Title: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on June 29, 2012, 08:22:36 PM
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on June 29, 2012, 08:22:36 PM
Here, you can show signs that have design errors to them. Made this thread so that the "Erroneous Road Signs" thread only shows signs with erroneous information. Inspired by this post by vtk:
Here's a picture to start this off:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8020%2F7397087646_fb366ebaae_c.jpg&hash=271cd6a17dadcca2b2bc3d04e4481c96d74b0a78)
It's pretty hard to notice, but the exit number on this sign is crooked. By that, I mean that the "7" is lower that the other numbers. This sign is located on Highway 101 north in San Jose.
Quote from: vtk on June 29, 2012, 04:10:20 AM
We need a thread for signs that aren't the worst, but are awkward or have minor problems that should be easily avoidable.
Here's a picture to start this off:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8020%2F7397087646_fb366ebaae_c.jpg&hash=271cd6a17dadcca2b2bc3d04e4481c96d74b0a78)
It's pretty hard to notice, but the exit number on this sign is crooked. By that, I mean that the "7" is lower that the other numbers. This sign is located on Highway 101 north in San Jose.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on June 29, 2012, 08:28:43 PM
Post by: Alps on June 29, 2012, 08:28:43 PM
That ranks up there with the SB Garden State Parkway photo I took today where the NJ 72 shield is slightly off center.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on June 30, 2012, 11:09:55 PM
Post by: Takumi on June 30, 2012, 11:09:55 PM
Another fine creation of Colonial Heights Department of Public Works. Strange font and too much white space.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2F544428_4181606059683_969278778_n.jpg&hash=192de48e544f01ef033be02b5aada73c48a29fc0)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2F544428_4181606059683_969278778_n.jpg&hash=192de48e544f01ef033be02b5aada73c48a29fc0)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on July 01, 2012, 01:09:01 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on July 01, 2012, 01:09:01 AM
^ I do like the lighting in your photo, Takumi, as it has the same character like a polaroid image.
:nod:
:nod:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on July 03, 2012, 12:48:01 AM
Post by: vtk on July 03, 2012, 12:48:01 AM
US 35 WB approaching Octa
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Ferrorbgs-1201.jpg&hash=602e906c4552d53f65daf957e5cc0efa3a9c27e5)
(damn cameraphone shutter lag!)
I don't think any of the legend on this sign should be in mixed-case (or Clearview, strictly speaking). And of course the state route marker is backwards. Must be relatively new, because of the use of CV and it's not on Street View.
Also, why no control cities on this or any other guide signs for this exit? Columbus, Cincinnati, Octa, Milledgeville, TO OH 729, take your pick!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Ferrorbgs-1201.jpg&hash=602e906c4552d53f65daf957e5cc0efa3a9c27e5)
(damn cameraphone shutter lag!)
I don't think any of the legend on this sign should be in mixed-case (or Clearview, strictly speaking). And of course the state route marker is backwards. Must be relatively new, because of the use of CV and it's not on Street View.
Also, why no control cities on this or any other guide signs for this exit? Columbus, Cincinnati, Octa, Milledgeville, TO OH 729, take your pick!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on July 03, 2012, 09:06:01 AM
Post by: Central Avenue on July 03, 2012, 09:06:01 AM
lol backwards OH outline.
I've noticed that, with the adoption of Clearview, ODOT has started putting messages in mixed-case that they would previously have put in all-caps:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5262%2F5670487705_72802b0625_z.jpg&hash=0fd6c962428d2dd9a94ab33510149aa21afb21fe)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7099%2F7306205196_e93795b9f9_z.jpg&hash=f11551944cd46bac31dba5d9f4190bbd86febb93)
It's like someone noticed that all-caps Clearview is dumb but their boss forbids them from using the "old" font. :P
I've noticed that, with the adoption of Clearview, ODOT has started putting messages in mixed-case that they would previously have put in all-caps:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5262%2F5670487705_72802b0625_z.jpg&hash=0fd6c962428d2dd9a94ab33510149aa21afb21fe)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7099%2F7306205196_e93795b9f9_z.jpg&hash=f11551944cd46bac31dba5d9f4190bbd86febb93)
It's like someone noticed that all-caps Clearview is dumb but their boss forbids them from using the "old" font. :P
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on July 03, 2012, 12:32:41 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on July 03, 2012, 12:32:41 PM
Same types of issues in the 2009 Clearview just south of downtown Akron with mixed-case things that should be all-caps, but in this case the button copy signs also had the mixed-case where it didn't belong. FOLLOW and NORTH ought to be all-caps.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2F77signs%2F77signs2%2FCIMG0097.JPG&hash=aad27813438729c2d78077040887318e04718046)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2F77signs%2F77signs2%2FCIMG0099.JPG&hash=b955283d4f070be9d54fe2921e3fbe4a3c09fa8b)
And here is an example of the now-gone button copy that featured mixed-case for the FOLLOW and NORTH. This pic was taken during the replacement process; the crew off to the right of the road is one of the sign replacement crews.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2F77signs%2FCIMG0062.JPG&hash=196737670834f1eb4ffec1c32c0b4f8293557a7b)
Interestingly, just south of there they did have FOLLOW in all-caps on the old button copy and new Clearview signs for 277. The old sign is face-down in the grass; the new one has already changed in two ways--it got an enormous new tab with yellow LEFT field (the tab is about half the height of the main sign), and the error shield (I'd love to know what the error was--77?) was covered with a larger I-76 shield on a green background to cover the error. If it's not one thing wrong with the signs, it's another....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2F77signs%2F77signs2%2FCIMG0089.JPG&hash=c5d935d4e33b079304e45f9f342a1dfda2d185b7)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2F77signs%2F77signs2%2FCIMG0097.JPG&hash=aad27813438729c2d78077040887318e04718046)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2F77signs%2F77signs2%2FCIMG0099.JPG&hash=b955283d4f070be9d54fe2921e3fbe4a3c09fa8b)
And here is an example of the now-gone button copy that featured mixed-case for the FOLLOW and NORTH. This pic was taken during the replacement process; the crew off to the right of the road is one of the sign replacement crews.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2F77signs%2FCIMG0062.JPG&hash=196737670834f1eb4ffec1c32c0b4f8293557a7b)
Interestingly, just south of there they did have FOLLOW in all-caps on the old button copy and new Clearview signs for 277. The old sign is face-down in the grass; the new one has already changed in two ways--it got an enormous new tab with yellow LEFT field (the tab is about half the height of the main sign), and the error shield (I'd love to know what the error was--77?) was covered with a larger I-76 shield on a green background to cover the error. If it's not one thing wrong with the signs, it's another....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2F77signs%2F77signs2%2FCIMG0089.JPG&hash=c5d935d4e33b079304e45f9f342a1dfda2d185b7)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: elsmere241 on July 03, 2012, 01:13:54 PM
Post by: elsmere241 on July 03, 2012, 01:13:54 PM
Can't get it on Google Maps, but in Newark, DE on Christina Parkway nw-bound just past Elkton Road, there is (or was) this sign in black-on-white:
MERGE
LEFT
LANE
ENDS
MERGE
LEFT
LANE
ENDS
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Mr. Matté on July 03, 2012, 04:25:38 PM
Post by: Mr. Matté on July 03, 2012, 04:25:38 PM
Quote from: Compulov on July 02, 2012, 09:00:08 PM(above from the Least Useful Signs thread)
I *much* prefer that newer variant of this sign. This way you know exactly what you're getting into. Reduced speed ahead is too vague. Am I going from a 50 zone to 25 (not unheard of), or just 45 to 40? This example from Allentown, NJ sticks with me: http://goo.gl/maps/4rNC
I passed that sign today on my bicycle and I saw something wrong with that sign clearly with my own eyes versus a blurry Streetview shot from 2007. It appears that the Speed Limit 40 part of that warning sign is just a reflective sticker pasted onto the yellow diamond base. I know this because whoever stuck that SL 40 onto the sign didn't do a good job, there were air bubbles and bunching (don't know the exact wording) on the white part of that sign. While this doesn't affect the conveying of the information on the sign especially if you're in a car (or the heavy trucks on that particular road from the concrete factory east of there) driving 55 mph, it's just sloppy workmanship.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on July 03, 2012, 05:55:02 PM
Post by: vtk on July 03, 2012, 05:55:02 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on July 03, 2012, 09:06:01 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7099%2F7306205196_e93795b9f9_z.jpg&hash=f11551944cd46bac31dba5d9f4190bbd86febb93)
Last year I offered some kind of intangible reward for the first photo of that new Clearview sign. Without researching it, I think you probably win. Enjoy your, um... was it digital brownies?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on July 03, 2012, 10:11:34 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on July 03, 2012, 10:11:34 PM
I find the panels that ODOT added reading "LEVEL 1 TRAUMA CENTER" on the BBS for Exit 21C on I-76 really irksome. Microscopic all-caps Clearview surrounded by what seems to be too much open space. I know that they were probably leaving an appropriate amount of space above and below the text, but with the text so tiny, it just looks terrible. Why not taller letters? Or two lines of text?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG7142.JPG&hash=e20c0fecb86eb9c868945db5353b2c8ca27294e2)
Fwiw, pictures of the corresponding sign eastbound always come out blurry. However, that actually would be a good comparison to simulate less-than-optimal viewing conditions or eyesight. The eastbound sign is overhead--note how all the other lettering is still legible (to me, anyway) when you view the full-size image, but the microscopic Clearview is much harder to read. Why did they bother adding those panels if they are going to be so hard to read?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG7140a.jpg&hash=9426bdd61a98f442b9550d7d6467edeac26097b2)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG7142.JPG&hash=e20c0fecb86eb9c868945db5353b2c8ca27294e2)
Fwiw, pictures of the corresponding sign eastbound always come out blurry. However, that actually would be a good comparison to simulate less-than-optimal viewing conditions or eyesight. The eastbound sign is overhead--note how all the other lettering is still legible (to me, anyway) when you view the full-size image, but the microscopic Clearview is much harder to read. Why did they bother adding those panels if they are going to be so hard to read?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG7140a.jpg&hash=9426bdd61a98f442b9550d7d6467edeac26097b2)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on July 03, 2012, 10:26:01 PM
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on July 03, 2012, 10:26:01 PM
^ I think that sign's very focus is to get more people to go to the trauma center because of trying to read that sign. :sombrero:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on July 04, 2012, 04:22:01 AM
Post by: roadfro on July 04, 2012, 04:22:01 AM
^^ The design error there is the "need" to advertise the fact that the hospital has a level 1 trauma center. I would argue most people don't even know what that really means... In an emergency, you're going to look for the nearest hospital period.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on July 04, 2012, 11:13:24 AM
Post by: roadman on July 04, 2012, 11:13:24 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on July 03, 2012, 09:06:01 AM
lol backwards OH outline.
I've noticed that, with the adoption of Clearview, ODOT has started putting messages in mixed-case that they would previously have put in all-caps:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5262%2F5670487705_72802b0625_z.jpg&hash=0fd6c962428d2dd9a94ab33510149aa21afb21fe)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7099%2F7306205196_e93795b9f9_z.jpg&hash=f11551944cd46bac31dba5d9f4190bbd86febb93)
It's like someone noticed that all-caps Clearview is dumb but their boss forbids them from using the "old" font. :P
Is ODOT really still testing the pavement they put down 40 years ago?
That having been said, I would think this qualifies for "most pointless sign" instead. Most states that have experimental installations, like the pavement marking test beds on I-80 in Pennsylvania, note the limits of the test area with small markers instead of large signs on S-beam posts.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on July 04, 2012, 11:45:03 AM
Post by: NE2 on July 04, 2012, 11:45:03 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 04, 2012, 11:13:24 AMExcept that this one is really strange, with four roadways, of which only two are in use at any time.
That having been said, I would think this qualifies for "most pointless sign" instead. Most states that have experimental installations, like the pavement marking test beds on I-80 in Pennsylvania, note the limits of the test area with small markers instead of large signs on S-beam posts.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on July 04, 2012, 11:59:05 AM
Post by: J N Winkler on July 04, 2012, 11:59:05 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 04, 2012, 04:22:01 AMThe design error there is the "need" to advertise the fact that the hospital has a level 1 trauma center. I would argue most people don't even know what that really means... In an emergency, you're going to look for the nearest hospital period.
I agree that this should not be signed, on the basis that patients for whom the distinction between Level 1 and lesser grades of trauma center is critical will not be trying to get to the Level 1 facility on their own. Instead, they will be taken there by ambulance, in which case it is the paramedics who will not need to rely on signs for trauma center ratings, or by medevac, in which case signs on the road will not do any good.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 04, 2012, 12:14:52 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 04, 2012, 12:14:52 PM
is that in such a bad neighborhood that there would be people dropping off gunshot victims, etc, at the Level 1 facility instead of calling an ambulance?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on July 04, 2012, 12:30:35 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on July 04, 2012, 12:30:35 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 04, 2012, 11:59:05 AMQuote from: roadfro on July 04, 2012, 04:22:01 AMThe design error there is the "need" to advertise the fact that the hospital has a level 1 trauma center. I would argue most people don't even know what that really means... In an emergency, you're going to look for the nearest hospital period.
I agree that this should not be signed, on the basis that patients for whom the distinction between Level 1 and lesser grades of trauma center is critical will not be trying to get to the Level 1 facility on their own. Instead, they will be taken there by ambulance, in which case it is the paramedics who will not need to rely on signs for trauma center ratings, or by medevac, in which case signs on the road will not do any good.
I find it odd too, but I remember reading somewhere that Ohio was not alone in adding signage indicating Level 1 Trauma Center locations; South Carolina supposedly had something similar in the works at one time. What drives me nuts about those particular signs is how tiny the all-caps Clearview is--why not use something legible? (Wasn't Clearview made for uses that were NOT all-caps?)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on July 04, 2012, 03:21:59 PM
Post by: Central Avenue on July 04, 2012, 03:21:59 PM
Honestly, I think the legibility issue with the "Level 1 Trauma Center" signs has little to do with Clearview--if they'd used FHWA lettering that tiny it would be just as illegible.
It seems like the easiest thing to do--short of using a bigger panel with two lines of text--would be to use a narrower series and increase the height of the lettering.
It seems like the easiest thing to do--short of using a bigger panel with two lines of text--would be to use a narrower series and increase the height of the lettering.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on July 04, 2012, 03:50:25 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on July 04, 2012, 03:50:25 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on July 04, 2012, 03:21:59 PM
Honestly, I think the legibility issue with the "Level 1 Trauma Center" signs has little to do with Clearview--if they'd used FHWA lettering that tiny it would be just as illegible.
It seems like the easiest thing to do--short of using a bigger panel with two lines of text--would be to use a narrower series and increase the height of the lettering.
That was my thinking when I saw it as well--why not something like a Series C or D or something that is tall for its width?--but ODOT loves Clearview now and the only Clearview widths that FHWA approved are 5-W and 5-W-R, so when ODOT uses Clearview, they seem to use 5-W--and then we are stuck with something like this. If ODOT would consider using non-Clearview, then a narrower face would certainly have helped. (The FHWA Clearview FAQ notes that 3-W, the counterpart of Series D, scored lower than D for legibility and is thus verboten. So, if ODOT insists on Clearview, then they are stuck with the Series E(M) counterpart, which is too wide for its height for this instance.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on July 04, 2012, 06:13:24 PM
Post by: kphoger on July 04, 2012, 06:13:24 PM
Couldn't they have just left out the word Center altogether and conveyed the same meaning?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on July 05, 2012, 05:21:25 PM
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on July 05, 2012, 05:21:25 PM
On this sign along I-880 south, the exit tab is misaligned:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8164%2F7510511810_10055dbbc1_c.jpg&hash=71746d8e888f542842df613d3596ecf3a0fafd94)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8164%2F7510511810_10055dbbc1_c.jpg&hash=71746d8e888f542842df613d3596ecf3a0fafd94)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Compulov on July 05, 2012, 05:45:34 PM
Post by: Compulov on July 05, 2012, 05:45:34 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 03, 2012, 04:25:38 PMQuote from: Compulov on July 02, 2012, 09:00:08 PM(above from the Least Useful Signs thread)
I *much* prefer that newer variant of this sign. This way you know exactly what you're getting into. Reduced speed ahead is too vague. Am I going from a 50 zone to 25 (not unheard of), or just 45 to 40? This example from Allentown, NJ sticks with me: http://goo.gl/maps/4rNC
I passed that sign today on my bicycle and I saw something wrong with that sign clearly with my own eyes versus a blurry Streetview shot from 2007. It appears that the Speed Limit 40 part of that warning sign is just a reflective sticker pasted onto the yellow diamond base. I know this because whoever stuck that SL 40 onto the sign didn't do a good job, there were air bubbles and bunching (don't know the exact wording) on the white part of that sign. While this doesn't affect the conveying of the information on the sign especially if you're in a car (or the heavy trucks on that particular road from the concrete factory east of there) driving 55 mph, it's just sloppy workmanship.
I wonder if that's a recent issue with that sign. I used to drive up that way at least once every few weeks (hence why I bought it up, I thought it was novel at the time) as I was driving between my apartment in East Windsor and my parents' place in Lakewood (I found the county routes to be a more relaxing trip than taking 195). I don't recall the sign peeling or bubbling when I saw it then, but I haven't been up that way since 2008.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on July 05, 2012, 08:29:25 PM
Post by: national highway 1 on July 05, 2012, 08:29:25 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on July 05, 2012, 05:21:25 PMAlso, shouldn't the top border of the main signface be included and also be continuous with the bottom border of the exit tab?
On this sign along I-880 south, the exit tab is misaligned:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8164%2F7510511810_10055dbbc1_c.jpg&hash=71746d8e888f542842df613d3596ecf3a0fafd94)
(by looking at the Bailey Ave example above)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: KEK Inc. on July 05, 2012, 09:24:06 PM
Post by: KEK Inc. on July 05, 2012, 09:24:06 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 05, 2012, 08:29:25 PMQuote from: CentralCAroadgeek on July 05, 2012, 05:21:25 PMAlso, shouldn't the top border of the main signface be included and also be continuous with the bottom border of the exit tab?
On this sign along I-880 south, the exit tab is misaligned:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8164%2F7510511810_10055dbbc1_c.jpg&hash=71746d8e888f542842df613d3596ecf3a0fafd94)
(by looking at the Bailey Ave example above)
Not always. California does both.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages905%2Fi-905_ca_et_04.jpg&hash=e0970dda83b10b06e2a1eb411af5e9a7c40b5d7a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages040%2Fi-040_wt_13.jpg&hash=7e2f6ace52405106b44f7410e78c61d57aa68208)
The style in question is less common on overhead signs, but it's pretty common among smaller signs.
---
Here's an oddy only 10 miles away from the original post's sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cahighways.org%2Fimages%2Fexit-numbers.jpg&hash=28a8490f4b4b695b8c525624240fe3ecba10b88d)
These are rare. I think there may be a couple more on I-5.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 05, 2012, 09:31:32 PM
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 05, 2012, 09:31:32 PM
When you run out of digits, don't use letters.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7147%2F6699474979_ba917fa2b7_z.jpg&hash=aafdf8334c38bd36ba58e7a341559e23be90551e) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/6699474979/)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7147%2F6699474979_ba917fa2b7_z.jpg&hash=aafdf8334c38bd36ba58e7a341559e23be90551e) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/6699474979/)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on July 06, 2012, 10:55:24 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on July 06, 2012, 10:55:24 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 05, 2012, 09:31:32 PMA movie theater in my hometown would frequently use an inverted "L" for a "7" in its
When you run out of digits, don't use letters.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7147%2F6699474979_ba917fa2b7_z.jpg&hash=aafdf8334c38bd36ba58e7a341559e23be90551e) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/6699474979/)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on July 06, 2012, 12:51:31 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on July 06, 2012, 12:51:31 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 05, 2012, 09:31:32 PM
When you run out of digits, don't use letters.
There is at least one blue services logo sign on I-71 near Grove City, Ohio in button copy that has an upside-down L standing in for the 7 in "EXIT 97". Thought I once got a picture, but can't locate it....
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on July 06, 2012, 01:03:50 PM
Post by: Takumi on July 06, 2012, 01:03:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 06, 2012, 10:55:24 AMQuote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 05, 2012, 09:31:32 PMA movie theater in my hometown would frequently use an inverted "L" for a "7" in its marquis signage for the showtimes.
When you run out of digits, don't use letters.
That used to be a common occurrence on marquees at various local businesses, but I rarely see it on signs.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 06, 2012, 10:45:41 PM
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 06, 2012, 10:45:41 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 04, 2012, 11:13:24 AMNo. They (and Ohio Univ) are still testing wear on pavement they put down 20 years ago.Quote from: Central Avenue on July 03, 2012, 09:06:01 AM
lol backwards OH outline.
I've noticed that, with the adoption of Clearview, ODOT has started putting messages in mixed-case that they would previously have put in all-caps:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5262%2F5670487705_72802b0625_z.jpg&hash=0fd6c962428d2dd9a94ab33510149aa21afb21fe)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7099%2F7306205196_e93795b9f9_z.jpg&hash=f11551944cd46bac31dba5d9f4190bbd86febb93)
It's like someone noticed that all-caps Clearview is dumb but their boss forbids them from using the "old" font. :P
Is ODOT really still testing the pavement they put down 40 years ago?
As for the outer lanes, they're 50 years old.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Mr. Matté on July 11, 2012, 02:10:03 PM
Post by: Mr. Matté on July 11, 2012, 02:10:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 03, 2012, 04:25:38 PM
I passed that sign today on my bicycle and I saw something wrong with that sign clearly with my own eyes versus a blurry Streetview shot from 2007. It appears that the Speed Limit 40 part of that warning sign is just a reflective sticker pasted onto the yellow diamond base. I know this because whoever stuck that SL 40 onto the sign didn't do a good job, there were air bubbles and bunching (don't know the exact wording) on the white part of that sign. While this doesn't affect the conveying of the information on the sign especially if you're in a car (or the heavy trucks on that particular road from the concrete factory east of there) driving 55 mph, it's just sloppy workmanship.
Re me: I finally got some close-up pix of that sign and its deformities:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkTHnT.jpg&hash=eef00c8e5fb7cc1c4bd67667f41be02c2b1e43d7)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3AXQE.jpg&hash=68dc5bea52afc86fd6e0b1a3f4c3de1e8c2ca1d0)
(Bonus off-topic pix: an old-timey warning reflector in Allentown and an older-timey truss bridge (http://imgur.com/a/wrXCS))
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2012, 02:17:02 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2012, 02:17:02 PM
I cannot read the date stamp on that bridge. 18xx. 1832? that seems a bit old for that style of bridge design. 1882?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Mr. Matté on July 11, 2012, 02:55:44 PM
Post by: Mr. Matté on July 11, 2012, 02:55:44 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2012, 02:17:02 PM
I cannot read the date stamp on that bridge. 18xx. 1832? that seems a bit old for that style of bridge design. 1882?
Looks to be 1891. (http://bridgehunter.com/nj/monmouth/crosswicks-creek/)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2012, 04:18:30 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2012, 04:18:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 11, 2012, 02:55:44 PMQuote from: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2012, 02:17:02 PM
I cannot read the date stamp on that bridge. 18xx. 1832? that seems a bit old for that style of bridge design. 1882?
Looks to be 1891. (http://bridgehunter.com/nj/monmouth/crosswicks-creek/)
thanks! that is logical.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on July 12, 2012, 09:15:30 PM
Post by: vtk on July 12, 2012, 09:15:30 PM
Associated with the Alum Creek Dr / Groveport Rd interchange construction near Columbus:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fbluonorn-1201.jpg&hash=de3d177b8439b92479f67ce0fb042c330981bba3)
Yes, that's blue legend on an orange background. I can't tell if the border is blue or black. All of the "alternate route" signage is like this. Sorry for the crappy photo, what with the camera phone and dirty windshield, but I was working at the time...
This was probably put up by the contractor that's actually building the interchange. FCEO probably would have stuck with black legend, put Groveport Rd in mixed-case, and done it all in Clearview.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fbluonorn-1201.jpg&hash=de3d177b8439b92479f67ce0fb042c330981bba3)
Yes, that's blue legend on an orange background. I can't tell if the border is blue or black. All of the "alternate route" signage is like this. Sorry for the crappy photo, what with the camera phone and dirty windshield, but I was working at the time...
This was probably put up by the contractor that's actually building the interchange. FCEO probably would have stuck with black legend, put Groveport Rd in mixed-case, and done it all in Clearview.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on July 12, 2012, 11:36:31 PM
Post by: Central Avenue on July 12, 2012, 11:36:31 PM
Oh, wow...I'd forgotten it until just now, but I'm sure I've seen blue-on-orange detour signs used in Columbus at least once before.
Unfortunately, it was years ago, and I can't for the life of me remember where it was...
Unfortunately, it was years ago, and I can't for the life of me remember where it was...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on July 13, 2012, 01:37:26 PM
Post by: 1995hoo on July 13, 2012, 01:37:26 PM
Overhead sign on I-295 in DC a few months ago. I don't know if it's still there because I can't see it from the ramp where I normally enter that road (going the other way, too), but I know at least one other orange overhead sign is still up nearby.
(edited to add:) Funny, after I submitted this post I noticed for the first time that the sign also uses Clearview, which I do not recall having ever seen anywhere else in the District of Columbia.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wtop.com%2Femedia%2Fwtop%2F23%2F2330%2F233040.jpg&hash=20e12dd9005cd9afceac96059da8bd1f38a321e5)
(edited to add:) Funny, after I submitted this post I noticed for the first time that the sign also uses Clearview, which I do not recall having ever seen anywhere else in the District of Columbia.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wtop.com%2Femedia%2Fwtop%2F23%2F2330%2F233040.jpg&hash=20e12dd9005cd9afceac96059da8bd1f38a321e5)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on July 13, 2012, 02:55:22 PM
Post by: roadman on July 13, 2012, 02:55:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 13, 2012, 01:37:26 PM
Overhead sign on I-295 in DC a few months ago. I don't know if it's still there because I can't see it from the ramp where I normally enter that road (going the other way, too), but I know at least one other orange overhead sign is still up nearby.
(edited to add:) Funny, after I submitted this post I noticed for the first time that the sign also uses Clearview, which I do not recall having ever seen anywhere else in the District of Columbia.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wtop.com%2Femedia%2Fwtop%2F23%2F2330%2F233040.jpg&hash=20e12dd9005cd9afceac96059da8bd1f38a321e5)
The photo illustrates a pet peeve of mine. Using black on orange for guide signs in construction areas, even if they're not related to a detour.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on July 13, 2012, 03:01:57 PM
Post by: 1995hoo on July 13, 2012, 03:01:57 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2012, 02:55:22 PM
The photo illustrates a pet peeve of mine. Using black on orange for guide signs in construction areas, even if they're not related to a detour.
Notice also it appears they failed to put a space between the fraction and the word "mile."
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Compulov on July 13, 2012, 03:09:32 PM
Post by: Compulov on July 13, 2012, 03:09:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 13, 2012, 01:37:26 PM
Overhead sign on I-295 in DC a few months ago. I don't know if it's still there because I can't see it from the ramp where I normally enter that road (going the other way, too), but I know at least one other orange overhead sign is still up nearby.
(edited to add:) Funny, after I submitted this post I noticed for the first time that the sign also uses Clearview, which I do not recall having ever seen anywhere else in the District of Columbia.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wtop.com%2Femedia%2Fwtop%2F23%2F2330%2F233040.jpg&hash=20e12dd9005cd9afceac96059da8bd1f38a321e5)
Maybe it's just the picture, but that day-glo orange makes my eyes bleed. It's worse than areas that decide they're going to use day-glo yellow for all of their warning signs.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on July 13, 2012, 06:25:29 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on July 13, 2012, 06:25:29 PM
A very subtle one that happens from time to time--can you see it? It really isn't even a design error, more of an assembly error, as the sign was designed correctly and assembled with a minor discrepancy.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Foh%2Fi-490%2Fw1r1.jpg&hash=7d7bfa417d273c11234d5a88919a87f3d3c58b8c)
from Steve's site (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/oh/i-490/), on ramp from I-490
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/225207_10100545279168108_6465261_n.jpg)
my own, from OH 82
Yes, in both cases, the small caps S traded places with the lowercase larger s on the I-71 sign.
Oddly, the same type of thing happened on at least one MA 3A sign without a pair of letters to swap--maybe they were just short a small caps S and improvised. The Ss in "Morrissey" all check out ok.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_203%2Fe3a_1.jpg&hash=35eb4015570dc0d8ae7ad218f3be18f21d5ca93f)
From Steve's MA 203 page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/ma_203/)
Oh, and cheers to ODOT--it appears that in the recent Clearview replacement of button copy (boo) on I-71's southernmost miles in Cuyahoga County, only signs right at the interchanges were replaced on intersecting roads. The button copy on the gantry on OH 82 pictured above (and signs facing the other direction, a pull-through for OH 82 and signs for Howe Rd. to the west) live on. Hooray!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Foh%2Fi-490%2Fw1r1.jpg&hash=7d7bfa417d273c11234d5a88919a87f3d3c58b8c)
from Steve's site (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/oh/i-490/), on ramp from I-490
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/225207_10100545279168108_6465261_n.jpg)
my own, from OH 82
Yes, in both cases, the small caps S traded places with the lowercase larger s on the I-71 sign.
Oddly, the same type of thing happened on at least one MA 3A sign without a pair of letters to swap--maybe they were just short a small caps S and improvised. The Ss in "Morrissey" all check out ok.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_203%2Fe3a_1.jpg&hash=35eb4015570dc0d8ae7ad218f3be18f21d5ca93f)
From Steve's MA 203 page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/ma_203/)
Oh, and cheers to ODOT--it appears that in the recent Clearview replacement of button copy (boo) on I-71's southernmost miles in Cuyahoga County, only signs right at the interchanges were replaced on intersecting roads. The button copy on the gantry on OH 82 pictured above (and signs facing the other direction, a pull-through for OH 82 and signs for Howe Rd. to the west) live on. Hooray!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on July 13, 2012, 06:36:33 PM
Post by: Alps on July 13, 2012, 06:36:33 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 13, 2012, 06:25:29 PMHow the heck did you?
A very subtle one that happens from time to time--can you see it?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on July 13, 2012, 06:47:39 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on July 13, 2012, 06:47:39 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 13, 2012, 06:25:29 PMOne of the BGS' on the approach ramp to I-95 from PA 413 in Bristol (Exit 40) has a lower-case u for the the word SOuTH for I-95 South.
A very subtle one that happens from time to time--can you see it? It really isn't even a design error, more of an assembly error, as the sign was designed correctly and assembled with a minor discrepancy.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on July 13, 2012, 06:49:33 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on July 13, 2012, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 13, 2012, 06:36:33 PMQuote from: PurdueBill on July 13, 2012, 06:25:29 PMHow the heck did you?
A very subtle one that happens from time to time--can you see it?
I kept noticing that something wasn't quite right with them and actually it wasn't until I saw the 71/176 pair and stared at them long enough that it hit me that the small caps letters S in the two adjacent signs weren't the same. Then it hit me that maybe there was a switcheroo made. Ever since then, it's been one of those things that leaps out at me. It's like the first time that the arrow in the white space in the FedEx logo was mentioned to me--I'd never thought about or noticed it before, but once you've become aware of it, you see it all the time.
There are other fun swaps of large lowercase and small caps letters that are immediately obvious (like the pull-through on the Mass Pike WB approaching the Weston tolls where the sign says WorcesTer (with a small-caps T that fits among the neighboring letters height-wise), but admittedly the S for s swap is something I wouldn't have figured out if it weren't for the 71 and 176 signs pictured above being next to each other.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on July 13, 2012, 11:16:14 PM
Post by: national highway 1 on July 13, 2012, 11:16:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 13, 2012, 01:37:26 PMI thought I-695 DC was unsigned, but apparently, like I-110 TX it is now signed?
Overhead sign on I-295 in DC a few months ago. I don't know if it's still there because I can't see it from the ramp where I normally enter that road (going the other way, too), but I know at least one other orange overhead sign is still up nearby.
(edited to add:) Funny, after I submitted this post I noticed for the first time that the sign also uses Clearview, which I do not recall having ever seen anywhere else in the District of Columbia.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wtop.com%2Femedia%2Fwtop%2F23%2F2330%2F233040.jpg&hash=20e12dd9005cd9afceac96059da8bd1f38a321e5)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on July 14, 2012, 01:24:32 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on July 14, 2012, 01:24:32 AM
Does DC 295 still disappear at the exit direction sign? One of the only times I've "gotten lost" in living memory. "Take this exit, it's for DC 295! Wait, no, apparently it's not! Fuck, we're in Anacostia!"
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: elsmere241 on July 14, 2012, 09:31:42 AM
Post by: elsmere241 on July 14, 2012, 09:31:42 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 14, 2012, 01:24:32 AM
Does DC 295 still disappear at the exit direction sign? One of the only times I've "gotten lost" in living memory. "Take this exit, it's for DC 295! Wait, no, apparently it's not! Fuck, we're in Anacostia!"
That happened to me once too. Last time I tried cutting through the District . . .
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Brandon on July 14, 2012, 06:30:58 PM
Post by: Brandon on July 14, 2012, 06:30:58 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2254.jpg&hash=8e32e701f4625f7fb448d214654a5692bd3a837b)
A pet peeve of mine, large capital letters with tiny lowercase letters.
A pet peeve of mine, large capital letters with tiny lowercase letters.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on July 14, 2012, 08:20:54 PM
Post by: national highway 1 on July 14, 2012, 08:20:54 PM
^ Also that I-94 shield needs to be straightened up a bit.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: andrewkbrown on July 14, 2012, 10:30:11 PM
Post by: andrewkbrown on July 14, 2012, 10:30:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 13, 2012, 01:37:26 PM
Overhead sign on I-295 in DC a few months ago. I don't know if it's still there because I can't see it from the ramp where I normally enter that road (going the other way, too), but I know at least one other orange overhead sign is still up nearby.
(edited to add:) Funny, after I submitted this post I noticed for the first time that the sign also uses Clearview, which I do not recall having ever seen anywhere else in the District of Columbia.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wtop.com%2Femedia%2Fwtop%2F23%2F2330%2F233040.jpg&hash=20e12dd9005cd9afceac96059da8bd1f38a321e5)
It's still up. This one, and a few others.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: akotchi on July 14, 2012, 10:41:23 PM
Post by: akotchi on July 14, 2012, 10:41:23 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 14, 2012, 06:30:58 PMThe "Last Exit . . . " should also be a black text on yellow background panel.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2254.jpg&hash=8e32e701f4625f7fb448d214654a5692bd3a837b)
A pet peeve of mine, large capital letters with tiny lowercase letters.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on July 15, 2012, 01:04:47 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on July 15, 2012, 01:04:47 AM
Quote from: akotchi on July 14, 2012, 10:41:23 PM
The "Last Exit . . . " should also be a black text on yellow background panel.
Green is technically correct. A toll road starting isn't really a hazard...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on July 15, 2012, 01:32:50 AM
Post by: vtk on July 15, 2012, 01:32:50 AM
But it's not a destination or road name, so it should be in all caps anyway.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on July 16, 2012, 12:41:20 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on July 16, 2012, 12:41:20 AM
Quote from: vtk on July 15, 2012, 01:32:50 AM
But it's not a destination or road name, so it should be in all caps anyway.
Do you recall the way the MUTCD phrases this? I thought it was a "place name messages shall be in mixed case" but with no specification as to other messages... does it say someone "everything else shall be in SCREAMY CAPS"?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on July 16, 2012, 12:50:11 AM
Post by: vtk on July 16, 2012, 12:50:11 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 16, 2012, 12:41:20 AMQuote from: vtk on July 15, 2012, 01:32:50 AM
But it's not a destination or road name, so it should be in all caps anyway.
Do you recall the way the MUTCD phrases this? I thought it was a "place name messages shall be in mixed case" but with no specification as to other messages... does it say someone "everything else shall be in SCREAMY CAPS"?
Basically, but in reverse order from that:
Quote from: MUTCD 2009 Section 2A.13
Standard:
10 All sign lettering shall be in upper-case letters as provided in the "Standard Highway Signs and Markings" book (see Section 1A.11), unless otherwise provided in this Manual for a particular sign or type of message.
11 The sign lettering for names of places, streets, and highways shall be composed of a combination of lower-case letters with initial upper-case letters.
I'm not aware of any subsequent passages that override those standards.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on July 16, 2012, 10:40:18 AM
Post by: 1995hoo on July 16, 2012, 10:40:18 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 15, 2012, 01:04:47 AMQuote from: akotchi on July 14, 2012, 10:41:23 PM
The "Last Exit . . . " should also be a black text on yellow background panel.
Green is technically correct. A toll road starting isn't really a hazard...
I've seen quite a few black-on-yellow "Last Exit Before Toll" signs over the years, although I have no idea what the MUTCD might say about it. Most of the time, however, I've seen this notation as a banner on a larger sign (similar to an "Exit Only" or the like), not as a separate sign as shown here.
If the goal of the sign is to grab the attention of someone who might not realize there's a toll road ahead, the black-on-yellow is probably more eye-catching regardless of what the MUTCD might say.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on July 16, 2012, 02:47:11 PM
Post by: Takumi on July 16, 2012, 02:47:11 PM
I'm among the minority that likes unisigns, but not with the directional banner below the shield.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-8oG_4sA_OMk/UARFHziVE_I/AAAAAAAAC-s/vm5HzDDRLnY/s816/DSC01266.JPG)
Misshapen shields. And VA 403 does not go north here (which is for another thread).
