Erroneous road signs

[roadman65]

two pictures

a quick look at the map says neither are erroneous; they're consistent with a great many other signs pointing you towards the turnpike or parkway (which often omit the TO placard).

Yes about the Parkway.  I grew up in New Jersey and that is the norm, however that is not my point.  The I-80 signs really should have the TO on them as that is not common for NJ Interstates to not have them.

Also on the jughandle error in the second photo the up and right arrow is wrong.  It should have an arrow similar to the ALL TURNS sign or at least to the direct right.

[roadman65]

Also I would like to comment on a previous photo that I posted that could count as erroneous that was considered iffy.  The thing I have found here that some may consider something erroneous that the rest do not.  It does not make the one wrong and the other right or vice versa, it is just many of us have different opinions.

To someone this here photo may be erroneous, but to another it is not.
https://flic.kr/p/egKQ8K

The two US 9 signs contradicts each other as one says to use Exit 25 for US 9 South because the Beeslys Point Bridge is Out, but the next sign says use NEXT RIGHT for the same US 9 South.  However, some who know the area will say that US 9 still has a lot of businesses and residents in Somers Point between the next exit and the closed bridge for the sign in the backround to be there.  On the other hand the sign for the closed bridge has been there too long at that the orange sign is now a permanent piece, that would void out the second sign.

Whatever, to those of you who consider it erroneous here it is.  For me personally I say it is because of how non road geeks would see it which is confusion.

[spooky]

Also I would like to comment on a previous photo that I posted that could count as erroneous that was considered iffy.  The thing I have found here that some may consider something erroneous that the rest do not.  It does not make the one wrong and the other right or vice versa, it is just many of us have different opinions.

To someone this here photo may be erroneous, but to another it is not.
https://flic.kr/p/egKQ8K

The two US 9 signs contradicts each other as one says to use Exit 25 for US 9 South because the Beeslys Point Bridge is Out, but the next sign says use NEXT RIGHT for the same US 9 South.  However, some who know the area will say that US 9 still has a lot of businesses and residents in Somers Point between the next exit and the closed bridge for the sign in the backround to be there.  On the other hand the sign for the closed bridge has been there too long at that the orange sign is now a permanent piece, that would void out the second sign.

Whatever, to those of you who consider it erroneous here it is.  For me personally I say it is because of how non road geeks would see it which is confusion.

If the bridge is out and exit 25 gets you to 9 South, then the sign isn't erroneous.

The two signs are potentially confusing in tandem, but neither is erroneous. The green sign should have either been covered or had an orange "LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY" plaque added, IMHO.

[thenetwork]

There are some oval shields on SR 161 itself near the intersection, as well. How those ended up in Ohio is beyond me.

Those were installed when that intersection (SR-161 & US-23) was either rebuilt &/or widened back in the mid-to-late 90s.  The work was probably done by the contractor and not ODOT. 

What's more amazing is that the circle 161 signs are still standing after nearly 20 years! 

[cl94]

There are some oval shields on SR 161 itself near the intersection, as well. How those ended up in Ohio is beyond me.

Those were installed when that intersection (SR-161 & US-23) was either rebuilt &/or widened back in the mid-to-late 90s.  The work was probably done by the contractor and not ODOT. 

What's more amazing is that the circle 161 signs are still standing after nearly 20 years!

That's my point. I first saw them when I moved to the area in 2003 and they were still there when I was driving through 2 months ago, long after I moved back to New York

[route17fan]

There are some oval shields on SR 161 itself near the intersection, as well. How those ended up in Ohio is beyond me.

Those were installed when that intersection (SR-161 & US-23) was either rebuilt &/or widened back in the mid-to-late 90s.  The work was probably done by the contractor and not ODOT. 

What's more amazing is that the circle 161 signs are still standing after nearly 20 years!

That's my point. I first saw them when I moved to the area in 2003 and they were still there when I was driving through 2 months ago, long after I moved back to New York

Agreed - the 229 shield in Mt Vernon has been there for nearly as long too!

[vtk]

There are some oval shields on SR 161 itself near the intersection, as well. How those ended up in Ohio is beyond me.

Those were installed when that intersection (SR-161 & US-23) was either rebuilt &/or widened back in the mid-to-late 90s.  The work was probably done by the contractor and not ODOT. 

What's more amazing is that the circle 161 signs are still standing after nearly 20 years!

Cities over 10k population in Ohio maintain state highways within their borders. City Of Worthington is likely to blame here.

