I noticed that if one street immediately ends and has no other street connecting to it that goes anywhere it is signed Dead End.
However if a road goes several miles and ends suddenly with no connecting roads to anywhere before it ends, then it get will get a No Outlet. Also if a road goes into a subdivision where it has many streets, but none connect to anyplace else, then it also gets a No Outlet.
That is how it is in Florida anyway. In NJ where I came from it never used No Outlet anyplace but always used Dead End, and in PA I remember seeing No Outlet used on even short side streets that go nowhere.
What is it like in your state. Is it like Florida where the literal term of the sign is used, or is there another standard that only your state uses for the application of either of the two signs?
I can't speak for every situation in Arkansas, but what I have seen is a literal useage of "DEAD END (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2260667,-94.2505833,3a,16.9y,20.17h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCaXqVnp7ADA40KyU6V2E4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)"
I remember seeing the usage of "NO OUTLET" with a long paved lane of sorts. But, it seems that Arkansas treats NO OUTLET like DEAD END, but I'd have to go find an example and learn its usage to be able to compare them better.
MA uses DEAD END
PA uses NO OUTLET
Maybe No Outlet are the kinder, gentler traffic signs?
I've seen both used in Oregon. Usually a "dead end" is a single street with no outlet, and a "no outlet" is a series of streets where none of them have an outlet. I also think "no outlet" might be used on streets that don't allow cars to exit, but do have a bike path or something to allow pedestrians to exit.
That said, this street (https://goo.gl/maps/o31nqMDWGcu) used to make me rage for using both signs. The City of Tigard eventually removed the "dead end" sign late last year/early this year, which supports my theory above since there's more than one road with no exit.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 13, 2018, 04:45:07 PM
MA uses DEAD END
PA uses NO OUTLET
Plenty of no outlet signs around me in MA, usually used for the tree branch dead end neighborhoods with multiple roads but no actual outlet.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 13, 2018, 04:18:22 PM
I noticed that if one street immediately ends and has no other street connecting to it that goes anywhere it is signed Dead End.
However if a road goes several miles and ends suddenly with no connecting roads to anywhere before it ends, then it get will get a No Outlet. Also if a road goes into a subdivision where it has many streets, but none connect to anyplace else, then it also gets a No Outlet.
For the most part, that's how it is here, but they seem to be used interchangeably, as seen here (https://goo.gl/maps/8DGAHTHvkJK2) (use the historical imagery to go back to 2014).
Occasionally, where a street leads to and then ends in a subdivision, there will be a sign with some variation of "not a thru street", such as this (https://goo.gl/maps/ZHkiMVb967n) and this (https://goo.gl/maps/HgQJkywtKgL2).
Our neighborhood has a "No Outlet" sign near the entrance. The one street that leads in is the only street you can use to get back out in a motorized vehicle, but there are nine (I think) streets that branch off it. A couple of those intersect each other, and there are three others that branch off those, but none of them connect to any street in a way that would allow you to drive out other than by going back the way you entered. (A couple of paths provide for other pedestrian or bicycle routes out.)
A "Dead End" sign as used around here doesn't require that the street be a short one. It just requires that it not intersect anything else. Dead ends are not always posted.
In Quebec, what we would call a dead end is often posted as "Cul-de-sac." It doesn't mean a residential street that typically has a circular end the way it usually does in the USA.
The difference seems fairly straightforward to me:
"Dead End" means no formal ending (or crossings) at all, not even a cul-de-sac; in other words, no oppurtunity to turn around beyond that point without using private property.
"No Outlet" could be a cul-de-sac, but it could also be an extensive neighborhood; it simply signifies that if you proceed beyond that point, you'll have to pass through it again to in order to exit. There could be any number of separate streets, but only one exit.
That means that "No Outlet" scenarios are the much more common of the two, and as such there are many more "No Outlet" signs. At least in areas with which I'm familiar, true dead ends are quite rare.
I don't even get how there's a debate here. The difference is right there in the MUTCD.
Quote from: 2012 MUTCD
Section 2C.26 DEAD END/NO OUTLET Signs (W14-1, W14-1a, W14-2, W14-2a)
Option:
01 The DEAD END (W14-1) sign (see Figure 2C-5) may be used at the entrance of a single road or street that
terminates in a dead end or cul-de-sac. The NO OUTLET (W14-2) sign (see Figure 2C-5) may be used at the
entrance to a road or road network from which there is no other exit.
02 DEAD END (W14-1a) or NO OUTLET (W14-2a) signs (see Figure 2C-5) may be used in combination with
Street Name (D3-1) signs (see Section 2D.43) to warn turning traffc that the cross street ends in the direction
indicated by the arrow.
03 At locations where the cross street does not have a name, the W14-1a or W14-2a signs may be used alone in
place of a street name sign.
Standard:
04 The DEAD END (W14-1a) and NO OUTLET (W14-2a) signs shall be horizontal rectangles with an
arrow pointing to the left or right.
05 When the W14-1 or W14-2 sign is used, the sign shall be posted as near as practical to the entry point
or at a suffcient advance distance to permit the road user to avoid the dead end or no outlet condition by
turning at the nearest intersecting street.
06 The DEAD END (W14-1a) or NO OUTLET (W14-2a) signs shall not be used instead of the W14-1
or W14-2 signs where traffc can proceed straight through the intersection into the dead end street or no
outlet area.
I never knew there was a distinction between the two. I always thought they meant the same thing and "no outlet" just came into usage because somebody decided having the word "DEAD" on a sign in all caps wasn't particularly kind enough anymore. :P
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 14, 2018, 05:58:12 AM
I never knew there was a distinction between the two. I always thought they meant the same thing and "no outlet" just came into usage because somebody decided having the word "DEAD" on a sign in all caps wasn't particularly kind enough anymore. :P
I did think that to be a bit eerie as a kid. I also, at one point, thought "NO OUTLET" had something to do with electricity. :-D
How about adopting the sign we use over here. This sign is well understood throughout Europe. A common sign for both dead end and no outlet would remove the confusion
(https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/2/2d/TSRGD_816.jpg)
The more I think of it, the more I believe that No Outlet has a clearer meaning than Dead End. The former gives a better clue that there is no other way out of the place you are passing through, as the latter should only be placed where no other road or street will cross over the one you are on.