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-i4cusVSwY6Q/UARFI43mbZI/AAAAAAAAC_k/WWBxVwmEQA4/s816/DSC01270.JPG)
Non-cutout Interstate shield.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-HMtbjifD-jw/UARFVv3alvI/AAAAAAAADEY/tHFq87YQs1g/s816/DSC01317.JPG)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-8oG_4sA_OMk/UARFHziVE_I/AAAAAAAAC-s/vm5HzDDRLnY/s816/DSC01266.JPG)
Misshapen shields. And VA 403 does not go north here (which is for another thread).
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-i4cusVSwY6Q/UARFI43mbZI/AAAAAAAAC_k/WWBxVwmEQA4/s816/DSC01270.JPG)
Non-cutout Interstate shield.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-HMtbjifD-jw/UARFVv3alvI/AAAAAAAADEY/tHFq87YQs1g/s816/DSC01317.JPG)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Roadsguy on July 16, 2012, 05:19:42 PM
Post by: Roadsguy on July 16, 2012, 05:19:42 PM
Quote from: akotchi on July 14, 2012, 10:41:23 PM
The "Last Exit . . . " should also be a black text on yellow background panel.
Of course, I've never seen any button copy that's not white on anything else. Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing anything that's not white on green. Probably because reflectors on black doesn't work well.
When was that sign put up anyway?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 16, 2012, 06:19:45 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 16, 2012, 06:19:45 PM
there are many examples of white/black and yellow/black button copy here in CA.
also, brown/white and blue/white is very prevalent here, and the occasional red/white does exist, mainly in the form of old STOP signs.
also, brown/white and blue/white is very prevalent here, and the occasional red/white does exist, mainly in the form of old STOP signs.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Brandon on July 16, 2012, 06:57:28 PM
Post by: Brandon on July 16, 2012, 06:57:28 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on July 16, 2012, 05:19:42 PMQuote from: akotchi on July 14, 2012, 10:41:23 PM
The "Last Exit . . . " should also be a black text on yellow background panel.
Of course, I've never seen any button copy that's not white on anything else. Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing anything that's not white on green. Probably because reflectors on black doesn't work well.
When was that sign put up anyway?
Within the past four years or so. When IDOT finished the widening of the Kingery Expressway and rebuilt the Torrance and IL-394/I-94 interchanges.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on July 16, 2012, 07:42:19 PM
Post by: Alps on July 16, 2012, 07:42:19 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on July 16, 2012, 05:19:42 PMWell, you don't need to use button copy for EVERY legend:Quote from: akotchi on July 14, 2012, 10:41:23 PM
The "Last Exit . . . " should also be a black text on yellow background panel.
Of course, I've never seen any button copy that's not white on anything else. Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing anything that's not white on green. Probably because reflectors on black doesn't work well.
When was that sign put up anyway?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fnj_495%2Fewh.jpg&hash=a2a272b9944b67c085d89fd9f6da3dc34430d566)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on July 20, 2012, 03:02:46 PM
Post by: Central Avenue on July 20, 2012, 03:02:46 PM
Here's a subtle one. I didn't even notice this until looking at the pictures after the fact:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8023%2F7610819942_5f7df5e8a6_c.jpg&hash=9c9f1ac1d25aba40ef1d06e4a0ed667f00ee44b4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7264%2F7610967310_13abbbff7e_c.jpg&hash=2086fc594e27650e426717c638903fbf1605e687)
Yep, on both I-75 signs, the top right corner is squared off as if to meet the exit tab, even though the exit tab is (correctly) left-aligned.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8023%2F7610819942_5f7df5e8a6_c.jpg&hash=9c9f1ac1d25aba40ef1d06e4a0ed667f00ee44b4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7264%2F7610967310_13abbbff7e_c.jpg&hash=2086fc594e27650e426717c638903fbf1605e687)
Yep, on both I-75 signs, the top right corner is squared off as if to meet the exit tab, even though the exit tab is (correctly) left-aligned.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on July 20, 2012, 08:33:55 PM
Post by: Alps on July 20, 2012, 08:33:55 PM
@Ms. Central: I imagine the tabs were once incorrectly on the right, and then moved over when someone woke up to the MUTCD.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on July 20, 2012, 10:53:57 PM
Post by: national highway 1 on July 20, 2012, 10:53:57 PM
Helvetica on this TX Toll 1 shield?
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX20050451t300010.jpg)
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX20050451t300010.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on July 21, 2012, 01:14:21 AM
Post by: Central Avenue on July 21, 2012, 01:14:21 AM
Quote from: Steve on July 20, 2012, 08:33:55 PM
@Ms. Central: I imagine the tabs were once incorrectly on the right, and then moved over when someone woke up to the MUTCD.
That was my guess too.
Especially because I noticed the sign for a left-hand exit is mounted on the right-hand side of the road.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: OracleUsr on July 21, 2012, 10:23:37 AM
Post by: OracleUsr on July 21, 2012, 10:23:37 AM
Perhaps. TN didn't use directional tabbing until the late 1990's anyway, at least not between Hartford and Knoxville.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ian on July 23, 2012, 12:54:19 PM
Post by: Ian on July 23, 2012, 12:54:19 PM
NHDOT loves to push the top control city all the way over to the left when there is an arrow involved.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8148%2F7630829288_7a3d78ffc9_z.jpg&hash=8e2c40d2815bf07f623afdc2bc39469b138e6ab9)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8148%2F7630829288_7a3d78ffc9_z.jpg&hash=8e2c40d2815bf07f623afdc2bc39469b138e6ab9)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on July 23, 2012, 12:57:48 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on July 23, 2012, 12:57:48 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 23, 2012, 12:54:19 PMBoth PTC and PennDOT have been known to 'Left-Justify' control destinations when a Right-Arrow is involved as well on their BGS' for almost a decade.
NHDOT loves to push the top control city all the way over to the left when there is an arrow involved.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8148%2F7630829288_7a3d78ffc9_z.jpg&hash=8e2c40d2815bf07f623afdc2bc39469b138e6ab9)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on July 30, 2012, 06:22:20 PM
Post by: Takumi on July 30, 2012, 06:22:20 PM
Off-center text.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-vG-fULAW00A/UBb9Tf4BJJI/AAAAAAAADaE/tvpFpw9FNBc/s720/DSC01463.JPG)
Weird-looking gore sign.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-kIO7XJ3zNR0/UBb9UA0RPHI/AAAAAAAADaQ/gxtbMRcN10M/s720/DSC01466.JPG)
Excessively bordered exit tab solutions.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-J1z2Z88FRlA/UBb9V_68yeI/AAAAAAAADbA/E9xZ4SeG_fw/s720/DSC01472.JPG)
White banner on an interstate shield.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-aWoHAiMfCSQ/UBb9WLQyoXI/AAAAAAAADbY/xh_Sss5PxWY/s720/DSC01475.JPG)
This gore sign looks pretty funky too.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-JDw1SYMwTmc/UBb-CuewZcI/AAAAAAAADnQ/-bDp8h32-Qg/s720/DSC01554.JPG)
But this one was the worst of the bunch.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-U5SaLTju2-8/UBb9PtCXcdI/AAAAAAAADYo/ngeLrttSp8M/s720/DSC01455.JPG)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-vG-fULAW00A/UBb9Tf4BJJI/AAAAAAAADaE/tvpFpw9FNBc/s720/DSC01463.JPG)
Weird-looking gore sign.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-kIO7XJ3zNR0/UBb9UA0RPHI/AAAAAAAADaQ/gxtbMRcN10M/s720/DSC01466.JPG)
Excessively bordered exit tab solutions.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-J1z2Z88FRlA/UBb9V_68yeI/AAAAAAAADbA/E9xZ4SeG_fw/s720/DSC01472.JPG)
White banner on an interstate shield.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-aWoHAiMfCSQ/UBb9WLQyoXI/AAAAAAAADbY/xh_Sss5PxWY/s720/DSC01475.JPG)
This gore sign looks pretty funky too.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-JDw1SYMwTmc/UBb-CuewZcI/AAAAAAAADnQ/-bDp8h32-Qg/s720/DSC01554.JPG)
But this one was the worst of the bunch.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-U5SaLTju2-8/UBb9PtCXcdI/AAAAAAAADYo/ngeLrttSp8M/s720/DSC01455.JPG)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on July 30, 2012, 07:11:02 PM
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on July 30, 2012, 07:11:02 PM
Texas-style exit tab, you're doing it wrong!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8008%2F7680071518_7710753228_c.jpg&hash=1b737fc56264b9c3077c580a633de4cebc5d87b9)
On I-5 north in Cottonwood.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8008%2F7680071518_7710753228_c.jpg&hash=1b737fc56264b9c3077c580a633de4cebc5d87b9)
On I-5 north in Cottonwood.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on July 30, 2012, 08:35:14 PM
Post by: national highway 1 on July 30, 2012, 08:35:14 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 30, 2012, 06:22:20 PMI guess it used to be a conventional exit gore sign, the '9' was added later.
This gore sign looks pretty funky too.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-JDw1SYMwTmc/UBb-CuewZcI/AAAAAAAADnQ/-bDp8h32-Qg/s720/DSC01554.JPG)
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on July 30, 2012, 07:11:02 PMThe same situation here, except they added a '664' plate below the gore point sign.
Texas-style exit tab, you're doing it wrong!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8008%2F7680071518_7710753228_c.jpg&hash=1b737fc56264b9c3077c580a633de4cebc5d87b9)
On I-5 north in Cottonwood.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on July 30, 2012, 09:09:03 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on July 30, 2012, 09:09:03 PM
Two instances of upper and lowercase letters trading places--how does this happen? It's not button copy. Demountable?
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/202548_10101676021840728_705681423_o.jpg)
Seen before around here, I think--but maybe it was I-79/I-90 interchange specimens before. Tiny lowercase with large initial capitals. Stop doing this!
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/416025_10101676023372658_1439691588_o.jpg)
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/202548_10101676021840728_705681423_o.jpg)
Seen before around here, I think--but maybe it was I-79/I-90 interchange specimens before. Tiny lowercase with large initial capitals. Stop doing this!
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/416025_10101676023372658_1439691588_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Compulov on July 30, 2012, 09:17:45 PM
Post by: Compulov on July 30, 2012, 09:17:45 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 13, 2012, 06:47:39 PM
One of the BGS' on the approach ramp to I-95 from PA 413 in Bristol (Exit 40) has a lower-case u for the the word SOuTH for I-95 South.
I hate you :P
I go up that ramp every day and never noticed it until you said something. Now I can't help but stare at it every single day.
But really... I swear it looks more like an upside-down n than a lower case u, but I'm usually going too fast to merge into the 95N lane to pay close attention.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on July 31, 2012, 12:36:13 AM
Post by: Central Avenue on July 31, 2012, 12:36:13 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 30, 2012, 09:09:03 PM
Two instances of upper and lowercase letters trading places--how does this happen? It's not button copy. Demountable?
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/202548_10101676021840728_705681423_o.jpg)
I could almost excuse the O/o swap as a simple case of inattentiveness...but a capital A and a lowercase a don't even look alike! That's entirely inexcusable.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2012, 08:35:26 AM
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2012, 08:35:26 AM
The Exit 53A gore sign on Rt. 55 South in NJ had been replaced with a Exit 53 Exit sign at one point...even though it should have remained 53A. It appeared someone just took an ordinary 4 inch "A" sticker that you can get in a pack of stickers at walmart or craft stores and stuck it to the sign.
It remained that way for years. I think a proper sign has finally been installed...but I can't remember!
It remained that way for years. I think a proper sign has finally been installed...but I can't remember!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Kacie Jane on July 31, 2012, 11:16:24 AM
Post by: Kacie Jane on July 31, 2012, 11:16:24 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 30, 2012, 09:09:03 PM
Two instances of upper and lowercase letters trading places--how does this happen? It's not button copy. Demountable?
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/202548_10101676021840728_705681423_o.jpg)
This reminds me of a certain sign that I was going to ask Scott to post, but I discovered that he just has in another thread. Behold the capitalization errors...
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 30, 2012, 01:24:41 AM
Then there's this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/US_69_Craig_Co.jpg/800px-US_69_Craig_Co.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on July 31, 2012, 11:34:39 AM
Post by: Takumi on July 31, 2012, 11:34:39 AM
^ The thing about the Z H Confair sign is that they have the right letters and just put them on there wrong!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2012, 12:57:44 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2012, 12:57:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 04, 2012, 06:13:24 PM
Couldn't they have just left out the word Center altogether and conveyed the same meaning?
then it would result in a real head-scratcher. "Level 1 Trauma". we'd be posting it in the "least explicable signs" next to "permitted vehicles prohibited" and "block mother area".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on August 03, 2012, 12:40:37 PM
Post by: kphoger on August 03, 2012, 12:40:37 PM
I just saw this one on GMSV today. A backwards letter Q!
http://goo.gl/maps/gn3Tz (http://goo.gl/maps/gn3Tz)
http://goo.gl/maps/gn3Tz (http://goo.gl/maps/gn3Tz)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on August 05, 2012, 11:24:25 PM
Post by: vtk on August 05, 2012, 11:24:25 PM
I was going to post this in "best of" until I got a good look at the photos and noticed a design faux pas:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F315square.jpg&hash=2f95f1912da746bf4dbf940156323cd9d603c190)
A square OH 315 shield with Series D numerals? That would be great! Unfortunately, this appears to be a wide-format shield, squished (including the numerals) into square dimensions. Contrary to what some may believe (including someone who recently "standardized" all the OH route marker images on Wikipedia) the correct wide OH route marker shape is not a simple stretched version of the correct square OH route marker shape.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F315square.jpg&hash=2f95f1912da746bf4dbf940156323cd9d603c190)
A square OH 315 shield with Series D numerals? That would be great! Unfortunately, this appears to be a wide-format shield, squished (including the numerals) into square dimensions. Contrary to what some may believe (including someone who recently "standardized" all the OH route marker images on Wikipedia) the correct wide OH route marker shape is not a simple stretched version of the correct square OH route marker shape.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ctsignguy on August 06, 2012, 12:54:49 AM
Post by: ctsignguy on August 06, 2012, 12:54:49 AM
Quote from: vtk on August 05, 2012, 11:24:25 PM
I was going to post this in "best of" until I got a good look at the photos and noticed a design faux pas:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F315square.jpg&hash=2f95f1912da746bf4dbf940156323cd9d603c190)
A square OH 315 shield with Series D numerals? That would be great! Unfortunately, this appears to be a wide-format shield, squished (including the numerals) into square dimensions. Contrary to what some may believe (including someone who recently "standardized" all the OH route marker images on Wikipedia) the correct wide OH route marker shape is not a simple stretched version of the correct square OH route marker shape.
Where is that sign at? I want to get a look for myself, possibly after work this week.....
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on August 06, 2012, 09:57:12 AM
Post by: vtk on August 06, 2012, 09:57:12 AM
Quote from: ctsignguy on August 06, 2012, 12:54:49 AM
Where is that sign at? I want to get a look for myself, possibly after work this week.....
In the median of Lane Ave EB approaching Kenny Rd. And now I'm questioning why it says to go left; it was probably meant to be temporary, or only displayed during special-event traffic patterns or something...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on August 06, 2012, 08:50:41 PM
Post by: Alps on August 06, 2012, 08:50:41 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 05, 2012, 11:24:25 PMOkay, I'll bite. How does the correct wide shield differ from a stretched shield? Unlike Kentucky's "racetrack" ovals (two straightaways and two curves), there's no obvious solution here.
Contrary to what some may believe (including someone who recently "standardized" all the OH route marker images on Wikipedia) the correct wide OH route marker shape is not a simple stretched version of the correct square OH route marker shape.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on August 06, 2012, 10:55:40 PM
Post by: vtk on August 06, 2012, 10:55:40 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 06, 2012, 08:50:41 PMQuote from: vtk on August 05, 2012, 11:24:25 PMOkay, I'll bite. How does the correct wide shield differ from a stretched shield? Unlike Kentucky's "racetrack" ovals (two straightaways and two curves), there's no obvious solution here.
Contrary to what some may believe (including someone who recently "standardized" all the OH route marker images on Wikipedia) the correct wide OH route marker shape is not a simple stretched version of the correct square OH route marker shape.
I think the most obvious difference is in the depiction of the Ohio River, about halfway between Cincinnati and Portsmouth: the wide version levels out horizontally for a few inches, wheras the square version descends monotonically for the same general region. I'm not sure if the difference was intentional. I may post a comparison based on my own interpretation of the OSDM trace-grid figures soon.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on August 07, 2012, 12:06:58 AM
Post by: PurdueBill on August 07, 2012, 12:06:58 AM
I was looking at pictures from last Thursday and found an error that I didn't notice until looking at it tonight....the old S in SOUTH switcheroo with a lowercase s in a place name.....except this one isn't button copy letters of similar height. It's a FHWA capital S and a Clearview lowercase s!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG7388.JPG&hash=6fce5e0f176a74d462610ddbef175465dc9fdb43)
Ay caramba! Makes the one I noted above on the button copy I-71 sign look like child's play.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2FCIMG7388.JPG&hash=6fce5e0f176a74d462610ddbef175465dc9fdb43)
Ay caramba! Makes the one I noted above on the button copy I-71 sign look like child's play.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ctsignguy on August 07, 2012, 07:49:10 AM
Post by: ctsignguy on August 07, 2012, 07:49:10 AM
This is from my own collection...someone at the sign shop wasn't paying attention!
The goof
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fstccurve-x-road.jpg&hash=4ef2ba99d0b43616add268c30479d6776b90e59e)
How it is SUPPOSED to look....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2F2009_0516Image0085.jpg&hash=4689080cfa17fe36232c081387e86ec723611ad2)
The goof
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fstccurve-x-road.jpg&hash=4ef2ba99d0b43616add268c30479d6776b90e59e)
How it is SUPPOSED to look....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2F2009_0516Image0085.jpg&hash=4689080cfa17fe36232c081387e86ec723611ad2)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ctsignguy on August 07, 2012, 08:22:02 AM
Post by: ctsignguy on August 07, 2012, 08:22:02 AM
Quote from: vtk on August 06, 2012, 10:55:40 PMQuote from: Steve on August 06, 2012, 08:50:41 PMQuote from: vtk on August 05, 2012, 11:24:25 PMOkay, I'll bite. How does the correct wide shield differ from a stretched shield? Unlike Kentucky's "racetrack" ovals (two straightaways and two curves), there's no obvious solution here.
Contrary to what some may believe (including someone who recently "standardized" all the OH route marker images on Wikipedia) the correct wide OH route marker shape is not a simple stretched version of the correct square OH route marker shape.
I think the most obvious difference is in the depiction of the Ohio River, about halfway between Cincinnati and Portsmouth: the wide version levels out horizontally for a few inches, wheras the square version descends monotonically for the same general region. I'm not sure if the difference was intentional. I may post a comparison based on my own interpretation of the OSDM trace-grid figures soon.
Like this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Foh335.jpg&hash=7d1fa705e20fa0a33bba8432a8f654e0597e921e)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on August 07, 2012, 05:46:32 PM
Post by: Central Avenue on August 07, 2012, 05:46:32 PM
Rather than make a proper long arrow, they just horizontally stretched a shorter one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7267%2F7735645126_69296ff2ed_c.jpg&hash=13a5fa4af49ae3ead285cd44e919cc81ed143251)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7267%2F7735645126_69296ff2ed_c.jpg&hash=13a5fa4af49ae3ead285cd44e919cc81ed143251)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on August 07, 2012, 05:56:57 PM
Post by: Takumi on August 07, 2012, 05:56:57 PM
The tip of the arrow looks like it starts to curve upward a bit, too.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on August 07, 2012, 06:24:03 PM
Post by: kphoger on August 07, 2012, 06:24:03 PM
Quote from: Takumi on August 07, 2012, 05:56:57 PM
The tip of the arrow looks like it starts to curve upward a bit, too.
Quote from: Takumi on August 07, 2012, 05:56:57 PM
The tip of the arrow looks like it starts to curve upward a bit, too.
That's to make sure you remember to step up when you get to the other curb.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on August 11, 2012, 05:25:46 PM
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on August 11, 2012, 05:25:46 PM
Quite a distorted ampersand on this sign in Tukwila:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7253%2F7760971110_9023500cc9_c.jpg&hash=9ca8373e1071c180c1588d3ba1e207ee4b16d376)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7253%2F7760971110_9023500cc9_c.jpg&hash=9ca8373e1071c180c1588d3ba1e207ee4b16d376)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on August 11, 2012, 08:43:21 PM
Post by: Takumi on August 11, 2012, 08:43:21 PM
There were a couple of these at this interchange, at least one in each direction.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-h.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc6%2F230489_2097217631275_6032984_n.jpg&hash=32889d52451711bf86c55913279c67d01d9daa3f)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-h.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc6%2F230489_2097217631275_6032984_n.jpg&hash=32889d52451711bf86c55913279c67d01d9daa3f)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on August 11, 2012, 08:45:42 PM
Post by: national highway 1 on August 11, 2012, 08:45:42 PM
Interesting placement of the WEST banner on this NV 172 trailblazer - notice that the WEST banner is an NDOT experiment in Clearview...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fd2%2FNevada_172_westbound%252C_Boulder_City_NV.jpg%2F800px-Nevada_172_westbound%252C_Boulder_City_NV.jpg&hash=9f90d4988b59c9d2bee1c4c04d9b2b03c21200bc)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fd2%2FNevada_172_westbound%252C_Boulder_City_NV.jpg%2F800px-Nevada_172_westbound%252C_Boulder_City_NV.jpg&hash=9f90d4988b59c9d2bee1c4c04d9b2b03c21200bc)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on August 11, 2012, 09:10:23 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on August 11, 2012, 09:10:23 PM
I don't think that's Clearview. It looks more like a Nevada custom font, if anything.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on August 11, 2012, 09:20:53 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on August 11, 2012, 09:20:53 PM
Yup--it is a Nevada custom font and has been called "Public School Block" in MTR.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on August 11, 2012, 10:51:34 PM
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on August 11, 2012, 10:51:34 PM
Does that postmile sign say that NV-172 begins at mile 1.35? That is, unless that's a separator rather than a "1" under the CL (Clark Co.) indicator and the sign is 0.35 miles from the beginning of the route. Even that would be quite a distance for a "BEGIN" marker to be placed.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JREwing78 on August 12, 2012, 11:10:11 AM
Post by: JREwing78 on August 12, 2012, 11:10:11 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 04, 2012, 04:22:01 AM
^^ The design error there is the "need" to advertise the fact that the hospital has a level 1 trauma center. I would argue most people don't even know what that really means... In an emergency, you're going to look for the nearest hospital period.
It's pretty consistently applied in Ohio, at least whenever the hospital has a "trauma center". I don't get the purpose myself; you're better off seeking the closest hospital and letting the doctors decide to move you if necessary. And, one would hope ambulance drivers and such would already know from experience which hospital to take you to.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Brandon on August 12, 2012, 09:23:57 PM
Post by: Brandon on August 12, 2012, 09:23:57 PM
Bizarre font on the Blue Water Bridge. Actually, they use three different fonts for speed limit signs. Helvetica, FHWA, and this.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2512.jpg&hash=7b5a54f2f7c95652635b0d405f5ee3d49ded6f00)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2512.jpg&hash=7b5a54f2f7c95652635b0d405f5ee3d49ded6f00)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on August 13, 2012, 10:57:51 PM
Post by: Alps on August 13, 2012, 10:57:51 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 11, 2012, 10:51:34 PMBegin West is the eastern end. Presumably the route is only 1.35 miles long in Clark County.
Does that postmile sign say that NV-172 begins at mile 1.35? That is, unless that's a separator rather than a "1" under the CL (Clark Co.) indicator and the sign is 0.35 miles from the beginning of the route. Even that would be quite a distance for a "BEGIN" marker to be placed.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2012, 12:11:43 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2012, 12:11:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 11, 2012, 09:20:53 PM
Yup--it is a Nevada custom font and has been called "Public School Block" in MTR.
what a horrid name for that font! was "waste elimination facility" taken?
it's been around since the 50s.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NV/NV19560401i2.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Compulov on August 19, 2012, 10:13:32 AM
Post by: Compulov on August 19, 2012, 10:13:32 AM
I finally managed to get a picture of this BGS on I-95N in Bucks County. It's been mocking me every day for three years... What is up with that Y? Is it a smaller font than the rest of the letters? It also looks improperly spaced. The 2 mile and "next right" signs are both correct.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8430%2F7815181996_8eb756f5cd_b.jpg&hash=fabb04526c8d467d7d6f4401745a885a4fb90685) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/compulov/7815181996/sizes/o/in/photostream/)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8430%2F7815181996_8eb756f5cd_b.jpg&hash=fabb04526c8d467d7d6f4401745a885a4fb90685) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/compulov/7815181996/sizes/o/in/photostream/)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on August 19, 2012, 10:16:04 AM
Post by: PurdueBill on August 19, 2012, 10:16:04 AM
It looks like maybe the capital Y has its top chopped off, and the lowercase y is a smaller font size. The quick first impression was maybe the capital was a smaller font size, but the shape would be off--the angular parts don't seem long enough. Thus my thought that it's chopped off.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on August 19, 2012, 08:30:59 PM
Post by: national highway 1 on August 19, 2012, 08:30:59 PM
Also the EXIT 49 tab has severely rounded corners.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 19, 2012, 09:57:27 PM
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 19, 2012, 09:57:27 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 19, 2012, 08:30:59 PM
Also the EXIT 49 tab has severely rounded corners.
Looks PA standard.
Based on your posts in this and other threads, you don't seem to understand that most states have their own standards on most things. Just because something looks different in state X than it does in state Y doesn't make state X erroneous. ;)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on August 20, 2012, 04:30:51 AM
Post by: vtk on August 20, 2012, 04:30:51 AM
I think there's a guideline in the MUTCD saying that the corner radius of a guide sign shouldn't be greater than ⅛ of the width or height. If you're going to give an exit plaque its own full border, it should also follow that guideline. 4½"-radius corners would look much better than 12"-raduis corners. PA's standard goes against guidelines and is ugly because of it.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on August 20, 2012, 09:06:25 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on August 20, 2012, 09:06:25 AM
Quote from: vtk on August 20, 2012, 04:30:51 AMKey word in your post is guideline, not absolute law. Is the MUTCD you're quoting from the current 2009 version? That exit panel (sans the 49 numerals which were added roughly a decade later) is from the early 1990s that predate any subsequent MUTCD udates/revisions.
I think there's a guideline in the MUTCD saying that the corner radius of a guide sign shouldn't be greater than ⅛ of the width or height. If you're going to give an exit plaque its own full border, it should also follow that guideline. 4½"-radius corners would look much better than 12"-raduis corners. PA's standard goes against guidelines and is ugly because of it.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on August 20, 2012, 09:09:12 AM
Post by: 1995hoo on August 20, 2012, 09:09:12 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 19, 2012, 09:57:27 PMQuote from: national highway 1 on August 19, 2012, 08:30:59 PM
Also the EXIT 49 tab has severely rounded corners.
Looks PA standard.
Based on your posts in this and other threads, you don't seem to understand that most states have their own standards on most things. Just because something looks different in state X than it does in state Y doesn't make state X erroneous. ;)
No need to be snippy with the guy. If you notice, his profile says he's Australian. I don't know how Australia handles road signs, but if they followed the example of the UK, then the federal government imposes all the standards to a much higher degree than is the case in the USA.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on August 20, 2012, 09:23:54 AM
Post by: PurdueBill on August 20, 2012, 09:23:54 AM
The upside to the radius of the corner on the exit tab is that its border and that of the main sign curve away from each other symmetrically. I've never liked when the exit tab's border continues straight while that of the main sign curves downward--it looks sloppy. Of course, I'm biased against full borders on exit tabs--I never got why they needed a full bottom border when they could share that of the main sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on August 20, 2012, 09:41:32 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on August 20, 2012, 09:41:32 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on August 20, 2012, 09:23:54 AMSounds like you're describing what Massachusetts used to do w/their exit panels. ;-)
The upside to the radius of the corner on the exit tab is that its border and that of the main sign curve away from each other symmetrically. I've never liked when the exit tab's border continues straight while that of the main sign curves downward--it looks sloppy. Of course, I'm biased against full borders on exit tabs--I never got why they needed a full bottom border when they could share that of the main sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 20, 2012, 10:51:42 AM
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 20, 2012, 10:51:42 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2012, 09:09:12 AMQuote from: deathtopumpkins on August 19, 2012, 09:57:27 PMQuote from: national highway 1 on August 19, 2012, 08:30:59 PM
Also the EXIT 49 tab has severely rounded corners.
Looks PA standard.
Based on your posts in this and other threads, you don't seem to understand that most states have their own standards on most things. Just because something looks different in state X than it does in state Y doesn't make state X erroneous. ;)
No need to be snippy with the guy. If you notice, his profile says he's Australian. I don't know how Australia handles road signs, but if they followed the example of the UK, then the federal government imposes all the standards to a much higher degree than is the case in the USA.
Ah but based on the fact that he's been here for years should indicate that he recognizes something as basic as differences in state standards.
Sorry if I come off as "snippy" I've just noticed that he tends to frequently point out "errors" that aren't even errors.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on August 20, 2012, 12:51:34 PM
Post by: vtk on August 20, 2012, 12:51:34 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on August 20, 2012, 09:23:54 AM
The upside to the radius of the corner on the exit tab is that its border and that of the main sign curve away from each other symmetrically. I've never liked when the exit tab's border continues straight while that of the main sign curves downward--it looks sloppy. Of course, I'm biased against full borders on exit tabs--I never got why they needed a full bottom border when they could share that of the main sign.
I prefer a merged border too, but I'd rather have some asymmetric adjacent corners than an exit tab that looks like a button from some over-designed web page.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on August 21, 2012, 07:54:36 AM
Post by: PurdueBill on August 21, 2012, 07:54:36 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 20, 2012, 09:41:32 AMQuote from: PurdueBill on August 20, 2012, 09:23:54 AMSounds like you're describing what Massachusetts used to do w/their exit panels. ;-)
The upside to the radius of the corner on the exit tab is that its border and that of the main sign curve away from each other symmetrically. I've never liked when the exit tab's border continues straight while that of the main sign curves downward--it looks sloppy. Of course, I'm biased against full borders on exit tabs--I never got why they needed a full bottom border when they could share that of the main sign.
Heck, Massachusetts took it a step beyond that until recently and had no sharing because there was no border. :P It's amazing how long that persisted in Massachusetts compared to other states that did it in the past (Ohio, PA, Idaho sometimes) which had stopped long ago and gave the tabs at least a shared border.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on August 21, 2012, 01:35:03 PM
Post by: roadman on August 21, 2012, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on August 21, 2012, 07:54:36 AM
Heck, Massachusetts took it a step beyond that until recently and had no sharing because there was no border. :P It's amazing how long that persisted in Massachusetts compared to other states that did it in the past (Ohio, PA, Idaho sometimes) which had stopped long ago and gave the tabs at least a shared border.
Most states started using at least a shared border on their exit tabs when the 1978 (?) MUTCD increased the exit tab height from 18 to 24 inches. The story goes that, when that change was made, MassDPW engineers approached FHWA and requested a waiver of the requirement. FHWA agreed to the waiver, with the condition that MassDPW revise their standard to require that the 15 inch numeral 'overlap' the exit tab and the main sign panel.
When the exit tab height was increased to 30 inches in the 2003 MUTCD, MassHighway decided there was no benefit to keeping the 'broken' border on BGSes with exit tabs. For one thing, it made the signs more difficult to fabricate and install (and to correct should the exit tabs be improperly placed during installation - which has happened on ocassion). So, MassDOT's current exit tab standard is for the tab to have a "shared" bottom border with the main sign panel.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on August 21, 2012, 05:35:51 PM
Post by: roadman on August 21, 2012, 05:35:51 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 19, 2012, 08:30:59 PM
Also the EXIT 49 tab has severely rounded corners.
Ah yes, an all too common error among sign fabricators - using a twelve inch radius for the borders on both the exit tab and the main sign panel (the exit tab radius is supposed to be six inches).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on August 22, 2012, 10:01:42 AM
Post by: J N Winkler on August 22, 2012, 10:01:42 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2012, 09:09:12 AMNo need to be snippy with the guy. If you notice, his profile says he's Australian. I don't know how Australia handles road signs, but if they followed the example of the UK, then the federal government imposes all the standards to a much higher degree than is the case in the USA.
They don't, as a matter of fact--Australia is somewhat closer to Canada than to the US in the extent to which the individual Australian states use their own standards for signs. Regulatory signs are nationally standardized but there is more state-to-state variation in warning, guide, and construction signs than is the case in the US. None of the three countries follows a system nearly as prescriptive as that in Britain, where any sign that is not diagrammed in TSRGD or is a "permitted variant" of a sign thus diagrammed has to be approved by central government.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on September 13, 2012, 02:51:22 AM
Post by: Central Avenue on September 13, 2012, 02:51:22 AM
Off-center "exit only" panel. I wouldn't mind this if it were done to align better over the lane, but it seems the opposite is true--it's further away from the proper lane!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5029%2F5670045315_2cab121800_z.jpg&hash=4855d0e100ba4222a3a76c8331428aec6df0e35a)
This one has both a downward-pointing lane arrow and an upward-pointing exit direction arrow. If it were up to me, this would be the standard practice, but AFIAK it's technically a design error. The fact that the green section of the sign has a full border seems to suggest that the "EXIT ONLY" panel was added on after the fact.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5186%2F5670613456_0cdc43c4e4_z.jpg&hash=3b380be76a86d96618d070a1c33ecc1b5224f36a)
Compressed Series E(M) on these illuminated street name signs. Typical Westerville.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8317%2F7948539542_71330a7b45_c.jpg&hash=b8bc0ef60991a2da5b28175239ae3a8db40d8732)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5029%2F5670045315_2cab121800_z.jpg&hash=4855d0e100ba4222a3a76c8331428aec6df0e35a)
This one has both a downward-pointing lane arrow and an upward-pointing exit direction arrow. If it were up to me, this would be the standard practice, but AFIAK it's technically a design error. The fact that the green section of the sign has a full border seems to suggest that the "EXIT ONLY" panel was added on after the fact.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5186%2F5670613456_0cdc43c4e4_z.jpg&hash=3b380be76a86d96618d070a1c33ecc1b5224f36a)
Compressed Series E(M) on these illuminated street name signs. Typical Westerville.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8317%2F7948539542_71330a7b45_c.jpg&hash=b8bc0ef60991a2da5b28175239ae3a8db40d8732)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on September 13, 2012, 03:22:45 AM
Post by: vtk on September 13, 2012, 03:22:45 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on September 13, 2012, 02:51:22 AM
Off-center "exit only" panel. I wouldn't mind this if it were done to align better over the lane, but it seems the opposite is true--it's further away from the proper lane!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5029%2F5670045315_2cab121800_z.jpg&hash=4855d0e100ba4222a3a76c8331428aec6df0e35a)
This one has both a downward-pointing lane arrow and an upward-pointing exit direction arrow. If it were up to me, this would be the standard practice, but AFIAK it's technically a design error. The fact that the green section of the sign has a full border seems to suggest that the "EXIT ONLY" panel was added on after the fact.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5186%2F5670613456_0cdc43c4e4_z.jpg&hash=3b380be76a86d96618d070a1c33ecc1b5224f36a)
Compressed Series E(M) on these illuminated street name signs. Typical Westerville.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8317%2F7948539542_71330a7b45_c.jpg&hash=b8bc0ef60991a2da5b28175239ae3a8db40d8732)
Yes, the exit to OH 3 wasn't originally a lane drop, but a standard exit with a short deceleration lane. I think those are original signs, too, though with significant modifications. I think, when reflective backgrounds became standard, (1980s?) ODOT removed all the foreground elements from the old signs, put up reflective backing in large sheets, then applied foreground elements on top – though I don't know if the foreground elements were new or re-used. I have guessed this from the appearance of some local signs where a piece of background has fallen off, some revealing where foreground elements were once attached to the original non-reflective background. (See: Alum Creek Dr NB at onramp to I-270 WB.) Years after that, ODOT moved (most) exit tabs to one side or the other. When I-270 was widened from 4 to 8+ lanes circa 2000, the new through lanes were added on the inside. The signs pictured didn't get the EXIT ONLY panels until circa 2005, when construction of the new OH 161 interchange was finishing up, thus opening a NB auxiliary lane dropped at OH 3.
The squished E(M) on those illuminated signs is common outside of Westerville, too. I can understand not wanting to make a bigger sign, but they should use a narrower font like Series C if E(M) won't fit.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on September 13, 2012, 03:43:06 AM
Post by: Central Avenue on September 13, 2012, 03:43:06 AM
Quote from: vtk on September 13, 2012, 03:22:45 AM
The signs pictured didn't get the EXIT ONLY panels until circa 2005, when construction of the new OH 161 interchange was finishing up, thus opening a NB auxiliary lane dropped at OH 3.
Actually, I think the "EXIT ONLY" panels on those two date to the aforementioned widening of I-270, not the OH 161 interchange reconstruction. I've seen pictures of them as early as 2003 (http://web.archive.org/web/20051025152311/http://www.ohhighways.com/graphics/gallery/I270_Exit29.jpg) and I think I recall them being there as early as 2001.
QuoteThe squished E(M) on those illuminated signs is common outside of Westerville, too. I can understand not wanting to make a bigger sign, but they should use a narrower font like Series C if E(M) won't fit.True. It just grates on me more in Westerville, as they seem to want to stretch/compress type on every damn street name sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on September 13, 2012, 04:43:41 PM
Post by: vtk on September 13, 2012, 04:43:41 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on September 13, 2012, 03:43:06 AMQuote from: vtk on September 13, 2012, 03:22:45 AM
The signs pictured didn't get the EXIT ONLY panels until circa 2005, when construction of the new OH 161 interchange was finishing up, thus opening a NB auxiliary lane dropped at OH 3.
