average
Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

Tier 4 - Poor
Arkansas, California, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon

Tier 5 - The Worst
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island
I wouldn't put Massachusetts in Poor, it would probably be Good based on recent sign replacement / installations
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: webny99 on May 18, 2019, 04:10:11 PM
Quote from: ce929wax on May 17, 2019, 11:20:18 PM
I apologize if it seemed like I jumped down your throat.  I'm remembering the olden days of Ohio roads, as the new signs you have pointed out do, in fact, look similar to Michigan signs.  No hard feelings?

Yeah, I think I would need to see more of Ohio's old signage to make a judgment of it, as much of what I have seen (mainly in the Cleveland area) is indeed pretty new.
And all good - not at all  :)
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: kphoger on May 20, 2019, 02:31:53 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 18, 2019, 01:00:18 AM
Missouri (points lost due to bad maintenance)

Maintenance of signs or maintenance of roads ??
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 20, 2019, 09:10:39 PM
NYS is good in rural areas, bad in urban areas.  And really, NYC should be considered a state for the purposes of this list since it takes care of all signage within the city.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Rothman on May 21, 2019, 12:34:54 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 20, 2019, 09:10:39 PM
NYS is good in rural areas, bad in urban areas.  And really, NYC should be considered a state for the purposes of this list since it takes care of all signage within the city.
No.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Ned Weasel on May 21, 2019, 06:15:44 AM
Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2019, 02:31:53 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 18, 2019, 01:00:18 AM
Missouri (points lost due to bad maintenance)

Maintenance of signs or maintenance of roads ??

Signs. Some are so decrepit they're barely legible.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: kphoger on May 21, 2019, 02:15:01 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 21, 2019, 06:15:44 AM

Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2019, 02:31:53 PM

Quote from: stridentweasel on May 18, 2019, 01:00:18 AM
Missouri (points lost due to bad maintenance)

Maintenance of signs or maintenance of roads ??

Signs. Some are so decrepit they're barely legible.

Got some examples?  I've driven extensively in Missouri and I struggle to think of any.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: ilpt4u on May 21, 2019, 07:10:33 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2019, 02:15:01 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 21, 2019, 06:15:44 AM

Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2019, 02:31:53 PM

Quote from: stridentweasel on May 18, 2019, 01:00:18 AM
Missouri (points lost due to bad maintenance)

Maintenance of signs or maintenance of roads ??

Signs. Some are so decrepit they're barely legible.

Got some examples?  I've driven extensively in Missouri and I struggle to think of any.
I haven't noticed any issues in the Eastern half of the state. Granted I don't drive a lot in MO, but STL Metro area is good.

AotS could be signed, maybe as supplamental signage, at the 70/64/40/61 Interchange in Wentzville. Otherwise AotS signage is fine

I-55 and I-57 are both fine

Issues further west, perhaps?

*EDIT*

I take it back. Not signing the Inbound/eastbound I-70 Express Lanes as an Early Exit for I-44/I-55 and making perfectly clear there is no access to the Stan Musial/I-70 nor Poplar St/I-55/I-64 Bridges to IL from the Express Lanes is a STL area poor signing job

Those kinds of things should be signed, especially on the Interstate between the Airport and Downtown/Mississippi River Bridges
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Ned Weasel on May 21, 2019, 09:15:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2019, 02:15:01 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 21, 2019, 06:15:44 AM

Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2019, 02:31:53 PM

Quote from: stridentweasel on May 18, 2019, 01:00:18 AM
Missouri (points lost due to bad maintenance)

Maintenance of signs or maintenance of roads ??

Signs. Some are so decrepit they're barely legible.

Got some examples?  I've driven extensively in Missouri and I struggle to think of any.

Eastern leg of I-435, and I-35 around Downtown KC.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: kphoger on May 22, 2019, 02:06:17 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 21, 2019, 09:15:10 PM
Eastern leg of I-435, and I-35 around Downtown KC.

Interesting.  I've driven both in their entirety (35 through downtown somewhat often) and nothing stands out in my mind.  What seems amiss?
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Ned Weasel on May 23, 2019, 06:30:07 AM
Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2019, 02:06:17 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 21, 2019, 09:15:10 PM
Eastern leg of I-435, and I-35 around Downtown KC.

Interesting.  I've driven both in their entirety (35 through downtown somewhat often) and nothing stands out in my mind.  What seems amiss?