Quote from: Henry on March 14, 2018, 09:49:59 AM
The more I think of it, the more I believe that No Outlet has a clearer meaning than Dead End. The former gives a better clue that there is no other way out of the place you are passing through, as the latter should only be placed where no other road or street will cross over the one you are on.
Which is exactly how they're supposed to be used, as the snippet from the MUTCD I posted states.
I learned about this early on in life. I grew up on a cul-de-sac with no other streets attached, so we had a "Dead End" sign at the beginning of the street. However, I was curious about "No Outlet" signs, and I discovered that there were streets attached to the road, but no other way out of the neighborhood.
As long as I don't see something like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.smosh.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fbloguploads%2Fconfusing-sign-one-way-dead-end.jpg&hash=5fee9f9b2497cc87fac8caf1ab0a7ed38587eb8b)
Quote from: Truvelo on March 14, 2018, 08:15:47 AM
How about adopting the sign we use over here. This sign is well understood throughout Europe. A common sign for both dead end and no outlet would remove the confusion
(https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/2/2d/TSRGD_816.jpg)
That just looks like a "T" with no other real message. If you didn't explain it, I wouldn't have a clue what it meant.
Quote from: Brandon on March 14, 2018, 12:01:11 PM
Quote from: Truvelo on March 14, 2018, 08:15:47 AM
How about adopting the sign we use over here. This sign is well understood throughout Europe. A common sign for both dead end and no outlet would remove the confusion
(https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/2/2d/TSRGD_816.jpg)
That just looks like a "T" with no other real message. If you didn't explain it, I wouldn't have a clue what it meant.
Looks like a generic logo that a small urban transit system might use.
Quote from: SectorZ on March 13, 2018, 06:02:45 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 13, 2018, 04:45:07 PM
MA uses DEAD END
PA uses NO OUTLET
Plenty of no outlet signs around me in MA, usually used for the tree branch dead end neighborhoods with multiple roads but no actual outlet.
I wonder if those were erected within the last 20-30 years. Growing up in the North Shore during the 70s & 80s, I never saw any
NO OUTLET signage around. Back then, most
DEAD END signs were smallish white rectangles that resembled mini-regulatory signs.
Checking GSV at a neighborhood I grew up in, I saw this town-made example (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4828752,-70.8801922,3a,75y,184.94h,78.66t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sz6TecLlgZV-rgITSv88QtA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dz6TecLlgZV-rgITSv88QtA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D314.72025%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) of such.
However, one similar (small white rectangular) sign used en lieu of a
NO OUTLET sign for dead end neighborhoods with multiple roads was the
NOT A THRU WAY sign.
Quote from: Brandon on March 14, 2018, 12:01:11 PM
Quote from: Truvelo on March 14, 2018, 08:15:47 AM
How about adopting the sign we use over here. This sign is well understood throughout Europe. A common sign for both dead end and no outlet would remove the confusion
(https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/2/2d/TSRGD_816.jpg)
That just looks like a "T" with no other real message. If you didn't explain it, I wouldn't have a clue what it meant.
And then we're back to where we are with Dead End vs. No Outlet. No need to reinvent the wheel...just apply the existing signs as prescribed in the MUTCD:
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD 2C.26(01)The DEAD END (W14-1) sign (see Figure 2C-5) may be used at the entrance of a single road or street that terminates in a dead end or cul-de-sac. The NO OUTLET (W14-2) sign (see Figure 2C-5) may be used at the entrance to a road or road network from which there is no other exit.
Quote from: DaBigE on March 14, 2018, 12:45:17 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 14, 2018, 12:01:11 PM
Quote from: Truvelo on March 14, 2018, 08:15:47 AM
How about adopting the sign we use over here. This sign is well understood throughout Europe. A common sign for both dead end and no outlet would remove the confusion
That just looks like a "T" with no other real message. If you didn't explain it, I wouldn't have a clue what it meant.
And then we're back to where we are with Dead End vs. No Outlet. No need to reinvent the wheel...just apply the existing signs as prescribed in the MUTCD:
But my Vienna Convention signage! It's so great and easy to understand!
Quote from: Brandon on March 14, 2018, 12:01:11 PM
Quote from: Truvelo on March 14, 2018, 08:15:47 AM
How about adopting the sign we use over here. This sign is well understood throughout Europe. A common sign for both dead end and no outlet would remove the confusion
(https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/2/2d/TSRGD_816.jpg)
That just looks like a "T" with no other real message. If you didn't explain it, I wouldn't have a clue what it meant.
As long as it's posted in another country on a regular basis, and they know what it means, I guess that's all that's important.
If someone doesn't know what it means, after passing it a few times and winding up in a dead end, hopefully they figure it out by then! LOL
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 14, 2018, 10:06:47 AM
Quote from: Henry on March 14, 2018, 09:49:59 AM
The more I think of it, the more I believe that No Outlet has a clearer meaning than Dead End. The former gives a better clue that there is no other way out of the place you are passing through, as the latter should only be placed where no other road or street will cross over the one you are on.
Which is exactly how they're supposed to be used, as the snippet from the MUTCD I posted states.
Not exactly. In MUTCD, No Outlet is a super-set of Dead End. The definition of Dead End falls within the definition of No Outlet.
For a single road, either could be used. For more than one road in the subdivision, only No Outlet should be used.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 14, 2018, 04:08:06 AM
I don't even get how there's a debate here. The difference is right there in the MUTCD.
There shouldn't be. A dead end requires a u turn, 3 point turn, or some offroading to get out and you have to go back the way you came. A "no outlet" situation gives all of those options, plus you can go around a block or take one of several exits, but they all lead back to the same road you entered the area on.
That's how I interpret it, but then there's this No Outlet sign on 80th Avenue (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.616679,-87.8142136,3a,61.9y,0.64h,89.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7__pnw6VjDCKA6JBIZbmuQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D7__pnw6VjDCKA6JBIZbmuQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D300.09497%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en). I don't know if it's used properly as you can continue forward, make a left on Forestview, then continue north on 82nd Avenue. It does have an outlet. After Forestview to the north, there are two properly placed dead end signs. This road has both. For what it's worth, this is a county level road through Orland, Tinley, and Frankfort.
Quote from: Super Mateo on March 15, 2018, 09:38:18 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 14, 2018, 04:08:06 AM
I don't even get how there's a debate here. The difference is right there in the MUTCD.