Actually, I think the "EXIT ONLY" panels on those two date to the aforementioned widening of I-270, not the OH 161 interchange reconstruction. I've seen pictures of them as early as 2003 (http://web.archive.org/web/20051025152311/http://www.ohhighways.com/graphics/gallery/I270_Exit29.jpg) and I think I recall them being there as early as 2001.
Historical aerial imagery available in Google Earth concurs with my narrative. After the I-270 widening but before the OH 161 reconstruction, I-270 NB was three lanes to about ¼ mile past the Dempsey Rd overpass; there the concrete center barrier began, and there were shoulders wide enough to accommodate an additional lane on either side. Just after that, one passed an advance (¼ mile) guide sign for OH 3, and then a fourth through lane appeared on the left. The right shoulder remained extra wide up to the beginning of the exit ramp's short deceleration lane. This can be clearly seen in imagery as recent as 2004. The earliest imagery I can find showing clearly the exit being a dropped lane is from 2007; at that time, the lane configuration on I-270 was still in flux through the OH 161 interchange, but had essentially reached its final state north of Dempsey Rd.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on September 13, 2012, 04:55:35 PM
Post by: Central Avenue on September 13, 2012, 04:55:35 PM
I was curious, so I went to look on Google Earth for myself.
It seems we were both right--the 2004 imagery shows the lanes as you describe them, but it also clearly shows the sign pictured above with its "EXIT ONLY" panel already in place. (http://i.imgur.com/N7w7R.jpg)
It seems to suggest that ODOT had, for whatever reason, signed the deceleration lane as if it were a lane drop. Bizarre.
It seems we were both right--the 2004 imagery shows the lanes as you describe them, but it also clearly shows the sign pictured above with its "EXIT ONLY" panel already in place. (http://i.imgur.com/N7w7R.jpg)
It seems to suggest that ODOT had, for whatever reason, signed the deceleration lane as if it were a lane drop. Bizarre.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: route56 on September 19, 2012, 08:49:22 PM
Post by: route56 on September 19, 2012, 08:49:22 PM
A little difference of opinion on border style for Douglas County route 460:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route56.com%2Fgallery%2Fzp-core%2Fi.php%3Fa%3D2012%2FSep12%2F20120915%26amp%3Bi%3D44763.jpg%26amp%3Bs%3D500%26amp%3Bq%3D85%26amp%3Bwmk%3DUS_56&hash=e238a187db4677cd1e317022f3e5db755c712e70)
AIUI, the direction banner is the correct border style for yellow-on-blue. Apparantly, the contractor did not get the updated design sheet for the county road marker.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route56.com%2Fgallery%2Fzp-core%2Fi.php%3Fa%3D2012%2FSep12%2F20120915%26amp%3Bi%3D44763.jpg%26amp%3Bs%3D500%26amp%3Bq%3D85%26amp%3Bwmk%3DUS_56&hash=e238a187db4677cd1e317022f3e5db755c712e70)
AIUI, the direction banner is the correct border style for yellow-on-blue. Apparantly, the contractor did not get the updated design sheet for the county road marker.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ian on September 19, 2012, 09:01:23 PM
Post by: Ian on September 19, 2012, 09:01:23 PM
Misaligned arrows at the north end of Autoroute 15 in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, QC.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8305%2F8000822586_893f7a197f_z.jpg&hash=0d7b6c0d325ecc024519818ea42ef94ee1e45120)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8305%2F8000822586_893f7a197f_z.jpg&hash=0d7b6c0d325ecc024519818ea42ef94ee1e45120)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: akotchi on September 19, 2012, 09:08:24 PM
Post by: akotchi on September 19, 2012, 09:08:24 PM
^^ I'm not so sure that is an error. Ideally, the pull-through sign would be centered over the two through lanes. With the exit sign so wide, though, this was likely not possible. The sign was mounted as far right as possible, and the arrows were still placed to be centered over the lanes.
I grant that this can look strange at times, though.
I grant that this can look strange at times, though.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ian on September 19, 2012, 09:14:08 PM
Post by: Ian on September 19, 2012, 09:14:08 PM
Quote from: akotchi on September 19, 2012, 09:08:24 PM
^^ I'm not so sure that is an error. Ideally, the pull-through sign would be centered over the two through lanes. With the exit sign so wide, though, this was likely not possible. The sign was mounted as far right as possible, and the arrows were still placed to be centered over the lanes.
I grant that this can look strange at times, though.
I suppose you're correct. When I first saw it, it definitely didn't look right, so I put it in this thread. It seems as if the sign is also patched where the arrows are.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on September 19, 2012, 10:10:04 PM
Post by: Alps on September 19, 2012, 10:10:04 PM
Quote from: route56 on September 19, 2012, 08:49:22 PMYes, this is a new development, wherein after much discussion, the MUTCD folks realized that every other sign with positive contrast has a light colored outer border.
AIUI, the direction banner is the correct border style for yellow-on-blue. Apparantly, the contractor did not get the updated design sheet for the county road marker.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on September 20, 2012, 05:55:59 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on September 20, 2012, 05:55:59 PM
No pics but while in Strasburg, PA (Lancaster County) last Tuesday; I saw a couple of PA 896 trailblazer signs that clearly went wrong in terms of fonts. The 8 and 9 on the shields are FWHA series D (OK but a tad crowded, should've used series C IMHO) but the 6 was in Clearview (wide to-medium width).
The signs in question are located along Hartman Bridge Road (PA 896) just north of the newly-built Historic Drive (also PA 896).
These signs could also be filed in the Illegal/Unauthrorized use of Clearview category and in the Worst of Road Signs thread.
The signs in question are located along Hartman Bridge Road (PA 896) just north of the newly-built Historic Drive (also PA 896).
These signs could also be filed in the Illegal/Unauthrorized use of Clearview category and in the Worst of Road Signs thread.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ian on September 20, 2012, 06:06:12 PM
Post by: Ian on September 20, 2012, 06:06:12 PM
^ Yeah, I recall seeing those exact signs on my previous few trips through Strasburg. There are a few PA 741 shields with a Clearview 1 as well. Definitely not the prettiest of shields.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on September 20, 2012, 06:10:11 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on September 20, 2012, 06:10:11 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 20, 2012, 06:06:12 PMI was just on PA 741 from PA 41 to PA 896; if there were shields w/the 1 in Clearview, it wasn't on any of those shields but ratehr ones west of PA 896.
^ Yeah, I recall seeing those exact signs on my previous few trips through Strasburg. There are a few PA 741 shields with a Clearview 1 as well. Definitely not the prettiest of shields.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ian on September 20, 2012, 06:30:08 PM
Post by: Ian on September 20, 2012, 06:30:08 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 20, 2012, 06:10:11 PMQuote from: PennDOTFan on September 20, 2012, 06:06:12 PMI was just on PA 741 from PA 41 to PA 896; if there were shields w/the 1 in Clearview, it wasn't on any of those shields but ratehr ones west of PA 896.
^ Yeah, I recall seeing those exact signs on my previous few trips through Strasburg. There are a few PA 741 shields with a Clearview 1 as well. Definitely not the prettiest of shields.
There were two of those PA 741 shields going westbound on 741 at 896.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on September 21, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
Post by: kphoger on September 21, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
The signs themselves may be fine, but who mounted them as squares instead of diamonds?
http://goo.gl/maps/XozB3
http://goo.gl/maps/XozB3
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on September 21, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
Post by: Alps on September 21, 2012, 07:29:28 PM
How about all of Maryland's curve signs where the curve is tilted so that it's shaped like a parenthesis instead of starting vertical?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ian on September 21, 2012, 08:25:42 PM
Post by: Ian on September 21, 2012, 08:25:42 PM
I just caught this while looking through my Canadian road photos. It's very subtle, but the letters in "Toronto" are placed unevenly...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7123%2F7866899116_672ef52aa7_z.jpg&hash=250e1e77f028595effcbee9d3c322fc876fc4b6e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7123%2F7866899116_672ef52aa7_z.jpg&hash=250e1e77f028595effcbee9d3c322fc876fc4b6e)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on September 24, 2012, 11:36:35 AM
Post by: Takumi on September 24, 2012, 11:36:35 AM
I took this a few months ago. What font is this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2F552238_4181577538970_269593032_n.jpg&hash=9c68056dd2306104fd34aaa89286054cbd3b4197)
(Also, it's hard to tell because I took it near sunset, but it's actually not white. It's slightly grey.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2F552238_4181577538970_269593032_n.jpg&hash=9c68056dd2306104fd34aaa89286054cbd3b4197)
(Also, it's hard to tell because I took it near sunset, but it's actually not white. It's slightly grey.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on September 24, 2012, 11:46:48 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on September 24, 2012, 11:46:48 AM
Quote from: Takumi on September 24, 2012, 11:36:35 AMThe 25 looks to be FHWA Series C.
I took this a few months ago. What font is this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2F552238_4181577538970_269593032_n.jpg&hash=9c68056dd2306104fd34aaa89286054cbd3b4197)
(Also, it's hard to tell because I took it near sunset, but it's actually not white. It's slightly grey.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on September 24, 2012, 11:58:28 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on September 24, 2012, 11:58:28 AM
Yeah, it's Series C. It just looks odd because we're used to seeing Series E there.
I actually prefer the C version. Kansas City, KS has some speed limit signs that have SPEED LIMIT in E and the number in C and they look pretty sharp.
I actually prefer the C version. Kansas City, KS has some speed limit signs that have SPEED LIMIT in E and the number in C and they look pretty sharp.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on September 24, 2012, 12:00:21 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on September 24, 2012, 12:00:21 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 24, 2012, 11:58:28 AMI've seen some done in Series D as well.
Yeah, it's Series C. It just looks odd because we're used to seeing Series E there.
I actually prefer the C version. Kansas City, KS has some speed limit signs that have SPEED LIMIT in E and the number in C and they look pretty sharp.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on September 24, 2012, 12:13:15 PM
Post by: Takumi on September 24, 2012, 12:13:15 PM
It does look pretty good, just unusual as Scott said. Just north of there is a 15 MPH advisory speed sign that also uses C.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on September 24, 2012, 06:18:16 PM
Post by: kphoger on September 24, 2012, 06:18:16 PM
Noticed this one on my way home from church last night:
White border on yellow panel
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2FWoodlawn.png&hash=e64f01a93a44a33db14e84dabc51ebcd9cd11e02)
(image snipped from Google Maps)
White border on yellow panel
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2FWoodlawn.png&hash=e64f01a93a44a33db14e84dabc51ebcd9cd11e02)
(image snipped from Google Maps)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on September 24, 2012, 07:42:02 PM
Post by: vtk on September 24, 2012, 07:42:02 PM
The bottom half of the border should be black, yes. Also, the top half should be flush with the edge of the sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on September 24, 2012, 07:51:36 PM
Post by: roadman on September 24, 2012, 07:51:36 PM
Quote from: vtk on September 24, 2012, 07:42:02 PM
The bottom half of the border should be black, yes. Also, the top half should be flush with the edge of the sign.
In my experience, white border on yellow panel is an all-too common fabrication error on green BGS signs with yellow portions (like EXIT ONLY). The overhead BGS panels for I-93 north on Route 37 in Braintree MA are a good example of this.
And, even if they use a black border on the yellow portion, rarely is the border inset.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on September 25, 2012, 04:58:37 AM
Post by: roadfro on September 25, 2012, 04:58:37 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 24, 2012, 07:51:36 PMQuote from: vtk on September 24, 2012, 07:42:02 PM
The bottom half of the border should be black, yes. Also, the top half should be flush with the edge of the sign.
In my experience, white border on yellow panel is an all-too common fabrication error on green BGS signs with yellow portions (like EXIT ONLY). The overhead BGS panels for I-93 north on Route 37 in Braintree MA are a good example of this.
And, even if they use a black border on the yellow portion, rarely is the border inset.
Hence why I like designs where the yellow panel is borderless and set within the green area. NDOT is starting to do this more on newer signs
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Special K on September 25, 2012, 07:44:58 AM
Post by: Special K on September 25, 2012, 07:44:58 AM
Quote from: roadfro on September 25, 2012, 04:58:37 AMQuote from: roadman on September 24, 2012, 07:51:36 PMQuote from: vtk on September 24, 2012, 07:42:02 PM
The bottom half of the border should be black, yes. Also, the top half should be flush with the edge of the sign.
In my experience, white border on yellow panel is an all-too common fabrication error on green BGS signs with yellow portions (like EXIT ONLY). The overhead BGS panels for I-93 north on Route 37 in Braintree MA are a good example of this.
And, even if they use a black border on the yellow portion, rarely is the border inset.
Hence why I like designs where the yellow panel is borderless and set within the green area. NDOT is starting to do this more on newer signs
Finally getting caught up with the 2003 standard.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on September 25, 2012, 08:52:18 AM
Post by: US71 on September 25, 2012, 08:52:18 AM
I caught this in Memphis a few years ago.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2193%2F2179280152_0c9dc62a19_z_d.jpg&hash=26bd89e65e178a34744e9110fc3396d2f1c4d44d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2193%2F2179280152_0c9dc62a19_z_d.jpg&hash=26bd89e65e178a34744e9110fc3396d2f1c4d44d)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on September 25, 2012, 12:03:09 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on September 25, 2012, 12:03:09 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 24, 2012, 07:51:36 PMIn my experience, white border on yellow panel is an all-too common fabrication error on green BGS signs with yellow portions (like EXIT ONLY). The overhead BGS panels for I-93 north on Route 37 in Braintree MA are a good example of this.Other examples of this error/oddity are the BGS' along I-476 southbound for Exit 9 (PA 3); where the road (stupidly IMHO) shrinks from a 6-laner to a 4-laner.
And, even if they use a black border on the yellow portion, rarely is the border inset.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on September 25, 2012, 12:54:35 PM
Post by: vtk on September 25, 2012, 12:54:35 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 25, 2012, 04:58:37 AMQuote from: roadman on September 24, 2012, 07:51:36 PMQuote from: vtk on September 24, 2012, 07:42:02 PM
The bottom half of the border should be black, yes. Also, the top half should be flush with the edge of the sign.
In my experience, white border on yellow panel is an all-too common fabrication error on green BGS signs with yellow portions (like EXIT ONLY). The overhead BGS panels for I-93 north on Route 37 in Braintree MA are a good example of this.
And, even if they use a black border on the yellow portion, rarely is the border inset.
Hence why I like designs where the yellow panel is borderless and set within the green area. NDOT is starting to do this more on newer signs
I first saw that in NC in 2003, and it's a classy way to go. I wouldn't mind seeing that style in Ohio.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on September 25, 2012, 09:27:03 PM
Post by: Central Avenue on September 25, 2012, 09:27:03 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 24, 2012, 07:51:36 PM
And, even if they use a black border on the yellow portion, rarely is the border inset.
I always assumed that was an intentional decision so that the border would be continuous with the rest of the sign.
It looks less sloppy to me than having the green section's border go to the edge and the yellow section's border slightly inset.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on September 26, 2012, 05:22:48 AM
Post by: roadfro on September 26, 2012, 05:22:48 AM
Quote from: Special K on September 25, 2012, 07:44:58 AMQuote from: roadfro on September 25, 2012, 04:58:37 AMQuote from: roadman on September 24, 2012, 07:51:36 PMQuote from: vtk on September 24, 2012, 07:42:02 PM
The bottom half of the border should be black, yes. Also, the top half should be flush with the edge of the sign.
In my experience, white border on yellow panel is an all-too common fabrication error on green BGS signs with yellow portions (like EXIT ONLY). The overhead BGS panels for I-93 north on Route 37 in Braintree MA are a good example of this.
And, even if they use a black border on the yellow portion, rarely is the border inset.
Hence why I like designs where the yellow panel is borderless and set within the green area. NDOT is starting to do this more on newer signs
Finally getting caught up with the 2003 standard.
A lot of agencies don't design their BGS exit only panels this way.
Interestingly, the few example images in the 2003 MUTCD show the (oversized) exit only panel as borderless and inset within the green. The multiple example images of the 2009 MUTCD show exit only panels with outer black borders on the edge of signs but no inner border adjacent to the green background--the exceptions being exit only panels on diagrammatic signs and the "left" panel in numbered left exit tabs... The 2009 MUTCD seems to state that the black border is required (2E-14, p04)--this is new language to this edition.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on September 26, 2012, 12:48:55 PM
Post by: Takumi on September 26, 2012, 12:48:55 PM
Vertical line spacing is hard. Southbound VA 288.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-7sNKC5KXmrw/UGMuW-0dNeI/AAAAAAAAEGY/HFjJ5-_l_5M/s816/DSC01835.JPG)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-7sNKC5KXmrw/UGMuW-0dNeI/AAAAAAAAEGY/HFjJ5-_l_5M/s816/DSC01835.JPG)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on September 27, 2012, 03:56:28 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on September 27, 2012, 03:56:28 PM
Noticed this one in my mother's hospital room. OK, not a road sign, but where is clip art of a yellow stop sign coming from? Wouldn't computer clip art be from way after stop signs turned red? :P
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/546429_10101810161758258_2140044499_o.jpg)
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/546429_10101810161758258_2140044499_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on September 27, 2012, 05:21:37 PM
Post by: vtk on September 27, 2012, 05:21:37 PM
The clipart artist may have remembered yellow stopsigns from his childhood, or possibly even some still standing years after red became the standard. From a clipart perspective, a yellow stopsign might be preferable to a red one for a few different reasons, and including both a red one and a yellow one in a clipart set would certainly make sense.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 10:55:16 AM
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 10:55:16 AM
Quote from: vtk on September 27, 2012, 05:21:37 PM
The clipart artist may have remembered yellow stopsigns from his childhood, or possibly even some still standing years after red became the standard. From a clipart perspective, a yellow stopsign might be preferable to a red one for a few different reasons, and including both a red one and a yellow one in a clipart set would certainly make sense.
I have not seen a yellow STOP sign (on a street) since the mid-1960's, when the remaining ones in my childhood neighborhood of Silver Spring, Montgomery County, Maryland, were replaced with red ones.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2012, 12:28:56 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2012, 12:28:56 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 10:55:16 AM
I have not seen a yellow STOP sign (on a street) since the mid-1960's, when the remaining ones in my childhood neighborhood of Silver Spring, Montgomery County, Maryland, were replaced with red ones.
they are getting tougher to find, but I can offhand name maybe 4 that are on active public right of way, another 10 more that intersect active public right of way but are on a now-private road (or a non-road!), and then another 10-15 that are on private property, not counting the "STOP - Seat belt fastened?" which is ubiquitous in the Rockies area.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on September 28, 2012, 06:48:56 PM
Post by: Alps on September 28, 2012, 06:48:56 PM
I know offhand of two STOPs and a YIELD in NY and one STOP in NJ, all on public roads. And that's without putting any thought into this.
EDIT: Oh, yeah, there's like 50,000 yellow yield signs in Groom, TX. Or at least 5.
EDIT: Oh, yeah, there's like 50,000 yellow yield signs in Groom, TX. Or at least 5.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2012, 06:53:19 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2012, 06:53:19 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 28, 2012, 06:48:56 PM
I know offhand of two STOPs and a YIELD in NY and one STOP in NJ, all on public roads. And that's without putting any thought into this.
two in NY? the only one I know is the cateyed STOP DEAD END on US-9 in Ossining.
I believe the one in Rochester is on an abandoned road, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on September 28, 2012, 07:10:58 PM
Post by: Alps on September 28, 2012, 07:10:58 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2012, 06:53:19 PMThere's one at the end of NY 85 on a side road that seems to be public.Quote from: Steve on September 28, 2012, 06:48:56 PM
I know offhand of two STOPs and a YIELD in NY and one STOP in NJ, all on public roads. And that's without putting any thought into this.
two in NY? the only one I know is the cateyed STOP DEAD END on US-9 in Ossining.
I believe the one in Rochester is on an abandoned road, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2012, 07:17:29 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2012, 07:17:29 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 28, 2012, 07:10:58 PM
There's one at the end of NY 85 on a side road that seems to be public.
never knew that!
now that I think about it, someone I know found one on an abandoned road somewhere near an old alignment of NY-3. not in service.
there is also one on a gate which opens up from a maintenance yard to the Thruway. not a public road, but it is likely the one seen (or, at least, passed) by the most traffic on an AADT basis.
it is embossed, with a yellow back, and one can figure out what it is.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ian on September 28, 2012, 08:42:47 PM
Post by: Ian on September 28, 2012, 08:42:47 PM
In case you're wondering, here is the one along NY 85 that Steve mentioned...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7050%2F6776080298_4bde164e04_z.jpg&hash=c3f499ed16d49ace0d639771618fd12f080f4726)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7050%2F6776080298_4bde164e04_z.jpg&hash=c3f499ed16d49ace0d639771618fd12f080f4726)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2012, 08:46:51 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2012, 08:46:51 PM
that looks astonishingly new. has it been repainted?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ian on September 28, 2012, 08:57:05 PM
Post by: Ian on September 28, 2012, 08:57:05 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2012, 08:46:51 PM
that looks astonishingly new. has it been repainted?
I wouldn't doubt it. No way it could've lasted so long outside and be in that condition today.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: on_wisconsin on September 29, 2012, 12:37:46 AM
Post by: on_wisconsin on September 29, 2012, 12:37:46 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 24, 2012, 06:18:16 PM
Noticed this one on my way home from church last night:
White border on yellow panel
[image]
Looks like they where using the MnDOT standard treatment for "EXIT ONLY" sections. :coffee:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 29, 2012, 03:47:12 AM
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 29, 2012, 03:47:12 AM
I think this might be a design error. Or some other error. Wouldn't "Right Turn No Stop" make more sense?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc00964web.jpg&hash=205745f49ea211c35654dc61cfecd7e395f08b6e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fdsc00964web.jpg&hash=205745f49ea211c35654dc61cfecd7e395f08b6e)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on September 29, 2012, 03:52:42 AM
Post by: vtk on September 29, 2012, 03:52:42 AM
The wording used in Ohio is [stop] "except right turn".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on September 29, 2012, 07:08:09 AM
Post by: Central Avenue on September 29, 2012, 07:08:09 AM
I've seen "except on right turn" used as well, which sounds a bit more awkward than simply "except right turn".
IIRC it's the "except right turn" variation that made it into the 2009 MUTCD.
IIRC it's the "except right turn" variation that made it into the 2009 MUTCD.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on September 29, 2012, 08:09:24 AM
Post by: 1995hoo on September 29, 2012, 08:09:24 AM
Wow, you learn something new every day. I've never seen a stop sign with an auxiliary plaque like that.
Closest I've seen is at some red lights in Mexico where they had a right-turn arrow with the words "Continua con Precaucion." These were on Cozumel, so the signs were hand-painted, too.
Closest I've seen is at some red lights in Mexico where they had a right-turn arrow with the words "Continua con Precaucion." These were on Cozumel, so the signs were hand-painted, too.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on September 29, 2012, 08:14:15 AM
Post by: vtk on September 29, 2012, 08:14:15 AM
To be honest I'm not entirely sure if it's the version with or without the word "on" that I usually see. I can only think of one example (Cooke Rd EB at I-71 NB entrance); GSV shows the 4-word version, below a stop sign with the slightly older style "S" too.
From the perspective of natural English, perhaps "except when turning right" or "unless turning right" would be better legends. Logically closer to the intended meaning but less intuitive would be "or turn right".
From the perspective of natural English, perhaps "except when turning right" or "unless turning right" would be better legends. Logically closer to the intended meaning but less intuitive would be "or turn right".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 29, 2012, 09:06:44 AM
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 29, 2012, 09:06:44 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 29, 2012, 08:09:24 AM
Wow, you learn something new every day. I've never seen a stop sign with an auxiliary plaque like that.
I snapped that image in
GSV here (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=harrington,+del&hl=en&ll=38.923489,-75.578299&spn=0.002333,0.004823&sll=38.923409,-75.578363&sspn=0.009399,0.01929&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Harrington,+Kent,+Delaware&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.923403,-75.578369&panoid=M__QohpaqJsqhRBtoRS44A&cbp=12,50.48,,0,7.41).
Edit: corrected error above and added link to Google Street View.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on September 29, 2012, 02:42:19 PM
Post by: hbelkins on September 29, 2012, 02:42:19 PM
"Except When Turning Right" is the language West Virginia uses.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on September 29, 2012, 02:52:47 PM
Post by: kphoger on September 29, 2012, 02:52:47 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 29, 2012, 08:09:24 AM
Wow, you learn something new every day. I've never seen a stop sign with an auxiliary plaque like that.
Closest I've seen is at some red lights in Mexico where they had a right-turn arrow with the words "Continua con Precaucion." These were on Cozumel, so the signs were hand-painted, too.
I've never seen one either.
The Mexican sign you saw is likely to permit right turn on red after stopping, since that maneuver is prohibited in most jurisdictions in México.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on September 29, 2012, 04:44:18 PM
Post by: vtk on September 29, 2012, 04:44:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 29, 2012, 08:09:24 AM
Closest I've seen is at some red lights in Mexico where they had a right-turn arrow with the words "Continua con Precaucion." These were on Cozumel, so the signs were hand-painted, too.
Sounds like the equivalent to the US "continuous right turn with caution". Sometimes the words "right turn" are replaced with a standard right-turn arrow graphic. Some examples: I-71 SB exit 104 ramp at Frank Rd; I-270 NB exit 17 ramp at Tuttle Crossing Blvd; US 42 SB splitting from US 23 SB.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on September 29, 2012, 08:07:45 PM
Post by: Alps on September 29, 2012, 08:07:45 PM
"Except Right Turn" was the PennDOT sign, the one thing PennDOT's ever done right, and the MUTCD managed to pick up on it.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on September 30, 2012, 11:45:09 AM
Post by: 1995hoo on September 30, 2012, 11:45:09 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 29, 2012, 02:52:47 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on September 29, 2012, 08:09:24 AM
Wow, you learn something new every day. I've never seen a stop sign with an auxiliary plaque like that.
Closest I've seen is at some red lights in Mexico where they had a right-turn arrow with the words "Continua con Precaucion." These were on Cozumel, so the signs were hand-painted, too.
I've never seen one either.
The Mexican sign you saw is likely to permit right turn on red after stopping, since that maneuver is prohibited in most jurisdictions in México.
That's how I interpreted the Mexican sign, and I guess I was right since nobody honked at me.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 30, 2012, 12:30:38 PM
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 30, 2012, 12:30:38 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 29, 2012, 08:07:45 PM
"Except Right Turn" was the PennDOT sign, the one thing PennDOT's ever done right, and the MUTCD managed to pick up on it.
Which (in your opinion) is worse - PennDOT or the PTC?
I think they are equally bad.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Roadsguy on September 30, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
Post by: Roadsguy on September 30, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
I like PennDOT better. Maybe it's the way they stripe it slightly differently than the PTC. :P
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on October 11, 2012, 12:39:01 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on October 11, 2012, 12:39:01 AM
This gantry on I-5 in San Diego; is it me or is the Exit 7B sign a little cramped? Are the 'EXIT ONLY' tabs with white arrow common practice elsewhere in California?
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_007b_03.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_007b_03.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on October 11, 2012, 12:54:17 AM
Post by: Alps on October 11, 2012, 12:54:17 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on October 11, 2012, 12:39:01 AMAs my last update and next update keep saying, don't ever expect Caltrans to do anything consistently, or correctly. They mastered the art of guide signing in the 1950s and didn't touch it until the 2000s - that's right, a freeway opening in 2000 still had non-reflective background button copy! So they will have to catch up, but they are too stubborn to just play nice.
This gantry on I-5 in San Diego; is it me or is the Exit 7B sign a little cramped? Are the 'EXIT ONLY' tabs with white arrow common practice elsewhere in California?
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_007b_03.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: myosh_tino on October 11, 2012, 04:06:53 AM
Post by: myosh_tino on October 11, 2012, 04:06:53 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on October 11, 2012, 12:39:01 AMYes, the sign on the right is a little cramped due to the addition of the exit number. I suspect Caltrans reused the existing mounting hardware (the sign "frame") which is why the sign height could not be increased to improve the vertical spacing between the two road names.
This gantry on I-5 in San Diego; is it me or is the Exit 7B sign a little cramped? Are the 'EXIT ONLY' tabs with white arrow common practice elsewhere in California?
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_007b_03.jpg)
As for the "EXIT" and "ONLY" plaques around a white arrow, yes that is somewhat common in California. The more common setup for a lane drop is "EXIT" and "ONLY" on a single plaque with a white-on-green arrow.
BTW, is the placement of an exit direction sign plus TWO advance guide signs on the same support structure a violation of the MUTCD?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on October 11, 2012, 07:07:03 AM
Post by: roadfro on October 11, 2012, 07:07:03 AM
^ Not a direct violation that I'm aware of. It wouldn't necessarily be considered a best practice, although I have seen such things elsewhere (including Nevada).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: exit322 on October 11, 2012, 09:23:25 AM
Post by: exit322 on October 11, 2012, 09:23:25 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on September 27, 2012, 03:56:28 PM
Noticed this one in my mother's hospital room. OK, not a road sign, but where is clip art of a yellow stop sign coming from? Wouldn't computer clip art be from way after stop signs turned red? :P
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/546429_10101810161758258_2140044499_o.jpg)
The sign's in Akron. Shouldn't we just be happy they spelled "STOP" correctly?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 11, 2012, 12:02:46 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 11, 2012, 12:02:46 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 11, 2012, 12:54:17 AM
As my last update and next update keep saying, don't ever expect Caltrans to do anything consistently, or correctly. They mastered the art of guide signing in the 1950s and didn't touch it until the 2000s - that's right, a freeway opening in 2000 still had non-reflective background button copy! So they will have to catch up, but they are too stubborn to just play nice.
I think the change from non-reflective underlit porcelain signs to button copy signs in 1973 (with a corresponding retrofit of the formerly underlit signs to be "button copy" by the gluing on of buttons!) could be considered a major change.
but yes, your point stands. one significant revision in the sign specifications between 1959 and 2002.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on November 06, 2012, 09:06:46 AM
Post by: formulanone on November 06, 2012, 09:06:46 AM
White letters on yellow?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2FWhiteExitOnlyLettering-AirwaysBlvd.jpg&hash=9fe258966cd3782dbb7e40f3c203f800923f169c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2FWhiteExitOnlyLettering-AirwaysBlvd.jpg&hash=9fe258966cd3782dbb7e40f3c203f800923f169c)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Special K on November 06, 2012, 10:02:27 AM
Post by: Special K on November 06, 2012, 10:02:27 AM
Quote from: formulanone on November 06, 2012, 09:06:46 AM
White letters on yellow?
And white radii of a black border? Disaster.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on November 06, 2012, 10:34:36 AM
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on November 06, 2012, 10:34:36 AM
If the entire border was white, I wouldn't have made a point of that, but... how the hell could someone think THIS was okay?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on November 06, 2012, 11:49:41 AM
Post by: vtk on November 06, 2012, 11:49:41 AM
Yeah, the black/white/yellow combinations in the corners remind me of crash test equipment.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on November 07, 2012, 12:03:55 AM
Post by: formulanone on November 07, 2012, 12:03:55 AM
Quote from: Special K on November 06, 2012, 10:02:27 AM
And white radii of a black border? Disaster.
Hmmm, never caught that...Doubly odd.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 07, 2012, 10:08:53 AM
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 07, 2012, 10:08:53 AM
And I doubt that left lane is I-240...especially with the traffic light ahead.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on November 07, 2012, 10:14:08 AM
Post by: 1995hoo on November 07, 2012, 10:14:08 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 07, 2012, 10:08:53 AM
And I doubt that left lane is I-240...especially with the traffic light ahead.
It should say "TO I-240." Found the signs on Bing Maps' street view. It's eastbound Democrat Road at Plough Boulevard near Memphis International Airport. I-240 is a short distance to the north.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on November 07, 2012, 07:26:35 PM
Post by: roadman on November 07, 2012, 07:26:35 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 11, 2012, 04:06:53 AM
Yes, the sign on the right is a little cramped due to the addition of the exit number. I suspect Caltrans reused the existing mounting hardware (the sign "frame") which is why the sign height could not be increased to improve the vertical spacing between the two road names.
As has been discussed on other threads within AARoads, CalTrans has a huge reluctance to replace overhead sign structures, even though most of those structures are at least as old as the signs themselves. One common theory being discussed in the highway signing community (outside of California) is that any proposal to replace structures, or to even add separate exit number tabs on the replacement signs - which the supports probably could handle - would trigger additional environmental reviews and possibly would be denied.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on November 10, 2012, 09:45:19 PM
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on November 10, 2012, 09:45:19 PM
Along Monterey Rd. in the Santa Clara Valley lies one of several guide signs with green 101 numerals:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8199%2F8173826375_e280cbca84_c.jpg&hash=5fab3b3772131d59e518a87643d9ded695ad2ed0)
On CA-99 in south Sacramento County, there are several of these retarded-looking 99 shields with slanted numerals (Also with new raised-cap directional banners that have recently started getting common in CA):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8065%2F8173854040_489bf75c95_c.jpg&hash=242924e3dd5b2240cd620716f157ff82d5be7584)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8199%2F8173826375_e280cbca84_c.jpg&hash=5fab3b3772131d59e518a87643d9ded695ad2ed0)
On CA-99 in south Sacramento County, there are several of these retarded-looking 99 shields with slanted numerals (Also with new raised-cap directional banners that have recently started getting common in CA):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8065%2F8173854040_489bf75c95_c.jpg&hash=242924e3dd5b2240cd620716f157ff82d5be7584)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on November 11, 2012, 06:28:37 PM
Post by: national highway 1 on November 11, 2012, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on November 10, 2012, 09:45:19 PMNot bad! I quite like it, good specs and proportions. Maybe a reverse outline shield!
Along Monterey Rd. in the Santa Clara Valley lies one of several guide signs with green 101 numerals:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8199%2F8173826375_e280cbca84_c.jpg&hash=5fab3b3772131d59e518a87643d9ded695ad2ed0)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on November 11, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
Post by: hbelkins on November 11, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
There are more than a few West Virginia county route and HARP route signs with green numbers, and they're becoming more prevalent.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: myosh_tino on November 12, 2012, 02:17:33 AM
Post by: myosh_tino on November 12, 2012, 02:17:33 AM
Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on November 10, 2012, 09:45:19 PMThe latest batch of raised-cap directional banners look pretty good although you have too look pretty hard to notice the raised first letter.
On CA-99 in south Sacramento County, there are several of these retarded-looking 99 shields with slanted numerals (Also with new raised-cap directional banners that have recently started getting common in CA):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8065%2F8173854040_489bf75c95_c.jpg&hash=242924e3dd5b2240cd620716f157ff82d5be7584)
Old Banner:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fold-ca-banner.png&hash=3a170df1c4f39737c0bb9f82ad9d80e45fd03298)
New Banner:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fnew-ca-banner.png&hash=d33849c0217f57d8f85ad39f4fa16d1be4089c9b)
California's first batch of raised-cap banners (GSV example (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=37.481529,-121.935476&spn=0.00043,0.000472&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=37.481529,-121.935476&panoid=VFcA7H6Tudjnmw13OSx3tw&cbp=12,203.78,,1,7)) looked pretty bad because the letters seemed to be too big for the banner.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on November 13, 2012, 12:04:54 AM
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on November 13, 2012, 12:04:54 AM
I don't think arrows on street blades are supposed to be like this... (And yes, this is in Salinas. Is it the Clarendon that tells you?)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8480%2F8181184178_93b77c4fc1_c.jpg&hash=9ad84cf4ceebb60ecc9b50ef90b138953c2af566)
Meanwhile in San Francisco, here is a wannabe 101 outline shield at the Golden Gate Bridge SF Visitors Center:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8348%2F8181137785_690b8b7c7f_c.jpg&hash=822fbb7ccf587b8bb66475f3805b1b93df0b2feb)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8480%2F8181184178_93b77c4fc1_c.jpg&hash=9ad84cf4ceebb60ecc9b50ef90b138953c2af566)
Meanwhile in San Francisco, here is a wannabe 101 outline shield at the Golden Gate Bridge SF Visitors Center:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8348%2F8181137785_690b8b7c7f_c.jpg&hash=822fbb7ccf587b8bb66475f3805b1b93df0b2feb)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on November 13, 2012, 01:34:04 AM
Post by: vtk on November 13, 2012, 01:34:04 AM
Not a major error, but it looks quite strange and I can't imagine how the draftsman might have thought this was correct:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fbadsign-offset3.jpg&hash=337d9ce08b4def064678227e6faeb0e1ae8cf34f) (https://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.209796,-84.370938&spn=0.001057,0.001367&t=k°=180&z=20&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=39.209796,-84.370938&panoid=5YJNc9ieNd_dqytv55o_Yg&cbp=12,192.04,,0,1.06)
(click for Google Street View)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fbadsign-offset3.jpg&hash=337d9ce08b4def064678227e6faeb0e1ae8cf34f) (https://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.209796,-84.370938&spn=0.001057,0.001367&t=k°=180&z=20&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=39.209796,-84.370938&panoid=5YJNc9ieNd_dqytv55o_Yg&cbp=12,192.04,,0,1.06)
(click for Google Street View)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Billy F 1988 on November 13, 2012, 01:54:54 AM
Post by: Billy F 1988 on November 13, 2012, 01:54:54 AM
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MT/MT19790902i1.jpg)
Looking at this Chris Kalina photo, is it me, or does that "0" on the I-90 shield look fat?
Looking at this Chris Kalina photo, is it me, or does that "0" on the I-90 shield look fat?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: amroad17 on November 13, 2012, 02:16:38 AM
Post by: amroad17 on November 13, 2012, 02:16:38 AM
Quote from: vtk on November 13, 2012, 01:34:04 AMThe original button copy sign was exactly the same as this one. Carbon copy!