Lettering that you can barely read. I can't tell if it's from graffiti or the letters being worn away. I've heard graffiti has been an issue.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: csw on May 23, 2019, 11:30:30 AM
Just drove through MO on I-70/I-270 two days ago. Some signs have issues with peeling/fading lettering. I also noticed this on I-55 approaching St. Louis from the south when I went through 2 summers ago. Here's a particularly bad example. https://goo.gl/maps/yB25sL8sWrCaG7bU8

Outside of that issue, I'd say Missouri is pretty good overall. Legible BGSs, fairly consistent fonts, adequate signage for state and county routes, what more do you need?
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: kphoger on May 23, 2019, 02:25:25 PM
Quote from: csw on May 23, 2019, 11:30:30 AM
adequate signage for ... county routes

??  I've only seen county route pentagons in a select few areas.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: csw on May 23, 2019, 09:15:55 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 23, 2019, 02:25:25 PM
Quote from: csw on May 23, 2019, 11:30:30 AM
adequate signage for ... county routes

??  I've only seen county route pentagons in a select few areas.
whatever the lettered routes are, I guess they're state secondaries
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: StogieGuy7 on August 22, 2019, 12:20:25 PM
I've seen a number of posts ranking Indiana near the top of the list.  My question: what are you smoking? Indiana has some of the most hideously misaligned BGS' of any state.  And they're not all old, either - many are newer.  Inconsistent fonts, badges in the wrong place, the list goes on.  I'd rank them down toward the bottom.  A couple of minor examples from I-65, though such errors are found on freeways throughout the Hoosier State.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0215763,-87.2711092,3a,37.5y,206.45h,86.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIAjjmvgI2BBIqNutGhvrRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0215763,-87.2711092,3a,37.5y,206.45h,86.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIAjjmvgI2BBIqNutGhvrRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9738606,-86.3863186,3a,37.5y,342.17h,92.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seXiTuEL1Rd1FHecYE8nyJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9738606,-86.3863186,3a,37.5y,342.17h,92.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seXiTuEL1Rd1FHecYE8nyJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

By the way, I'd rank Wisconsin in the very top tier and at least at the same level as Minnesota.  Great signage on freeways, excellent signage on surface roads and the county trunk highway lettering system is helpful on local roads.  WI actually has more updated BGS' than Minnesota does (some of theirs are getting pretty worn).  And they're both top tier in my book because....no clearview!
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: csw on August 22, 2019, 01:56:40 PM
Ok, Wisconsin's unisign-shields alone are enough to disqualify it from top tier status...

I'll be the first to admit Indiana isn't the best, but to call the two examples you gave "hideously misaligned" when the spacing is only off by a few inches is ludicrous. At least provide some better examples. I'm also curious to know how many highways you've traveled in Indiana, because the bulk of signage is adequate, albeit pretty old in places. And inconsistent fonts? I've seen clearview on only a handful of new signs on IN 265...outside of that it's pretty consistent.

Basically, I want to see more evidence before I accept your judgment of Indiana signage.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: jbnv on August 22, 2019, 02:18:36 PM
I'd say most of the rankings of Louisiana as below average are fair. We can have some really good looking signage--if we wanted to. However, just like with everything else associated with state government, there's a lot of laziness and lack of care for quality.

The Good: I'm disappointed that the state abandoned Clearview, but post-Clearview BGS's actually look pretty good, as long as they don't have some sort of OCD-triggering defect..

The Bad: Inconsistency, especially among state-highway shields. I don't know why we bother with wide shields; you can fit four digits into the state shape easily, and even the extreme case of four digits, Instead, we get wide signs in lots of places we don't need them (I have a picture of a wide LA 75, FPS). Fonts are all over the place, with a lot of ugly series B on 1- and 2-digit shields. Also bad: Insufficient signing of cardinal directions.

The Ugly (literally): A) Peeling signs. You'd think that in the 21st century, we'd know how to make signs that aren't going to fall apart in our harsh summer climate. B) Series B on LGS's. We were starting to get some decent-looking LGS's before Clearview was pulled. The post-Clearview LGS's are generally hideous. (rather fitting that our current failure of a governor put up some of those hideous series B signs at the borders of his home parish.)   

If we took care of the peeling and made all of the shields squares with fonts that made good use of the space, we'd be average if not above average.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: kphoger on August 23, 2019, 02:48:52 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on August 22, 2019, 12:20:25 PM
I've seen a number of posts ranking Indiana near the top of the list.  My question: what are you smoking? Indiana has some of the most hideously misaligned BGS' of any state.  And they're not all old, either - many are newer.  Inconsistent fonts, badges in the wrong place, the list goes on.  I'd rank them down toward the bottom.  A couple of minor examples from I-65, though such errors are found on freeways throughout the Hoosier State.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0215763,-87.2711092,3a,37.5y,206.45h,86.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIAjjmvgI2BBIqNutGhvrRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0215763,-87.2711092,3a,37.5y,206.45h,86.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIAjjmvgI2BBIqNutGhvrRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9738606,-86.3863186,3a,37.5y,342.17h,92.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seXiTuEL1Rd1FHecYE8nyJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9738606,-86.3863186,3a,37.5y,342.17h,92.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seXiTuEL1Rd1FHecYE8nyJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

By the way, I'd rank Wisconsin in the very top tier and at least at the same level as Minnesota.  Great signage on freeways, excellent signage on surface roads and the county trunk highway lettering system is helpful on local roads.  WI actually has more updated BGS' than Minnesota does (some of theirs are getting pretty worn).  And they're both top tier in my book because....no clearview!