[jbnv]

Here are some that LADOTD erected just last month right by my house. This is at a curve in LA 1063. There is a road that juts southward from the curve. LADOTD is erecting twin 48" cautionary signs at curves like these throughout southeast Louisiana.

Northbound is  bad...



... but southbound is even worse, because if you take it literally, you turn off of LA 1063 and onto the side street.



Ironically, the curve already had proper cautionary signs (minus indication of the side street); you can see them in Street View.

[roadman65]

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bay+Ridge,+Brooklyn,+NY/@40.605194,-74.029874,3a,66.8y,286.73h,96.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sU55y3SnO0IElA34lRX15nw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2455f3f1cab0d:0xa5a45198ea4d73d6

This one here is iffy at best, but the pull through for the Belt Parkway lists I-278 as the Brooklyn- Queens Expressway when the Belt Parkway officially joins I-278 E Bound where it is the Gowanus Expressway.  The BQE does not begin for another 3 or so miles beyond the end of the Belt Parkway.

Now I say iffy because some of the old Exxon Maps show the Gowanus as being part of the BQE, using the "Brooklyn Queens Expressway" in regular letters, but using the "Gowanus Expressway" in parentheses.  Yet the talk of the traffic reporters always refer to the BQE ending at the Brooklyn- Battery Tunnel and that the Gowanus starts at the Brooklyn tunnel portal and goes to the Verrazano Bridge.  So does some of the people here, as well, as in previous topics it was always mentioned or at most implied as such.

Edit: Here is what Wikipedia has to say about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_278#Brooklyn.E2.80.93Queens_Expressway

[1995hoo]

Well, it DOES eventually lead to the BQE. You just have to use the Gowanus to get there.

My grandparents lived fairly close to Exit 2 (they lived on 91 Street between Ridge Boulevard and 3 Avenue), so I've spent a fair amount of time in that area over the years. I can't say I recall any signs referring to the Gowanus. The pull-thru sign on northbound I-278 prior to the exit for Fort Hamilton Parkway says "Bklyn-Qns Expwy" before you even reach the elevated Gowanus. The sign on the Prospect Expressway said the same thing. (My relatives all refer to the Gowanus, of course, though they're more likely to call it "the fucking Gowanus.")

[roadfro]

Here are some that LADOTD erected just last month right by my house. This is at a curve in LA 1063. There is a road that juts southward from the curve. LADOTD is erecting twin 48" cautionary signs at curves like these throughout southeast Louisiana.

Northbound is  bad...



... but southbound is even worse, because if you take it literally, you turn off of LA 1063 and onto the side street.



Ironically, the curve already had proper cautionary signs (minus indication of the side street); you can see them in Street View.

I think the new signs are actually more indicative of the hazard. It's not a tight reverse curve, but rather one tighter curve. Yes there is a slight second curve, but not to the degree of the other that warrants the reverse curve warning.

[vtk]

Here are some that LADOTD erected just last month right by my house. This is at a curve in LA 1063. There is a road that juts southward from the curve. LADOTD is erecting twin 48" cautionary signs at curves like these throughout southeast Louisiana.

Northbound is  bad...



... but southbound is even worse, because if you take it literally, you turn off of LA 1063 and onto the side street.



Ironically, the curve already had proper cautionary signs (minus indication of the side street); you can see them in Street View.

So, you're saying they are erroneous because the road does not deflect 90° as implied by the signs?

Technically the choice of the sharp curve sign versus the gentle curve sign is supposed to be dictated by the design speed of the curve, not the angle of deflection.  A long sweeping high-speed curve through more than 100° of deflection would technically call for the gentle curve sign (which shows only about 50° deflection) while an abrupt 20° kink in the road would technically call for the sharp curve sign (which shows a full 90° deflection).

[cl94]

Here are some that LADOTD erected just last month right by my house. This is at a curve in LA 1063. There is a road that juts southward from the curve. LADOTD is erecting twin 48" cautionary signs at curves like these throughout southeast Louisiana.

Northbound is  bad...



... but southbound is even worse, because if you take it literally, you turn off of LA 1063 and onto the side street.



Ironically, the curve already had proper cautionary signs (minus indication of the side street); you can see them in Street View.

So, you're saying they are erroneous because the road does not deflect 90° as implied by the signs?