Not a major error, but it looks quite strange and I can't imagine how the draftsman might have thought this was correct:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fbadsign-offset3.jpg&hash=337d9ce08b4def064678227e6faeb0e1ae8cf34f) (https://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.209796,-84.370938&spn=0.001057,0.001367&t=k°=180&z=20&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=39.209796,-84.370938&panoid=5YJNc9ieNd_dqytv55o_Yg&cbp=12,192.04,,0,1.06)
(click for Google Street View)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 13, 2012, 09:55:08 AM
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 13, 2012, 09:55:08 AM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on November 13, 2012, 01:54:54 AM
Looking at this Chris Kalina photo, is it me, or does that "0" on the I-90 shield look fat?
yep. the 9 is Series C, the 0 is Series D. and the state name is too large.
by Dec 2007, the last "A" in the state name had fallen off.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on November 13, 2012, 11:59:51 AM
Post by: vtk on November 13, 2012, 11:59:51 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on November 13, 2012, 02:16:38 AMQuote from: vtk on November 13, 2012, 01:34:04 AMThe original button copy sign was exactly the same as this one. Carbon copy!
Not a major error, but it looks quite strange and I can't imagine how the draftsman might have thought this was correct:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fbadsign-offset3.jpg&hash=337d9ce08b4def064678227e6faeb0e1ae8cf34f) (https://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.209796,-84.370938&spn=0.001057,0.001367&t=k°=180&z=20&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=39.209796,-84.370938&panoid=5YJNc9ieNd_dqytv55o_Yg&cbp=12,192.04,,0,1.06)
(click for Google Street View)
In that case, I have a crazy theory – so crazy, it might not even be supported by old maps, which I have but not with me at the moment. The original sign might have listed US 22 and OH 1. OH 3 might have been skipped because of its lengthy overlaps, and OH 1 included because of its importance as the temporary designation for the Ohio Turnpike Project II corridor. OH 3 was added later, and OH 1 removed later still.
But now I remember OH 1 went by way of Dayton, and parts of I-71 south of Columbus were shown on maps as OH 3, not OH 1. If OH 3 was the freeway here, that would explain why it might have originally been absent from this exit sign. Maybe to the right of US 22 was TO or TEMP I-71. OH 3 would have been added to the right of that when it was put back on US 22, and then the I-71 removed at the appropriate time, leaving OH 3 way over on the right. Maybe.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on November 18, 2012, 08:37:59 AM
Post by: Central Avenue on November 18, 2012, 08:37:59 AM
This one's on private property, so it's not an MUTCD issue, but it still bugs me:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8480%2F8196468552_62cfbb1200_c.jpg&hash=fd896f33bdc3e19122a013e9e57dd4a6273096ef)
Qualifying "Cross traffic does not stop" with "at this intersection" doesn't actually add any necessary information. It only serves to make the sign wordier and make it take longer to read.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8480%2F8196468552_62cfbb1200_c.jpg&hash=fd896f33bdc3e19122a013e9e57dd4a6273096ef)
Qualifying "Cross traffic does not stop" with "at this intersection" doesn't actually add any necessary information. It only serves to make the sign wordier and make it take longer to read.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Interstatefan78 on November 18, 2012, 12:46:37 PM
Post by: Interstatefan78 on November 18, 2012, 12:46:37 PM
Even in the Phillipsburg,NJ area NJDOT does sometimes use a US highway shield for RT-173 and RT-122 in my case I would treat them as signing error because both RT-173 and RT-122 are not US highway routes, but US-22 is the primary US highway and Southern Warren County, NJ
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Compulov on November 20, 2012, 08:38:20 AM
Post by: Compulov on November 20, 2012, 08:38:20 AM
Quote from: Central Avenue on November 18, 2012, 08:37:59 AM
Qualifying "Cross traffic does not stop" with "at this intersection" doesn't actually add any necessary information. It only serves to make the sign wordier and make it take longer to read.
I've seen these at intersections which probably don't need them; however, I do think they're useful at intersections which have compliance issues. Specifically, there's a few intersections which (for whatever reason) look like 4-way stops. So you have people who approach, stop, then start again, thinking the cross traffic will stop when they approach. Forgetting the obvious lack of 4-way signage at a 2-way stop, you really should exercise more caution at *all* intersections. Never assume cross traffic is going to stop, even if it *is* a 4-way. At any rate, I suspect the cops get tired of getting called out to specific intersections for accidents (I can think of one in Jackson, NJ), so they eventually put up the cross-traffic does not stop signs.
Edit: Sorry, still drinking my morning coffee. I guess you didn't have a problem with "cross traffic does not stop" so much as you did with "at this intersection". I agree, that's just stupid. At what intersection would they be referring?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on November 20, 2012, 10:38:24 AM
Post by: kphoger on November 20, 2012, 10:38:24 AM
They should all read "Cross traffic is not obligated to stop" instead. :D
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Special K on November 20, 2012, 10:47:00 AM
Post by: Special K on November 20, 2012, 10:47:00 AM
"Cross traffic can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead"
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: sp_redelectric on November 25, 2012, 11:31:06 AM
Post by: sp_redelectric on November 25, 2012, 11:31:06 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8482%2F8217750238_19d795cdb3.jpg&hash=7d9cc2d7b027273f7580f6b82c8f7f0cf43fb74b) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/90454872@N04/8217750238/)
Exit 291 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/90454872@N04/8217750238/) by SP RedElectric (http://www.flickr.com/people/90454872@N04/), on Flickr
Fairly new sign installation on I-5 southbound in Tigard, Oregon - Exit 291 sign contains two "Exit Only" arrows, the left of those two lanes continues on the mainline and drops at Exit 290.
Exit 291 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/90454872@N04/8217750238/) by SP RedElectric (http://www.flickr.com/people/90454872@N04/), on Flickr
Fairly new sign installation on I-5 southbound in Tigard, Oregon - Exit 291 sign contains two "Exit Only" arrows, the left of those two lanes continues on the mainline and drops at Exit 290.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on November 25, 2012, 12:36:18 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on November 25, 2012, 12:36:18 PM
Actually, that is correctly designed per the 2009 edition of MUTCD.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on November 26, 2012, 10:31:02 PM
Post by: formulanone on November 26, 2012, 10:31:02 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 25, 2012, 12:36:18 PM
Actually, that is correctly designed per the 2009 edition of MUTCD.
Hmmmm...I prefer to know in advance whether a lane is going to drop away via an exit, or if that's also a through lane; this way you can react in time to someone not paying attention (didn't mean to exit).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Special K on November 26, 2012, 11:00:21 PM
Post by: Special K on November 26, 2012, 11:00:21 PM
Quote from: formulanone on November 26, 2012, 10:31:02 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on November 25, 2012, 12:36:18 PM
Actually, that is correctly designed per the 2009 edition of MUTCD.
Hmmmm...I prefer to know in advance whether a lane is going to drop away via an exit, or if that's also a through lane; this way you can react in time to someone not paying attention (didn't mean to exit).
It's an option lane exit. If it's done correctly, there will be advance warning upstream of exit sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on November 26, 2012, 11:29:46 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on November 26, 2012, 11:29:46 PM
Indeed it is correct; the sign(s) upstream would (if designed correctly) indicate that the second lane counting from the right is an option lane. Above the gore, the dual arrows over the exiting lanes are ok. The other sign to the left indicates what's going on with the other half of the now-split option lane.
Traditional practice would probably have been dancing arrows on adjacent signs; new practice would be enormous arrow-per-lane or misleading EXIT ONLY over only one lane with markings and lane assignment signage separate. But that's a gripe for another thread...
Traditional practice would probably have been dancing arrows on adjacent signs; new practice would be enormous arrow-per-lane or misleading EXIT ONLY over only one lane with markings and lane assignment signage separate. But that's a gripe for another thread...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on November 27, 2012, 02:26:07 AM
Post by: roadfro on November 27, 2012, 02:26:07 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on November 26, 2012, 11:29:46 PM
Indeed it is correct; the sign(s) upstream would (if designed correctly) indicate that the second lane counting from the right is an option lane. Above the gore, the dual arrows over the exiting lanes are ok. The other sign to the left indicates what's going on with the other half of the now-split option lane.
Traditional practice would probably have been dancing arrows on adjacent signs; new practice would be enormous arrow-per-lane or misleading EXIT ONLY over only one lane with markings and lane assignment signage separate. But that's a gripe for another thread...
Traditional practice varies. In many places out west, it would've been a green on white arrow over the option lane (down arrow at the upstream sign, up/right arrow at the exit). New practice for a minor interchange as pictured, per MUTCD, uses upstream sign with exit only over the drop lane with supplemental lane markings and lane use signs to indicate the option. If this were a system interchange, then the huge arrow per lane signs come into play.
Mark me as one that agrees that the new design is misleading (and requires more expense to implement, with the extra signs and pavement markings needed). This is the one part of the new MUTCD that Nevada DOT has not yet started implementing (but they have done APL signs).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: sp_redelectric on November 27, 2012, 03:58:53 PM
Post by: sp_redelectric on November 27, 2012, 03:58:53 PM
Oregon is usually pretty good with consistency, but this is one place where that's been thrown out. Several other fairly new signs on the same stretch of I-5 show the black-on-yellow arrow with Exit Only only for the mandatory drop lane, and the white on green arrow for the option lane:
See: Oregon 217 northbound, Tualatin-Sherwood Road southbound, Wilsonville Road northbound.
So with the particular exit I noted above, while it might be consistent with the MUTCD it is not consistent with other signage within a few miles on I-5........?
See: Oregon 217 northbound, Tualatin-Sherwood Road southbound, Wilsonville Road northbound.
So with the particular exit I noted above, while it might be consistent with the MUTCD it is not consistent with other signage within a few miles on I-5........?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on November 27, 2012, 04:05:38 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on November 27, 2012, 04:05:38 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 27, 2012, 02:26:07 AM
Traditional practice varies. In many places out west, it would've been a green on white arrow over the option lane (down arrow at the upstream sign, up/right arrow at the exit). New practice for a minor interchange as pictured, per MUTCD, uses upstream sign with exit only over the drop lane with supplemental lane markings and lane use signs to indicate the option. If this were a system interchange, then the huge arrow per lane signs come into play.
I think the traditional practice in advance of the interchange that you and I refer to is the same basic thing...(photos courtesy Steve's site)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Foh%2Fi-77%2Fs120adv.jpg&hash=e67ab2928cdfa5b7988c94841e0a36784c617c58)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Foh%2Fi-77%2Fs118eo.jpg&hash=a5a3bf5dce73aec527a4a3d4f36481cd8fe07178)
At the gore itself, some states have used the current new standard for a while, such as Ohio (it's been around long enough to be button copy that got its underlighting removed a couple years ago but still stayed button copy):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Foh%2Fi-77%2Fs120.jpg&hash=ceaa3a46daff8a4bfd4677208c9b46c5d7963cbd)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Foh%2Fi-77%2Fs118.jpg&hash=b40cce4f2a05da15160669794484d0c2ca437dc9)
At the gore, the option lane has become two and it seems OK to have two black arrows in the yellow field. Upstream from there, of course you couldn't do that. Then the dancing arrows begin if you have a pull-through as well as the exit advance.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Some_Person on November 27, 2012, 05:36:21 PM
Post by: Some_Person on November 27, 2012, 05:36:21 PM
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on November 18, 2012, 12:46:37 PMI've driven on US 22 in that area and those signs bother me. To any non roadgeek they really make no difference at all, but there really is a pretty big difference :-P And I also noticed a Mile 0 sign right off the ramp from 78 west http://goo.gl/maps/uw3uc and I wonder if it means mile 0 for NJ 173, because it can't be Mile 0 for US 22. The only thing wrong with it if it were for 173 is the fact that that's after the terminus of 173.
Even in the Phillipsburg,NJ area NJDOT does sometimes use a US highway shield for RT-173 and RT-122 in my case I would treat them as signing error because both RT-173 and RT-122 are not US highway routes, but US-22 is the primary US highway and Southern Warren County, NJ
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Kacie Jane on November 27, 2012, 07:32:59 PM
Post by: Kacie Jane on November 27, 2012, 07:32:59 PM
Quote from: Some_Person on November 27, 2012, 05:36:21 PM
The only thing wrong with it if it were for 173 is the fact that that's after the terminus of 173.
Nope. The SLD (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000173__-.pdf) shows that 173 ends at the ramps, exactly where that Mile 0 is posted.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: myosh_tino on November 27, 2012, 07:54:56 PM
Post by: myosh_tino on November 27, 2012, 07:54:56 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 27, 2012, 02:26:07 AMCount me in as one that does not like how this type of exiting situation is signed in the 2009 MUTCD. As far as I know, Caltrans has not installed any signs like the one sp_redelectric posted. In California the advance guide sign would have looked like...
Traditional practice varies. In many places out west, it would've been a green on white arrow over the option lane (down arrow at the upstream sign, up/right arrow at the exit). New practice for a minor interchange as pictured, per MUTCD, uses upstream sign with exit only over the drop lane with supplemental lane markings and lane use signs to indicate the option. If this were a system interchange, then the huge arrow per lane signs come into play.
Mark me as one that agrees that the new design is misleading (and requires more expense to implement, with the extra signs and pavement markings needed). This is the one part of the new MUTCD that Nevada DOT has not yet started implementing (but they have done APL signs).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5s_exit291_or-ca_adv.png&hash=ba96ea40d1d4b60b1babe43ad6d4c1e71ad7e4dd)
and the exit direction sign would have looked like...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5s_exit291_or-ca_ed.png&hash=30f3d50547323df2059a802efe372761716be78e)
Here's how I think Nevada would have signed this exit...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5s_exit291_or-nv_ed.png&hash=ccab272d256dadefbd487f097a2d05555a794fc4)
While I have seen California sign plans calling for a black-on-yellow up-right arrow within an "EXIT ONLY" plaque, I have yet to see one in the field.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Some_Person on November 27, 2012, 08:30:05 PM
Post by: Some_Person on November 27, 2012, 08:30:05 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 27, 2012, 07:32:59 PMMy mistake, I didn't think of that. Like I knew where the end was I just meant that when on that ramp you're only going past the terminus and not near it. Which is why I was confused on the placing of the sign. So it does make logical sense as people travelling on 173 will see the milemarker as well.Quote from: Some_Person on November 27, 2012, 05:36:21 PM
The only thing wrong with it if it were for 173 is the fact that that's after the terminus of 173.
Nope. The SLD (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000173__-.pdf) shows that 173 ends at the ramps, exactly where that Mile 0 is posted.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Interstatefan78 on November 29, 2012, 09:41:59 PM
Post by: Interstatefan78 on November 29, 2012, 09:41:59 PM
Quote from: Some_Person on November 27, 2012, 08:30:05 PMThe right way to see the 0 mile marker on RT-173 is to drive on it from Bloomsbury, and it's located on the right close to the US-22 West Merge from I-78 WestQuote from: Kacie Jane on November 27, 2012, 07:32:59 PMMy mistake, I didn't think of that. Like I knew where the end was I just meant that when on that ramp you're only going past the terminus and not near it. Which is why I was confused on the placing of the sign. So it does make logical sense as people travelling on 173 will see the milemarker as well.Quote from: Some_Person on November 27, 2012, 05:36:21 PM
The only thing wrong with it if it were for 173 is the fact that that's after the terminus of 173.
Nope. The SLD (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000173__-.pdf) shows that 173 ends at the ramps, exactly where that Mile 0 is posted.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on December 01, 2012, 06:24:22 PM
Post by: roadfro on December 01, 2012, 06:24:22 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 27, 2012, 07:54:56 PM
Count me in as one that does not like how this type of exiting situation is signed in the 2009 MUTCD. As far as I know, Caltrans has not installed any signs like the one sp_redelectric posted. In California the advance guide sign would have looked like...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5s_exit291_or-ca_adv.png&hash=ba96ea40d1d4b60b1babe43ad6d4c1e71ad7e4dd)
and the exit direction sign would have looked like...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5s_exit291_or-ca_ed.png&hash=30f3d50547323df2059a802efe372761716be78e)
Here's how I think Nevada would have signed this exit...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5s_exit291_or-nv_ed.png&hash=ccab272d256dadefbd487f097a2d05555a794fc4)
While I have seen California sign plans calling for a black-on-yellow up-right arrow within an "EXIT ONLY" plaque, I have yet to see one in the field.
Wide exit tab not withstanding, that is an accurate depiction of NDOT signing practice (with many newer signs not extending the exit only field to the edge of the sign, but more plaque-like as the Caltrans sign.
I thought there were a few California signs that have implemented the black on yellow up arrow...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: myosh_tino on December 01, 2012, 11:45:14 PM
Post by: myosh_tino on December 01, 2012, 11:45:14 PM
Quote from: roadfro on December 01, 2012, 06:24:22 PMI have seen them only in signing plans for upcoming projects. I have yet to see one "in the field" although many of these projects are located in southern California and I'm in the San Jose area.
I thought there were a few California signs that have implemented the black on yellow up arrow...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: myosh_tino on December 03, 2012, 02:12:01 AM
Post by: myosh_tino on December 03, 2012, 02:12:01 AM
Quote from: roadfro on December 01, 2012, 06:24:22 PMYou mean a like this...
Wide exit tab not withstanding, that is an accurate depiction of NDOT signing practice (with many newer signs not extending the exit only field to the edge of the sign, but more plaque-like as the Caltrans sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5s_exit291_or-nv2_ed.png&hash=c54318aa6dd2aa7cd78080bc907637a221a56b49)
Note: I also corrected the exit tabs. I used the 2009-spec exit tabs in the original sign drawing. These are based on the previous spec (2003?).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on December 03, 2012, 02:49:39 AM
Post by: roadfro on December 03, 2012, 02:49:39 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 03, 2012, 02:12:01 AMQuote from: roadfro on December 01, 2012, 06:24:22 PMYou mean a like this...
Wide exit tab not withstanding, that is an accurate depiction of NDOT signing practice (with many newer signs not extending the exit only field to the edge of the sign, but more plaque-like as the Caltrans sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5s_exit291_or-nv2_ed.png&hash=c54318aa6dd2aa7cd78080bc907637a221a56b49)
Note: I also corrected the exit tabs. I used the 2009-spec exit tabs in the original sign drawing. These are based on the previous spec (2003?).
Yup. All the new signs on I-80 in Reno/Sparks and some others have used this style of exit only plaque.
I can't recall seeing wider exit tabs used in Nevada, although tabs have gotten taller in recent years.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Michael on December 14, 2012, 09:11:35 PM
Post by: Michael on December 14, 2012, 09:11:35 PM
I saw this on Imgur a few days ago. It isn't a "true" design error, but I didn't think it warranted its own thread:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIumtE.jpg&hash=1300906cca66596b7596b732cc919dbf37950033)
Original Page: http://imgur.com/IumtE (http://imgur.com/IumtE)
IMO, the "design error" is the fact that the sign replacement crew didn't remove the old sign. Based on the different shades of yellow, I'm thinking that it was replaced to meet the new retroreflectivity standards in the 2009 MUTCD.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIumtE.jpg&hash=1300906cca66596b7596b732cc919dbf37950033)
Original Page: http://imgur.com/IumtE (http://imgur.com/IumtE)
IMO, the "design error" is the fact that the sign replacement crew didn't remove the old sign. Based on the different shades of yellow, I'm thinking that it was replaced to meet the new retroreflectivity standards in the 2009 MUTCD.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on December 14, 2012, 10:02:55 PM
Post by: hbelkins on December 14, 2012, 10:02:55 PM
Could be that the old one will be removed later. I saw this very same thing a few years ago on US 52 in West Virginia.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 14, 2012, 11:21:25 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 14, 2012, 11:21:25 PM
I have seen that kind of duplication elsewhere. I believe the policy is to have one work interval consist of putting up new signs, and another consist of taking down the old ones. usually the two jobs are done at most several days apart.
this ensures that there isn't any sign that is entirely removed for any interval of time.
this ensures that there isn't any sign that is entirely removed for any interval of time.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on December 15, 2012, 12:25:33 AM
Post by: Central Avenue on December 15, 2012, 12:25:33 AM
Seems sensible enough. Better to have two of a sign for a short time than none of a sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on December 15, 2012, 01:24:15 AM
Post by: Alps on December 15, 2012, 01:24:15 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 14, 2012, 11:21:25 PMAs long as they reuse the sign posts, which I'd imagine to be the case.
I have seen that kind of duplication elsewhere. I believe the policy is to have one work interval consist of putting up new signs, and another consist of taking down the old ones. usually the two jobs are done at most several days apart.
this ensures that there isn't any sign that is entirely removed for any interval of time.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 19, 2012, 01:10:37 PM
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 19, 2012, 01:10:37 PM
Not totally sure if these would qualify for this thread or the damaged signs thread. The second and third pic you can really see the missing shields:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgBt2n.jpg&hash=5309c29a2640f180579f3389e4036a5575f0c0f6) (http://imgur.com/gBt2n)
Northbound I-35 just north of the E-W split. Missing an FM 3163
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9TL1m.jpg&hash=bb599cca9dc2f7f6bc8794a718a1f23db422dba7) (http://imgur.com/9TL1m)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXRY1f.jpg&hash=b89ae0d0dac5de5fed74e8f54f26693f2704bc53) (http://imgur.com/XRY1f)
between the 2 of these we can't get both 35E and 35W shields together
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgBt2n.jpg&hash=5309c29a2640f180579f3389e4036a5575f0c0f6) (http://imgur.com/gBt2n)
Northbound I-35 just north of the E-W split. Missing an FM 3163
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9TL1m.jpg&hash=bb599cca9dc2f7f6bc8794a718a1f23db422dba7) (http://imgur.com/9TL1m)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXRY1f.jpg&hash=b89ae0d0dac5de5fed74e8f54f26693f2704bc53) (http://imgur.com/XRY1f)
between the 2 of these we can't get both 35E and 35W shields together
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Billy F 1988 on December 19, 2012, 01:17:15 PM
Post by: Billy F 1988 on December 19, 2012, 01:17:15 PM
The exit 468 sign looks awkward. There's blank spacing to the left of the FM 1515 shield. Could that have been one of the I-35W or E shields?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 19, 2012, 01:37:45 PM
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 19, 2012, 01:37:45 PM
I think without the Hospital sign it would look ok. 1515 would be centered that way. The Blue H was probably added on
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on December 19, 2012, 05:31:25 PM
Post by: Takumi on December 19, 2012, 05:31:25 PM
US 460 eastbound at New Bohemia.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Jm-w-CK6E5M/UM88u7B3gaI/AAAAAAAAEWc/k88mgNbBQ_Q/s640/DSC02120.JPG)
Not sure what font these VA 141 shields have, but it's a bit odd.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-6T-N1S2Sp68/UM8-Ds2jtGI/AAAAAAAAElM/ZOxCKQkoroo/s640/IMG_0390B.JPG)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-SswWmKP366Q/UM8-Dr-KesI/AAAAAAAAElI/KUfot2-3SDQ/s640/IMG_0390C.JPG)
The numbers in the 337 shield on the right are too low.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-n9efFzzuwNE/UM8-YqjfNiI/AAAAAAAAEn0/4X7gnqHdnM0/s640/IMG_0411.JPG)
"Um...you forgot something."
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-yn7DqTVtB_M/UM8-kps8AoI/AAAAAAAAErA/rJVdc2AT7F4/s640/IMG_0459.JPG)
VA 337 near its east end.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Uaq2a72tx0k/UM8_lCrbshI/AAAAAAAAEwQ/mpttpV6yyQc/s640/IMG_0502.JPG)
Ugly shields, but not TWORS ugly.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-PPaDe5zSkRo/UM8_uHCN4PI/AAAAAAAAEyg/4XM2CZSx9GM/s640/IMG_0541.JPG)
The banner is below the I-664 shield on the right.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Jn7Ogft874U/UM8-W-YNSiI/AAAAAAAAEnY/ubVUBLzvwX0/s640/IMG_0406.JPG)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Jm-w-CK6E5M/UM88u7B3gaI/AAAAAAAAEWc/k88mgNbBQ_Q/s640/DSC02120.JPG)
Not sure what font these VA 141 shields have, but it's a bit odd.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-6T-N1S2Sp68/UM8-Ds2jtGI/AAAAAAAAElM/ZOxCKQkoroo/s640/IMG_0390B.JPG)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-SswWmKP366Q/UM8-Dr-KesI/AAAAAAAAElI/KUfot2-3SDQ/s640/IMG_0390C.JPG)
The numbers in the 337 shield on the right are too low.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-n9efFzzuwNE/UM8-YqjfNiI/AAAAAAAAEn0/4X7gnqHdnM0/s640/IMG_0411.JPG)
"Um...you forgot something."
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-yn7DqTVtB_M/UM8-kps8AoI/AAAAAAAAErA/rJVdc2AT7F4/s640/IMG_0459.JPG)
VA 337 near its east end.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Uaq2a72tx0k/UM8_lCrbshI/AAAAAAAAEwQ/mpttpV6yyQc/s640/IMG_0502.JPG)
Ugly shields, but not TWORS ugly.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-PPaDe5zSkRo/UM8_uHCN4PI/AAAAAAAAEyg/4XM2CZSx9GM/s640/IMG_0541.JPG)
The banner is below the I-664 shield on the right.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Jn7Ogft874U/UM8-W-YNSiI/AAAAAAAAEnY/ubVUBLzvwX0/s640/IMG_0406.JPG)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on December 20, 2012, 04:38:31 PM
Post by: kphoger on December 20, 2012, 04:38:31 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 19, 2012, 01:10:37 PM
between the 2 of these we can't get both 35E and 35W shields together
They were correct as of June 2.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 20, 2012, 07:02:05 PM
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 20, 2012, 07:02:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 20, 2012, 04:38:31 PMQuote from: bassoon1986 on December 19, 2012, 01:10:37 PM
between the 2 of these we can't get both 35E and 35W shields together
They were correct as of June 2.
They've been missing for a while now.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on December 23, 2012, 12:36:21 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on December 23, 2012, 12:36:21 AM
That reminds me of how differently MN and TX handle their split 35 routes. In TX, 35 silently gets an E after it and then you get the option to exit to 35W. In MN they make a big deal out of it with a sign like "35 ENDS / CONTINUE ON 35E" or something like that.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on December 23, 2012, 07:20:53 PM
Post by: kphoger on December 23, 2012, 07:20:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 23, 2012, 12:36:21 AM
That reminds me of how differently MN and TX handle their split 35 routes. In TX, 35 silently gets an E after it and then you get the option to exit to 35W. In MN they make a big deal out of it with a sign like "35 ENDS / CONTINUE ON 35E" or something like that.
I use both I-35Ws (Minneapolis and Fort Worth) every year, and I find the signage to be similar, not different. More specifically, I don't see either one "silently getting an E"; rather, all four splits are clearly signed with 35E and 35W. See below for the GMSV of each one.
Approaching the split in Minnesota, northbound: http://goo.gl/maps/pGsdD (http://goo.gl/maps/pGsdD)
At the split in Minnesota, northbound: http://goo.gl/maps/63dVH (http://goo.gl/maps/63dVH)
Approaching the split in Minnesota, southbound: http://goo.gl/maps/j0mKd (http://goo.gl/maps/j0mKd)
At the split in Minnesota, southbound: http://goo.gl/maps/eqLLC (http://goo.gl/maps/eqLLC)
Approaching the split in Texas, northbound: http://goo.gl/maps/V632N (http://goo.gl/maps/V632N)
At the split in Texas, northbound: http://goo.gl/maps/lKiL6 (http://goo.gl/maps/lKiL6)
Approaching the split in Texas, southbound: http://goo.gl/maps/I8uY7 (http://goo.gl/maps/I8uY7)
At the split in Texas, southbound: http://goo.gl/maps/AtGnC (http://goo.gl/maps/AtGnC)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on December 23, 2012, 08:02:43 PM
Post by: roadfro on December 23, 2012, 08:02:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 23, 2012, 07:20:53 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on December 23, 2012, 12:36:21 AM
That reminds me of how differently MN and TX handle their split 35 routes. In TX, 35 silently gets an E after it and then you get the option to exit to 35W. In MN they make a big deal out of it with a sign like "35 ENDS / CONTINUE ON 35E" or something like that.
I use both I-35Ws (Minneapolis and Fort Worth) every year, and I find the signage to be similar, not different. More specifically, I don't see either one "silently getting an E"; rather, all four splits are clearly signed with 35E and 35W. See below for the GMSV of each one.
It looks like in both cases I-35W is the "exit", as opposed to being a true even split.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on December 23, 2012, 08:58:49 PM
Post by: kphoger on December 23, 2012, 08:58:49 PM
Quote from: roadfro on December 23, 2012, 08:02:43 PMQuote from: kphoger on December 23, 2012, 07:20:53 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on December 23, 2012, 12:36:21 AM
That reminds me of how differently MN and TX handle their split 35 routes. In TX, 35 silently gets an E after it and then you get the option to exit to 35W. In MN they make a big deal out of it with a sign like "35 ENDS / CONTINUE ON 35E" or something like that.
I use both I-35Ws (Minneapolis and Fort Worth) every year, and I find the signage to be similar, not different. More specifically, I don't see either one "silently getting an E"; rather, all four splits are clearly signed with 35E and 35W. See below for the GMSV of each one.
It looks like in both cases I-35W is the "exit", as opposed to being a true even split.
True enough. But simply choosing one route as the "exiting" route by putting a tab on the sign is a far cry from either "silence" or a "big deal". Either way, it just goes to show similarity, not difference, between the two states.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on December 25, 2012, 09:28:36 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on December 25, 2012, 09:28:36 AM
The "big deal" I am referring to is Minnesota's use of the extra sign calling out that vanilla 35 is ending (not merely changing to 35E, but ending). In Texas, there is no such thing, as far as I can remember, it's just that at the split (or even a little bit before in one direction, I believe) it suddenly is 35E and 35W.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Billy F 1988 on December 28, 2012, 04:47:42 AM
Post by: Billy F 1988 on December 28, 2012, 04:47:42 AM
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MT/MT19790152i1.jpg)
Can anyone explain why I'm seeing "Sw" instead of "S W" on that 14th Street Southwest BGS along I-315/I-15 Business in Great Falls? As minor of an error that is, still, that's inexcusable. If you start designing BGSes, you always separate the abbreviated cardinals like so: "N W", "N E", "S W", "S E". So, that top line should have read "14th St S W", not "14th St Sw".
It could get away with greenout for a minor uppercase fix, but that's just odd seeing "Sw".
Can anyone explain why I'm seeing "Sw" instead of "S W" on that 14th Street Southwest BGS along I-315/I-15 Business in Great Falls? As minor of an error that is, still, that's inexcusable. If you start designing BGSes, you always separate the abbreviated cardinals like so: "N W", "N E", "S W", "S E". So, that top line should have read "14th St S W", not "14th St Sw".
It could get away with greenout for a minor uppercase fix, but that's just odd seeing "Sw".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on December 28, 2012, 07:14:24 AM
Post by: roadfro on December 28, 2012, 07:14:24 AM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on December 28, 2012, 04:47:42 AM
If you start designing BGSes, you always separate the abbreviated cardinals like so: "N W", "N E", "S W", "S E". So, that top line should have read "14th St S W", not "14th St Sw".
I wouldn't say that the abbreviated cardinals are always separated by a space, but I do agree that both letters should be capitalized (i.e "SW", not "Sw"). I think the space actually looks very odd, since any time I've come across abbreviated cardinals there hasn't been a space.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Interstatefan78 on December 28, 2012, 05:02:58 PM
Post by: Interstatefan78 on December 28, 2012, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: Some_Person on November 27, 2012, 05:36:21 PMThat is actually for RT-173 mile 0, but US-22 Mile 0 is located at the P'burg Easton bridge close to the interchange with PA-611 (Larry Homes Drive) and PA-115 (Snyder Street), but PA side has the 337.9 mile marker, and US-22 East mile 0 is located at the Exit Sign for S Main Street located at the NJ side of the US-22 P'burg-Easton Bridge :DQuote from: Interstatefan78 on November 18, 2012, 12:46:37 PMI've driven on US 22 in that area and those signs bother me. To any non roadgeek they really make no difference at all, but there really is a pretty big difference :-P And I also noticed a Mile 0 sign right off the ramp from 78 west http://goo.gl/maps/uw3uc and I wonder if it means mile 0 for NJ 173, because it can't be Mile 0 for US 22. The only thing wrong with it if it were for 173 is the fact that that's after the terminus of 173.
Even in the Phillipsburg,NJ area NJDOT does sometimes use a US highway shield for RT-173 and RT-122 in my case I would treat them as signing error because both RT-173 and RT-122 are not US highway routes, but US-22 is the primary US highway and Southern Warren County, NJ
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Billy F 1988 on December 28, 2012, 05:09:01 PM
Post by: Billy F 1988 on December 28, 2012, 05:09:01 PM
Quote from: roadfro on December 28, 2012, 07:14:24 AMQuote from: Billy F 1988 on December 28, 2012, 04:47:42 AM
If you start designing BGSes, you always separate the abbreviated cardinals like so: "N W", "N E", "S W", "S E". So, that top line should have read "14th St S W", not "14th St Sw".
I wouldn't say that the abbreviated cardinals are always separated by a space, but I do agree that both letters should be capitalized (i.e "SW", not "Sw"). I think the space actually looks very odd, since any time I've come across abbreviated cardinals there hasn't been a space.
Hmm. Must have thought of a different practice then. There is one that is spaced at the split of Old US 91 and the US 87 Northwest Bypass marked "N W By Pass". A modern version would then read "NW Bypass".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on December 28, 2012, 05:28:28 PM
Post by: Alps on December 28, 2012, 05:28:28 PM
Quote from: roadfro on December 28, 2012, 07:14:24 AMIt wouldn't be a full space. The MUTCD tells you exactly how far, but it's either 1/2 or 3/4 of a letter height apart.Quote from: Billy F 1988 on December 28, 2012, 04:47:42 AM
If you start designing BGSes, you always separate the abbreviated cardinals like so: "N W", "N E", "S W", "S E". So, that top line should have read "14th St S W", not "14th St Sw".
I wouldn't say that the abbreviated cardinals are always separated by a space, but I do agree that both letters should be capitalized (i.e "SW", not "Sw"). I think the space actually looks very odd, since any time I've come across abbreviated cardinals there hasn't been a space.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on December 28, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
Post by: vtk on December 28, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on December 28, 2012, 05:28:28 PMQuote from: roadfro on December 28, 2012, 07:14:24 AMIt wouldn't be a full space. The MUTCD tells you exactly how far, but it's either 1/2 or 3/4 of a letter height apart.Quote from: Billy F 1988 on December 28, 2012, 04:47:42 AM
If you start designing BGSes, you always separate the abbreviated cardinals like so: "N W", "N E", "S W", "S E". So, that top line should have read "14th St S W", not "14th St Sw".
I wouldn't say that the abbreviated cardinals are always separated by a space, but I do agree that both letters should be capitalized (i.e "SW", not "Sw"). I think the space actually looks very odd, since any time I've come across abbreviated cardinals there hasn't been a space.
In many fonts (including the Roadgeek set) that's about a full word space. On actual road signs, word spaces are typically of width equal to capital letter height, a bit more than typical typography.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Kniwt on January 02, 2013, 04:47:09 PM
Post by: Kniwt on January 02, 2013, 04:47:09 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on January 02, 2013, 04:45:00 PM
I-8 eastbound at SR 98 west between El Centro and Yuma: There is no place called "Junction"; the road doubles back to Calexico.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3mZA8.jpg&hash=9601f5b17eee5728ae15eb4a85f2a003d7fab08e)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on January 02, 2013, 05:10:45 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on January 02, 2013, 05:10:45 PM
No photos, but comments:
Erroneous sign placment: Swampscott, MA along eastbound MA 129 (Humphery St.) - the <i>NO PASSING ZONE</i> pennant is mounted along the right side of the road rather than the left.
Chester, PA - nearly every newly-erected BGS' along I-95 and US 322 (a few months ago) feature US 322 shields that have the 3-2-2 numerals not properly aligned. They're either too low, too high or slightly crooked w/respect to the shield. I'm not 100% sure if there's even one new BGS that has a US 322 shield with the numerals properly placed and aligned.
Erroneous sign placment: Swampscott, MA along eastbound MA 129 (Humphery St.) - the <i>NO PASSING ZONE</i> pennant is mounted along the right side of the road rather than the left.