There shouldn't be. A dead end requires a u turn, 3 point turn, or some offroading to get out and you have to go back the way you came. A "no outlet" situation gives all of those options, plus you can go around a block or take one of several exits, but they all lead back to the same road you entered the area on.
That's how I interpret it, but then there's this No Outlet sign on 80th Avenue (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.616679,-87.8142136,3a,61.9y,0.64h,89.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7__pnw6VjDCKA6JBIZbmuQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D7__pnw6VjDCKA6JBIZbmuQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D300.09497%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en). I don't know if it's used properly as you can continue forward, make a left on Forestview, then continue north on 82nd Avenue. It does have an outlet. After Forestview to the north, there are two properly placed dead end signs. This road has both. For what it's worth, this is a county level road through Orland, Tinley, and Frankfort.
It should not be there, since there is a second outlet, as you describe. That sign's likely intention (IMO) is to keep through traffic out, however incorrect that usage is. Or, as Baloo points out, it was once correct and is no longer.
Quote from: GaryV on March 14, 2018, 07:01:07 PM
For a single road, either could be used. For more than one road in the subdivision, only No Outlet should be used.
Exactly :clap:
I fail to see what is so complicated about that concept.
Quote from: webny99 on March 15, 2018, 12:08:13 PM
Quote from: GaryV on March 14, 2018, 07:01:07 PM
For a single road, either could be used. For more than one road in the subdivision, only No Outlet should be used.
Exactly :clap:
I fail to see what is so complicated about that concept.
...which isn't what you said in your post above.
Quote from: webny99 on March 13, 2018, 10:44:22 PM
The difference seems fairly straightforward to me:
"Dead End" means no formal ending (or crossings) at all, not even a cul-de-sac; in other words, no oppurtunity to turn around beyond that point without using private property.
"No Outlet" could be a cul-de-sac, but it could also be an extensive neighborhood; it simply signifies that if you proceed beyond that point, you'll have to pass through it again to in order to exit. There could be any number of separate streets, but only one exit.
That means that "No Outlet" scenarios are the much more common of the two, and as such there are many more "No Outlet" signs. At least in areas with which I'm familiar, true dead ends are quite rare.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 15, 2018, 01:06:12 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 15, 2018, 12:08:13 PM
Quote from: GaryV on March 14, 2018, 07:01:07 PM
For a single road, either could be used. For more than one road in the subdivision, only No Outlet should be used.
Exactly :clap:
I fail to see what is so complicated about that concept.
...which isn't what you said in your post above.
I don't see anything contradictory. Either sign
could be used for a single street and I would have no objections, as long as it was a true dead end.
My viewpoint differs in that I don't see cul-de-sac and dead end as synonyms. Dead End means you can't easily turn around - cul-de-sac means you can (because there's a circle).
No Outlet is a much more broadly applicable message, which was implied in my original post, as well as GaryV's post.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 13, 2018, 09:51:47 PM
In Quebec, what we would call a dead end is often posted as "Cul-de-sac." It doesn't mean a residential street that typically has a circular end the way it usually does in the USA.
I've also seen "Cul-de-sac" signs (https://goo.gl/maps/MNmwW2iFR8A2) in Tigard, Oregon, the same city I saw both "Dead end" and "No outlet" used for the same street.
Quote from: webny99 on March 15, 2018, 01:23:03 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 15, 2018, 01:06:12 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 15, 2018, 12:08:13 PM
Quote from: GaryV on March 14, 2018, 07:01:07 PM
For a single road, either could be used. For more than one road in the subdivision, only No Outlet should be used.
Exactly :clap:
I fail to see what is so complicated about that concept.
...which isn't what you said in your post above.
I don't see anything contradictory. Either sign could be used for a single street and I would have no objections, as long as it was a true dead end.
My viewpoint differs in that I don't see cul-de-sac and dead end as synonyms. Dead End means you can't easily turn around - cul-de-sac means you can (because there's a circle).
Depends on what you're driving. :bigass:
Also seems that he's never heard of a three-point turn...
I can only recall one "Dead End" sign in the parts of NJ I've frequented over time. Otherwise, it's always "No Outlet"
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 15, 2018, 02:13:41 PM
Also seems that he's never heard of a three-point turn...
I've certainly heard of three-point (K) turns - performing one is required on NYS road tests. My tendency to drive big vehicles, among other factors, means I avoid this type of u-turn as much as possible. The "easy/hard" side discussion isn't really relevant, and my points still stand regarding the difference between the two signs.
Quote from: webny99 on March 15, 2018, 05:59:39 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 15, 2018, 02:13:41 PM
Also seems that he's never heard of a three-point turn...
I'd prefer not to be talked about as if I'm not here :-P
I've certainly heard of three-point (K) turns - performing one is required on NYS road tests. My tendency to drive big vehicles, among other factors, means I avoid this type of u-turn as much as possible. The "easy/hard" side discussion isn't really relevant, and my points still stand regarding the difference between the two signs.
"K" turn?? I think you mean a "Y" turn. And I hope there isn't a road test that doesn't require completing one (IMO, written/road tests have gotten too easy already...subject for a different topic). Never-mind the fact that the place my tester had me perform one I easily could have made a simple U-turn. Sorry, but if the ease factor isn't relevant, then you shouldn't have mentioned it.
EDIT: My-bad...should have googled it first. Never heard of it called a "K" turn before. "K" seems like a stretch. At least "Y" fits the 3-point aspect of the turn. Frankly, it looks closer to an "X" if anything.
Quote from: DaBigE on March 15, 2018, 10:52:46 PM
"K" turn?? I think you mean a "Y" turn.
"K" turn is the same as "Y" turn, just different terminology in NY.
Quote from: DaBigE on March 15, 2018, 10:52:46 PM
Never-mind the fact that the place my tester had me perform one I easily could have made a simple U-turn. Sorry, but if the ease factor isn't relevant, then you shouldn't have mentioned it.
Apparently, my original wording did not convey the message. My hope was that I'd impart some degree of understanding as to what a true dead end (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1829217,-77.538428,3a,75y,357.47h,81.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgehWdKGlViLjcnEsaidjsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) actually is -
you have to use reverse, which you do not have to do at a cul-de-sac, or in any "no outlet" scenario.
QuoteNever heard of it called a "K" turn before. "K" seems like a stretch. At least "Y" fits the 3-point aspect of the turn. Frankly, it looks closer to an "X" if anything.