I think those two examples you linked to aren't all that bad, honestly.  Certainly, other states are known to do worse.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: jbnv on August 23, 2019, 04:35:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2019, 02:48:52 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on August 22, 2019, 12:20:25 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0215763,-87.2711092,3a,37.5y,206.45h,86.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIAjjmvgI2BBIqNutGhvrRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0215763,-87.2711092,3a,37.5y,206.45h,86.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIAjjmvgI2BBIqNutGhvrRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9738606,-86.3863186,3a,37.5y,342.17h,92.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seXiTuEL1Rd1FHecYE8nyJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9738606,-86.3863186,3a,37.5y,342.17h,92.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seXiTuEL1Rd1FHecYE8nyJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I think those two examples you linked to aren't all that bad, honestly.  Certainly, other states are known to do worse.

What's the problem with the second one? There's definitely an alignment issue with the first sign, but only those with OCD will fret about it as they pass it at 70mph.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: formulanone on August 25, 2019, 10:21:19 AM
Quote from: jbnv on August 23, 2019, 04:35:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2019, 02:48:52 PM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on August 22, 2019, 12:20:25 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0215763,-87.2711092,3a,37.5y,206.45h,86.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIAjjmvgI2BBIqNutGhvrRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0215763,-87.2711092,3a,37.5y,206.45h,86.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIAjjmvgI2BBIqNutGhvrRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9738606,-86.3863186,3a,37.5y,342.17h,92.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seXiTuEL1Rd1FHecYE8nyJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9738606,-86.3863186,3a,37.5y,342.17h,92.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seXiTuEL1Rd1FHecYE8nyJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I think those two examples you linked to aren't all that bad, honestly.  Certainly, other states are known to do worse.

What's the problem with the second one? There's definitely an alignment issue with the first sign, but only those with OCD will fret about it as they pass it at 70mph.

After spending some time in Indiana last week, the BGS' remind me of some of the work seen around Florida about 5-15 years ago: Many little centering/spacing issues, varying font heights from sign-to-sign, but nothing really hideous.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: tolbs17 on July 23, 2021, 08:01:48 PM
Would it be nice if NCDOT started using the  square signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8099866,-80.8607427,3a,25y,265.9h,101.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRDfNL4Zu5adarAiVu3z7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) rather than the oval signs that are smoother like other states do? I want to know what you're opinions are. I like the square signs better.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: sprjus4 on July 23, 2021, 10:47:19 PM
^ My opinion is that the rounded edge, in conjunction with FHWA font, looks far nicer than the newer square signage, especially in conjunction with Clearview.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: ClassicHasClass on July 23, 2021, 11:02:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 18, 2018, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2018, 12:34:28 AM
Always liked the Super-sized BGSes on the Mountain Parkway in Kentucky.

Those were installed in the mid-1970s. A few of them have been replaced, but a few still survive.

Any examples?
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: tolbs17 on December 22, 2021, 01:40:18 PM
Btw, NCDOT did have many square signs and they currently phased it out since the early 1980s. Although many can still be seen on older highways, they are being replaced with the ones with rounded edges. Other states still use square...
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: ran4sh on December 22, 2021, 01:55:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 23, 2021, 10:47:19 PM
^ My opinion is that the rounded edge, in conjunction with FHWA font, looks far nicer than the newer square signage, especially in conjunction with Clearview.

In NC the signage with square (non-rounded) corners is not new, new signs have rounded corners.

Quote from: tolbs17 on December 22, 2021, 01:40:18 PM
Btw, NCDOT did have many square signs and they currently phased it out since the early 1980s. Although many can still be seen on older highways, they are being replaced with the ones with rounded edges. Other states still use square...

States that make their BGSs with extruded panels don't have the option to round the corners of those signs. This is probably the majority of states. However, some states that use flat panel signs don't bother to round the corners, for example Washington, Alabama, etc
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: tolbs17 on February 05, 2022, 02:28:14 PM
North Carolina highway signs in the early 2010s suck imo. I think that was the worst time to see them being used. They looked so cheap and clumsy.