Chester, PA - nearly every newly-erected BGS' along I-95 and US 322 (a few months ago) feature US 322 shields that have the 3-2-2 numerals not properly aligned. They're either too low, too high or slightly crooked w/respect to the shield. I'm not 100% sure if there's even one new BGS that has a US 322 shield with the numerals properly placed and aligned.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Billy F 1988 on January 02, 2013, 07:52:03 PM
Post by: Billy F 1988 on January 02, 2013, 07:52:03 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on January 02, 2013, 04:47:09 PMQuote from: Kniwt on January 02, 2013, 04:45:00 PM
I-8 eastbound at SR 98 west between El Centro and Yuma: There is no place called "Junction"; the road doubles back to Calexico.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3mZA8.jpg&hash=9601f5b17eee5728ae15eb4a85f2a003d7fab08e)
I think the sign can use a swap of the shield and all-caps "JUNCTION". It's not erroneous or CalTrans replaces "Junction" with "Calexico".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Tom958 on January 02, 2013, 09:15:56 PM
Post by: Tom958 on January 02, 2013, 09:15:56 PM
Re
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2FWhiteExitOnlyLettering-AirwaysBlvd.jpg&hash=9fe258966cd3782dbb7e40f3c203f800923f169c)
there's another one here (https://maps.google.com/?ll=36.110477,-86.716745&spn=0.003585,0.004823&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=36.110475,-86.716627&panoid=QMlmrflZ45-OVas3qFAF8g&cbp=12,122.39,,0,-3.1). Its arrowless brother, anyway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2FWhiteExitOnlyLettering-AirwaysBlvd.jpg&hash=9fe258966cd3782dbb7e40f3c203f800923f169c)
there's another one here (https://maps.google.com/?ll=36.110477,-86.716745&spn=0.003585,0.004823&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=36.110475,-86.716627&panoid=QMlmrflZ45-OVas3qFAF8g&cbp=12,122.39,,0,-3.1). Its arrowless brother, anyway.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on January 03, 2013, 01:30:02 PM
Post by: kphoger on January 03, 2013, 01:30:02 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on January 02, 2013, 04:45:00 PM
I-8 eastbound at SR 98 west between El Centro and Yuma: There is no place called "Junction"; the road doubles back to Calexico.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3mZA8.jpg&hash=9601f5b17eee5728ae15eb4a85f2a003d7fab08e)
On the other hand: http://goo.gl/maps/sOrHK
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on January 04, 2013, 12:39:54 AM
Post by: Central Avenue on January 04, 2013, 12:39:54 AM
Quote from: Kniwt on January 02, 2013, 04:47:09 PMQuote from: Kniwt on January 02, 2013, 04:45:00 PM
I-8 eastbound at SR 98 west between El Centro and Yuma: There is no place called "Junction"; the road doubles back to Calexico.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3mZA8.jpg&hash=9601f5b17eee5728ae15eb4a85f2a003d7fab08e)
I almost wonder if that was a breakdown in communication; as if someone said "we need a 'Junction 98' sign" and somewhere along the line it turned into a sign with "Junction" as a control city.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Billy F 1988 on January 04, 2013, 11:01:51 AM
Post by: Billy F 1988 on January 04, 2013, 11:01:51 AM
It pretty much goes down to layout. I'll make a BGS to illustrate what CalTrans should do and put that in Road-related Illustrations.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on January 04, 2013, 03:29:25 PM
Post by: Takumi on January 04, 2013, 03:29:25 PM
This arrow just seems...off.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-T7mk8YONuhs/UOM4H-3J0wI/AAAAAAAAE6g/sg75XrI7vWk/s640/IMG_0616.JPG)
Why blank space? Because they forgot to put VA 31 on there.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-_UuQpxEeKI8/UOM6DCMsszI/AAAAAAAAFK8/NEFeqmHP_tE/s640/IMG_0755.JPG)
(This is what it's supposed to look like) (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-tNlrwCjgPJY/UOM6E4cRIrI/AAAAAAAAFLc/8rs7UrGVaV8/s640/IMG_0758.JPG)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-T7mk8YONuhs/UOM4H-3J0wI/AAAAAAAAE6g/sg75XrI7vWk/s640/IMG_0616.JPG)
Why blank space? Because they forgot to put VA 31 on there.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-_UuQpxEeKI8/UOM6DCMsszI/AAAAAAAAFK8/NEFeqmHP_tE/s640/IMG_0755.JPG)
(This is what it's supposed to look like) (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-tNlrwCjgPJY/UOM6E4cRIrI/AAAAAAAAFLc/8rs7UrGVaV8/s640/IMG_0758.JPG)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on January 21, 2013, 05:30:22 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on January 21, 2013, 05:30:22 PM
Typical OK sloppiness on these new signs for Exit 110 in Norman:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCcGdQUul.jpg&hash=ea952b866d2103014d45eeb64ef7e92674916e2d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FawBImokl.jpg&hash=cc74b1d37a6f75e21f0a54f04a9492abb3a310a2)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCcGdQUul.jpg&hash=ea952b866d2103014d45eeb64ef7e92674916e2d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FawBImokl.jpg&hash=cc74b1d37a6f75e21f0a54f04a9492abb3a310a2)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Michael on January 21, 2013, 06:21:45 PM
Post by: Michael on January 21, 2013, 06:21:45 PM
I just stumbled on this sign (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=36.841833,-76.286016&spn=0.004171,0.005681&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=36.841745,-76.286043&panoid=J6pPE5NClHZdvoh77jBs0w&cbp=12,356.3,,1,-18.87) heading northbound just after the Berkley Bridge in Norfolk. It uses all-caps Clearview for the word EXIT (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong). and has a Clearview number 9. It also should have a LEFT panel. Just beyond the BGS is an exit gore sign with the arrow on the wrong side (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=36.842108,-76.285957&spn=0.004171,0.005681&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=36.842331,-76.285898&panoid=SDru005XG2CyNPewr6uuaA&cbp=12,64.5,,1,-3.7). Technically, it isn't an error since I couldn't find anything in the MUTCD requiring the arrow to be on the left side of the sign, but it still looks wrong.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on January 21, 2013, 06:26:54 PM
Post by: Takumi on January 21, 2013, 06:26:54 PM
Yep, VDOT has made a lot of Clearview exit tabs (and gore signs) in the past few years. I've yet to see the new Left panel at a left exit in Virginia. I don't know if the Virginia 2011 MUTCD supplement bans their use or not, but I'm not a fan of them so I don't mind the absence of one.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: dfnva on January 21, 2013, 08:52:22 PM
Post by: dfnva on January 21, 2013, 08:52:22 PM
The new signs on the I-495 HOT Lanes have new "Left" Exit Panels.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on January 23, 2013, 09:32:16 AM
Post by: 1995hoo on January 23, 2013, 09:32:16 AM
Quote from: dfnva on January 21, 2013, 08:52:22 PM
The new signs on the I-495 HOT Lanes have new "Left" Exit Panels.
As do some of the signs in the Pentagon Mixing Bowl interchange, some of the new signs in the Shirley Highway reversible HOV carriageway (the ones for the new exit to the Beltway), and the BGS on the Inner Loop general-purpose lanes for the Dulles exit.
All of the above show some level of inconsistency, though. The ones in the HO/T lanes and the ones for ramps between the Shirley Highway HOV and the Beltway have "LEFT EXIT" tabs with the full thing being black-on-yellow, whereas the signs near the Pentagon and the ones for the Dulles exit have just the word "LEFT" in black-on-yellow and the rest of the tab in standard white-on-green. See the signs in this image from the Washington Post:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_606w%2F2010-2019%2FWashingtonPost%2F2012%2F11%2F19%2FOthers%2FImages%2F2012-11-19%2F_MG_04131353344717.jpg&hash=862098be334e5fce370b25acffe9ae1c1a661b95)
Before someone points it out, I don't think the issue has to do with the sign on the right having an exit number, as that same style appears on the signs around the Pentagon that don't have exit numbers (these signs are horrible for a host of other reasons, of course):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F4e098bcb.jpg&hash=7135cafa67bac0d70b51dd5716c8b9519bea5b36)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Mr_Northside on January 23, 2013, 03:09:27 PM
Post by: Mr_Northside on January 23, 2013, 03:09:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 23, 2013, 09:32:16 AM
Before someone points it out, I don't think the issue has to do with the sign on the right having an exit number, as that same style appears on the signs around the Pentagon that don't have exit numbers (these signs are horrible for a host of other reasons, of course):
My best guess (and it's just that), other than different agencies and contractors just doing it a little differently, might be that they didn't want to dedicate any more vertical space in the EZ-Pass Express lanes just to the fact that they are exits.
I mean, there's a decent amount of space just pointing out the signs are for EZ-Pass Express lane exits, and keeping the "Left Exit" on the same level keeps the sign from being a little taller.
Or it's that first thing I mentioned.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on January 23, 2013, 08:21:48 PM
Post by: roadman on January 23, 2013, 08:21:48 PM
Personally, I have never liked the MUTCD "combined" Left w/exit number panel. I much prefer the current MassDOT design, where a separate full height (30 inch) black on yellow "LEFT" tab is placed above a standard exit number panel. The greater yellow area, plus the larger height of LEFT, on the MassDOT tabs (as opposed to the MUTCD standard) really grabs your attention.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: OracleUsr on January 23, 2013, 11:40:25 PM
Post by: OracleUsr on January 23, 2013, 11:40:25 PM
In North Carolina, there are several LEFT bannered exits (Exit 218 off I-85 South, and Exit 219 off I-40 West come to mind immediately) that don't even use the proper colors for the banner, instead leaving them as white on green like the rest of the tab.
MassDOT does have a good thing going, and it was at one time compliant (the 2004 SHM shows LEFT banners like they use).
MassDOT does have a good thing going, and it was at one time compliant (the 2004 SHM shows LEFT banners like they use).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: KEK Inc. on January 24, 2013, 02:47:19 AM
Post by: KEK Inc. on January 24, 2013, 02:47:19 AM
http://goo.gl/maps/lerzy
I'm 97% sure that sign is supposed to say "ONLY" instead of "EXIT", since the overhead sign is referring to a traffic signal rather than an exit ramp.
I'm 97% sure that sign is supposed to say "ONLY" instead of "EXIT", since the overhead sign is referring to a traffic signal rather than an exit ramp.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on January 24, 2013, 11:14:51 AM
Post by: vtk on January 24, 2013, 11:14:51 AM
From that link it looks like Google was too "lerzy" to correctly spell "lazy".
Seriously though, I've seen a few right turns signed as exits. And then there's US 6 at I-75: a simple diamond interchange, except the turns off of US 6 (both left and right) were given exit numbers. This happened about 10 years ago when District 2 decided to put exit numbers on all freeways, and whoever was in charge apparently had OCD, applying the most direct literal interpretation of the rules (possibly including some made-up rules) when an alternate interpretation or a slight fudging would have made more sense.
Seriously though, I've seen a few right turns signed as exits. And then there's US 6 at I-75: a simple diamond interchange, except the turns off of US 6 (both left and right) were given exit numbers. This happened about 10 years ago when District 2 decided to put exit numbers on all freeways, and whoever was in charge apparently had OCD, applying the most direct literal interpretation of the rules (possibly including some made-up rules) when an alternate interpretation or a slight fudging would have made more sense.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: amroad17 on January 24, 2013, 09:06:42 PM
Post by: amroad17 on January 24, 2013, 09:06:42 PM
I know that it is partly the camera angle, but the new Dulles interchange looks like a hot mess compared to the simplicity it was before. WOW!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on January 24, 2013, 10:54:08 PM
Post by: 1995hoo on January 24, 2013, 10:54:08 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 24, 2013, 09:06:42 PM
I know that it is partly the camera angle, but the new Dulles interchange looks like a hot mess compared to the simplicity it was before. WOW!
It is far less complicated when you are on the road than the picture makes it seem.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on January 25, 2013, 02:07:23 PM
Post by: roadman on January 25, 2013, 02:07:23 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on January 23, 2013, 11:40:25 PM
In North Carolina, there are several LEFT bannered exits (Exit 218 off I-85 South, and Exit 219 off I-40 West come to mind immediately) that don't even use the proper colors for the banner, instead leaving them as white on green like the rest of the tab.
MassDOT does have a good thing going, and it was at one time compliant (the 2004 SHM shows LEFT banners like they use).
As I understand it, MassDOT's "LEFT" banners are considered by FHWA to be an acceptable variation to the 2009 MUTCD standards. And, yes, I'd like to see the MassDOT standard adopted nationally, at least as an option.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: OracleUsr on January 25, 2013, 05:16:27 PM
Post by: OracleUsr on January 25, 2013, 05:16:27 PM
It is kind of a cool effect. There actually is an incident of such a wide-bannered tab in NC too. I-77 North at NC 16 north (exit 11B) in downtown Charlotte. The only thing is, the banner is too thin so it barely registers.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Michael on April 05, 2013, 01:32:24 PM
Post by: Michael on April 05, 2013, 01:32:24 PM
I recently stubmled on this (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.111746,-75.897884&spn=0.002734,0.005681&t=h&layer=c&cbll=42.112073,-75.898199&panoid=ChecYA-bP_CpXPqZlcGe5Q&cbp=12,6.43,,0,-19.29&z=18) BGS in Binghamton. There's no green space between "New York" and the exit tab, and there's a white border around the exit tab.
While I was looking for a better image, I found a picture of the gantry at the interchange gore point on New York Routes (http://www.gribblenation.net/nyroutes/jct/007.htm). It has the same errors as the advance guide sign, plus the spacing of the words "EXIT ONLY" leaves room for an arrow, but there is none.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fnyroutes%2Fimages%2Fphotos%2Froutes%2F007%2F007-01197n.jpg&hash=0f190b63be74dadac59a9bc77873ab8e054a9bc5)
While I was looking for a better image, I found a picture of the gantry at the interchange gore point on New York Routes (http://www.gribblenation.net/nyroutes/jct/007.htm). It has the same errors as the advance guide sign, plus the spacing of the words "EXIT ONLY" leaves room for an arrow, but there is none.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fnyroutes%2Fimages%2Fphotos%2Froutes%2F007%2F007-01197n.jpg&hash=0f190b63be74dadac59a9bc77873ab8e054a9bc5)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman65 on April 11, 2013, 02:34:53 PM
Post by: roadman65 on April 11, 2013, 02:34:53 PM
I just noticed one today on Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando where a brand new guide sign was installed. They misspelled Lancaster Road as Lancaste Road. If anyone lives in Orlando, check it out, its NB in the new construction area to rid the center turn lane from Landstreet to Oakridge.
I plan to get a photo next time I am out and post it.
I plan to get a photo next time I am out and post it.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman65 on May 02, 2013, 02:41:47 PM
Post by: roadman65 on May 02, 2013, 02:41:47 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8701680431/in/photostream/
Notice that the second signal street name is "Lancaste Rd." It should be and has since been corrected to its proper name "Lancaster Rd."
This is a brand new assembly and was added anew with a safety improvement project that is currently taking place along Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando, FL. The sign never even had a previous assembly, as this is becoming common in Florida among intersections in addition to overhead street signs.
Notice that the second signal street name is "Lancaste Rd." It should be and has since been corrected to its proper name "Lancaster Rd."
This is a brand new assembly and was added anew with a safety improvement project that is currently taking place along Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando, FL. The sign never even had a previous assembly, as this is becoming common in Florida among intersections in addition to overhead street signs.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Michael on May 30, 2013, 06:40:56 PM
Post by: Michael on May 30, 2013, 06:40:56 PM
Google just released an update to Street View in parts of Central NY and the Southern Tier this week. While I was looking at the new imagery, I came across this (http://maps.google.com/?ll=42.000018,-76.528696&spn=0.002739,0.005681&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.000019,-76.528576&panoid=2CopKxF9dBP2qblLs3Pqjg&cbp=12,125.86,,2,0.15) exit sign with text that's too small. I only noticed that the 61 was too small until I compared the sign to an example from the MUTCD while typing this post. The word "EXIT" is too small too, but to me it's less noticeable.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on June 18, 2013, 08:19:42 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on June 18, 2013, 08:19:42 AM
Copied from the Worst of Road Signs thread:
Quote from: yakra on June 17, 2013, 11:34:56 AM
I-15 shield Fail in Lethbridge, Alberta
https://maps.google.com/maps?vpsrc=6&ie=UTF8&t=m&layer=c&cbll=49.670108,-112.798396&panoid=SVBzFf0_1KLC1DISc8JR2w&cbp=11,224.25,,3,-1.09&ll=49.671627,-112.71286&spn=0.15242,0.617294&z=11
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on June 18, 2013, 08:31:15 AM
Post by: NE2 on June 18, 2013, 08:31:15 AM
Why not copy it to every thread?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: KEK Inc. on June 18, 2013, 08:34:31 AM
Post by: KEK Inc. on June 18, 2013, 08:34:31 AM
Seriously. I think people should learn to correctly categorize incorrect, mislabeled, poor-designed, or "worst" signs. I'm tired of seeing the same sign in 7 threads.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on June 18, 2013, 10:10:44 AM
Post by: hbelkins on June 18, 2013, 10:10:44 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on June 18, 2013, 08:34:31 AM
Seriously. I think people should learn to correctly categorize incorrect, mislabeled, poor-designed, or "worst" signs. I'm tired of seeing the same sign in 7 threads.
Different people may have different perceptions on just exactly what's wrong with the sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ET21 on June 18, 2013, 12:02:13 PM
Post by: ET21 on June 18, 2013, 12:02:13 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fiowahighwayends.net%2Fends%2Fstatelines%2Fi235%2FExit123_235_eb.jpg&hash=e4f51a4c4e57e7b95252da1543ba9345985e87f9)
Going I-35 South by going onto I-35 north...
Going I-35 South by going onto I-35 north...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on June 18, 2013, 12:29:24 PM
Post by: NE2 on June 18, 2013, 12:29:24 PM
Quote from: ET21 on June 18, 2013, 12:02:13 PMThere's only one error here, and it's you.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fiowahighwayends.net%2Fends%2Fstatelines%2Fi235%2FExit123_235_eb.jpg&hash=e4f51a4c4e57e7b95252da1543ba9345985e87f9)
Going I-35 South by going onto I-35 north...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: OracleUsr on June 18, 2013, 12:42:09 PM
Post by: OracleUsr on June 18, 2013, 12:42:09 PM
Hey, at least it's not in Clearview!!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Brandon on June 18, 2013, 01:13:28 PM
Post by: Brandon on June 18, 2013, 01:13:28 PM
Quote from: ET21 on June 18, 2013, 12:02:13 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fiowahighwayends.net%2Fends%2Fstatelines%2Fi235%2FExit123_235_eb.jpg&hash=e4f51a4c4e57e7b95252da1543ba9345985e87f9)
Going I-35 South by going onto I-35 north...
I've seen this sign a number of times, and I fail to see the design error here. I-35 North goes with I-80 East, which you are already on. I-35 South is an exit from I-80 East at this point.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on June 18, 2013, 09:45:47 PM
Post by: Alps on June 18, 2013, 09:45:47 PM
White border around a yellow background is a design error, but that's reaching.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on June 18, 2013, 11:18:25 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on June 18, 2013, 11:18:25 PM
Is the off-center "EXIT ONLY" on the left sign the major design error? (Maybe also nit-picky but possibly avoidable)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on June 19, 2013, 05:58:18 AM
Post by: roadfro on June 19, 2013, 05:58:18 AM
Quote from: Brandon on June 18, 2013, 01:13:28 PMQuote from: ET21 on June 18, 2013, 12:02:13 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fiowahighwayends.net%2Fends%2Fstatelines%2Fi235%2FExit123_235_eb.jpg&hash=e4f51a4c4e57e7b95252da1543ba9345985e87f9)
Going I-35 South by going onto I-35 north...
I've seen this sign a number of times, and I fail to see the design error here. I-35 North goes with I-80 East, which you are already on. I-35 South is an exit from I-80 East at this point.
The I-235 panel is missing a "Left" plaque in the exit tab, and does not accurately reflect that the middle lane is an option lane.
I think the arrows used on the 80/35 panel seem to be out of place. Yes, the "through" route curves at this point, so the up arrows are appropriate--it just seems at odds with the "right lane" message on the 35 south panel. They could have simply referred to I-35 on the sign (as they did with the advance diagrammatic sign upstream) and had a supplemental sign stating the southbound traffic should keep right.
I think the overall sign isn't in error, it's just not the best design.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on June 19, 2013, 10:59:13 AM
Post by: vtk on June 19, 2013, 10:59:13 AM
Is there a green gap between the yellow panels and the white border? If so, then the continuous white border is not an error.
But I do think it's problematic to use a yellow panel for the "right lane" action message on the I-35 south sign. That would sort of make sense if one was already on I-35 south and all through traffic must get in the right lane (kind of a converse of "exit only") but that's not the case here. A simple white on green action message of "right lane" or, even better, "keep right", would be sufficient.
Also, the middle lane is an option for I-235. I know it's not the current standard, but I'd want to see a white-on-green down arrow in the bottom right corner of the I-235 guide sign. Or a full Arrow-Per-Lane sign might be reasonable here, retaining the I-35 South panel with a white-on-green action message as I described mounted just to the right of the APL.
But I do think it's problematic to use a yellow panel for the "right lane" action message on the I-35 south sign. That would sort of make sense if one was already on I-35 south and all through traffic must get in the right lane (kind of a converse of "exit only") but that's not the case here. A simple white on green action message of "right lane" or, even better, "keep right", would be sufficient.
Also, the middle lane is an option for I-235. I know it's not the current standard, but I'd want to see a white-on-green down arrow in the bottom right corner of the I-235 guide sign. Or a full Arrow-Per-Lane sign might be reasonable here, retaining the I-35 South panel with a white-on-green action message as I described mounted just to the right of the APL.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on June 19, 2013, 11:21:53 AM
Post by: 1995hoo on June 19, 2013, 11:21:53 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 18, 2013, 11:18:25 PM
Is the off-center "EXIT ONLY" on the left sign the major design error? (Maybe also nit-picky but possibly avoidable)
It looks to me like they did that to ensure the arrow would line up correctly whilst also allowing them to keep the sign edges flush with each other. The alternatives are to space out the signs or to have the arrow not line up over the proper lane.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ET21 on June 21, 2013, 11:58:26 PM
Post by: ET21 on June 21, 2013, 11:58:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 18, 2013, 12:29:24 PMQuote from: ET21 on June 18, 2013, 12:02:13 PMThere's only one error here, and it's you.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fiowahighwayends.net%2Fends%2Fstatelines%2Fi235%2FExit123_235_eb.jpg&hash=e4f51a4c4e57e7b95252da1543ba9345985e87f9)
Going I-35 South by going onto I-35 north...
I guess you didn't read the explanation on this page above this post :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on June 24, 2013, 08:17:28 PM
Post by: Alps on June 24, 2013, 08:17:28 PM
Quote from: ET21 on June 21, 2013, 11:58:26 PMI guess you don't know what a design error is.Quote from: NE2 on June 18, 2013, 12:29:24 PMQuote from: ET21 on June 18, 2013, 12:02:13 PMThere's only one error here, and it's you.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fiowahighwayends.net%2Fends%2Fstatelines%2Fi235%2FExit123_235_eb.jpg&hash=e4f51a4c4e57e7b95252da1543ba9345985e87f9)
Going I-35 South by going onto I-35 north...
I guess you didn't read the explanation on this page above this post :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 24, 2013, 08:20:44 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 24, 2013, 08:20:44 PM
I don't find it to be a bad sign assembly. not great - and it does omit the fact that the #2 lane is an option lane - but it's really tough to sign two splits in one intersection.
I can figure out, quite fast, that I need to get to the left for 235E, stay in the middle or use the right lane for 80E/35N, and get over to the far right for 35S.
that "speed limit 55", though. something there, somewhere, has a design error if a freeway junction needs to be slowed down like that.
I can figure out, quite fast, that I need to get to the left for 235E, stay in the middle or use the right lane for 80E/35N, and get over to the far right for 35S.
that "speed limit 55", though. something there, somewhere, has a design error if a freeway junction needs to be slowed down like that.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on June 26, 2013, 12:23:07 AM
Post by: hbelkins on June 26, 2013, 12:23:07 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 24, 2013, 08:20:44 PM
that "speed limit 55", though. something there, somewhere, has a design error if a freeway junction needs to be slowed down like that.
Probably not for the junction per se, but because you're entering the Des Moines metro area.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2013, 09:27:53 AM
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2013, 09:27:53 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 24, 2013, 08:20:44 PM
that "speed limit 55", though. something there, somewhere, has a design error if a freeway junction needs to be slowed down like that.
Could also have been 55 mph before that point as well, and the flags serve to point out it's still 55 mph.
Or...the road was designed when the NMSL was in effect, the designers decided to go with a design speed of 60 mph (which would thus be posted 55 mph).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Brandon on June 26, 2013, 10:24:46 AM
Post by: Brandon on June 26, 2013, 10:24:46 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 24, 2013, 08:20:44 PM
I don't find it to be a bad sign assembly. not great - and it does omit the fact that the #2 lane is an option lane - but it's really tough to sign two splits in one intersection.
I can figure out, quite fast, that I need to get to the left for 235E, stay in the middle or use the right lane for 80E/35N, and get over to the far right for 35S.
that "speed limit 55", though. something there, somewhere, has a design error if a freeway junction needs to be slowed down like that.
It's for I-235, but I agree about it being a major design error. But then again, Iowa seems to think all urban areas need speed limits of 65 mph or slower (I-35/80 is 65 mph around Des Moines - it could handle 70 mph easily).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman65 on June 26, 2013, 04:22:14 PM
Post by: roadman65 on June 26, 2013, 04:22:14 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/9144318929/
Not exactly a design error, but did not want to open a new thread just for this one sign and its almost close to being a design flaw as this assembly should have been another type for its use. This here is, I think, supposed to have a double headed arrow beneath it as US 17 & 92 do indeed cross at this intersection in Lake Mary, FL.
Not exactly a design error, but did not want to open a new thread just for this one sign and its almost close to being a design flaw as this assembly should have been another type for its use. This here is, I think, supposed to have a double headed arrow beneath it as US 17 & 92 do indeed cross at this intersection in Lake Mary, FL.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 26, 2013, 07:19:39 PM
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 26, 2013, 07:19:39 PM
That's not a design error. That's an arrow that fell off.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: burgess87 on June 27, 2013, 09:10:31 PM
Post by: burgess87 on June 27, 2013, 09:10:31 PM
This one might qualify . . . street blade sign in yellow and Arial Black, it looks like?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg708.imageshack.us%2Fimg708%2F8408%2Fq5u.png&hash=b9bee1f8d80e404f22fcd224c0c9a5b85e8bccfc)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg708.imageshack.us%2Fimg708%2F8408%2Fq5u.png&hash=b9bee1f8d80e404f22fcd224c0c9a5b85e8bccfc)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on June 27, 2013, 11:31:33 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 27, 2013, 11:31:33 PM
Helvetica. Note the curved leg on the capital R. On Arial and its variants, the leg comes straight out.
Also, nobody noticed one of the tittles in "Minneapolis" appears to be trying to escape on that Des Moines sign...
Also, nobody noticed one of the tittles in "Minneapolis" appears to be trying to escape on that Des Moines sign...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ET21 on June 28, 2013, 12:55:28 AM
Post by: ET21 on June 28, 2013, 12:55:28 AM
Quote from: Steve on June 24, 2013, 08:17:28 PMQuote from: ET21 on June 21, 2013, 11:58:26 PMI guess you don't know what a design error is.Quote from: NE2 on June 18, 2013, 12:29:24 PMQuote from: ET21 on June 18, 2013, 12:02:13 PMThere's only one error here, and it's you.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fiowahighwayends.net%2Fends%2Fstatelines%2Fi235%2FExit123_235_eb.jpg&hash=e4f51a4c4e57e7b95252da1543ba9345985e87f9)
Going I-35 South by going onto I-35 north...
I guess you didn't read the explanation on this page above this post :rolleyes:
*shrug* :-/
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on June 29, 2013, 02:32:53 PM
Post by: kphoger on June 29, 2013, 02:32:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2013, 09:27:53 AMQuote from: agentsteel53 on June 24, 2013, 08:20:44 PM
that "speed limit 55", though. something there, somewhere, has a design error if a freeway junction needs to be slowed down like that.
Could also have been 55 mph before that point as well, and the flags serve to point out it's still 55 mph.
Or...the road was designed when the NMSL was in effect, the designers decided to go with a design speed of 60 mph (which would thus be posted 55 mph).
Iowa uses the flags (like any other place I've seen them) at the beginning of speed zones, not in the middle of them. Google Street View comfirms that the speed limit for westbound traffic at that point goes up to 65 mph.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on June 30, 2013, 02:10:19 PM
Post by: 1995hoo on June 30, 2013, 02:10:19 PM
This is on private property in Alexandria, Virginia, and I'm not sure it's a "design error" so much as it is a misplaced sign, but I found it amusing and this thread seemed like the most appropriate place for it. I was looking east on Green Street and the white truck in the distance was heading south on Washington Street (VA-400).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F645d971020adcd8f7866871fbf84f179_zpsfa5538b5.jpg&hash=e29c4f9173c11048bf4b3fb5d43d3681ab9d7949)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F645d971020adcd8f7866871fbf84f179_zpsfa5538b5.jpg&hash=e29c4f9173c11048bf4b3fb5d43d3681ab9d7949)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on June 30, 2013, 02:13:50 PM
Post by: Zeffy on June 30, 2013, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2013, 02:10:19 PM
This is on private property in Alexandria, Virginia, and I'm not sure it's a "design error" so much as it is a misplaced sign, but I found it amusing and this thread seemed like the most appropriate place for it. I was looking east on Green Street and the white truck in the distance was heading south on Washington Street (VA-400).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F645d971020adcd8f7866871fbf84f179_zpsfa5538b5.jpg&hash=e29c4f9173c11048bf4b3fb5d43d3681ab9d7949)
What, you mean to tell me I can't drive on that? But parking is that way!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Billy F 1988 on June 30, 2013, 06:15:02 PM
Post by: Billy F 1988 on June 30, 2013, 06:15:02 PM
I would say a placement fault. If the sign behind it leads up to the parking, that DO NOT ENTER sign should not be placed there except if there is an exit lane on that same driveway that has an entry lane going in to the establishment and an exit lane going out.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on July 01, 2013, 08:07:28 PM
Post by: Alps on July 01, 2013, 08:07:28 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 27, 2013, 11:31:33 PMYou mean "Mìnneapolis."
Helvetica. Note the curved leg on the capital R. On Arial and its variants, the leg comes straight out.
Also, nobody noticed one of the tittles in "Minneapolis" appears to be trying to escape on that Des Moines sign...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on July 02, 2013, 04:24:59 PM
Post by: kphoger on July 02, 2013, 04:24:59 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 01, 2013, 08:07:28 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 27, 2013, 11:31:33 PMYou mean "Mìnneapolis."
Helvetica. Note the curved leg on the capital R. On Arial and its variants, the leg comes straight out.
Also, nobody noticed one of the tittles in "Minneapolis" appears to be trying to escape on that Des Moines sign...
M·ınneapolis
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: KEK Inc. on July 02, 2013, 08:46:41 PM
Post by: KEK Inc. on July 02, 2013, 08:46:41 PM
Yellow street blades aren't really a design error...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on July 02, 2013, 08:52:04 PM
Post by: vtk on July 02, 2013, 08:52:04 PM
I'm pretty sure the newest MUTCD doesn't allow yellow street blades. Even under older manuals when it was allowed, it wasn't a good aesthetic choice.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Brandon on July 03, 2013, 09:32:56 AM
Post by: Brandon on July 03, 2013, 09:32:56 AM
Quote from: vtk on July 02, 2013, 08:52:04 PM
I'm pretty sure the newest MUTCD doesn't allow yellow street blades. Even under older manuals when it was allowed, it wasn't a good aesthetic choice.
Yellow street blades are always used, IIRC, with a warning sign in the MUTCD.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on July 03, 2013, 10:51:25 AM
Post by: vtk on July 03, 2013, 10:51:25 AM
Quote from: Brandon on July 03, 2013, 09:32:56 AMQuote from: vtk on July 02, 2013, 08:52:04 PM
I'm pretty sure the newest MUTCD doesn't allow yellow street blades. Even under older manuals when it was allowed, it wasn't a good aesthetic choice.
Yellow street blades are always used, IIRC, with a warning sign in the MUTCD.
That's not the kind of street blade I thought we were talking about. Personally, I don't consider those to be street blades, but a kind of supplemental plaque to a warning sign that looks very similar to a street blade.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on July 03, 2013, 11:33:12 AM
Post by: Zeffy on July 03, 2013, 11:33:12 AM
Quote from: Brandon on July 03, 2013, 09:32:56 AMQuote from: vtk on July 02, 2013, 08:52:04 PM
I'm pretty sure the newest MUTCD doesn't allow yellow street blades. Even under older manuals when it was allowed, it wasn't a good aesthetic choice.
Yellow street blades are always used, IIRC, with a warning sign in the MUTCD.
If you are referring to signs like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FWarningSignWStreetPlaque_zpsfd2cf0b1.png&hash=f006b63a29540f28f4c5fa3313b47b93cf004337)
It's actually just a plaque with the street name on it, like vtk said. Yellow street sign blades aren't used (probably to distinguish them from these plaques)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on July 08, 2013, 02:50:55 PM
Post by: 1995hoo on July 08, 2013, 02:50:55 PM
Spotted this afternoon in Rockville, Maryland, courtesy of the Department of Redundancy. (Video capture from dashboard camera)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FRockvillenoturns_zpsaf13c3de.jpg&hash=8d62bc6a3a4af52b963b0c7c95af972759432a2a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FRockvillenoturns_zpsaf13c3de.jpg&hash=8d62bc6a3a4af52b963b0c7c95af972759432a2a)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on July 08, 2013, 04:34:29 PM
Post by: vtk on July 08, 2013, 04:34:29 PM
I'm not sure if that's redundancy or self-contradiction. Maybe it comes from Alanland.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on July 08, 2013, 05:59:43 PM
Post by: 1995hoo on July 08, 2013, 05:59:43 PM
Quote from: vtk on July 08, 2013, 04:34:29 PM
I'm not sure if that's redundancy or self-contradiction. Maybe it comes from Alanland.
Yeah, I was conflicted on whether to construe it as a double-negative or as redundant.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on July 08, 2013, 09:18:16 PM
Post by: US71 on July 08, 2013, 09:18:16 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2656%2F3904782623_f5084ed748_z_d.jpg&hash=e858b05f8c697cb1dda81843e9623590808eb7a1)
Cimarron Turnpike
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3116%2F2626738810_f2ba4f3256_z_d.jpg&hash=e7ab64429af08a3b5cfbfc85a192a8ad97366533)
Carthage, MO
Cimarron Turnpike
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3116%2F2626738810_f2ba4f3256_z_d.jpg&hash=e7ab64429af08a3b5cfbfc85a192a8ad97366533)
Carthage, MO
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on July 08, 2013, 09:42:59 PM
Post by: NE2 on July 08, 2013, 09:42:59 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.467673,-81.498846&spn=0.007291,0.014173&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.467668,-81.498792&panoid=0lsbFptXni2MnF_xQWTY5w&cbp=12,81.36,,0,7.8
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: elsmere241 on July 09, 2013, 09:01:39 AM
Post by: elsmere241 on July 09, 2013, 09:01:39 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 08, 2013, 09:42:59 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.467673,-81.498846&spn=0.007291,0.014173&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.467668,-81.498792&panoid=0lsbFptXni2MnF_xQWTY5w&cbp=12,81.36,,0,7.8
That one reminds me of Bill Cosby talking about driving around Los Angeles, where they'd put the "DIP" sign two inches before the dip. He said it would be better if they'd put a sign saying "You just hit a dip" after the dip. (This is part of his classic "Driving in San Francisco" on Why is there Air?)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on July 09, 2013, 09:34:02 AM
Post by: US71 on July 09, 2013, 09:34:02 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4060%2F4530377383_60091fd6d3_z_d.jpg&hash=948188bc3faf8398ffd831d8cc031fc1f9944a5c)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on July 09, 2013, 09:42:57 AM
Post by: kphoger on July 09, 2013, 09:42:57 AM
Quote from: US71 on July 08, 2013, 09:18:16 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2656%2F3904782623_f5084ed748_z_d.jpg&hash=e858b05f8c697cb1dda81843e9623590808eb7a1)
Cimarron Turnpike
Oh, that's easy:
No prohibition of U turns. U turns are strictly enforced. All traffic must make a U turn.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on July 09, 2013, 09:43:54 AM
Post by: kphoger on July 09, 2013, 09:43:54 AM
Quote from: US71 on July 09, 2013, 09:34:02 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4060%2F4530377383_60091fd6d3_z_d.jpg&hash=948188bc3faf8398ffd831d8cc031fc1f9944a5c)
What's the design error? It's a warning sign for a crossroad on a hill.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: exit322 on July 09, 2013, 11:11:53 AM
Post by: exit322 on July 09, 2013, 11:11:53 AM
Quote from: kphoger on July 09, 2013, 09:42:57 AMQuote from: US71 on July 08, 2013, 09:18:16 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2656%2F3904782623_f5084ed748_z_d.jpg&hash=e858b05f8c697cb1dda81843e9623590808eb7a1)
Cimarron Turnpike
Oh, that's easy:
No prohibition of U turns. U turns are strictly enforced. All traffic must make a U turn.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7720.0
This is the appropriate place for this post.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Kacie Jane on July 09, 2013, 02:28:31 PM
Post by: Kacie Jane on July 09, 2013, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 09, 2013, 09:43:54 AMQuote from: US71 on July 09, 2013, 09:34:02 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4060%2F4530377383_60091fd6d3_z_d.jpg&hash=948188bc3faf8398ffd831d8cc031fc1f9944a5c)
What's the design error? It's a warning sign for a crossroad on a hill.