I agree it looks more like an X - but they're
always called K-turns here in New York. I've never heard Y-turn before.
Whatever you call that type of turn, I didn't have to make one when I took the DMV road test.
I consider Dead End to be a terminal street with no sort of formal turnaround, whereas No Outlet is more applicable to cul-de-sacs.
"DEAD END" signs are a rather new thing here in California. For the longest time urban streets that ended in a cul-de-sac had a "NOT A THROUGH STREET" sign posted. :bigass:
I know of one place that have changed from dead end to no outlet.. I'm not sure why the sign was up as dead end for years then they just changed it to no outlet.
My grandmother hated the morbidity implied in "Dead end" signs, and much preferred British Columbia's "No Exit." The point of "Dead end" over "No outlet" is that the road itself comes to a dead stop, with no turns or other options but to stop, so the driver should be prepared and driving at slow speeds. I've seen signs that say "Dead end, XX miles ahead," by which time you may have forgotten that you may need to prepare for the end of the road.
Around here, a dead end is a single road that ends and a no outlet is a system of roads with no way out other than the way in signed as "no outlet."
However, an additional use of "no outlet" is warning of what I call a WTF point. A dubya-tee-eff point is what I call it when a two-way road ends at the same place where a one-way road ends, and the one-way is toward the two-way. Traffic from the one-way road can turn onto the two-way road, but on the two-way you suddenly face a "do not enter" at the intersection and your only legal option is to turn around and go back. I know of a few WTF points, but I know of only one road marked as "no outlet" at the intersection before the approach. That was previously a through road and was broken by a freeway. It now ends where the one-way frontage road from the left also ends, giving traffic toward the freeway no place to go.
Quote from: epzik8 on March 17, 2018, 12:11:43 PM
I consider Dead End to be a terminal street with no sort of formal turnaround, whereas No Outlet is more applicable to cul-de-sacs.
I've heard and believed this explanation before.
Or perhaps a third option, "Street Not Thru" (https://goo.gl/maps/W83tqrTXaYL2) should be used for signing non through roadways. Then there's the "Street Ends" (https://goo.gl/maps/jat8TkKUVPx) variant used in Springfield, MO.
MA uses the No Outlet plaques, but it says DEAD END on the rhombus sign.
Michigan use both and there really isn't a difference between either one. To me though a no outlet is a street that ends and has other streets that might branch off it and end with no other way out than the way you came in. And a dead end is a street that just ends at a certain point.
I agree with the definition of No Outlet as a system of roads that are dead ends, while a Dead End is when the road will end without branching. For non-English speakers, I think Dead End is easier to understand though, at least I didn't initially understand why there were two ways of saying essentially the same thing on road signs, one just ends earlier than the other.
Ideally as someone suggested earlier, it could be replaced by a pictogram such as this.
(https://www.lysator.liu.se/~riiga/Bilder/Amerikanska/Google-14.png)
Another related thing, are there any dead ends/no outlets (in the US) where the road continues but only for bikes/pedestrians? Is it still signed Dead End/No Oulet in that case?
Quote from: riiga on January 22, 2019, 04:36:26 PM
Another related thing, are there any dead ends/no outlets (in the US) where the road continues but only for bikes/pedestrians? Is it still signed Dead End/No Oulet in that case?
Not actually a dead end, because you can drive around the block and end up to the left of this photo. https://goo.gl/maps/fm7q1CdR16F2
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/883/40997508790_da37283521_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25sNX2Q)Reused sign, 2009, W Fort St. & 32nd Ave W, Seattle (https://flic.kr/p/25sNX2Q) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
I know a street near here that says that it's no outlet but you can turn the street before and it will dump you right back on the main road.
I remember 40-50 years ago in Texas, some rural lanes would have "Dead End" signs posted where the pavement ended, but there was a gravel or dirt road that would go thru to connect with another paved road. (None of the ones I remember exist now, so I can't link anything) I presume this was local usage that evolved into the standard signage of today.
Quote from: riiga on January 22, 2019, 04:36:26 PM
Another related thing, are there any dead ends/no outlets (in the US) where the road continues but only for bikes/pedestrians? Is it still signed Dead End/No Oulet in that case?
I know of one such situation in Baltimore signed with "No thru street", black on white, which, as far as I know, is nonstandard. I know that "No thru traffic" is a prohibition rather than a statement, as in the road an an exit, but you can't use it for that purpose (good luck enforcing that).
Quote from: bzakharin on January 24, 2019, 10:46:12 AM
I know of one such situation in Baltimore signed with "No thru street", black on white, which, as far as I know, is nonstandard. I know that "No thru traffic" is a prohibition rather than a statement, as in the road an an exit, but you can't use it for that purpose (good luck enforcing that).
White on black rectangle would indicate a regulatory sign, yet there is no regulation to obey in "no thru street."
Quote from: kphoger on January 24, 2019, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 24, 2019, 10:46:12 AM
I know of one such situation in Baltimore signed with "No thru street", black on white, which, as far as I know, is nonstandard. I know that "No thru traffic" is a prohibition rather than a statement, as in the road an an exit, but you can't use it for that purpose (good luck enforcing that).
White on black rectangle would indicate a regulatory sign, yet there is no regulation to obey in "no thru street."
I'm sorry I misremembered. It was black on yellow.
Quote from: riiga on January 22, 2019, 04:36:26 PM
I agree with the definition of No Outlet as a system of roads that are dead ends, while a Dead End is when the road will end without branching. ...
I'll quibble slightly: No Outlet doesn't require that the roads all be dead ends. I live in a neighborhood that has no outlet (for cars), but my street is not a dead end because it connects to other streets at both ends. One of those is a dead end, though.
QuoteAnother related thing, are there any dead ends/no outlets (in the US) where the road continues but only for bikes/pedestrians? Is it still signed Dead End/No Oulet in that case?
My neighborhood is like that. It's signed as "No Outlet." There is a paved bike/ped path at one end; there are also a couple of dirt paths through the woods.
Quote from: riiga on January 22, 2019, 04:36:26 PM
(https://www.lysator.liu.se/~riiga/Bilder/Amerikanska/Google-14.png)
Forgot to comment on this till now... I think drivers would catch on to the meaning of this sign pretty easily. Even if the meaning isn't immediately apparent, a driver would think "something worthy of a big red block on this sign is just down the street, so I guess I'd better slow down."