Technically the choice of the sharp curve sign versus the gentle curve sign is supposed to be dictated by the design speed of the curve, not the angle of deflection.  A long sweeping high-speed curve through more than 100° of deflection would technically call for the gentle curve sign (which shows only about 50° deflection) while an abrupt 20° kink in the road would technically call for the sharp curve sign (which shows a full 90° deflection).

Correct. A W1-1 (turn sign) is to be used if an advisory speed is 30 mph or less. The W1-3 (reverse turn) should be used in place of two consecutive W1-1s or a W1-1/W1-2 pair, but it is not required. 135 degrees or more gets the W1-11 (hairpin turn) regardless of advisory speed, while a loop that allows one to cross the original path (as in a cloverleaf) gets the W1-15 (270-degree loop). A W1-1/2/3/4/5 is only required if the advisory speed is more than 5 mph below the speed limit.

[jbnv]

Here are some that LADOTD erected just last month right by my house. This is at a curve in LA 1063. There is a road that juts southward from the curve.

So, you're saying they are erroneous because the road does not deflect 90° as implied by the signs?

No, I'm saying it's erroneous because there are two bends in the deflection, there is a side-street here that is not indicated by the sign, there are existing signs (which are still up, BTW) that more accurately depicted the turn, and if you take the southbound sign literally, you will leave the highway and go onto the side street.

[cl94]

Here are some that LADOTD erected just last month right by my house. This is at a curve in LA 1063. There is a road that juts southward from the curve.

So, you're saying they are erroneous because the road does not deflect 90° as implied by the signs?

No, I'm saying it's erroneous because there are two bends in the deflection, there is a side-street here that is not indicated by the sign, there are existing signs (which are still up, BTW) that more accurately depicted the turn, and if you take the southbound sign literally, you will leave the highway and go onto the side street.

Doesn't make it erroneous. If anything, it's excessive signage. The W1-3s should have been removed when the W1-1s went up. Indication of side streets is not required and, in this case, a W1-10 would have been somewhat-erroneous if you want to be technical as the side street departs outside of the curve. If you want the side street shown on the turn sign, replace the W1-3s (reverse turn) with W1-10ds (reverse curve/turn with side street on one side).

[jbnv]

How does the fact that if you follow the literal direction on a sign, you will leave the highway that you are on and go onto a different street, not make it erroneous?

[cl94]

How does the fact that if you follow the literal direction on a sign, you will leave the highway that you are on and go onto a different street, not make it erroneous?

The inflection point of the reverse curve is before the side street and, as I already mentioned, showing a side street is merely a suggestion, not a standard.

[hbelkins]

There are lots of intersections of main roads and side roads in curves that are signed as such, and nobody thinks that if you follow the sign's suggestion you'll turn off the main road.

[roadman65]

www.google.com/maps/@40.2291072,-74.0086663,3a,75y,72.39h,81.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPYJx9DPK-ZPe0FuDmq9GhQ!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656
This sign is erroneous as it implies that NJ 71 north is the street where the sign is at and not the intersection beyond it.

Some may say its misleading, but still an upward and right arrow would be better to avoid the confusion.

[Kacie Jane]

How does the fact that if you follow the literal direction on a sign, you will leave the highway that you are on and go onto a different street, not make it erroneous?

That doesn't make the sign erroneous, it makes you and/or the motorist in question unable to tell the difference between a "curve ahead" sign and an "intersection ahead" sign.  (And possibly also the difference between a warning sign and a guide sign.)

[theline]

www.google.com/maps/@40.2291072,-74.0086663,3a,75y,72.39h,81.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPYJx9DPK-ZPe0FuDmq9GhQ!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656
This sign is erroneous as it implies that NJ 71 north is the street where the sign is at and not the intersection beyond it.

Some may say its misleading, but still an upward and right arrow would be better to avoid the confusion.

Agreed. Several spots in downtown South Bend have a similar problem. Here's one: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6777299,-86.2509543,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7gdFP48BWlYzDTZ90BwWyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm not sure how many visitors turn left down Woodward Ct., but I suspect many are confused. The real turn is one-half block ahead at Main St. Note that the blue Century Center sign has the proper arrow, but the Business US 31 and SR 933 signs seem to scream "turn now." We also have another error here, in that this is Business US 20, but marked as the mainline. The mistake is made frequently through the city.

[thenetwork]

www.google.com/maps/@40.2291072,-74.0086663,3a,75y,72.39h,81.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPYJx9DPK-ZPe0FuDmq9GhQ!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656
This sign is erroneous as it implies that NJ 71 north is the street where the sign is at and not the intersection beyond it.