I agree that it's not the most egregious error on this thread, but comparing it to the example towards the top of this page, it may seem to indicate that "Hill" is the crossroad to the right. Assuming, of course, that the motorist is not terribly bright.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: theline on July 30, 2013, 09:42:34 PM
Post by: theline on July 30, 2013, 09:42:34 PM
I was torn about this one, between this thread and the Best of Signs thread. Aside from the obvious design error, I find the sign attractive.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.tinypic.com%2F2a6pkef.jpg&hash=2fe06454c3f38eb3c2646a08dc40e0ba9705ceeb)
It's on Clayton Drive in South Bend, IN.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.tinypic.com%2F2a6pkef.jpg&hash=2fe06454c3f38eb3c2646a08dc40e0ba9705ceeb)
It's on Clayton Drive in South Bend, IN.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2013, 09:49:41 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 30, 2013, 09:49:41 PM
what's the obvious design error? legs too short in proportion to torso?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on July 30, 2013, 09:56:28 PM
Post by: vtk on July 30, 2013, 09:56:28 PM
That's quite an athletic build for a child.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on July 30, 2013, 10:03:36 PM
Post by: NE2 on July 30, 2013, 10:03:36 PM
Obviously one of Steve King's drug goats.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Kacie Jane on July 30, 2013, 10:39:23 PM
Post by: Kacie Jane on July 30, 2013, 10:39:23 PM
The kid is a bit overbuilt. But maybe also the screw holes going through the lettering? Probably not terribly uncommon, but I think most signs are designed to avoid that.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 30, 2013, 10:44:31 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 30, 2013, 10:44:31 PM
If I saw a kid that size running at my car, I'd watch out for him too!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Big John on July 30, 2013, 11:43:41 PM
Post by: Big John on July 30, 2013, 11:43:41 PM
wouldn't want a sign encouraging pedophiles.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ET21 on July 31, 2013, 12:14:54 AM
Post by: ET21 on July 31, 2013, 12:14:54 AM
Looks like a David Hasselhoff in his prime.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: briantroutman on July 31, 2013, 02:00:58 AM
Post by: briantroutman on July 31, 2013, 02:00:58 AM
Quote from: kphoger on July 09, 2013, 09:43:54 AMQuote from: US71 on July 09, 2013, 09:34:02 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4060%2F4530377383_60091fd6d3_z_d.jpg&hash=948188bc3faf8398ffd831d8cc031fc1f9944a5c)
What's the design error? It's a warning sign for a crossroad on a hill.
I'd say this one is, in fact, an error.
Supplemental plaques either explain what the warning sign graphic means (such as "PED X-ING" under the image of a person walking), provide more specific detail about the condition (such as "6%" under a grade warning or "Main St" under an intersection warning), or clarify where, when, or to whom the warning applies ("500 FT", "WHEN WET", or "TRUCKS").
"HILL" doesn't fit any of those conditions and is describes a separate condition that is unrelated to the intersection. It should be posted separately on its own diamond-shaped warning sign.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 08, 2013, 02:50:55 PM
Spotted this afternoon in Rockville, Maryland, courtesy of the Department of Redundancy. (Video capture from dashboard camera)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FRockvillenoturns_zpsaf13c3de.jpg&hash=8d62bc6a3a4af52b963b0c7c95af972759432a2a)
Aside from this being worded somewhat confusingly and perhaps contradictorily, are any of the "AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY" signs necessary? Does anyone actually think a police officer or ambulance driver will hesitate to use a median crossing in case of an emergency, even if it was simply marked "NO U TURN"? And does anyone think that if a civilian sees a police car making a U-turn in front of a no U-turn sign, he'll run after the cop yelling "citizen's arrest" like Gomer Pyle (http://bit.ly/159JpOW)?
Perhaps the same could be said of the "BUSSES ONLY" signs–or worse, the "TRAINS ONLY" signs I've seen on light rail tracks.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2013, 12:38:23 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2013, 12:38:23 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on July 31, 2013, 02:00:58 AM
I'd say this one is, in fact, an error.
Supplemental plaques either explain what the warning sign graphic means (such as "PED X-ING" under the image of a person walking), provide more specific detail about the condition (such as "6%" under a grade warning or "Main St" under an intersection warning), or clarify where, when, or to whom the warning applies ("500 FT", "WHEN WET", or "TRUCKS").
"HILL" doesn't fit any of those conditions and is describes a separate condition that is unrelated to the intersection. It should be posted separately on its own diamond-shaped warning sign.
indeed. if I were to see that installation, I would think that the hill being warned about was along the side street.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on July 31, 2013, 02:25:33 PM
Post by: vtk on July 31, 2013, 02:25:33 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on July 31, 2013, 02:00:58 AMQuote from: kphoger on July 09, 2013, 09:43:54 AMQuote from: US71 on July 09, 2013, 09:34:02 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4060%2F4530377383_60091fd6d3_z_d.jpg&hash=948188bc3faf8398ffd831d8cc031fc1f9944a5c)
What's the design error? It's a warning sign for a crossroad on a hill.
I'd say this one is, in fact, an error.
Supplemental plaques ... or clarify where, when, or to whom the warning applies ("500 FT", "WHEN WET", or "TRUCKS").
Could it be that's actually what they're trying to accomplish? There could be a side road there at the top of the hill, but if you're not looking for it, you wouldn't expect it until you're there. That's why the diamond sign is there. Maybe the plaque beneath should say "ON HILL" or "AT CREST OF HILL".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: theline on July 31, 2013, 08:54:55 PM
Post by: theline on July 31, 2013, 08:54:55 PM
I thought it was obvious that the design error was a warning on a rectangular sign, rather than diamond-shaped. Maybe it wasn't so obvious.
We make our kids muscular in South Bend. :-D
(It looks like the emoticons, which refused to work for me earlier, are working now.) :bigass:
We make our kids muscular in South Bend. :-D
(It looks like the emoticons, which refused to work for me earlier, are working now.) :bigass:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on July 31, 2013, 10:34:12 PM
Post by: NE2 on July 31, 2013, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: theline on July 31, 2013, 08:54:55 PMIsn't that just an old standard?
I thought it was obvious that the design error was a warning on a rectangular sign, rather than diamond-shaped. Maybe it wasn't so obvious.
(holy crap I saw a yellow yield sign)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on July 31, 2013, 11:48:30 PM
Post by: vtk on July 31, 2013, 11:48:30 PM
Quote from: theline on July 31, 2013, 08:54:55 PM
I thought it was obvious that the design error was a warning on a rectangular sign, rather than diamond-shaped. Maybe it wasn't so obvious.
I thought the error was the lack of the word "for".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: theline on August 01, 2013, 03:13:20 PM
Post by: theline on August 01, 2013, 03:13:20 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 31, 2013, 10:34:12 PMI don't recall rectangular warning signs being a standard, and I've been paying attention to signs for nearly 60 years. I certainly do recall the yellow yield signs and even, barely, yellow stop signs.Quote from: theline on July 31, 2013, 08:54:55 PMIsn't that just an old standard?
I thought it was obvious that the design error was a warning on a rectangular sign, rather than diamond-shaped. Maybe it wasn't so obvious.
(holy crap I saw a yellow yield sign)
This sign is quite old. If someone knows whether rectangular warning signs were once standard, please speak up. Citations welcome.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on August 01, 2013, 04:05:12 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on August 01, 2013, 04:05:12 PM
Quote from: theline on August 01, 2013, 03:13:20 PMI don't recall rectangular warning signs being a standard, and I've been paying attention to signs for nearly 60 years. I certainly do recall the yellow yield signs and even, barely, yellow stop signs.
This sign is quite old. If someone knows whether rectangular warning signs were once standard, please speak up. Citations welcome.
In California, rectangular format has been a longstanding option for Moskowitz signs (extra-large signs, generally consisting of a curve graphic plus an advisory speed or a "SIGNAL AHEAD" message, designed to be deployed at difficult curves which have been found to have contributed to at least one fatal accident). Considering that a Moskowitz sign typically measures 8' x 8' in either diamond or rectangular format, and the diamond format requires a box-section stiffener framing the whole sign just inside the back edge, it is not unreasonable that a rectangular option--which allows the use of the same type of wood post and laminated panel that is used for ground-mounted freeway guide signs--is available.
The MUTCD also classifies runaway truck ramp signs as warning signs and they are rectangular in format.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 01, 2013, 04:22:56 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 01, 2013, 04:22:56 PM
the 1927 MUTCD has yellow square for SCHOOL ZONE, HOSPITAL ZONE, CROSS ROAD, SIDE ROAD, CHURCH, MEN WORKING... it seems like the preference between square and diamond is "what allows for larger text", except DRAW BRIDGE, ROAD CLOSED, and other two-word warnings are on the diamond, so there might be another consideration which I am missing.
the 1935 MUTCD switches ROAD CLOSED to the square, as well as some pictorial ones appear on squares - the SIDE ROAD is now a T on its side, on the square. it seems to be a fairly arbitrary decision as to what earns a square, and what a diamond.
the 1948 MUTCD appears to have all diamonds, except for the large arrow (W11, W12) which are rectangles placed on the far side of the road to indicate an immediate need to turn.
now, as for the rectangular signs with a running child in the middle - I have seen them in so many states that I could've sworn they were a federal standard, but my browsing of several MUTCDs does not indicate any! they appear in various form factors, saying WATCH/CHILDREN, SCHOOL/ZONE, SCHOOL/SLOW, CHILDREN/SLOW, etc etc... in fact I have an embossed, block-font SCHOOL SLOW variant right here next to me as we speak. I think 1930s is when these signs first started coming about - at least, judging on material composition, but, again, it appears not to be a standard at all, which is a bit of astounding news to me.
the 1935 MUTCD switches ROAD CLOSED to the square, as well as some pictorial ones appear on squares - the SIDE ROAD is now a T on its side, on the square. it seems to be a fairly arbitrary decision as to what earns a square, and what a diamond.
the 1948 MUTCD appears to have all diamonds, except for the large arrow (W11, W12) which are rectangles placed on the far side of the road to indicate an immediate need to turn.
now, as for the rectangular signs with a running child in the middle - I have seen them in so many states that I could've sworn they were a federal standard, but my browsing of several MUTCDs does not indicate any! they appear in various form factors, saying WATCH/CHILDREN, SCHOOL/ZONE, SCHOOL/SLOW, CHILDREN/SLOW, etc etc... in fact I have an embossed, block-font SCHOOL SLOW variant right here next to me as we speak. I think 1930s is when these signs first started coming about - at least, judging on material composition, but, again, it appears not to be a standard at all, which is a bit of astounding news to me.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Big John on August 01, 2013, 04:28:07 PM
Post by: Big John on August 01, 2013, 04:28:07 PM
Actually those "Slow - Children at Play" signs are not MUTCD compliant, even in a diamond shape. Ruling is that then give a false sense of security for children to carelessly play around and are often ignored by motorists as too many of those signs can bombard them.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on August 01, 2013, 04:32:44 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on August 01, 2013, 04:32:44 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 01, 2013, 04:22:56 PMnow, as for the rectangular signs with a running child in the middle - I have seen them in so many states that I could've sworn they were a federal standard, but my browsing of several MUTCDs does not indicate any! they appear in various form factors, saying WATCH/CHILDREN, SCHOOL/ZONE, SCHOOL/SLOW, CHILDREN/SLOW, etc etc... in fact I have an embossed, block-font SCHOOL SLOW variant right here next to me as we speak. I think 1930s is when these signs first started coming about - at least, judging on material composition, but, again, it appears not to be a standard at all, which is a bit of astounding news to me.
They aren't a standard because the traffic engineering community (rightly) fights their becoming one--they are essentially safety-blanket signs. Also, the running-child graphic does not match the design idiom of other MUTCD signs that depict human beings, such as the school signs, the playground warning sign, the pedestrian warning sign, or the carpool sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: theline on August 01, 2013, 08:26:57 PM
Post by: theline on August 01, 2013, 08:26:57 PM
Thanks for the replies. I figured if I asked this group, I'd get an education. I wasn't disappointed!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on August 04, 2013, 05:59:44 PM
Post by: Central Avenue on August 04, 2013, 05:59:44 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 08, 2013, 05:59:43 PMTaken at its literal meaning (i.e, putting aside what we know about usual traffic sign language) it would mean that "authorized vehicles" are the only exception. So I wouldn't quite call it a contradiction, but it's definitely in the category of "more words than necessary", much like that "cross traffic does not stop at this intersection sign I posted a few months back.Quote from: vtk on July 08, 2013, 04:34:29 PM
I'm not sure if that's redundancy or self-contradiction. Maybe it comes from Alanland.
Yeah, I was conflicted on whether to construe it as a double-negative or as redundant.
Quote from: briantroutman on July 31, 2013, 02:00:58 AMAside from this being worded somewhat confusingly and perhaps contradictorily, are any of the "AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY" signs necessary? Does anyone actually think a police officer or ambulance driver will hesitate to use a median crossing in case of an emergency, even if it was simply marked "NO U TURN"? And does anyone think that if a civilian sees a police car making a U-turn in front of a no U-turn sign, he'll run after the cop yelling "citizen's arrest" like Gomer Pyle (http://bit.ly/159JpOW)?
Perhaps the same could be said of the "BUSSES ONLY" signs–or worse, the "TRAINS ONLY" signs I've seen on light rail tracks.
That always bothered me too, especially with this "EXCEPT EMERGENCY VEHICLES" sign out on OH 16. (https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.979693,-82.841184&spn=0.003157,0.005284&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.979658,-82.841459&panoid=hbq-5tufKZ_c3Sg37hRARg&cbp=12,312.49,,1,8.45) That is literally the entrance to a major hospital's E.R., are we supposed to expect that ambulance drivers wouldn't feel it reasonable to violate the turn restriction there?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Jim on August 04, 2013, 06:15:37 PM
Post by: Jim on August 04, 2013, 06:15:37 PM
I would call this a design error -- it confused me at least. Taken in June in on Ohio 252 North in the western suburbs of Cleveland. Apologies for the image quality.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Ftochicago-20130622-23%2F22%2FDSCF0077-800.jpg&hash=a6afae530eca70d99ab2a9683b16798118deb10d)
The sign is mounted over the right lane, and I took it to mean that both directions for I-90 were to the right, but that you should keep left on the ramp to go west. Well, no. Westbound entry is a left turn on the other side of the overpass. I think if it was just mounted over the center of the road rather than off to the right, I would have interpreted it correctly.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Ftochicago-20130622-23%2F22%2FDSCF0077-800.jpg&hash=a6afae530eca70d99ab2a9683b16798118deb10d)
The sign is mounted over the right lane, and I took it to mean that both directions for I-90 were to the right, but that you should keep left on the ramp to go west. Well, no. Westbound entry is a left turn on the other side of the overpass. I think if it was just mounted over the center of the road rather than off to the right, I would have interpreted it correctly.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on August 04, 2013, 07:30:50 PM
Post by: thenetwork on August 04, 2013, 07:30:50 PM
Quote from: Jim on August 04, 2013, 06:15:37 PM
I would call this a design error -- it confused me at least. Taken in June in on Ohio 252 North in the western suburbs of Cleveland. Apologies for the image quality.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Ftochicago-20130622-23%2F22%2FDSCF0077-800.jpg&hash=a6afae530eca70d99ab2a9683b16798118deb10d)
The sign is mounted over the right lane, and I took it to mean that both directions for I-90 were to the right, but that you should keep left on the ramp to go west. Well, no. Westbound entry is a left turn on the other side of the overpass. I think if it was just mounted over the center of the road rather than off to the right, I would have interpreted it correctly.
When I used to live in NEOH, there were several examples of similar signage that would have similar left/right/diagonal arrows in advance of the actual ramp. The problem was that there was a side street(s) between the sign and the actual ramp, so if you took the BGS directions literally, you'd be turning before you're supposed to.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ET21 on August 04, 2013, 11:47:41 PM
Post by: ET21 on August 04, 2013, 11:47:41 PM
It's definitely confusing to say the least. Could use a redo
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on August 05, 2013, 12:31:28 AM
Post by: vtk on August 05, 2013, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: Jim on August 04, 2013, 06:15:37 PM
I would call this a design error -- it confused me at least. Taken in June in on Ohio 252 North in the western suburbs of Cleveland. Apologies for the image quality.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Ftochicago-20130622-23%2F22%2FDSCF0077-800.jpg&hash=a6afae530eca70d99ab2a9683b16798118deb10d)
The sign is mounted over the right lane, and I took it to mean that both directions for I-90 were to the right, but that you should keep left on the ramp to go west. Well, no. Westbound entry is a left turn on the other side of the overpass. I think if it was just mounted over the center of the road rather than off to the right, I would have interpreted it correctly.
I've seen quite a few signs very similar to that one, except they only have one route marker. Where the OH 2 is on that sign would be a vertical dividing line, which makes it more clear that each action message applies to only one direction of the highway. The only thing I'd change about this sign is make it taller, so a vertical dividing line can be seen below the OH 2. That, and I'd probably replace the arrow with "Keep Right" because the sign is not placed at the actual turn.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on August 06, 2013, 02:48:43 PM
Post by: Central Avenue on August 06, 2013, 02:48:43 PM
A pet peeve of mine: CROSSING RAILROAD (https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.883676,-82.930598&spn=0.00447,0.010568&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.8834,-82.930618&panoid=MFa68NkQloBh9igHqAzHfA&cbp=12,28.17,,2,-3.27)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on August 06, 2013, 10:03:21 PM
Post by: vtk on August 06, 2013, 10:03:21 PM
Personally I have a bit of trouble deciding which diagonal piece to read first anyway. Apparently so did whoever installed that crossbuck.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Roadsguy on August 07, 2013, 03:35:49 PM
Post by: Roadsguy on August 07, 2013, 03:35:49 PM
Either way, it looks a bit like "RAIL- CROSSING -ROAD." :-P
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on August 07, 2013, 04:17:16 PM
Post by: 1995hoo on August 07, 2013, 04:17:16 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 07, 2013, 03:35:49 PM
Either way, it looks a bit like "RAIL- CROSSING -ROAD." :-P
Which, I suppose, is accurate.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on August 07, 2013, 06:05:41 PM
Post by: Central Avenue on August 07, 2013, 06:05:41 PM
Now I can't help but wonder...is the crossbuck the only standard traffic sign that's physically shaped like the highway feature it denotes?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on August 07, 2013, 06:10:23 PM
Post by: Zeffy on August 07, 2013, 06:10:23 PM
My question is why are there a pair of red flashers facing the tracks? Shouldn't they face... well, the road instead?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 07, 2013, 06:16:53 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 07, 2013, 06:16:53 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on August 07, 2013, 06:05:41 PM
Now I can't help but wonder...is the crossbuck the only standard traffic sign that's physically shaped like the highway feature it denotes?
Alberta:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/blog/photos/114782.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on August 07, 2013, 06:32:22 PM
Post by: vtk on August 07, 2013, 06:32:22 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 07, 2013, 06:10:23 PM
My question is why are there a pair of red flashers facing the tracks? Shouldn't they face... well, the road instead?
I think that's for a side street which intersects the main road adjacent to the railroad crossing.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on August 09, 2013, 07:26:52 PM
Post by: Alps on August 09, 2013, 07:26:52 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on August 07, 2013, 06:05:41 PMHow about the white on blue circular arrow Europe uses at roundabouts?
Now I can't help but wonder...is the crossbuck the only standard traffic sign that's physically shaped like the highway feature it denotes?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 01, 2013, 01:23:57 AM
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 01, 2013, 01:23:57 AM
Here are my first entries:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi312.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll339%2Fstridentweasel%2Fsign1sized.jpg&hash=5688ca61ec29a0acc1f13cca750e8231a9f4aac4) (http://s312.photobucket.com/user/stridentweasel/media/sign1sized.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi312.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll339%2Fstridentweasel%2Fsign2sized.jpg&hash=6a7149974db002ba350a6c84ac2347f9297975af) (http://s312.photobucket.com/user/stridentweasel/media/sign2sized.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi312.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll339%2Fstridentweasel%2Fsign1sized.jpg&hash=5688ca61ec29a0acc1f13cca750e8231a9f4aac4) (http://s312.photobucket.com/user/stridentweasel/media/sign1sized.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi312.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll339%2Fstridentweasel%2Fsign2sized.jpg&hash=6a7149974db002ba350a6c84ac2347f9297975af) (http://s312.photobucket.com/user/stridentweasel/media/sign2sized.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: amroad17 on September 01, 2013, 04:53:08 AM
Post by: amroad17 on September 01, 2013, 04:53:08 AM
Where is the design error in the first picture? The "dancing" arrows?
I do like the way the EXIT 81 sign is designed. If there was more room on the sign, I would have liked to see control cities on it.
The design error in the second picture is very obvious.
I do like the way the EXIT 81 sign is designed. If there was more room on the sign, I would have liked to see control cities on it.
The design error in the second picture is very obvious.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on September 01, 2013, 10:02:41 AM
Post by: vtk on September 01, 2013, 10:02:41 AM
The 435 gantry with dancing arrows could be made more compact, even adding destination legends. Or it could maybe go APL for compliance with current standards. Could be a good exercise for the Redesign This thread.
The 24-59-40 has a few minor issues. The fraction is done wrong. The only thing that should be in Clearview is Lawrence. And, is there a reason the US routes don't appear in order? I'd say these are minor nitpicks, though.
The 24-59-40 has a few minor issues. The fraction is done wrong. The only thing that should be in Clearview is Lawrence. And, is there a reason the US routes don't appear in order? I'd say these are minor nitpicks, though.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on September 01, 2013, 10:25:09 AM
Post by: hotdogPi on September 01, 2013, 10:25:09 AM
Are these supposed to be all US routes, or are they state routes, with the sign in error?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 01, 2013, 12:32:03 PM
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 01, 2013, 12:32:03 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on September 01, 2013, 04:53:08 AM
Where is the design error in the first picture? The "dancing" arrows?
I do like the way the EXIT 81 sign is designed. If there was more room on the sign, I would have liked to see control cities on it.
Look at the arrow on the far right, under "Antioch Rd."
(It took me a while to notice it, too.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 01, 2013, 01:08:51 PM
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 01, 2013, 01:08:51 PM
Quote from: vtk on September 01, 2013, 10:02:41 AM
The 435 gantry with dancing arrows could be made more compact, even adding destination legends. Or it could maybe go APL for compliance with current standards. Could be a good exercise for the Redesign This thread.
I don't consider any of those issues design errors, but rather, design choices that are no longer MUTCD-compliant. See my previous reply for the actual error in that one.
Quote from: vtk on September 01, 2013, 10:02:41 AM
The 24-59-40 has a few minor issues. The fraction is done wrong. The only thing that should be in Clearview is Lawrence. And, is there a reason the US routes don't appear in order? I'd say these are minor nitpicks, though.
The fraction is the big issue for me ("one slash two mile"). Is there a reason why the exit tab and a distance legend with a proper fraction shouldn't be in Clearview, though?
There is, sort of, a reason why the US routes appear out of order. Normally, the Kansas Turnpike Authority would place shields for routes reached directly from the exit, before shields for routes reached indirectly from the exit (which should use the "TO" designation). But that is not the case here, as US 40 and 59 are reached directly from the exit, and US 24 is accessed via US 40/59, about half a mile to the north. I think the reason for this ordering can be found in this photo from OKRoads.com, which shows what the Exit 204 guide signs used to look like:
http://www.okroads.com/080903/i70ksexit204.JPG
I think the KTA simply doesn't consider US 40 an important piece of information, as it is essentially a frontage road for the I-70 portion of the Turnpike. (In fact, it could even be considered a shunpike route for people who don't mind all the traffic signals, curves, lower speed limits, and lack of passing lanes.) I can only speculate that, when the new signs were being designed, someone said, "you really ought to include US 40." The Exit 202 guide signs have never included US 40 and still don't; they simply say "US 59 SOUTH," even though US 40 and 59 are equidistant from that exit.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 01, 2013, 01:21:34 PM
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 01, 2013, 01:21:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 01, 2013, 10:25:09 AM
Are these supposed to be all US routes, or are they state routes, with the sign in error?
They are all, in fact, US routes.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on September 01, 2013, 01:28:24 PM
Post by: vtk on September 01, 2013, 01:28:24 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 01, 2013, 01:08:51 PM
Is there a reason why the exit tab and a distance legend with a proper fraction shouldn't be in Clearview, though?
Clearview is approved ONLY for destination and street name legends – in other words, the things that are supposed to use lowercase letters – and only in a light color on a dark background.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on September 01, 2013, 01:48:44 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on September 01, 2013, 01:48:44 PM
Quote from: vtk on September 01, 2013, 01:28:24 PMClearview is approved ONLY for destination and street name legends – in other words, the things that are supposed to use lowercase letters – and only in a light color on a dark background.
That is debatable: that point regarding Clearview usage appears in the Clearview FAQ (an advisory document) but not the actual Clearview interim approval memorandum (a regulatory document). However, the fraction is most definitely incorrectly composed.
I believe the Turnpike sign was erected as part of the Kansas River bridge replacement contract. The construction plans called for Series E Modified to be used, with properly composed fraction rectangles, and the US 40 shield omitted on the East Lawrence Interchange signs. However, the plans included sign layout sheets only, not sign panel detail sheets, which is rather unusual for Turnpike jobs (at least in recent years). My guess is that it was KTA's intention from the beginning to design and fabricate the signs itself for later installation by the bridge contractor, but rushed through the design process (leading to genuinely awful results) when the time came to prepare signs for installation.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: route56 on September 01, 2013, 08:19:59 PM
Post by: route56 on September 01, 2013, 08:19:59 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 01, 2013, 01:48:44 PM
I believe the Turnpike sign was erected as part of the Kansas River bridge replacement contract.
The new Clearveiw signs were indeed installed as part of the Kansas River Bridge project.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Central Avenue on September 02, 2013, 03:04:26 AM
Post by: Central Avenue on September 02, 2013, 03:04:26 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 01, 2013, 01:48:44 PM
That is debatable: that point regarding Clearview usage appears in the Clearview FAQ (an advisory document) but not the actual Clearview interim approval memorandum (a regulatory document).
Also, the Clearview FAQ came along several years after the initial interim approval, so there are many signs that were simply made before the FHWA had given an official stance on the use of Clearview outside of street and destination names.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: amroad17 on September 02, 2013, 01:28:33 PM
Post by: amroad17 on September 02, 2013, 01:28:33 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 01, 2013, 12:32:03 PMSame here.Quote from: amroad17 on September 01, 2013, 04:53:08 AM
Where is the design error in the first picture? The "dancing" arrows?
I do like the way the EXIT 81 sign is designed. If there was more room on the sign, I would have liked to see control cities on it.
Look at the arrow on the far right, under "Antioch Rd."
(It took me a while to notice it, too.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on September 02, 2013, 01:55:55 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on September 02, 2013, 01:55:55 PM
The Clearview FAQ also advocates interline spacing for Clearview legend that is based on the loop height of Clearview rather than the FHWA alphabet series--i.e., 84% rather than 75%. I have not seen even one agency that has adopted that spacing, which defeats the purpose of inserting Clearview into the same footprints as the FHWA alphabet series.
I like the fact that the Clearview FAQ tries vigorously to stamp out negative-contrast Clearview, Clearview in route markers, and similar abominations, but much of its advice has to be taken with several grains of salt.
I like the fact that the Clearview FAQ tries vigorously to stamp out negative-contrast Clearview, Clearview in route markers, and similar abominations, but much of its advice has to be taken with several grains of salt.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on September 02, 2013, 02:51:02 PM
Post by: Zeffy on September 02, 2013, 02:51:02 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 02, 2013, 01:55:55 PM
I like the fact that the Clearview FAQ tries vigorously to stamp out negative-contrast Clearview, Clearview in route markers, and similar abominations, but much of its advice has to be taken with several grains of salt.
This is something that should NEVER happen. The negative contrast Clearview isn't that bad, but I honestly hate route shields with Clearview numerals. YUCK.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: route56 on September 02, 2013, 05:05:00 PM
Post by: route56 on September 02, 2013, 05:05:00 PM
This sign does have a blatant negative-contrast violation:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7416%2F9138946044_0de58f3b73_c.jpg&hash=cd0d5040434fd7bd83e1bbf1bc19d5665b9a2b7d) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9138946044/)
46041 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9138946044/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
There's also something else different about this sign. Let's see if anybody can pick it out without reading the caption.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7416%2F9138946044_0de58f3b73_c.jpg&hash=cd0d5040434fd7bd83e1bbf1bc19d5665b9a2b7d) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9138946044/)
46041 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9138946044/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
There's also something else different about this sign. Let's see if anybody can pick it out without reading the caption.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: myosh_tino on September 02, 2013, 05:39:28 PM
Post by: myosh_tino on September 02, 2013, 05:39:28 PM
The only other thing I noticed was the "1" and "4" in the fraction are different heights.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Big John on September 02, 2013, 06:22:51 PM
Post by: Big John on September 02, 2013, 06:22:51 PM
No exit tab and no "EXIT" verbage before the distance? Should have one of those.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on September 02, 2013, 07:06:29 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on September 02, 2013, 07:06:29 PM
I am not sure if the final word in "LAST FREE EXIT" can be used to satisfy the MUTCD, whose requirement in this regard has traditionally been phrased as the word EXIT appearing at least once on each advance guide sign.
The fraction rectangle seems out of alignment with the adjacent whole number too.
The fraction rectangle seems out of alignment with the adjacent whole number too.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: route56 on September 02, 2013, 07:16:52 PM
Post by: route56 on September 02, 2013, 07:16:52 PM
OOPS... didn't notice the missing exit tab, and I'm not sure about the fraction. There's still something else abnormal about this sign, and it's indicative of being a KTA knock-down replacement.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 02, 2013, 07:25:27 PM
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 02, 2013, 07:25:27 PM
Quote from: route56 on September 02, 2013, 07:16:52 PM
OOPS... didn't notice the missing exit tab, and I'm not sure about the fraction. There's still something else abnormal about this sign, and it's indicative of being a KTA knock-down replacement.
I just noticed it! The order of the shields used to be K-7, US 73, US 24, and US 40. The replacement sign put the US shields in the "correct" order (still ignoring that the state route should come after them), but not the same order that was originally intended (and not the same order that is on the other guide signs in that series).
Comparison: https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.098194,-94.874175&spn=0.008593,0.021136&t=k&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.098232,-94.874012&panoid=oU32hQRbXNz-449bzqU5-w&cbp=12,288.82,,0,0.91
Also, as a side note, the MUTCD prefers "LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL" but hasn't made that a standard.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: route56 on September 02, 2013, 09:21:57 PM
Post by: route56 on September 02, 2013, 09:21:57 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 02, 2013, 07:25:27 PM
I just noticed it! The order of the shields used to be K-7, US 73, US 24, and US 40. The replacement sign put the US shields in the "correct" order (still ignoring that the state route should come after them), but not the same order that was originally intended (and not the same order that is on the other guide signs in that series).
That's not it either.
K-7 has the superior position in part because it is the only highway that continues south from here. US 24-40 west depart to the north, and US 73 has its south end here.
The reason that US 24-40 is signed at the end instead of the beginning is related to the fact 24-40 joins I-70 here. The signs on eastbound I-70 have a directional modifier centered above the 24 and 40 shields.
As to what I find abnormal on this sign... take a close look at the K-7 shield.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on September 02, 2013, 09:33:36 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on September 02, 2013, 09:33:36 PM
Quote from: route56 on September 02, 2013, 09:21:57 PMAs to what I find abnormal on this sign... take a close look at the K-7 shield.
Crikey! I missed that and I have a Kansas route shield avatar. Four extra petals, and the petals in general seem irregularly formed: did they borrow the old Wikipedia graphic?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on September 02, 2013, 10:55:01 PM
Post by: kphoger on September 02, 2013, 10:55:01 PM
Quote from: route56 on September 02, 2013, 09:21:57 PMQuote from: stridentweasel on September 02, 2013, 07:25:27 PM
I just noticed it! The order of the shields used to be K-7, US 73, US 24, and US 40. The replacement sign put the US shields in the "correct" order (still ignoring that the state route should come after them), but not the same order that was originally intended (and not the same order that is on the other guide signs in that series).
That's not it either.
Dude. I don't care if that was the intended correct answer or not. He deserves to win an award for his answer. Somebody give that man a Klondike bar!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: route56 on September 03, 2013, 01:46:01 AM
Post by: route56 on September 03, 2013, 01:46:01 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 02, 2013, 09:33:36 PM
Crikey! I missed that and I have a Kansas route shield avatar. Four extra petals, and the petals in general seem irregularly formed: did they borrow the old Wikipedia graphic?
I think that, somewhere along the line, the petals on the 20-petal variant got "streamlined." Of course, since the KTA uses the "streamlined" 20-petal sign for its KTA signs, it's only natural that they would use it for signing K- numbered routes as well (whereas a KDOT or contractor-fabricated sign would use the standard 16 petal variant)
One thing I did specifically see on this sign that I hadn't on other KTA fabricated signs is that the K-7 shield is oriented so that a "straight" petal is at the 12-o'clock position, as is the norm with the 16 petal signs. All other 20-petal signs that I know of have a "curved" petal at the top.
Quote from: kphoger on September 02, 2013, 10:55:01 PM
Dude. I don't care if that was the intended correct answer or not. He deserves to win an award for his answer. Somebody give that man a Klondike bar!
Seeing as how I could justify the use of the "wrong" order, this Klondike Nazi says "No Klondike for you!"
Also, as to the missing exit tab: Apparently, KDOT will be fabricating a new exit tab for this assembly as part of the reconstruction of the Bonner Springs exit. Although the plans show a sign with the "wrong" order of highway signs and Series E(M) lettering, the plans also indicate that the existing sign is to be used in place. The new exit tab will be necessary because the exit numbers will be changed from 224 to 224 A-B.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 03, 2013, 07:36:52 PM
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 03, 2013, 07:36:52 PM
Quote from: route56 on September 03, 2013, 01:46:01 AMQuote from: kphoger on September 02, 2013, 10:55:01 PM
Dude. I don't care if that was the intended correct answer or not. He deserves to win an award for his answer. Somebody give that man a Klondike bar!
Seeing as how I could justify the use of the "wrong" order, this Klondike Nazi says "No Klondike for you!"
But the issue I observed wasn't that the shields are in the "wrong" order; it was that the shields are in a different order from what they used to be and from what's on the other Exit 224 signs! It's okay, though; I'm actually lactose-intolerant. But I appreciate the sentiment!
Quote from: route56 on September 03, 2013, 01:46:01 AM
Also, as to the missing exit tab: Apparently, KDOT will be fabricating a new exit tab for this assembly as part of the reconstruction of the Bonner Springs exit. Although the plans show a sign with the "wrong" order of highway signs and Series E(M) lettering, the plans also indicate that the existing sign is to be used in place. The new exit tab will be necessary because the exit numbers will be changed from 224 to 224 A-B.
I'm mildly surprised they aren't using this opportunity to change it to Exits 408 A-B, considering the Eastern Terminal was relocated several miles west of this interchange long ago. Mile marker 226/410 seems like an arbitrary place to change the mileage, considering KTA maintenance continues to MM 236/420, but something tells me this has already been discussed to death.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on September 03, 2013, 08:43:22 PM
Post by: Alps on September 03, 2013, 08:43:22 PM
Quote from: route56 on September 03, 2013, 01:46:01 AMAs a Klondike Jew, I take offense.
Seeing as how I could justify the use of the "wrong" order, this Klondike Nazi says "No Klondike for you!"
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: route56 on September 04, 2013, 01:40:30 AM
Post by: route56 on September 04, 2013, 01:40:30 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 02, 2013, 09:33:36 PM
did they borrow the old Wikipedia graphic?
Speaking of which, I used the KTA signing plans that you had sent me as a basis for the new version of the Wiki graphic. For some reason, I didn't think I could create a new version on top of the old one... fortunately, I was able to get someone to notice and straighten things out.
Needless to say, I don't think there is a 'definitive' version of the KTA emblem, but I figure that the new wiki version is more true to the concept.
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 03, 2013, 07:36:52 PM
I'm mildly surprised they aren't using this opportunity to change it to Exits 408 A-B, considering the Eastern Terminal was relocated several miles west of this interchange long ago. Mile marker 226/410 seems like an arbitrary place to change the mileage, considering KTA maintenance continues to MM 236/420, but something tells me this has already been discussed to death.
If it has on this forum, I think it will take a deep search to exhume it :)
Quote from: Steve on September 03, 2013, 08:43:22 PMIf my theft of Seinfeld material offends you, you're wrong.
As a Klondike Jew, I take offense.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on September 04, 2013, 03:07:02 PM
Post by: kphoger on September 04, 2013, 03:07:02 PM
Quote from: route56 on September 04, 2013, 01:40:30 AMQuote from: Steve on September 03, 2013, 08:43:22 PM
As a Klondike Jew, I take offense.
If my theft of Seinfeld material offends you, you're wrong.
Moral absolutist! [shriek!]
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on September 05, 2013, 12:24:43 AM
Post by: Alps on September 05, 2013, 12:24:43 AM
Quote from: route56 on September 04, 2013, 01:40:30 AMTheft doesn't offend me. You offend me.