2007-2009 were awesome imo as well as in the 90s and 2000s.

But now they have gotten better in recent years now and I'm impressed.

Examples:

https://goo.gl/maps/k2bzitKhCG1uGvQd9

https://goo.gl/maps/jNjStoUsjxkMYQnKA
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Scott5114 on February 05, 2022, 03:36:28 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 05, 2022, 02:28:14 PM
North Carolina highway signs in the early 2010s suck imo. I think that was the worst time to see them being used. They looked so cheap and clumsy.

I sentence you to five years of living in Oklahoma.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Kickapoo_Turnpike_exit_144_2.jpg/1024px-Kickapoo_Turnpike_exit_144_2.jpg)
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: tolbs17 on February 05, 2022, 03:46:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 05, 2022, 03:36:28 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 05, 2022, 02:28:14 PM
North Carolina highway signs in the early 2010s suck imo. I think that was the worst time to see them being used. They looked so cheap and clumsy.

I sentence you to five years of living in Oklahoma.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Kickapoo_Turnpike_exit_144_2.jpg/1024px-Kickapoo_Turnpike_exit_144_2.jpg)
Ew, ugly!

I would want to visit Oklahoma. I'm eager
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: jbnv on February 05, 2022, 04:55:04 PM
If you're OCD, try driving under this (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4821431,-90.4915493,3a,75y,150.63h,86.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ1R7-bVTjzEY-FEZ8UYweA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) every day.  :no:
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: ran4sh on February 05, 2022, 06:42:26 PM
Quote from: jbnv on February 05, 2022, 04:55:04 PM
If you're OCD, try driving under this (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4821431,-90.4915493,3a,75y,150.63h,86.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ1R7-bVTjzEY-FEZ8UYweA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) every day.  :no:

The only deficiency in those signs is that they are too small, there needs to be more space between the border and legend. The exit tabs should also be upgraded to 30-inch height (24 inch, as those signs are, was the standard until the mid-00s), although there are some states that continue to use 24 inch exit tabs for new signs.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Road Hog on February 08, 2022, 07:24:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 05, 2022, 03:36:28 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 05, 2022, 02:28:14 PM
North Carolina highway signs in the early 2010s suck imo. I think that was the worst time to see them being used. They looked so cheap and clumsy.

I sentence you to five years of living in Oklahoma.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Kickapoo_Turnpike_exit_144_2.jpg/1024px-Kickapoo_Turnpike_exit_144_2.jpg)
Life sentence:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos1.blogger.com%2Fimg%2F177%2F3509%2F640%2Fcounty%2520sign.jpg&hash=f8ffa22bbbb48f73e3978101dafa64d4b1919014)
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 08, 2022, 07:29:53 PM
You guys should really check out your nearest National Forest if your aim is to truly find your state's worst signage is high. 

https://flic.kr/p/22A9Ew8

On a more serious note, I found Hawaii (O'ahu specifically) to be very lacking in signage. 
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: hotdogPi on February 08, 2022, 07:32:53 PM
Since everyone is rating both New Mexico and Oklahoma bottom, meaning nobody is distinguishing the two:

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 09, 2021, 01:20:07 PM
ODOT signage is æsthetically garbage, violates norms of both graphic design and traffic control, and hurts your eyes to look at. But it's almost always there, and it's usually complete and mostly correct. ODOT signage sucks, but you can at least navigate with it. NMDOT sometimes can't even manage to clear that simple bar, to the point that it starts to negatively impact navigability. So there's a pretty good argument that NMDOT is worse than ODOT.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: jbnv on February 08, 2022, 09:28:06 PM
Just anecdotally, but I travelled through New Mexico last summer, and I agree that the signage was insufficient.
Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: Occidental Tourist on February 09, 2022, 02:22:51 AM
Quote from: jbnv on February 05, 2022, 04:55:04 PM
If you're OCD, try driving under this (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4821431,-90.4915493,3a,75y,150.63h,86.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ1R7-bVTjzEY-FEZ8UYweA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) every day.  :no:

I would kill for signage as uniform as that.  Come to California and ping your OCD all day long.

Title: Re: States Ranked by Signage Quality
Post by: jbnv on February 09, 2022, 09:52:35 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on February 09, 2022, 02:22:51 AM
Quote from: jbnv on February 05, 2022, 04:55:04 PM
If you're OCD, try driving under this (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4821431,-90.4915493,3a,75y,150.63h,86.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ1R7-bVTjzEY-FEZ8UYweA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) every day.  :no:

I would kill for signage as uniform as that.  Come to California and ping your OCD all day long.

Ironic that you would say that considering that California has a height max on overhead signs.