Some may say its misleading, but still an upward and right arrow would be better to avoid the confusion.

Agreed. Several spots in downtown South Bend have a similar problem. Here's one: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6777299,-86.2509543,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7gdFP48BWlYzDTZ90BwWyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm not sure how many visitors turn left down Woodward Ct., but I suspect many are confused. The real turn is one-half block ahead at Main St. Note that the blue Century Center sign has the proper arrow, but the Business US 31 and SR 933 signs seem to scream "turn now." We also have another error here, in that this is Business US 20, but marked as the mainline. The mistake is made frequently through the city.

Plus, if you consider that since the NO RIGHT TURN sign amongst that sign salad is placed before and for that immediate intersection, then the 31/933 duplex seems to be indicating to turn there -- even though it is (usually) standard practice in Indiana to place overhead intersection route markers a fair distance ahead of the actual intersection.

[theline]

www.google.com/maps/@40.2291072,-74.0086663,3a,75y,72.39h,81.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPYJx9DPK-ZPe0FuDmq9GhQ!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656
This sign is erroneous as it implies that NJ 71 north is the street where the sign is at and not the intersection beyond it.

Some may say its misleading, but still an upward and right arrow would be better to avoid the confusion.

Agreed. Several spots in downtown South Bend have a similar problem. Here's one: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6777299,-86.2509543,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7gdFP48BWlYzDTZ90BwWyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm not sure how many visitors turn left down Woodward Ct., but I suspect many are confused. The real turn is one-half block ahead at Main St. Note that the blue Century Center sign has the proper arrow, but the Business US 31 and SR 933 signs seem to scream "turn now." We also have another error here, in that this is Business US 20, but marked as the mainline. The mistake is made frequently through the city.

Plus, if you consider that since the NO RIGHT TURN sign amongst that sign salad is placed before and for that immediate intersection, then the 31/933 duplex seems to be indicating to turn there -- even though it is (usually) standard practice in Indiana to place overhead intersection route markers a fair distance ahead of the actual intersection.

Agreed that Indiana often provides the overhead signs as advance warning, which was clearly the intent here. I just contend that the structure should have been placed closer to Main Street or that they should have used the "L" shaped arrow here. I don't know what the technical name is for an arrow like this:

  <----
         |
         |

[mrsman]

Well, it DOES eventually lead to the BQE. You just have to use the Gowanus to get there.

My grandparents lived fairly close to Exit 2 (they lived on 91 Street between Ridge Boulevard and 3 Avenue), so I've spent a fair amount of time in that area over the years. I can't say I recall any signs referring to the Gowanus. The pull-thru sign on northbound I-278 prior to the exit for Fort Hamilton Parkway says "Bklyn-Qns Expwy" before you even reach the elevated Gowanus. The sign on the Prospect Expressway said the same thing. (My relatives all refer to the Gowanus, of course, though they're more likely to call it "the fucking Gowanus.")

Technically true, but for all intents and purposes the full road from the Grand Central to the Verrazano Bridge is known by highway signs as the BQE.  The fact that the southern 3 miles is technically a different name is not important.

Similarly, the Shore Parkway, Southern Parkway, Laurelton Parkway, and Cross Island Parkway are separate parkways collectively known as the "Belt System".  Excluding the Cross Island Parkway, the other three segments are now known collectively as the official "Belt Parkway". It is designated an east—west route, and its exit numbering system begins, in standard fashion, at the western terminus of the Shore Parkway, the westernmost parkway in the system. The numbering increases as the parkway proceeds eastward, and continues onto the Cross Island at the eastern terminus of the Belt Parkway. The north—south Cross Island Parkway retains the numbering scheme to its northern terminus.  (Borrowing from wikipedia, but technically all true)

And how many people refer to I-95 thru Manhattan as the Trans-Manhattan Expy?  It's so short, most people refer to it as an extension of the Cross-Bronx or as a lead in to the GWB.

[cl94]

Coming from someone whose family is from the area, the Cross Island is referred to by name, but the Belt Parkway refers to the other three sections. The Trans-Manhattan Expressway is almost always the Cross Bronx. Similarly, all of I-495 is the LIE, even though it has other official names in Queens. I-678 is typically the Van Wyck for the entire length in Queens, even when it is officially the Whitestone Expressway. The BQE/Gowanus depends on the person.