If my theft of Seinfeld material offends you, you're wrong.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: route56 on September 10, 2013, 02:52:33 PM
Post by: route56 on September 10, 2013, 02:52:33 PM
Another 20-petal K-shield + Clearview on the Turnpike. This one's a little closer to Johnathan ;)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7422%2F9223621973_143a181e6e_c.jpg&hash=c894d7c69f0c984f92cfb59ca5b2a38169571d3f) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9223621973/)
43963 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9223621973/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
And, here's a blatant negative-contrast violation:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7382%2F9411357253_2d12e99e80_c.jpg&hash=85dcfe1edf391db54e01f1941dc8ae56719732f7) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9411357253/)
47309 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9411357253/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7422%2F9223621973_143a181e6e_c.jpg&hash=c894d7c69f0c984f92cfb59ca5b2a38169571d3f) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9223621973/)
43963 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9223621973/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
And, here's a blatant negative-contrast violation:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7382%2F9411357253_2d12e99e80_c.jpg&hash=85dcfe1edf391db54e01f1941dc8ae56719732f7) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9411357253/)
47309 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9411357253/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on September 10, 2013, 04:11:38 PM
Post by: formulanone on September 10, 2013, 04:11:38 PM
In similar vein, here's a weird black-on-yellow county pentagon along Florida's Turnpike:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2FCR470BlackShield-Leesburg1mile-FL91n.jpg&hash=aa7c243891ec7b6300c7b6435b65941f78336e71)
There's three of them, when going northbound.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2FCR470BlackShield-Leesburg1mile-FL91n.jpg&hash=aa7c243891ec7b6300c7b6435b65941f78336e71)
There's three of them, when going northbound.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on September 10, 2013, 09:18:52 PM
Post by: thenetwork on September 10, 2013, 09:18:52 PM
Quote from: route56 on September 10, 2013, 02:52:33 PM
Another 20-petal K-shield + Clearview on the Turnpike. This one's a little closer to Johnathan ;)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7422%2F9223621973_143a181e6e_c.jpg&hash=c894d7c69f0c984f92cfb59ca5b2a38169571d3f) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9223621973/)
And the "i"'s are taller than the W! :no:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: lordsutch on September 10, 2013, 11:13:51 PM
Post by: lordsutch on September 10, 2013, 11:13:51 PM
Well, there is a Canada Road 10 miles east of here... but that's no excuse for Ontario lane arrows: http://goo.gl/maps/scD3n
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on September 10, 2013, 11:19:53 PM
Post by: Zeffy on September 10, 2013, 11:19:53 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on September 10, 2013, 11:13:51 PM
Well, there is a Canada Road 10 miles east of here... but that's no excuse for Ontario lane arrows: http://goo.gl/maps/scD3n
That's not the only thing wrong - there is a small capital K in "Rock" instead of a lowercase one!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on September 12, 2013, 02:55:34 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on September 12, 2013, 02:55:34 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on September 10, 2013, 09:18:52 PMQuote from: route56 on September 10, 2013, 02:52:33 PM
Another 20-petal K-shield + Clearview on the Turnpike. This one's a little closer to Johnathan ;)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7422%2F9223621973_143a181e6e_c.jpg&hash=c894d7c69f0c984f92cfb59ca5b2a38169571d3f) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/9223621973/)
And the "i"'s are taller than the W! :no:
This is a standard feature of Clearview–and in fact, many other typefaces. All of the letters with ascenders (l, d, b, et al) are taller than the uppercase letters. This does make designing Clearview signs slightly more difficult.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 19, 2013, 06:49:26 PM
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 19, 2013, 06:49:26 PM
I saw this odd one while trying to do some research on New Hamburg Metro-North railroad station and the vicinity. This one is off of New Hamburg Road and Troy Avenue.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxhW4Gb4.jpg%3F1&hash=9495b1cb1ef338db6f6a5794dadda79545ee15c5)
Holy MUTCD non-compliance!
http://imgur.com/xhW4Gb4?tags
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxhW4Gb4.jpg%3F1&hash=9495b1cb1ef338db6f6a5794dadda79545ee15c5)
Holy MUTCD non-compliance!
http://imgur.com/xhW4Gb4?tags
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: briantroutman on September 19, 2013, 07:19:39 PM
Post by: briantroutman on September 19, 2013, 07:19:39 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2013, 02:55:34 AMQuote from: thenetwork on September 10, 2013, 09:18:52 PM
And the "i"'s are taller than the W! :no:
This is a standard feature of Clearview...
Not only is it the way Clearview is supposed to look, but the error I see most often with Clearview is the opposite: Someone at a district sign shop assumes that the ascenders on lowercase letters, the dot on the I, etc. shouldn't be taller the cap line and scales the lowercase letters down to fit. So you end up with a noticeably bolder initial capital because the stroke width of the lowercase letters has also been scaled down with the size of the letters themselves. (Like this: http://bit.ly/15GtDur (http://bit.ly/15GtDur)) This problem runs rampant in the Pittsburgh area.
Bear in mind that I hate Clearview...but if you're going to use that ugly typeface, use it correctly.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 19, 2013, 09:55:35 PM
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 19, 2013, 09:55:35 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on September 19, 2013, 07:19:39 PM
Not only is it the way Clearview is supposed to look, but the error I see most often with Clearview is the opposite: Someone at a district sign shop assumes that the ascenders on lowercase letters, the dot on the I, etc. shouldn't be taller the cap line and scales the lowercase letters down to fit. So you end up with a noticeably bolder initial capital because the stroke width of the lowercase letters has also been scaled down with the size of the letters themselves. (Like this: http://bit.ly/15GtDur (http://bit.ly/15GtDur)) This problem runs rampant in the Pittsburgh area.
Bear in mind that I hate Clearview...but if you're going to use that ugly typeface, use it correctly.
I'm more bothered by APL being done very incorrectly in your I-376 example. :angry:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on September 20, 2013, 06:39:07 AM
Post by: vtk on September 20, 2013, 06:39:07 AM
I think those signs predate MUTCD introducing APL. Though I'm more concerned with the lack of a left side breakdown lane, and some resultant visibility issues on the curve.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on September 20, 2013, 11:30:06 AM
Post by: J N Winkler on September 20, 2013, 11:30:06 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on September 19, 2013, 07:19:39 PMNot only is it the way Clearview is supposed to look, but the error I see most often with Clearview is the opposite: Someone at a district sign shop assumes that the ascenders on lowercase letters, the dot on the I, etc. shouldn't be taller the cap line and scales the lowercase letters down to fit. So you end up with a noticeably bolder initial capital because the stroke width of the lowercase letters has also been scaled down with the size of the letters themselves. (Like this: http://bit.ly/15GtDur (http://bit.ly/15GtDur))
Actually, that is not quite what is going on here. First, the error is made on the signing plans, and the signs are fabricated and installed by contractors. (Contractors generally have the option of pointing out any errors they spot in signing plans to the resident engineer, but under the terms of a typical construction contract, they can fabricate and install correctly designed signs only if the resident engineer issues a change order that specifies the correct designs. Since change orders typically involve added cost and delay, inertia tends to favor the erection of signs to incorrect designs.) Second, the error is actually to shrink the implied uppercase size that corresponds to the lowercase letters to three-quarters the actual height of the uppercase letters, which is a greater reduction in the size of the lowercase letters than occurs by shrinking them just enough to ensure that either the top of the dot of i, or the tops of the lowercase letters with ascenders, fall on the same baseline as the top of the capital letters.
QuoteThis problem runs rampant in the Pittsburgh area.
It is not just Pittsburgh, which is PennDOT District 11. This is also rife in the Erie area, which is PennDOT District 1 (neighboring District 11 on the north, if memory serves). Other PennDOT districts don't have nearly as much trouble with this particular aspect of design. District 7 certainly doesn't!
Quote from: vtk on September 20, 2013, 06:39:07 AMI think those signs predate MUTCD introducing APL.
These signs were erected under PennDOT ECMS 65122, which had a letting date of April 30, 2009. So, yes, it does pre-date release of the 2009 edition of MUTCD, which (if memory serves) was in late December of that year.
However, as part of the rulemaking process that led to this MUTCD edition, FHWA released two PDF files containing the proposed text and figures. I did not retain copies of these files and FHWA has taken them down from the MUTCD website (grrr), but I recall that the figures file showed sample APL diagrammatics very similar if not identical to those incorporated in the finished product. Several state DOTs, including MoDOT, advertised construction contracts with almost-vanilla APLs in the year before release of the 2009 MUTCD (example: US 60/US 65 near Springfield, Mo. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8965.msg234916#msg234916), erected under a contract advertised in February 2009).
My guess is that PennDOT in this case was not really aiming for a vanilla APL. The arrow designs are pretty close to those used for lane-assignment signs on freeways in the Sacramento area that are very distant (probably 1970's) forerunners of the modern APL diagrammatic.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: sammi on September 23, 2013, 07:57:03 PM
Post by: sammi on September 23, 2013, 07:57:03 PM
Don't worry people; it's only been three days. :P
I was walking around my university this morning to get to an interview, then I see this sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVRE8bjF.jpg&hash=89501689db1b11f27bb5e9928a4a05f83c59021a)
Transport? Not in my country. (Bonus points to anyone who can guess where this sign is.)
I was walking around my university this morning to get to an interview, then I see this sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVRE8bjF.jpg&hash=89501689db1b11f27bb5e9928a4a05f83c59021a)
Transport? Not in my country. (Bonus points to anyone who can guess where this sign is.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2013, 08:06:38 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2013, 08:06:38 PM
Quote from: sammi on September 23, 2013, 07:57:03 PM(Bonus points to anyone who can guess where this sign is.)
the bonus being dollar tequila?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: sammi on September 23, 2013, 08:30:37 PM
Post by: sammi on September 23, 2013, 08:30:37 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2013, 08:06:38 PMThat's weird. I didn't see that there. :-/Quote from: sammi on September 23, 2013, 07:57:03 PM(Bonus points to anyone who can guess where this sign is.)the bonus being dollar tequila?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mjb2002 on September 24, 2013, 11:51:31 PM
Post by: mjb2002 on September 24, 2013, 11:51:31 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 19, 2013, 06:49:26 PM
I saw this odd one while trying to do some research on New Hamburg Metro-North railroad station and the vicinity. This one is off of New Hamburg Road and Troy Avenue.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxhW4Gb4.jpg%3F1&hash=9495b1cb1ef338db6f6a5794dadda79545ee15c5)
Holy MUTCD non-compliance!
http://imgur.com/xhW4Gb4?tags
rofl...did NYSDOT forget to cut the outer edges diagonally?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 27, 2013, 09:14:48 AM
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 27, 2013, 09:14:48 AM
Quote from: mjb2002 on September 24, 2013, 11:51:31 PMMaybe they tried to imitate South Carolina with their square stop signs at blinker-light intersections. Or maybe they thought that because it was for a local road, nobody would give a shit. :-P
rofl...did NYSDOT forget to cut the outer edges diagonally?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on November 20, 2013, 04:36:34 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on November 20, 2013, 04:36:34 PM
Not sure if anyone commented on such but on recent 3di signage (whether stand-alone or in a BGS), both NJDOT and NJTA have been using asymetrical shields.
Example of one along I-287 northbound near I-80:
http://goo.gl/maps/KJ9YX (http://goo.gl/maps/KJ9YX)
If one looks at the shape of the shield, the right-hand side of the shield has more of a bulge to it.
Note: I've seen asymetrical 3di shields for I-195 (on NJTP BGS), I-276 (NJTP BGS) and I-295 (free-standing).
Example of one along I-287 northbound near I-80:
http://goo.gl/maps/KJ9YX (http://goo.gl/maps/KJ9YX)
If one looks at the shape of the shield, the right-hand side of the shield has more of a bulge to it.
Note: I've seen asymetrical 3di shields for I-195 (on NJTP BGS), I-276 (NJTP BGS) and I-295 (free-standing).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Signal on November 20, 2013, 05:04:18 PM
Post by: Signal on November 20, 2013, 05:04:18 PM
I'm no expert, but I'd say that's just how the number placement makes it look...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on November 20, 2013, 07:40:28 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on November 20, 2013, 07:40:28 PM
Quote from: Signal on November 20, 2013, 05:04:18 PMI think you missed my last statement regarding asymetrical-shaped 3di shields for other routes as well (195, 276, 295).
I'm no expert, but I'd say that's just how the number placement makes it look...
Unfortunately, the majority of the Google Earth & Map Images for the areas involved predate the existence & erection of the new shields for the other routes; so I can't post a known (to me) link to prove that is indeed those particular shields are asymetrical regardless what & how the numbers are placed.
To be fair, I thought it was an optical illusion when I first saw them; but after seeing them several times, they're definitely shaped a tad different than the standard 3di shield.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on November 20, 2013, 08:18:43 PM
Post by: roadman on November 20, 2013, 08:18:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 20, 2013, 11:30:06 AM
[Actually, that is not quite what is going on here. First, the error is made on the signing plans, and the signs are fabricated and installed by contractors. Contractors generally have the option of pointing out any errors they spot in signing plans to the resident engineer, but under the terms of a typical construction contract, they can fabricate and install correctly designed signs only if the resident engineer issues a change order that specifies the correct designs. Since change orders typically involve added cost and delay, inertia tends to favor the erection of signs to incorrect designs.
Not quite. The specific action taken by a resident engineer regarding correcting sign errors depends largely on what a particular state's policies and procedures are concerning the review (if any) of the fabricator's sign face drawings once a project is in construction, and whether or not correcting the errors will affect the panel size and (for overhead signs) the structural design of the support structure.
For several years now, Massachusetts has included specific language in their sign replacement contracts, as well as other construction projects with guide signs, requiring the sign fabricator to submit sign face drawings for each proposed guide sign panel on the project for final review and approval before fabrication. In addition, Massachusetts policy is that the fabricator must submit copies of the stamped drawings with the fabricated sign panels - this is part of a final cross-check to catch shop errors.
Unlike some state DOTs with similar approval requirements, which call for the project's designer of record to conduct these reviews and issue the approvals, MassDOT currently requires that the drawings go to the State Traffic Engineer's office for review and approval by the State Sign Engineer or their staff. Additionally, once the signs are fabricated, they are inspected by the resident engineer (or their staff) for correctness before the Contractor can install them.
Inaccurate guide sign fabrication only results in a change order if the problem a) was on the design plans and went unnoticed during review, b) cannot be corrected without altering the panel dimensions and/or the sign support structure, and c) the State Traffic Engineer's office has determined that there is no practical alternative to making alterations to the signs without changing the panel dimensions or the support design.
I posted this in a different thread some time back, but MassDOT's current sign field QC/QA policy can be found at
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/engineeringDirectives/2008/e-08-002.pdf
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on November 20, 2013, 08:20:12 PM
Post by: hbelkins on November 20, 2013, 08:20:12 PM
There used to be more than a few I-279 markers in the Pittsburgh area that had an odd look to them.
When I-287 was mentioned, I thought this was the sign being referenced:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_2%2FImages%2F428.jpg&hash=e65df4335cf21d7a2439afa6d6469b0cdcfd4e2a)
Or this one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2853%2F9239329189_af6e142b5e.jpg&hash=97756f250ac7ae1ca48c6376fa3031ff92ec37ad)
When I-287 was mentioned, I thought this was the sign being referenced:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_2%2FImages%2F428.jpg&hash=e65df4335cf21d7a2439afa6d6469b0cdcfd4e2a)
Or this one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2853%2F9239329189_af6e142b5e.jpg&hash=97756f250ac7ae1ca48c6376fa3031ff92ec37ad)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on November 20, 2013, 08:37:18 PM
Post by: roadman on November 20, 2013, 08:37:18 PM
For a short while, Massachusetts had an issue with a particular fabricator that would make Interstate shields that had 2di numbers but were fabricated on 3di blanks. Interstate 95 between Canton and Attleboro still has a number of these elongated shields in place.
An example of this erroneous design can be found in the AARoads Shield Gallery-
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MA19880951&search=95
An example of this erroneous design can be found in the AARoads Shield Gallery-
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MA19880951&search=95
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on November 20, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
Post by: Alps on November 20, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 20, 2013, 08:37:18 PMWas that done on any other road? Only ever seen them on I-95. Conversely, RI had a number of 2-digit I-295s around Providence - not sure what's there now.
For a short while, Massachusetts had an issue with a particular fabricator that would make Interstate shields that had 2di numbers but were fabricated on 3di blanks. Interstate 95 between Canton and Attleboro still has a number of these elongated shields in place.
An example of this erroneous design can be found in the AARoads Shield Gallery-
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MA19880951&search=95
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on November 20, 2013, 09:03:16 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on November 20, 2013, 09:03:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 20, 2013, 08:18:43 PMNot quite. The specific action taken by a resident engineer regarding correcting sign errors depends largely on what a particular state's policies and procedures are concerning the review (if any) of the fabricator's sign face drawings once a project is in construction, and whether or not correcting the errors will affect the panel size and (for overhead signs) the structural design of the support structure.
Thanks for this explanation--I probably should have noted that my analysis does not necessarily apply to state DOTs where there is an intermediate process (production and review of shop drawings) that allows the contractor, if so inclined, to propose corrections for acceptance by the state DOT. The worst problems with uppercase/lowercase Clearview size mismatches that have been reported on this board are in PennDOT District 1 (Erie and vicinity); I am not aware that contractors working on sign replacement projects in that district are required to submit shop drawings. For each incorrect sign that has a photo taken of it and posted on this forum, the as-erected signface is a more or less exact match to the sign panel detail sheet in the plans set. This implies that if there is a mechanism to fix design errors prior to fabrication (whether it involves a contract change order or not), it is not being used.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mass_citizen on November 20, 2013, 09:12:39 PM
Post by: mass_citizen on November 20, 2013, 09:12:39 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 20, 2013, 08:37:18 PM
For a short while, Massachusetts had an issue with a particular fabricator that would make Interstate shields that had 2di numbers but were fabricated on 3di blanks. Interstate 95 between Canton and Attleboro still has a number of these elongated shields in place.
An example of this erroneous design can be found in the AARoads Shield Gallery-
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MA19880951&search=95
there are 1 or 2 of these on the "128" portion of I-95 as well.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 20, 2013, 09:21:16 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 20, 2013, 09:21:16 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 20, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
Was that done on any other road? Only ever seen them on I-95. Conversely, RI had a number of 2-digit I-295s around Providence - not sure what's there now.
I know of one in NH that is the 30x25 size
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NH/NH19630331i1.jpg)
that seems to be unrelated.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on November 21, 2013, 11:47:53 AM
Post by: hbelkins on November 21, 2013, 11:47:53 AM
Quote from: Steve on November 20, 2013, 08:39:16 PMConversely, RI had a number of 2-digit I-295s around Providence - not sure what's there now.
There were still a bunch there when I drove it back in the spring.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5350%2F9238641705_06a702ce78.jpg&hash=8633bc8041432b723327c369e15938fe56b0a352)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5495%2F9241423256_152976e7e8.jpg&hash=f52189a1d8946e7abc8d9b9617f765b4c0a382b8)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3791%2F9241424318_34ba2a59dc.jpg&hash=feb0994e93a184993e497c35269494bea9f102b8)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5545%2F9238649509_17e800b0e2.jpg&hash=471fd1abf30064c984ea50e729837edc21b2bfc0)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3820%2F9238685851_849598ba6f.jpg&hash=8ac86e163f1617cff68186035ec62ac7b1934bd3)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on November 21, 2013, 12:07:25 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on November 21, 2013, 12:07:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 20, 2013, 08:20:12 PMIMHO, those shields are a complete abortion; plus (not 100% sure of this), those may have been already commented on earlier in this thread. Depsite their ugliness; those shields are, at least, still symetrical.
There used to be more than a few I-279 markers in the Pittsburgh area that had an odd look to them.
When I-287 was mentioned, I thought this was the sign being referenced:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_2%2FImages%2F428.jpg&hash=e65df4335cf21d7a2439afa6d6469b0cdcfd4e2a)
Or this one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2853%2F9239329189_af6e142b5e.jpg&hash=97756f250ac7ae1ca48c6376fa3031ff92ec37ad)
Again, the asymetrical shields I'm referring to have only appeared within the past year or so.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on November 21, 2013, 12:59:22 PM
Post by: roadman on November 21, 2013, 12:59:22 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on November 20, 2013, 09:12:39 PMIIRC, the only two projects this error showed up on (before MassHighway clarified the requirements with their contractor's sign fabricator) were the 2001 sign update on I-95 between Canton and Attleboro, and the 1999 sign update on I-95/128 between Reading and Peabody. I-95/128 between Reading and Peabody also saw the installation of some grossly oversized Junction assemblies on secondary roads, several of which are still in place to this day.Quote from: roadman on November 20, 2013, 08:37:18 PM
For a short while, Massachusetts had an issue with a particular fabricator that would make Interstate shields that had 2di numbers but were fabricated on 3di blanks. Interstate 95 between Canton and Attleboro still has a number of these elongated shields in place.
An example of this erroneous design can be found in the AARoads Shield Gallery-
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MA19880951&search=95
there are 1 or 2 of these on the "128" portion of I-95 as well.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on November 28, 2013, 07:54:03 PM
Post by: SignBridge on November 28, 2013, 07:54:03 PM
New York State DOT and/or their contractor strikes again! On Long Island the interchange of Northern State Pkwy. and NY-110 in Melville (Suffolk County)was recently rebuilt. So wouldn't ya' know the new advance signs for Exit-40 both east and westbound on N.S. Parkway are misplaced and show wrong distances to the exit.
Eastbound says 1 Mile to the exit when the actual distance is exactly one-half mile according to my odometer. I believe the sign is correctly placed, but shows the wrong distance.
And westbound the sign (which is almost hidden behind an overpass) says 1/2 Mile and the true distance is 1/4 mile. I think the sign was placed at the wrong location as even NYSDOT doesn't normally mount signs half-hidden behind an overpass.
These people call themselves engineers? Well, I guess we all make mistakes. Funny thing is almost 15 years ago the same things happened when the widening of the same parkway in Westbury was completed. They had two identical advance signs a quarter-mile apart both saying 1 Mile to Exit 32, and some other signs approaching Exit 31 were installed in the wrong sequence. I made a few phone calls and despite DOT's initial disbelief at what I was telling them, eventually it all got corrected.
But this time with Exit 40, Route 110, I think I'm just going to sit back and watch how long it takes them to figure it out themselves. (chuckle!)
Eastbound says 1 Mile to the exit when the actual distance is exactly one-half mile according to my odometer. I believe the sign is correctly placed, but shows the wrong distance.
And westbound the sign (which is almost hidden behind an overpass) says 1/2 Mile and the true distance is 1/4 mile. I think the sign was placed at the wrong location as even NYSDOT doesn't normally mount signs half-hidden behind an overpass.
These people call themselves engineers? Well, I guess we all make mistakes. Funny thing is almost 15 years ago the same things happened when the widening of the same parkway in Westbury was completed. They had two identical advance signs a quarter-mile apart both saying 1 Mile to Exit 32, and some other signs approaching Exit 31 were installed in the wrong sequence. I made a few phone calls and despite DOT's initial disbelief at what I was telling them, eventually it all got corrected.
But this time with Exit 40, Route 110, I think I'm just going to sit back and watch how long it takes them to figure it out themselves. (chuckle!)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on December 31, 2013, 05:56:16 PM
Post by: formulanone on December 31, 2013, 05:56:16 PM
An unnatural one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FA1AsBeaches-ReversedNumberOne.jpg&hash=2be97ca17aeac1e5e2ff688404c8738f1c0337c8)
(Street View (https://maps.google.com/?ll=26.053756,-80.113179&spn=0.001508,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=26.053832,-80.113193&panoid=8eUtsEKbG9CuPJfdBK6Urw&cbp=12,9.33,,1,0.95))
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FA1AsBeaches-ReversedNumberOne.jpg&hash=2be97ca17aeac1e5e2ff688404c8738f1c0337c8)
(Street View (https://maps.google.com/?ll=26.053756,-80.113179&spn=0.001508,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=26.053832,-80.113193&panoid=8eUtsEKbG9CuPJfdBK6Urw&cbp=12,9.33,,1,0.95))
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on January 02, 2014, 11:21:22 PM
Post by: Alps on January 02, 2014, 11:21:22 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 31, 2013, 05:56:16 PMCan I share this? It's amazing.
An unnatural one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FA1AsBeaches-ReversedNumberOne.jpg&hash=2be97ca17aeac1e5e2ff688404c8738f1c0337c8)
(Street View (https://maps.google.com/?ll=26.053756,-80.113179&spn=0.001508,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=26.053832,-80.113193&panoid=8eUtsEKbG9CuPJfdBK6Urw&cbp=12,9.33,,1,0.95))
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on January 02, 2014, 11:49:23 PM
Post by: NE2 on January 02, 2014, 11:49:23 PM
Other than the all-caps BEACHES (?), that's probably a valid sign assembly. I've seen many examples (though not in Florida) of shields being mounted separately above distance signs (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Highway_365_near_Maumelle,_Arkansas.jpg). So unless they want to put BEACHES 0 when you actually get there, why not just BEACHES?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on January 02, 2014, 11:55:02 PM
Post by: Alps on January 02, 2014, 11:55:02 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 02, 2014, 11:49:23 PMYou're missing it.
Other than the all-caps BEACHES (?), that's probably a valid sign assembly. I've seen many examples (though not in Florida) of shields being mounted separately above distance signs (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Highway_365_near_Maumelle,_Arkansas.jpg). So unless they want to put BEACHES 0 when you actually get there, why not just BEACHES?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on January 02, 2014, 11:56:15 PM
Post by: NE2 on January 02, 2014, 11:56:15 PM
Oh.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: renegade on January 03, 2014, 01:27:26 AM
Post by: renegade on January 03, 2014, 01:27:26 AM
I saw it.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: myosh_tino on January 03, 2014, 01:32:41 AM
Post by: myosh_tino on January 03, 2014, 01:32:41 AM
Quote from: renegade on January 03, 2014, 01:27:26 AM
I saw it.
You are the only "one"... :-D
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on January 03, 2014, 09:28:45 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on January 03, 2014, 09:28:45 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 03, 2014, 01:32:41 AMI saw it fully after a double take/second glance.Quote from: renegade on January 03, 2014, 01:27:26 AM
I saw it.
You are the only "one"... :-D
Hint: it has nothing to do with the BEACHES sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mhh on January 03, 2014, 09:40:29 AM
Post by: mhh on January 03, 2014, 09:40:29 AM
Quote from: formulanone on December 31, 2013, 05:56:16 PM
An unnatural one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FA1AsBeaches-ReversedNumberOne.jpg&hash=2be97ca17aeac1e5e2ff688404c8738f1c0337c8)
(Street View (https://maps.google.com/?ll=26.053756,-80.113179&spn=0.001508,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=26.053832,-80.113193&panoid=8eUtsEKbG9CuPJfdBK6Urw&cbp=12,9.33,,1,0.95))
Was this sign purchased at Toys-backwards-R-Us? :spin:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: sammi on January 03, 2014, 09:56:40 AM
Post by: sammi on January 03, 2014, 09:56:40 AM
Quote from: mhh on January 03, 2014, 09:40:29 AM
Was this sign purchased at Toys-Я-Us? :spin:
FTFY. :bigass:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Big John on January 03, 2014, 10:23:47 AM
Post by: Big John on January 03, 2014, 10:23:47 AM
or VH1?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftremendousinc.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2FVH1.jpg&hash=3067101a8d0afa386884127e51f665649e4c1878)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftremendousinc.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2FVH1.jpg&hash=3067101a8d0afa386884127e51f665649e4c1878)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on January 03, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Post by: formulanone on January 03, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Steve on January 02, 2014, 11:21:22 PM
Can I share this? It's amazing.
Go ahead...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on January 03, 2014, 11:14:26 AM
Post by: Zeffy on January 03, 2014, 11:14:26 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 03, 2014, 09:28:45 AM
I saw it fully after a double take/second glance.
Hint: it has nothing to do with the BEACHES sign.
It took me a bit, but I figured it out. Bonus hint: the signs in question are only half of what you need to be looking at to get this image.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2014, 11:34:23 AM
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2014, 11:34:23 AM
Quote from: formulanone on December 31, 2013, 05:56:16 PM
An unnatural one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FA1AsBeaches-ReversedNumberOne.jpg&hash=2be97ca17aeac1e5e2ff688404c8738f1c0337c8)
(Street View (https://maps.google.com/?ll=26.053756,-80.113179&spn=0.001508,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=26.053832,-80.113193&panoid=8eUtsEKbG9CuPJfdBK6Urw&cbp=12,9.33,,1,0.95))
All you have to do is flip the sign around! :-) That'll solve '1' problem, although we'll see Florida at a whole different angle!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on January 03, 2014, 12:25:31 PM
Post by: hbelkins on January 03, 2014, 12:25:31 PM
I saw the issue right away.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Sanctimoniously on February 01, 2014, 05:34:11 PM
Post by: Sanctimoniously on February 01, 2014, 05:34:11 PM
I don't agree with either of these, but I've seen the worst of road signs and these aren't it.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1551464_10153764929790554_859042998_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/574586_10153764929785554_2138704956_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1551464_10153764929790554_859042998_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/574586_10153764929785554_2138704956_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on February 01, 2014, 06:49:10 PM
Post by: roadman on February 01, 2014, 06:49:10 PM
Quote from: Sanctimoniously on February 01, 2014, 05:34:11 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/574586_10153764929785554_2138704956_n.jpg)
Translation: Entering snobbish neighborhood that doesn't give a rat's @$$ about your safety.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mass_citizen on February 03, 2014, 03:02:47 PM
Post by: mass_citizen on February 03, 2014, 03:02:47 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 01, 2014, 06:49:10 PM
Translation: Entering snobbish neighborhood that doesn't give a rat's @$$ about your safety.
so true. however you wouldn't think so with the old warehouse in the background
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on February 03, 2014, 06:11:31 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 03, 2014, 06:11:31 PM
I don't think this is an "error" per se, but there's a yield sign in Burnaby, BC with the word "Yield" on it. I know for Americans that's completely normal. But in BC, as well as the rest of Canada, and much of the civilized world, the "Yield" word or other equivalent is absent. Not sure how this slipped through.
http://goo.gl/4jdoi7
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FV6WShms.png&hash=071c37a0e9ff3deabe7cb0b859a404d6c33d7eb9)
I suppose this would be the equivalent of a yield sign in America without the word "yield" on it. I'd imagine they don't make a big deal out of it, because if anything, putting the word "yield" on the sign simply re-enforces the maneuver.
http://goo.gl/4jdoi7
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FV6WShms.png&hash=071c37a0e9ff3deabe7cb0b859a404d6c33d7eb9)
I suppose this would be the equivalent of a yield sign in America without the word "yield" on it. I'd imagine they don't make a big deal out of it, because if anything, putting the word "yield" on the sign simply re-enforces the maneuver.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Brandon on February 04, 2014, 10:20:10 AM
Post by: Brandon on February 04, 2014, 10:20:10 AM
Quote from: jake on February 03, 2014, 06:11:31 PM
I don't think this is an "error" per se, but there's a yield sign in Burnaby, BC with the word "Yield" on it. I know for Americans that's completely normal. But in BC, as well as the rest of Canada, and much of the civilized world, the "Yield" word or other equivalent is absent.
Not always. The Brits, Aussies, and Kiwis use "Give Way". The Irish use "Yield" or its Gaelic equivalent. The Thais use "Give Way" in Thai. Many Spanish speaking areas use "Ceda" or "Ceda el Paso". And so on and so forth. The Canucks are the odd ones out here for the Americas. My guess is that it is due to the language laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_sign
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on February 04, 2014, 03:34:25 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 04, 2014, 03:34:25 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 04, 2014, 10:20:10 AMQuote from: jake on February 03, 2014, 06:11:31 PM
I don't think this is an "error" per se, but there's a yield sign in Burnaby, BC with the word "Yield" on it. I know for Americans that's completely normal. But in BC, as well as the rest of Canada, and much of the civilized world, the "Yield" word or other equivalent is absent.
Not always. The Brits, Aussies, and Kiwis use "Give Way". The Irish use "Yield" or its Gaelic equivalent. The Thais use "Give Way" in Thai. Many Spanish speaking areas use "Ceda" or "Ceda el Paso". And so on and so forth. The Canucks are the odd ones out here for the Americas. My guess is that it is due to the language laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_sign
Absolutely. And the language laws thing makes sense to me...though the Lower Mainland is majority led by foreigners, so it would seem odd to re-enforce a yield sign by putting a language on it that less than 50% speak *natively*:
http://www.welcomebc.ca/Live/about-bc/people/language-in-bc.aspx (83% of BC residents speak English)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver#Demographics (52% do not speak English as their first language)
Also, I could probably re-state what I said about other "civilized countries" and instead put "international standard", as is said on the Wikipedia article.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Brandon on February 04, 2014, 04:14:21 PM
Post by: Brandon on February 04, 2014, 04:14:21 PM
Quote from: jake on February 04, 2014, 03:34:25 PMQuote from: Brandon on February 04, 2014, 10:20:10 AMQuote from: jake on February 03, 2014, 06:11:31 PM
I don't think this is an "error" per se, but there's a yield sign in Burnaby, BC with the word "Yield" on it. I know for Americans that's completely normal. But in BC, as well as the rest of Canada, and much of the civilized world, the "Yield" word or other equivalent is absent.
Not always. The Brits, Aussies, and Kiwis use "Give Way". The Irish use "Yield" or its Gaelic equivalent. The Thais use "Give Way" in Thai. Many Spanish speaking areas use "Ceda" or "Ceda el Paso". And so on and so forth. The Canucks are the odd ones out here for the Americas. My guess is that it is due to the language laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_sign
Absolutely. And the language laws thing makes sense to me...though the Lower Mainland is majority led by foreigners, so it would seem odd to re-enforce a yield sign by putting a language on it that less than 50% speak *natively*:
http://www.welcomebc.ca/Live/about-bc/people/language-in-bc.aspx (83% of BC residents speak English)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver#Demographics (52% do not speak English as their first language)
Also, I could probably re-state what I said about other "civilized countries" and instead put "international standard", as is said on the Wikipedia article.
It's really more of a continental European standard. For some reason the mainland Euros like to claim their standards as "international" when they apply to maybe half the world at best. And even then, the yield signs there have auxiliary signs underneath in France and other places stating "Yield" in the local language.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on February 04, 2014, 06:00:29 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 04, 2014, 06:00:29 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 04, 2014, 04:14:21 PMQuote from: jake on February 04, 2014, 03:34:25 PMQuote from: Brandon on February 04, 2014, 10:20:10 AMQuote from: jake on February 03, 2014, 06:11:31 PM
I don't think this is an "error" per se, but there's a yield sign in Burnaby, BC with the word "Yield" on it. I know for Americans that's completely normal. But in BC, as well as the rest of Canada, and much of the civilized world, the "Yield" word or other equivalent is absent.
Not always. The Brits, Aussies, and Kiwis use "Give Way". The Irish use "Yield" or its Gaelic equivalent. The Thais use "Give Way" in Thai. Many Spanish speaking areas use "Ceda" or "Ceda el Paso". And so on and so forth. The Canucks are the odd ones out here for the Americas. My guess is that it is due to the language laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_sign
Absolutely. And the language laws thing makes sense to me...though the Lower Mainland is majority led by foreigners, so it would seem odd to re-enforce a yield sign by putting a language on it that less than 50% speak *natively*:
http://www.welcomebc.ca/Live/about-bc/people/language-in-bc.aspx (83% of BC residents speak English)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver#Demographics (52% do not speak English as their first language)
Also, I could probably re-state what I said about other "civilized countries" and instead put "international standard", as is said on the Wikipedia article.
It's really more of a continental European standard. For some reason the mainland Euros like to claim their standards as "international" when they apply to maybe half the world at best. And even then, the yield signs there have auxiliary signs underneath in France and other places stating "Yield" in the local language.
Lol, no shit. They used to rule the world...NOT ANYMORE!! MURICA!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on February 04, 2014, 07:07:24 PM
Post by: NE2 on February 04, 2014, 07:07:24 PM
They are international by definition. So are most US-standard signs.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: doogie1303 on February 04, 2014, 09:15:33 PM
Post by: doogie1303 on February 04, 2014, 09:15:33 PM
It gets a bit more interesting when you go to an Asian country like Japan. When I went to Japan several years ago for work, I noticed that their traffic signs seemed to be a mix of the European model, red bordered circular speed signs, signs with pictogram in most cases, but with some mixed in American style yellow caution diamond pictograms. At unsignaled intersections, the side roads would have a solid red triangular sign with the point facing down with something written in kanji.
In most countries, a triangular red sign with the point facing down is a "yield" or "give way" type of condition, in Japan that's a stop sign. To make things more confusing, a triangular red bordered sign with white background point facing down is not a yield but a "slow down" sign.
In most countries, a triangular red sign with the point facing down is a "yield" or "give way" type of condition, in Japan that's a stop sign. To make things more confusing, a triangular red bordered sign with white background point facing down is not a yield but a "slow down" sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on February 04, 2014, 09:32:06 PM
Post by: jbnv on February 04, 2014, 09:32:06 PM
Apparently Texas A&M does not like the Clearview ampersand. There are several signs that have this strange glyph. (GSV) (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=35.154442,-89.881725&spn=0.00993,0.03562&sll=32.832718,-83.644169&sspn=0.179723,0.284958&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=35.15443,-89.881745&panoid=do_p3cJ0uCwgChnCtL3cHg&cbp=11,233.01,,0,-8.35)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7448%2F12313096693_4b4a505d50_o.png&hash=d78c4f70d6fbd9ec6b134f007b623680667fce1a)
Line spacing error: (GSV) (https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.883676,-82.930598&spn=0.00447,0.010568&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.8834,-82.930618&panoid=MFa68NkQloBh9igHqAzHfA&cbp=12,28.17,,2,-3.27)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3762%2F12312939685_c808c656e0_o.png&hash=d2b3a9499689de6ce5cde1ea89541f6dfd4d5a1d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7448%2F12313096693_4b4a505d50_o.png&hash=d78c4f70d6fbd9ec6b134f007b623680667fce1a)
Line spacing error: (GSV) (https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.883676,-82.930598&spn=0.00447,0.010568&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.8834,-82.930618&panoid=MFa68NkQloBh9igHqAzHfA&cbp=12,28.17,,2,-3.27)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3762%2F12312939685_c808c656e0_o.png&hash=d2b3a9499689de6ce5cde1ea89541f6dfd4d5a1d)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: colinstu on February 08, 2014, 12:04:12 AM
Post by: colinstu on February 08, 2014, 12:04:12 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2m9AbEX.jpg&hash=66ba3e2435b94771ab9bae9cdee60882e2eabfe5)
Have noticed this so many times but kept forgetting to post it.
location: https://goo.gl/maps/z3Guc
Have noticed this so many times but kept forgetting to post it.
location: https://goo.gl/maps/z3Guc
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cjk374 on February 08, 2014, 10:54:06 AM
Post by: cjk374 on February 08, 2014, 10:54:06 AM
Quote from: roadman on February 01, 2014, 06:49:10 PMQuote from: Sanctimoniously on February 01, 2014, 05:34:11 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/574586_10153764929785554_2138704956_n.jpg)
Translation: Entering snobbish neighborhood that doesn't give a rat's @$$ about your safety.