Quote from: kphoger on January 25, 2019, 02:21:22 PM
Quote from: riiga on January 22, 2019, 04:36:26 PM
(https://www.lysator.liu.se/~riiga/Bilder/Amerikanska/Google-14.png)
Forgot to comment on this till now... I think drivers would catch on to the meaning of this sign pretty easily. Even if the meaning isn't immediately apparent, a driver would think "something worthy of a big red block on this sign is just down the street, so I guess I'd better slow down."
I see it getting confused for a T-intersection sign (W2-2, rotated). I also wonder if the colorblind would have issues with it, especially after the sun has gotten at it for a while?
Quote from: riiga on January 22, 2019, 04:36:26 PM
I agree with the definition of No Outlet as a system of roads that are dead ends, while a Dead End is when the road will end without branching
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 24, 2019, 09:33:35 PM
No Outlet doesn’t require that the roads all be dead ends.
I believe this is what
1995hoo means...
(https://i.imgur.com/0hXtEKC.png)
In the illustration above, the pink road could have a NO OUTLET sign, even though neither it nor any of the roads it connects to are dead-end streets.
That's exactly the sort of thing I mean. Here's an example not far from where I live:
https://goo.gl/maps/LDjSWK9NWcE2 (Street View showing the "No Outlet" sign)
https://goo.gl/maps/bfcnTY82gUv (map view–Jesmond, Sandyford, and Horgan are not dead ends)
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 26, 2019, 10:33:08 AM
That's exactly the sort of thing I mean. Here's an example not far from where I live:
https://goo.gl/maps/LDjSWK9NWcE2 (Street View showing the "No Outlet" sign)
https://goo.gl/maps/bfcnTY82gUv (map view–Jesmond, Sandyford, and Horgan are not dead ends)
Looks like a no outlet to me. Looks like every street back there either dead ends or ends and doesn't have another outlet.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2019, 11:00:30 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 26, 2019, 10:33:08 AM
That's exactly the sort of thing I mean. Here's an example not far from where I live:
https://goo.gl/maps/LDjSWK9NWcE2 (Street View showing the "No Outlet" sign)
https://goo.gl/maps/bfcnTY82gUv (map view–Jesmond, Sandyford, and Horgan are not dead ends)
Looks like a no outlet to me. Looks like every street back there either dead ends or ends and doesn't have another outlet.
Right. Now, pan the map up and to the left past that nearby lake. You'll see Lake Village Drive. That also has a "No Outlet" sign near its intersection with Waterfield Road. Yet you can clearly see on the map that Dunwich Way, Thurlton Drive, Wendron Way, Keble Drive, and Cliff Drive are not dead ends. That's the part of riiga's point which which I was disagreeing–riiga said every street had to be a dead end, but I was saying that need not be the case as long as the only (legal) way out by motorized vehicle would be to come back the same way you entered. I understood what riiga was saying to mean that a "No Outlet" sign would be inappropriate for Lake Village Drive (or for Greendale Village Drive in the prior example) because not all the streets are dead ends, but I think both of these are
exactly the situation where "No Outlet" is appropriate. (Now, on Lake Village the "No Outlet" sign should not be, and is not, east of Hampton Knoll Drive because you can see how you can get back out to the arterials via a different route if you turn there.)
I may have misunderstood what riiga was trying to say, of course.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 26, 2019, 11:08:17 AM
I may have misunderstood what riiga was trying to say, of course.
Yeah, I didn't mean that every street needed to be an explicit dead end for the No Outlet sign, just that it contains branching streets that lead nowhere (or to each other), as opposed to a Dead End signed street where it's one and only one street. The street layout you describe is one where No Outlet would be appropriate. I apologize if I was unclear. In Swedish there is no such distinction, our only word for it translates as "return street" or "return alley".
Both dead ends and no outlets are signed with this sign here, or the latter version if there is a path allowing bike or pedestrian access at the end (very common in suburbs).
(https://transportstyrelsen.se/Vagmarken/Anvisningsmarken/E17/E17-1/laddahem/E17-1.png) (https://transportstyrelsen.se/Vagmarken/Anvisningsmarken/E17/E17-4/laddahem/E17-4.png)
Quote from: riiga on January 26, 2019, 02:09:46 PM
(https://transportstyrelsen.se/Vagmarken/Anvisningsmarken/E17/E17-4/laddahem/E17-4.png)
I would interpret that sign to mean "Bicylce Red Route," as in one of many colored routes geared for cyclists.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 26, 2019, 11:08:17 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2019, 11:00:30 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 26, 2019, 10:33:08 AM
That's exactly the sort of thing I mean. Here's an example not far from where I live:
https://goo.gl/maps/LDjSWK9NWcE2 (Street View showing the "No Outlet" sign)
https://goo.gl/maps/bfcnTY82gUv (map view–Jesmond, Sandyford, and Horgan are not dead ends)
Looks like a no outlet to me. Looks like every street back there either dead ends or ends and doesn't have another outlet.
Right. Now, pan the map up and to the left past that nearby lake. You'll see Lake Village Drive. That also has a "No Outlet" sign near its intersection with Waterfield Road. Yet you can clearly see on the map that Dunwich Way, Thurlton Drive, Wendron Way, Keble Drive, and Cliff Drive are not dead ends. That's the part of riiga's point which which I was disagreeing–riiga said every street had to be a dead end, but I was saying that need not be the case as long as the only (legal) way out by motorized vehicle would be to come back the same way you entered. I understood what riiga was saying to mean that a "No Outlet" sign would be inappropriate for Lake Village Drive (or for Greendale Village Drive in the prior example) because not all the streets are dead ends, but I think both of these are exactly the situation where "No Outlet" is appropriate. (Now, on Lake Village the "No Outlet" sign should not be, and is not, east of Hampton Knoll Drive because you can see how you can get back out to the arterials via a different route if you turn there.)
I may have misunderstood what riiga was trying to say, of course.
I agree with the no outlet signs in both locations. The street you are on doesn't have another outlet so hence the no outlet sign, now if that street dead ends with no other streets branching off of it then it's just a dead end. I haven't really paid attention to how Michigan does it but we have both no outlet signs and dead end signs and there are a few that simply say not a through street.
Quote from: riiga on January 26, 2019, 02:09:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 26, 2019, 11:08:17 AM
I may have misunderstood what riiga was trying to say, of course.
Yeah, I didn't mean that every street needed to be an explicit dead end for the No Outlet sign, just that it contains branching streets that lead nowhere (or to each other), as opposed to a Dead End signed street where it's one and only one street. The street layout you describe is one where No Outlet would be appropriate. I apologize if I was unclear. In Swedish there is no such distinction, our only word for it translates as "return street" or "return alley".
Both dead ends and no outlets are signed with this sign here, or the latter version if there is a path allowing bike or pedestrian access at the end (very common in suburbs).
(https://transportstyrelsen.se/Vagmarken/Anvisningsmarken/E17/E17-1/laddahem/E17-1.png) (https://transportstyrelsen.se/Vagmarken/Anvisningsmarken/E17/E17-4/laddahem/E17-4.png)
I like that sign on the right. It'd be nice if some version of that could be adapted for use in the USA–or even if an auxiliary plaque could be added below "No Outlet" to say "Except Bikes/Peds" or the symbol equivalents of each. The two examples I linked earlier in the thread are good examples of places where that would be appropriate, especially the second example (Lake Village Drive)–that street has bike lanes and one of the streets that branches off of it at its end then links to a cul-de-sac that itself ends at an asphalt bike/ped path that connects back to the street grid. Cyclists are encouraged to go that way because of a more gentle Hill, lower traffic volumes (due to the "No Outlet"), and theoretically lower speeds (speed limit of 25 mph versus 35, although not surprisingly the 25-mph limit is widely ignored).
Edited to add: BTW, in case it was unclear, we do have "Dead End" signs around here as well as "No Outlet." The link below shows one near where I grew up, and you can see it's appropriate because that street doesn't connect to anything.
https://goo.gl/maps/wBdqaAVwi8D2
Now, what I cannot ever recall seeing is an area with "No Outlet" at its entrance that then has "Dead End" posted on streets further into the no-outlet area. Such may exist, of course; I just can't think of any. I suppose it might make sense if it were a big no-outlet area with a longer dead-end street further back somewhere.
Interesting set of "No Outlet" signs on a subdivision in Warren, MI. Here's the northern street:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5257267,-83.0680393,3a,75y,295.54h,70.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVZQ7YDFdZR6JlR2TjP16eg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
And the southernmost street: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5228085,-83.0680599,3a,75y,249.91h,87.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0wQ6mQDDFA-12MCBj2lKkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
But as you can see on the map, all three streets loop around and connect with each other. They have an outlet; it's just that the outlet gets you pretty much back to where you started.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5243893,-83.0690466,17z?hl=en
Quote from: GaryV on January 27, 2019, 01:45:20 PM
Interesting set of "No Outlet" signs on a subdivision in Warren, MI. Here's the northern street:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5257267,-83.0680393,3a,75y,295.54h,70.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVZQ7YDFdZR6JlR2TjP16eg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
And the southernmost street: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5228085,-83.0680599,3a,75y,249.91h,87.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0wQ6mQDDFA-12MCBj2lKkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
But as you can see on the map, all three streets loop around and connect with each other. They have an outlet; it's just that the outlet gets you pretty much back to where you started.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5243893,-83.0690466,17z?hl=en
By definition, use of "No Outlet" for these streets is incorrect.
I agree with roadfro–there are three ways out of there via three different streets, so "No Outlet" is incorrect, even if from a practical standpoint you pretty much wind up back where you started.
I do have an example here in Saginaw, Michigan where there is a dead end sign posted on Grout Street just south of Arthur Street but Beacon Drive connects to Maple Street past this dead end sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3980133,-83.9877301,3a,75y,184.84h,90.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sR1n49Z2V6BLD-gVImFQWPA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DR1n49Z2V6BLD-gVImFQWPA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D102.018425%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
The next one is on Maple Street south of Beacon Drive
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3971367,-83.9852628,3a,75y,184.15h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9DsD_Eefvdd-eH5SccLtIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
The second one leads to Greenpoint Nature Center and then past the nature center it turns into a private road with houses along the Tittabawassee River. Where you see Riverside Blvd. is the dead end of the second image. Salt Street does not go through like Google Maps indicates either.
This is the dead end sign on Salt Street which dead ends at a gate about 1,000 feet or so from the sign. https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3988719,-83.9790802,3a,75y,182.37h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX-en22ArwFGwy3hbguKMEA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Honestly using dead end here except for the one on Grout Street is correct. Perhaps the one on Maple Street could be No Outlet since you can pretty much turn around at Greenpoint but that has a gate on it and is closed after dark. The street actually dead ends without intersecting another street though. I've never ventured back to the houses on the river or anything before it's a dirt road after Greenpoint as well.
Two more examples right next to each other. Euclid is indeed a dead end with no other streets branching off of it or anything and gets a No Outlet sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5547941,-83.9161245,3a,75y,200.87h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-JDt40tZk2cSlCaRtwBpCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en while Stony Island Road just dead ends in the same fashion and gets a dead end sign https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5549555,-83.9158863,3a,75y,90.66h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRrF5LdQmliQOjyFOj-EcQw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
How about both?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8625595,-74.3313637,3a,33.5y,304.61h,83.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-jsDSZkNht2btap3Z_F0qQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: signalman on February 05, 2019, 08:05:12 AM
How about both?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8625595,-74.3313637,3a,33.5y,304.61h,83.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-jsDSZkNht2btap3Z_F0qQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I found it but was about to ask where's the dead end at. They just put a roadblock up to prevent traffic from using it as a through street. There are some streets on the Detroit/Grosse Pointe border that are like that. That's simply because the areas of Detroit that border the Grosse Pointe's aren't the best of areas.
Quote from: signalman on February 05, 2019, 08:05:12 AM
How about both?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8625595,-74.3313637,3a,33.5y,304.61h,83.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-jsDSZkNht2btap3Z_F0qQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Funny, there's still an outlet via parking lot. Doesn't say it's illegal to cut thru, so I'm assuming you could do that. Also, the other severed part of the road, shouldn't even be signed as Maple Ave since it's now just an entrance to a single corporate plaza.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 05, 2019, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: signalman on February 05, 2019, 08:05:12 AM
How about both?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8625595,-74.3313637,3a,33.5y,304.61h,83.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-jsDSZkNht2btap3Z_F0qQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Funny, there's still an outlet via parking lot. Doesn't say it's illegal to cut thru, so I'm assuming you could do that. Also, the other severed part of the road, shouldn't even be signed as Maple Ave since it's now just an entrance to a single corporate plaza.
They also use these two signs at the other end when there are three streets that are an outlet before you get to those two signs posted above.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8598897,-74.3282883,3a,24.8y,26.87h,86.94t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sw7S7wvqtR6CTqPFHYYGUsQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dw7S7wvqtR6CTqPFHYYGUsQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D41.240284%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 06, 2019, 04:51:03 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 05, 2019, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: signalman on February 05, 2019, 08:05:12 AM
How about both?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8625595,-74.3313637,3a,33.5y,304.61h,83.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-jsDSZkNht2btap3Z_F0qQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Funny, there's still an outlet via parking lot. Doesn't say it's illegal to cut thru, so I'm assuming you could do that. Also, the other severed part of the road, shouldn't even be signed as Maple Ave since it's now just an entrance to a single corporate plaza.
They also use these two signs at the other end when there are three streets that are an outlet before you get to those two signs posted above.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8598897,-74.3282883,3a,24.8y,26.87h,86.94t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sw7S7wvqtR6CTqPFHYYGUsQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dw7S7wvqtR6CTqPFHYYGUsQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D41.240284%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100
Each one of the streets entering this development has a No Outlet sign posted. I'm assuming the Dead End sign that I linked is the oldest with the No Outlet sign added later; possibly in conjunction with the No Outlet signs posted at each street entering from Bloomfield Ave.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 27, 2019, 03:27:15 PM
I agree with roadfro–there are three ways out of there via three different streets, so "No Outlet" is incorrect, even if from a practical standpoint you pretty much wind up back where you started.
So "dead end" means that the street will end without reaching any other street.
"No outlet" means that the street will branch out to other streets, but all of those streets will eventually lead to dead ends.
But there is no standard appropriate sign to say that a street will lead to other streets but eventually get you back to the road that you are on. You will not dead end, because you can continue straight, but all you are doing, in essence, is making a big u-turn.
In this area, there are some unique signs that address this situation (to an extent) and they are only put up where warranted:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0334725,-77.0236674,3a,75y,66.95h,75.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shyqRoEYvWQ7fDIwDbnt7uQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Sign reads:
NOTICE (yellow background)
NO ACCESS
TO
ARCOLA
AVENUE
In this case, the streets will lead you somewhere, but not likely where you want to go, so stick to the main routes.
Quote from: mrsman on February 08, 2019, 11:59:48 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 27, 2019, 03:27:15 PM
I agree with roadfro–there are three ways out of there via three different streets, so "No Outlet" is incorrect, even if from a practical standpoint you pretty much wind up back where you started.
So "dead end" means that the street will end without reaching any other street.
"No outlet" means that the street will branch out to other streets, but all of those streets will eventually lead to dead ends.
But there is no standard appropriate sign to say that a street will lead to other streets but eventually get you back to the road that you are on. You will not dead end, because you can continue straight, but all you are doing, in essence, is making a big u-turn.
In this area, there are some unique signs that address this situation (to an extent) and they are only put up where warranted:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0334725,-77.0236674,3a,75y,66.95h,75.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shyqRoEYvWQ7fDIwDbnt7uQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Sign reads:
NOTICE (yellow background)
NO ACCESS
TO
ARCOLA
AVENUE
In this case, the streets will lead you somewhere, but not likely where you want to go, so stick to the main routes.
Is there a reason Arcola Avenue is mentioned there? I see where Arcola Avenue is at and where this sign is at doesn't even lead to Arcola Avenue.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 08, 2019, 12:41:09 PM
Is there a reason Arcola Avenue is mentioned there? I see where Arcola Avenue is at and where this sign is at doesn't even lead to Arcola Avenue.
:eyebrow: Isn't that the point of the sign? You can't get to Arcola Avenue by the way marked with the sign.
Quote from: mrsman on February 08, 2019, 11:59:48 AM
So "dead end" means that the street will end without reaching any other street.
"No outlet" means that the street will branch out to other streets, but all of those streets will eventually lead to dead ends.
No. As I've already explained. . .
Quote from: kphoger on January 25, 2019, 09:34:30 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/0hXtEKC.png)
In the illustration above, the pink road could have a NO OUTLET sign, even though neither it nor any of the roads it connects to are dead-end streets.
Section 2C.26 in the MUTCD:
"The DEAD END (W14-1) sign (see Figure 2C-5) may be used at the entrance of a single road or street that terminates in a dead end or cul-de-sac. The NO OUTLET (W14-2) sign (see Figure 2C-5) may be used at the entrance to a road or road network from which there is no other exit."
Since it says "road or road network" for the NO OUTLET sign, either sign would be appropriate for a single roadway that terminates without any further junctions. But this is the ONLY application of a DEAD END sign, which would explain why NO OUTLET signs are more abundant in my experiences.
A road may have a NO OUTLET sign posted if it has junctions further ahead, but all of those junctions lead to either more dead ends or complete circuits that require you to pass by the sign in order to access anything else in the world. It isn't entirely truthful to say that all junctions beyond the NO OUTLET sign lead to other dead-ends, because there may be some loops and circuits back there. All a NO OUTLET sign says is that "you're gonna have to come back this way to get out."
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 08, 2019, 01:36:03 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 08, 2019, 12:41:09 PM
Is there a reason Arcola Avenue is mentioned there? I see where Arcola Avenue is at and where this sign is at doesn't even lead to Arcola Avenue.
:eyebrow: Isn't that the point of the sign? You can't get to Arcola Avenue by the way marked with the sign.
Arcola Avenue doesn't even cross over there so there really is no point in the sign.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 08, 2019, 04:02:04 PM
Section 2C.26 in the MUTCD:
"The DEAD END (W14-1) sign (see Figure 2C-5) may be used at the entrance of a single road or street that terminates in a dead end or cul-de-sac. The NO OUTLET (W14-2) sign (see Figure 2C-5) may be used at the entrance to a road or road network from which there is no other exit."
Since it says "road or road network" for the NO OUTLET sign, either sign would be appropriate for a single roadway that terminates without any further junctions. But this is the ONLY application of a DEAD END sign, which would explain why NO OUTLET signs are more abundant in my experiences.
A road may have a NO OUTLET sign posted if it has junctions further ahead, but all of those junctions lead to either more dead ends or complete circuits that require you to pass by the sign in order to access anything else in the world. It isn't entirely truthful to say that all junctions beyond the NO OUTLET sign lead to other dead-ends, because there may be some loops and circuits back there. All a NO OUTLET sign says is that "you're gonna have to come back this way to get out."
You're pretty spot on.
I agree. I'm not sure why a driver would even need to
know that street doesn't lead to Arcola.
That is to say, Arcola Avenue is...
Quote from: mrsman on February 08, 2019, 11:59:48 AM
not likely where you want to go
Quote from: kphoger on February 08, 2019, 04:41:01 PM
I agree. I'm not sure why a driver would even need to know that street doesn't lead to Arcola.
That is to say, Arcola Avenue is...
Quote from: mrsman on February 08, 2019, 11:59:48 AM
not likely where you want to go
Right. Especially when Arcola ends at the street that you would be coming off of and doesn't even go through there.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 08, 2019, 04:45:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 08, 2019, 04:41:01 PM
I agree. I'm not sure why a driver would even need to know that street doesn't lead to Arcola.
Right. Especially when Arcola ends at the street that you would be coming off of and doesn't even go through there.
I assumed that it might be the expectation of drivers who are not intimately familiar with the area.
Some streets in my area have "No Access to Route 1" yellow warning signs posted. Example linked below. In this case, I think it's because maps make it look like you can connect through to Lockheed Boulevard and thence to Route 1 by using Bedrock Road, but that street is blocked by planter-like obstructions, I assume to stop speeding cut-through traffic.
https://goo.gl/maps/9BtDWq8zAo62
In that case, this sign makes sense. There is another nearby place–see below–that has the same type of sign where it doesn't seem to make sense because it's never connected to Route 1 and never will, but I guess the idea is to say you'll have to come back to Telegraph Road if you go down there. (I don't know whether once upon a time it was planned to connect, but the map makes it look like it might have been proposed. I imagine froggie might know.)
https://goo.gl/maps/Uu1nQHJp7gG2
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 09, 2019, 11:36:16 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 08, 2019, 04:45:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 08, 2019, 04:41:01 PM
I agree. I'm not sure why a driver would even need to know that street doesn't lead to Arcola.
Right. Especially when Arcola ends at the street that you would be coming off of and doesn't even go through there.
I assumed that it might be the expectation of drivers who are not intimately familiar with the area.
To address the Arcola questions, since I brought it up and live nearby, I thought I would address the issue.
University Blvd westbound in this area generally moves pretty well, but slows down right in front of the high school. A lot of University Blvd traffic makes the turn onto Arcola. Many of these drivers may be encouraged to turn onto side streets to avoid congestion and make a short cut through residential neighborhood. But it simply won't work because there is no connection and the sign warns you of that.
It is very common to be able to "cut the corner" by making a right, a left, and another right to avoid a congested intersection. If the area is a normal grid, this is easily done (but if too many people do it, the neighbors won't like it and they will probably institute turn restrictions during rush hour). But in the deep suburbs, it's sometimes physically impossible.
And yes not everyone has a map or GPS or familiarity with the area. So having a sign like this lets you know that you'll just have to sit through high school traffic because there is no shortcut to Arcola.
I think this one makes sense. Since you are on 11 Mile Road and 11 Mile picks up at Farmington Road. 11 Mile is very discontiguous in this area but from the Mixing Bowl interchange to Jefferson it never breaks up.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4835276,-83.400176,3a,15y,109h,86.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLvempcqXP_itf_HdQcFQ2Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DLvempcqXP_itf_HdQcFQ2Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D150.39117%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
Some dead end signs are posted at the end of the street. But right now, they use red diamonds.
No outlet means it can connect to several streets, but no way out to a main road.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.383843,-77.8646529,3a,15y,99.75h,87.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skWehgvvRFPsH-w-QbOrClg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
So this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6743091,-77.3703664,3a,15y,218.66h,86.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFWykoRHxTTDMZ47QhpRSYw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) connects to one street, and is a dead end and not a NO OUTLET sign?
Edit: it's just dirt, so no need to change the sign.
In Ontario, we have just a "NO EXIT" sign for both situations.
In my neighborhood, we have both. Entering my subdivision you see a NO OUTLET sign, and a little further on, on the same road, there is a DEAD END sign, as the road ends in a Cul-De-Sac.
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 07, 2021, 09:02:29 PM
Some dead end signs are posted at the end of the street. But right now, they use red diamonds.
No outlet means it can connect to several streets, but no way out to a main road.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.383843,-77.8646529,3a,15y,99.75h,87.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skWehgvvRFPsH-w-QbOrClg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The red diamonds are not "dead end" signs in the sense of the typical warning signs being discussed in this thread. They are object markers, and the red ones specifically are meant to mark the actual end of a roadway.
Quote from: roadfro on June 11, 2021, 11:36:01 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 07, 2021, 09:02:29 PM
Some dead end signs are posted at the end of the street. But right now, they use red diamonds.
No outlet means it can connect to several streets, but no way out to a main road.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.383843,-77.8646529,3a,15y,99.75h,87.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skWehgvvRFPsH-w-QbOrClg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The red diamonds are not "dead end" signs in the sense of the typical warning signs being discussed in this thread. They are object markers, and the red ones specifically are meant to mark the actual end of a roadway.
honestly, I did not know.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7656954,-78.483095,3a,19.8y,41.66h,84.58t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4eczodCjcihDTePvC59SIg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4eczodCjcihDTePvC59SIg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D43.918842%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Why are these diamonds yellow and not red?
^^ Contractor error?
Quote from: Big John on June 23, 2021, 05:41:57 PM
^^ Contractor error?
I guess we will have to contact them.
They probably had some blank road signs hanging around and thought, "These'll do."
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 23, 2021, 05:33:42 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7656954,-78.483095,3a,19.8y,41.66h,84.58t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4eczodCjcihDTePvC59SIg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4eczodCjcihDTePvC59SIg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D43.918842%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Why are these diamonds yellow and not red?
Quote from: GaryV on June 23, 2021, 07:15:24 PM
They probably had some blank road signs hanging around and thought, "These'll do."
That's my guess. Those are definitely sign-sized, larger than your standard object marker that is supposed to be used in that situation.