Welcome to Monroe & West Monroe, Louisiana! This is along the Kansas City Southern Railroad near the Ouachita River. The one thing that isn't located along this railroad (or any other railroad in Monroe) is a snobbish type of neighborhood....instead, just think of HOOD!! :-D
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on February 08, 2014, 04:26:47 PM
Post by: hbelkins on February 08, 2014, 04:26:47 PM
Quote from: colinstu on February 08, 2014, 12:04:12 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2m9AbEX.jpg&hash=66ba3e2435b94771ab9bae9cdee60882e2eabfe5)
Have noticed this so many times but kept forgetting to post it.
location: https://goo.gl/maps/z3Guc
What's wrong with this? I've seen the larger initial letter in "To" several times, most often on auxiliary banners in Virginia.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on February 08, 2014, 05:06:17 PM
Post by: Zeffy on February 08, 2014, 05:06:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 08, 2014, 04:26:47 PM
What's wrong with this? I've seen the larger initial letter in "To" several times, most often on auxiliary banners in Virginia.
If I'm looking at it correctly, the 'To' is in the wrong font - looks to be either series C or maybe even B.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: colinstu on February 08, 2014, 05:07:55 PM
Post by: colinstu on February 08, 2014, 05:07:55 PM
Looks like the wrong series font, shouldn't both letters be capitalized? Wrong size too IMO.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on February 08, 2014, 05:17:09 PM
Post by: vtk on February 08, 2014, 05:17:09 PM
The other day I saw on I-376 between Beaver and New Castle, PA, some non-destination text in mixed-case negative-contrast Clearview.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on February 09, 2014, 04:11:01 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on February 09, 2014, 04:11:01 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 08, 2014, 04:26:47 PM
What's wrong with this? I've seen the larger initial letter in "To" several times, most often on auxiliary banners in Virginia.
That doesn't make it right–larger initial letters are for cardinal directions only, not banners and trailblazers.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on February 09, 2014, 11:08:56 AM
Post by: jbnv on February 09, 2014, 11:08:56 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 09, 2014, 04:11:01 AMSame thing with using Clearview in shields. I think it generally looks good, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't conform to spec.Quote from: hbelkins on February 08, 2014, 04:26:47 PM
What's wrong with this? I've seen the larger initial letter in "To" several times, most often on auxiliary banners in Virginia.
That doesn't make it right–larger initial letters are for cardinal directions only, not banners and trailblazers.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: myosh_tino on February 09, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
Post by: myosh_tino on February 09, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
Quote from: jbnv on February 09, 2014, 11:08:56 AM
Same thing with using Clearview in shields. I think it generally looks good, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't conform to spec.
Really? The one thing I hate the most about Clearview are the numbers! I think they look hideous in all applications especially in route shields. :banghead:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on February 09, 2014, 02:14:44 PM
Post by: US71 on February 09, 2014, 02:14:44 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 09, 2014, 02:03:15 PMQuote from: jbnv on February 09, 2014, 11:08:56 AM
Same thing with using Clearview in shields. I think it generally looks good, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't conform to spec.
Really? The one thing I hate the most about Clearview are the numbers! I think they look hideous in all applications especially in route shields. :banghead:
Like in Baton Rouge?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8398%2F8630909059_bd7dd6479a_z_d.jpg&hash=0249cdbb764786dbc6a0cce3f15049cac7e2d590)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on February 22, 2014, 05:27:23 PM
Post by: vtk on February 22, 2014, 05:27:23 PM
Several questionable design choices within a short distance on I-75 NB north of Dayton:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign11.jpg&hash=06cf0641e5c2accd93b862bb700313ec72dc2b2e)
Poorly-angled dancing arrows, and an auxilliary guide sign with redundant "airport" message, poorly-conveyed message, and poor placement.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign12.jpg&hash=573152dab2015841b82f4320d0ea2b5f2653a454)
Poorly-angled dancing arrow. In fact, it's directly over the lane it's supposed to point at, so why is it angled at all? Or, why did they need to put it directly over the lane, causing all that excess width? Also, the distance message, being less than one mile, should not appear on a sign using EXIT ONLY message, and it adds to the height of the very wide sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign13.jpg&hash=184733f691a8d8b6ba476ad3ba818e6cca4d3bee)
Here's an auxilliary guide sign with much better message conveyance and placement, though it's still redundant with the airport icon.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign14.jpg&hash=3faf63e11ac283dc2f423f37dfb686af1332983e)
Commemorative / memorial interchange naming is stupid. This one in particular sounds outright patronizing to the enthusiastic flag-wavers. And what's with the off-center bottom line of legend?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign15.jpg&hash=516bef735b519e00577f67a369b7a8c7e822e524)
More poorly-angled dancing arrows, and inconsistent sizes of arrows and other elements.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign16.jpg&hash=45cfd6f6cfb156343146fa69c248fe7768ac565e)
The poorly-placed, lazily-phrased auxilliary guide sign makes its return. Why not just add "Airport" and/or the airport icon to the other guide sign that's right there already?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign17.jpg&hash=5b8d4d1a7d12183c8bda4405fecb1371bc661147)
Making the exit direction arrow part of a line of destination text is kind of old-school, but there's no need for it here. There's already enough width on this sign to accommodate the arrow vertically centered and completely to the right of the block containing the route marker and destinations. Or, since the arrow is trying so hard not to take up extra space for itself, why not make the sign less wide?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign18.jpg&hash=331fec10c85402ad439ccca8bf31639a6236ab5c)
Again, exit direction arrow is part of one of the lines of text. Except it's the bottom line, not the middle line, and this time there's even more extra horizontal space on the sign. Seriously, shrink the sign to fit its content! Or, move the arrow to the right of the main block of sign content, center it vertically, and you can still then shrink the sign width some! Also, I don't think this or the previous BGS are using the correct Ohio state route marker design as specified in the Ohio Sign Design Manual. *runs away*
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign11.jpg&hash=06cf0641e5c2accd93b862bb700313ec72dc2b2e)
Poorly-angled dancing arrows, and an auxilliary guide sign with redundant "airport" message, poorly-conveyed message, and poor placement.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign12.jpg&hash=573152dab2015841b82f4320d0ea2b5f2653a454)
Poorly-angled dancing arrow. In fact, it's directly over the lane it's supposed to point at, so why is it angled at all? Or, why did they need to put it directly over the lane, causing all that excess width? Also, the distance message, being less than one mile, should not appear on a sign using EXIT ONLY message, and it adds to the height of the very wide sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign13.jpg&hash=184733f691a8d8b6ba476ad3ba818e6cca4d3bee)
Here's an auxilliary guide sign with much better message conveyance and placement, though it's still redundant with the airport icon.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign14.jpg&hash=3faf63e11ac283dc2f423f37dfb686af1332983e)
Commemorative / memorial interchange naming is stupid. This one in particular sounds outright patronizing to the enthusiastic flag-wavers. And what's with the off-center bottom line of legend?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign15.jpg&hash=516bef735b519e00577f67a369b7a8c7e822e524)
More poorly-angled dancing arrows, and inconsistent sizes of arrows and other elements.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign16.jpg&hash=45cfd6f6cfb156343146fa69c248fe7768ac565e)
The poorly-placed, lazily-phrased auxilliary guide sign makes its return. Why not just add "Airport" and/or the airport icon to the other guide sign that's right there already?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign17.jpg&hash=5b8d4d1a7d12183c8bda4405fecb1371bc661147)
Making the exit direction arrow part of a line of destination text is kind of old-school, but there's no need for it here. There's already enough width on this sign to accommodate the arrow vertically centered and completely to the right of the block containing the route marker and destinations. Or, since the arrow is trying so hard not to take up extra space for itself, why not make the sign less wide?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign18.jpg&hash=331fec10c85402ad439ccca8bf31639a6236ab5c)
Again, exit direction arrow is part of one of the lines of text. Except it's the bottom line, not the middle line, and this time there's even more extra horizontal space on the sign. Seriously, shrink the sign to fit its content! Or, move the arrow to the right of the main block of sign content, center it vertically, and you can still then shrink the sign width some! Also, I don't think this or the previous BGS are using the correct Ohio state route marker design as specified in the Ohio Sign Design Manual. *runs away*
Title: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 6a on February 22, 2014, 08:44:56 PM
Post by: 6a on February 22, 2014, 08:44:56 PM
Hey, vtk, have you noticed some of the new signs in the Columbus area aren't level? One that comes to mind is SB 270 exiting to 70, west side. I can't really see any reason for it, it's not like the road is banked at that point. I've noticed it in a couple other places with new signs, wondered if you had any more knowledge as to why.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on February 22, 2014, 09:19:16 PM
Post by: SignBridge on February 22, 2014, 09:19:16 PM
Vtk, many of your comments are well founded including the "dancing arrows" that could more correctly be pointing straight down, and the 1/2 mile reference being uncalled for by the MUTCD. Interestingly the 2009 Manual no longer permits 2 down arrows over the same lane. Now either a diagrammatic sign or an overhead-arrow-per-lane sign is required at major interchanges with optional lane exits. And I agree with you about the supplemental Airport signs adding to the confusion.
I noticed something else too. At the split for I-70 east and west a wrong type arrow was used on the 70-East sign. Ya' have to wonder how the heck that happened without being noticed.
I noticed something else too. At the split for I-70 east and west a wrong type arrow was used on the 70-East sign. Ya' have to wonder how the heck that happened without being noticed.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on February 22, 2014, 09:33:37 PM
Post by: Zeffy on February 22, 2014, 09:33:37 PM
Quote from: vtk on February 22, 2014, 05:27:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign16.jpg&hash=45cfd6f6cfb156343146fa69c248fe7768ac565e)
The poorly-placed, lazily-phrased auxilliary guide sign makes its return. Why not just add "Airport" and/or the airport icon to the other guide sign that's right there already?
What the hell kind of mutant arrow is that? It literally looks like someone printed an arrow out from MS Paint or Microsoft Office and slapped it on the sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on February 22, 2014, 10:15:43 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on February 22, 2014, 10:15:43 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 22, 2014, 09:33:37 PM
What the hell kind of mutant arrow is that? It literally looks like someone printed an arrow out from MS Paint or Microsoft Office and slapped it on the sign.
What's sad about that one is that the sign was originally made with a normal arrow, then it was greened out during the nearly-decade-long construction at that interchange, and then was patched with THAT! Why not just cover it temporarily and then remove the cover? Nope, green it out with sheeting and replace it later with crap.
ODOT or its contractors really got sloppy with dancing arrows the past decade or so. There are still examples of tasteful dancing arrows (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/oh/i-77/s118eo.jpg) out there but usually on button copy signs (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/oh/i-77/s120adv.jpg). Reflective signs seemed to always have two options for downward arrows: straight-down or 45 degrees, which is way too much. I-70 at OH 4 also had a severely over-angled arrow that was already over the correct lane and instead pointed one lane too far to the left. I wouldn't be surprised if ODOT ruined dancing arrows for everyone.
The excessive separate Airport signs are bonkers too. Why not just add the plane symbol atop the existing BGSs as is done throughout the rest of Ohio?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on February 22, 2014, 10:48:49 PM
Post by: vtk on February 22, 2014, 10:48:49 PM
Quote from: 6a on February 22, 2014, 08:44:56 PM
Hey, vtk, have you noticed some of the new signs in the Columbus area aren't level? One that comes to mind is SB 270 exiting to 70, west side. I can't really see any reason for it, it's not like the road is banked at that point. I've noticed it in a couple other places with new signs, wondered if you had any more knowledge as to why.
I haven't noticed. I do notice when the road is banked and the sign not, so I don't think they'd intentionally tilt a sign even for that reason...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on February 23, 2014, 08:40:04 PM
Post by: thenetwork on February 23, 2014, 08:40:04 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 22, 2014, 09:33:37 PMQuote from: vtk on February 22, 2014, 05:27:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign16.jpg&hash=45cfd6f6cfb156343146fa69c248fe7768ac565e)
The poorly-placed, lazily-phrased auxilliary guide sign makes its return. Why not just add "Airport" and/or the airport icon to the other guide sign that's right there already?
What the hell kind of mutant arrow is that? It literally looks like someone printed an arrow out from MS Paint or Microsoft Office and slapped it on the sign.
Not to worry, they way ODOT is replacing fairly new Highway Gothic BGS with Clearview BGS, this should only be an issue for maybe another year or two. :bigass:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on February 24, 2014, 02:43:06 AM
Post by: vtk on February 24, 2014, 02:43:06 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on February 23, 2014, 08:40:04 PMQuote from: Zeffy on February 22, 2014, 09:33:37 PMQuote from: vtk on February 22, 2014, 05:27:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2F75n-badsign16.jpg&hash=45cfd6f6cfb156343146fa69c248fe7768ac565e)
The poorly-placed, lazily-phrased auxilliary guide sign makes its return. Why not just add "Airport" and/or the airport icon to the other guide sign that's right there already?
What the hell kind of mutant arrow is that? It literally looks like someone printed an arrow out from MS Paint or Microsoft Office and slapped it on the sign.
Not to worry, they way ODOT is replacing fairly new Highway Gothic BGS with Clearview BGS, this should only be an issue for maybe another year or two. :bigass:
The crappy Airport aux guide is already Clearview. Does that mean we're stuck with it?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mcdonaat on February 24, 2014, 02:52:21 AM
Post by: mcdonaat on February 24, 2014, 02:52:21 AM
Wait, would it not just be cheaper to add Airport under the word Indianapolis? If you're going to put it on a sign at least...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on February 24, 2014, 11:27:02 AM
Post by: hbelkins on February 24, 2014, 11:27:02 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on February 23, 2014, 08:40:04 PM
Not to worry, they way ODOT is replacing fairly new Highway Gothic BGS with Clearview BGS, this should only be an issue for maybe another year or two. :bigass:
In other words, Ohio is turning into Michigan.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ian on March 04, 2014, 11:46:28 AM
Post by: Ian on March 04, 2014, 11:46:28 AM
Oops
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2876%2F12915583233_e5b2746444_z.jpg&hash=8d8d4d9c4fe31d23807b66cd24cce1bd4fee7890)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7409%2F12915582593_09b48c87af_z.jpg&hash=9267f0e28c07c37f2d77cef8007d8bfe6d36cb4a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2876%2F12915583233_e5b2746444_z.jpg&hash=8d8d4d9c4fe31d23807b66cd24cce1bd4fee7890)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7409%2F12915582593_09b48c87af_z.jpg&hash=9267f0e28c07c37f2d77cef8007d8bfe6d36cb4a)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on March 05, 2014, 10:19:38 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on March 05, 2014, 10:19:38 PM
I'm not sure if this qualifies as Worst of Road Signs or not, but it made me throw up in my mouth a little.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOEbHadk.jpg&hash=f86466a329776c3fe26585f0936ece8e22537ebd)
Neither the Turnpike banner nor the SH-9 shield are original to this gantry.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOEbHadk.jpg&hash=f86466a329776c3fe26585f0936ece8e22537ebd)
Neither the Turnpike banner nor the SH-9 shield are original to this gantry.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on March 05, 2014, 10:20:52 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on March 05, 2014, 10:20:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2014, 10:19:38 PM
I'm not sure if this qualifies as Worst of Road Signs or not
It doesn't quite qualify, but qualifies much more than most others in that thread.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: colinstu on March 05, 2014, 10:22:18 PM
Post by: colinstu on March 05, 2014, 10:22:18 PM
what font is that even? (besides it being stretched)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on March 05, 2014, 10:28:25 PM
Post by: jakeroot on March 05, 2014, 10:28:25 PM
I understand from the previous position of this post that the blue signs are MUTCD compliant versus the white, but I keep seeing white above Interstate shields in my neck of the woods. Specifically, most newer installations have white signs instead of blue.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F65F8WPz.png&hash=441f77ffacf8b5327f8f397669cf5fd997b5c155)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F65F8WPz.png&hash=441f77ffacf8b5327f8f397669cf5fd997b5c155)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on March 05, 2014, 10:43:07 PM
Post by: NE2 on March 05, 2014, 10:43:07 PM
Because this needs wider circulation:
Quote from: clef on March 05, 2014, 08:47:57 PM
New assembly... oops
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-DFi1oAlPd_E/UxfTOeEf3tI/AAAAAAAAQFY/PH4gwqMqEBY/w654-h866-no/IMG_20140305_084625.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on March 05, 2014, 11:00:23 PM
Post by: vtk on March 05, 2014, 11:00:23 PM
Quote from: colinstu on March 05, 2014, 10:22:18 PM
what font is that even? (besides it being stretched)
B or C.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on March 05, 2014, 11:16:35 PM
Post by: jbnv on March 05, 2014, 11:16:35 PM
Quote from: clef on March 05, 2014, 08:47:57 PMWouldn't that be Adirolf's Turnpike? :-D
New assembly... oops
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-DFi1oAlPd_E/UxfTOeEf3tI/AAAAAAAAQFY/PH4gwqMqEBY/w654-h866-no/IMG_20140305_084625.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on March 05, 2014, 11:44:01 PM
Post by: Zeffy on March 05, 2014, 11:44:01 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2014, 10:19:38 PM
I'm not sure if this qualifies as Worst of Road Signs or not, but it made me throw up in my mouth a little.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOEbHadk.jpg&hash=f86466a329776c3fe26585f0936ece8e22537ebd)
That's automatic criteria for qualifying. In this case, the BYS does (YUCK), the BGS are fine.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on March 06, 2014, 10:41:06 AM
Post by: hbelkins on March 06, 2014, 10:41:06 AM
This is how it used to look. I thought I'd been there before, and I had.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_OKC_Day_4%2FImages%2F52.jpg&hash=685df7fbc5c08c3192c4c7ab2a67242f1f2f00ca)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_OKC_Day_4%2FImages%2F52.jpg&hash=685df7fbc5c08c3192c4c7ab2a67242f1f2f00ca)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on March 06, 2014, 10:56:43 AM
Post by: 1995hoo on March 06, 2014, 10:56:43 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2014, 10:19:38 PM
I'm not sure if this qualifies as Worst of Road Signs or not, but it made me throw up in my mouth a little.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOEbHadk.jpg&hash=f86466a329776c3fe26585f0936ece8e22537ebd)
Neither the Turnpike banner nor the SH-9 shield are original to this gantry.
If I had simply seen that picture somewhere else, I'd think the yellow sign was fake.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mass_citizen on March 06, 2014, 03:13:36 PM
Post by: mass_citizen on March 06, 2014, 03:13:36 PM
the 40mph banner on the ground mounted exit sign in the background is an addition as well
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on March 06, 2014, 05:29:22 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on March 06, 2014, 05:29:22 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 06, 2014, 03:13:36 PM
the 40mph banner on the ground mounted exit sign in the background is an addition as well
Yeah, those seem to be something in the 2003 MUTCD that Oklahoma really, really liked. They're all over metro OKC, and I believe Tulsa as well.
Note that while the sign was patched to mention SH-9, US-277 remains unmentioned.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: theline on March 06, 2014, 10:02:06 PM
Post by: theline on March 06, 2014, 10:02:06 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 05, 2014, 11:16:35 PMSo Florida is now "dressing right" rather than "dressing left"?Quote from: clef on March 05, 2014, 08:47:57 PMWouldn't that be Adirolf's Turnpike? :-D
New assembly... oops
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-DFi1oAlPd_E/UxfTOeEf3tI/AAAAAAAAQFY/PH4gwqMqEBY/w654-h866-no/IMG_20140305_084625.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US81 on March 07, 2014, 10:05:58 AM
Post by: US81 on March 07, 2014, 10:05:58 AM
Quote from: theline on March 06, 2014, 10:02:06 PM
So Florida is now "dressing right" rather than "dressing left"?
....it's taken me a little while, but I just about have the coffee cleaned off of the monitor...and my shirt....
:-D
Fixed quote, wiped up coffee ~S Thank you!!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on March 07, 2014, 10:10:42 PM
Post by: hbelkins on March 07, 2014, 10:10:42 PM
In the same vein as the reversed Florida:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2Fslippery.jpg&hash=d9514f7300b60554593a75a1e07d4d4297297c2f)
There are two of these on KY 1144 in Lee County, not too far from where I live.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2Fslippery.jpg&hash=d9514f7300b60554593a75a1e07d4d4297297c2f)
There are two of these on KY 1144 in Lee County, not too far from where I live.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on March 07, 2014, 10:31:05 PM
Post by: jakeroot on March 07, 2014, 10:31:05 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 07, 2014, 10:10:42 PM
In the same vein as the reversed Florida:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2Fslippery.jpg&hash=d9514f7300b60554593a75a1e07d4d4297297c2f)
There are two of these on KY 1144 in Lee County, not too far from where I live.
JOLLY GOOD MATE! KEEP LEFT!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alps on March 09, 2014, 12:14:45 AM
Post by: Alps on March 09, 2014, 12:14:45 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 07, 2014, 10:10:42 PMThis is like the deer jumping to the right, or, my favorite, the reversed handicap logo. If you're not intimately familiar with the sign, you'll never catch it.
In the same vein as the reversed Florida:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2Fslippery.jpg&hash=d9514f7300b60554593a75a1e07d4d4297297c2f)
There are two of these on KY 1144 in Lee County, not too far from where I live.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on March 10, 2014, 07:56:16 AM
Post by: formulanone on March 10, 2014, 07:56:16 AM
There's a "wet when slippery" sign like this along southbound US 41, north of Naples.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on March 10, 2014, 02:33:01 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on March 10, 2014, 02:33:01 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 10, 2014, 07:56:16 AM
There's a "wet when slippery" sign like this along southbound US 41, north of Naples.
Do you mean it says "wet when slippery" instead of "slippery when wet"?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on March 10, 2014, 05:42:22 PM
Post by: jakeroot on March 10, 2014, 05:42:22 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 10, 2014, 02:33:01 PMQuote from: formulanone on March 10, 2014, 07:56:16 AM
There's a "wet when slippery" sign like this along southbound US 41, north of Naples.
Do you mean it says "wet when slippery" instead of "slippery when wet"?
Lol, I was going to ask that same question. "Wet when slippery"?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstickerish.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2FYouDontSayBlackSS.png&hash=da69fbb2c1c3b29f25f830cab7f8fa428f267ddd)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on March 11, 2014, 12:38:52 AM
Post by: PurdueBill on March 11, 2014, 12:38:52 AM
I think what he's going for is that it's backwards, like the symbol sign pictured above.
"Backwards words say to used I. Again go I there. Oh $#!+."
--George Carlin
"Backwards words say to used I. Again go I there. Oh $#!+."
--George Carlin
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on March 11, 2014, 02:49:58 AM
Post by: jakeroot on March 11, 2014, 02:49:58 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 11, 2014, 12:38:52 AM
I think what he's going for is that it's backwards, like the symbol sign pictured above.
"Backwards words say to used I. Again go I there. Oh $#!+."
--George Carlin
GOD DAMMIT. HOW AM I THIS F*****G STUPID!!!??!?!
I need to go to bed.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on March 11, 2014, 02:38:02 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on March 11, 2014, 02:38:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 07, 2014, 10:10:42 PMMan, that car must have some really slippery leather bench seats. :bigass:
In the same vein as the reversed Florida:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fsigngoofs%2Fky%2Fslippery.jpg&hash=d9514f7300b60554593a75a1e07d4d4297297c2f)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: route56 on March 13, 2014, 07:37:46 PM
Post by: route56 on March 13, 2014, 07:37:46 PM
Spot the error: From US 75 in Holton.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7359%2F13130742553_8434370dbb.jpg&hash=c1ce45ba892ce2facbf43fe645ee78fa96964822) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/13130742553/)
48583 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/13130742553/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7359%2F13130742553_8434370dbb.jpg&hash=c1ce45ba892ce2facbf43fe645ee78fa96964822) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/13130742553/)
48583 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/13130742553/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on March 13, 2014, 07:41:49 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on March 13, 2014, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: route56 on March 13, 2014, 07:37:46 PM
Spot the error: From US 75 in Holton.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7359%2F13130742553_8434370dbb.jpg&hash=c1ce45ba892ce2facbf43fe645ee78fa96964822) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/13130742553/)
48583 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/13130742553/) by richiekennedy56 (http://www.flickr.com/people/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
ReALLY?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on March 13, 2014, 08:33:59 PM
Post by: vtk on March 13, 2014, 08:33:59 PM
Also, VIA and WEST should be on the same baseline, but I can't remember if they're supposed to be top-aligned or middle-aligned.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on March 14, 2014, 01:03:40 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on March 14, 2014, 01:03:40 PM
Center-aligning VIA and top-aligning a cardinal direction is something I've seen in Kansas before, so I'm inclined to dismiss it as KDOT house style rather than a design error.
For that matter, the border on the K-16 shield is nonstandard, but it looks cool.
For that matter, the border on the K-16 shield is nonstandard, but it looks cool.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on March 14, 2014, 01:04:26 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on March 14, 2014, 01:04:26 PM
Special thanks to NE2 for letting me know about the Florida DOT photolog:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.dot.state.fl.us%2Fvideologsource2%2F13687011%2FA87270000N%2FI_00832.jpg&hash=cc2837fd69a4381f59bc4daa09ca326cec3bf3ae)
How far is it to "arrow"?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.dot.state.fl.us%2Fvideologsource2%2F13687011%2FA87270000N%2FI_00832.jpg&hash=cc2837fd69a4381f59bc4daa09ca326cec3bf3ae)
How far is it to "arrow"?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on March 14, 2014, 01:26:03 PM
Post by: NE2 on March 14, 2014, 01:26:03 PM
A closeup:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fflorida050%2Fi-095_nb_exit_004b_02.jpg&hash=dca62967db4d79d02487a18bf4e1e1e355ad8f64)
Note the old-style arrow.
Several more:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Ffl%2Fi-95%2Fnfort.jpg&hash=e7f4c4571083ae8985238d4015c296dc97124582)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Ffl%2Fi-95%2Fsdist3.jpg&hash=9f92f8dc53311112014b215a4e71d5f7bf5e968c)
This seems to be an older standard.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fflorida050%2Fi-095_nb_exit_004b_02.jpg&hash=dca62967db4d79d02487a18bf4e1e1e355ad8f64)
Note the old-style arrow.
Several more:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Ffl%2Fi-95%2Fnfort.jpg&hash=e7f4c4571083ae8985238d4015c296dc97124582)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Ffl%2Fi-95%2Fsdist3.jpg&hash=9f92f8dc53311112014b215a4e71d5f7bf5e968c)
This seems to be an older standard.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on March 14, 2014, 01:56:14 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on March 14, 2014, 01:56:14 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 14, 2014, 01:26:03 PMThose BGS' look like there were plans for a route shield and/or direction cardinal to be placed in the above-blank spaces.
A closeup:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fflorida050%2Fi-095_nb_exit_004b_02.jpg&hash=dca62967db4d79d02487a18bf4e1e1e355ad8f64)
Note the old-style arrow.
Several more:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Ffl%2Fi-95%2Fnfort.jpg&hash=e7f4c4571083ae8985238d4015c296dc97124582)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Ffl%2Fi-95%2Fsdist3.jpg&hash=9f92f8dc53311112014b215a4e71d5f7bf5e968c)
This seems to be an older standard.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on March 14, 2014, 02:35:02 PM
Post by: NE2 on March 14, 2014, 02:35:02 PM
Here's one with a shield of sorts:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9FyjOsT.jpg&hash=df4b697f87026c70c26c6a2b499ad2cf15b4f16d)
Taken by Gene Janczynskyi, unknown date.
I think there were some with a sun logo for the beaches. Perhaps this had one under what looks like greenout:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fflorida050%2Fi-095_nb_exit_001b_07.jpg&hash=69f0494c681d31a582d54cdbedfac30ceef0db1b)
And speaking of design, um, errors...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzinMvNj.jpg&hash=13a760c6c99703604811eafdfe208462d8698ce9)
It was bad enough that they've since greened it out: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.835125,-82.030706&spn=0.061279,0.113382&gl=us&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=28.835034,-82.045505&panoid=7VWvzavwnN0mEMtGWiqZ9g&cbp=12,0.05,,0,0
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9FyjOsT.jpg&hash=df4b697f87026c70c26c6a2b499ad2cf15b4f16d)
Taken by Gene Janczynskyi, unknown date.
I think there were some with a sun logo for the beaches. Perhaps this had one under what looks like greenout:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fflorida050%2Fi-095_nb_exit_001b_07.jpg&hash=69f0494c681d31a582d54cdbedfac30ceef0db1b)
And speaking of design, um, errors...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzinMvNj.jpg&hash=13a760c6c99703604811eafdfe208462d8698ce9)
It was bad enough that they've since greened it out: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.835125,-82.030706&spn=0.061279,0.113382&gl=us&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=28.835034,-82.045505&panoid=7VWvzavwnN0mEMtGWiqZ9g&cbp=12,0.05,,0,0
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on March 14, 2014, 02:41:56 PM
Post by: Zeffy on March 14, 2014, 02:41:56 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 14, 2014, 02:35:02 PM
And speaking of design, um, errors...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzinMvNj.jpg&hash=13a760c6c99703604811eafdfe208462d8698ce9)
It was bad enough that they've since greened it out: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.835125,-82.030706&spn=0.061279,0.113382&gl=us&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=28.835034,-82.045505&panoid=7VWvzavwnN0mEMtGWiqZ9g&cbp=12,0.05,,0,0
Maybe the sign designer was feeling "down" that day if you know what I mean. :sombrero:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on March 14, 2014, 03:06:26 PM
Post by: jbnv on March 14, 2014, 03:06:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 14, 2014, 02:35:02 PM
And speaking of design, um, errors...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzinMvNj.jpg&hash=13a760c6c99703604811eafdfe208462d8698ce9)
Maybe the sign designer was feeling "down" that day if you know what I mean. :sombrero:
At least it wasn't shriveled.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Brandon on March 16, 2014, 10:39:13 PM
Post by: Brandon on March 16, 2014, 10:39:13 PM
Moar IDOT misteaks:
Something's just a little big.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3826_zpsc9a8a12d.jpg&hash=faef7df03d22447d50e1db549a20e77ad0244dff) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3826_zpsc9a8a12d.jpg.html)
When right is left and left is right.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3815_zps2d0a5482.jpg&hash=4a4671fcf416f44e54e190cdbd6908d4754cb9fc) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3815_zps2d0a5482.jpg.html)
Something's just a little big.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3826_zpsc9a8a12d.jpg&hash=faef7df03d22447d50e1db549a20e77ad0244dff) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3826_zpsc9a8a12d.jpg.html)
When right is left and left is right.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3815_zps2d0a5482.jpg&hash=4a4671fcf416f44e54e190cdbd6908d4754cb9fc) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3815_zps2d0a5482.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 22, 2014, 04:06:18 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 22, 2014, 04:06:18 PM
IMO, those aren't really major errors. In terms of Illinois 157, there really isn't anything wrong (ok fine its abnormally large). The EXIT 160 sign isn't really that big of an error.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Brandon on March 23, 2014, 06:35:08 PM
Post by: Brandon on March 23, 2014, 06:35:08 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 22, 2014, 04:06:18 PM
IMO, those aren't really major errors. In terms of Illinois 157, there really isn't anything wrong (ok fine its abnormally large). The EXIT 160 sign isn't really that big of an error.
But, design errors they are. They're not totally wrong, just designed poorly, hence the point of the thread.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on March 25, 2014, 06:19:56 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on March 25, 2014, 06:19:56 AM
Undersized B84 in South Australia
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ozroads.com.au%2FSA%2FNew%2F84%2F021.jpg&hash=53af440a390c63c8dac9fa7bab9dd45807e16dd2)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ozroads.com.au%2FSA%2FNew%2F84%2F021.jpg&hash=53af440a390c63c8dac9fa7bab9dd45807e16dd2)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mcdonaat on March 28, 2014, 12:02:40 AM
Post by: mcdonaat on March 28, 2014, 12:02:40 AM
It makes me mad every time I pass this sign!
http://goo.gl/maps/mAEmy (http://goo.gl/maps/mAEmy)
http://goo.gl/maps/mAEmy (http://goo.gl/maps/mAEmy)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on March 30, 2014, 12:56:11 PM
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on March 30, 2014, 12:56:11 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on March 25, 2014, 06:19:56 AM
Undersized B84 in South Australia
Try this for undersized text (https://maps.google.es/maps?ll=41.881065,2.784004&spn=0.020673,0.038581&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.882642,2.781339&panoid=B4NzTqgvMmPRMs6nq4GpGA&cbp=12,12.6,,1,-1.23). Good luck reading it at 75 mph :sombrero:.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on March 31, 2014, 04:43:35 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on March 31, 2014, 04:43:35 PM
While not erroneous in their original form & design, several BWS' along I-84 east of Hartford, CT; some recent ConnDOT repairs (replacing faded lettering & arrows) to several of these BWS' neglected to realize that the signs were BWS' and not BGS'.
White arrow on this BWS along I-84 Eastbound (http://goo.gl/maps/Ve0SW)
White and Yellow (for the N) replacement letters on this BWS along I-84 Westbound (http://goo.gl/maps/rikn5)
Note: all of advance BWS' along I-84 Westbound, containing the same message only have white replacement letters. One example of such (http://goo.gl/maps/F404D) and another (http://goo.gl/maps/ZkjwL).
ConnDOT must've ran out of black letters & arrows. :-D
White arrow on this BWS along I-84 Eastbound (http://goo.gl/maps/Ve0SW)
White and Yellow (for the N) replacement letters on this BWS along I-84 Westbound (http://goo.gl/maps/rikn5)
Note: all of advance BWS' along I-84 Westbound, containing the same message only have white replacement letters. One example of such (http://goo.gl/maps/F404D) and another (http://goo.gl/maps/ZkjwL).
ConnDOT must've ran out of black letters & arrows. :-D
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: busman_49 on May 30, 2014, 05:45:58 PM
Post by: busman_49 on May 30, 2014, 05:45:58 PM
This isn't some sort of perspective trick with the camera, the sign really is this wide.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3679/14328366423_74e7e80609_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nQ9C9p)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3679/14328366423_74e7e80609_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nQ9C9p)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on May 30, 2014, 06:51:24 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 30, 2014, 06:51:24 PM
Quote from: busman_49 on May 30, 2014, 05:45:58 PM
This isn't some sort of perspective trick with the camera, the sign really is this wide.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3679/14328366423_74e7e80609_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nQ9C9p)
I'm getting a headache looking at that sign...it's like a magic trick.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Gnutella on June 02, 2014, 08:34:10 PM
Post by: Gnutella on June 02, 2014, 08:34:10 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 06, 2012, 12:51:31 PMQuote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 05, 2012, 09:31:32 PM
When you run out of digits, don't use letters.
There is at least one blue services logo sign on I-71 near Grove City, Ohio in button copy that has an upside-down L standing in for the 7 in "EXIT 97". Thought I once got a picture, but can't locate it....
Found it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv437%2FDBR96%2FRoads%2520and%2520highways%2FFood-Exit9LI-71inOhio_zps6e445de6.png&hash=9be0500a76ddaba754de01c0bec3362c0ae4ac18)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on June 02, 2014, 09:29:17 PM
Post by: thenetwork on June 02, 2014, 09:29:17 PM
Oh, how I miss Tim Horton's...I still say they are better than Krispy Kreme -- especially the Tim Bits.
And, on a related note, I was very surprised at how fast Arby's dropped the little "a" in their new logo.
And, on a related note, I was very surprised at how fast Arby's dropped the little "a" in their new logo.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Gnutella on June 02, 2014, 10:00:21 PM
Post by: Gnutella on June 02, 2014, 10:00:21 PM
One sign error that amused me was on I-85 in South Carolina. Back when they still had button-copy signs north of Spartanburg, at Exit 102 was a sign that looked something like this:
It's since been replaced with a reflectorized sign.
EXIT 102
S.C.
198
Earl
BlaCkSburg
(arrow)
S.C.
198
Earl
BlaCkSburg
(arrow)
It's since been replaced with a reflectorized sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on June 03, 2014, 08:32:44 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on June 03, 2014, 08:32:44 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on June 02, 2014, 08:34:10 PMFound it.An old movie theater where I used to live almost always used upside-down Ls for 7s in their marquee.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv437%2FDBR96%2FRoads%2520and%2520highways%2FFood-Exit9LI-71inOhio_zps6e445de6.png&hash=9be0500a76ddaba754de01c0bec3362c0ae4ac18)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2014, 12:02:40 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2014, 12:02:40 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on June 02, 2014, 09:29:17 PM
And, on a related note, I was very surprised at how fast Arby's dropped the little "a" in their new logo.
So this one I had to look up. Apparently, that wasn't all that was wrong with the design. They tried making the hat a 3D hat, while leaving the name 2D. Then the apostrophe became a meat slicer. Take a look...it certainly looks like a, um, uh, huh?
It also cost the ad agency its relationship with Arby's.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on June 03, 2014, 12:57:37 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on June 03, 2014, 12:57:37 PM
Is it me or does that Arby's font on that sign resemble Budget rent-a-car's new font?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avisbudgetgroup.com%2Ffiles%2F3013%2F5343%2F4251%2Fbgt_hrz_rgb_pos.png&hash=f1d25b20fbc1ba087163516faf80a7b4756c1b3a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avisbudgetgroup.com%2Ffiles%2F3013%2F5343%2F4251%2Fbgt_hrz_rgb_pos.png&hash=f1d25b20fbc1ba087163516faf80a7b4756c1b3a)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on June 03, 2014, 01:47:46 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 03, 2014, 01:47:46 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 03, 2014, 12:57:37 PM
Is it me or does that Arby's font on that sign resemble Budget rent-a-car's new font?
It does appear to be quite similar, the Budget logo being a lighter weight -- I can't seem to figure out what the font is, however.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on June 04, 2014, 11:59:05 AM
Post by: Zeffy on June 04, 2014, 11:59:05 AM
Quote from: jake on June 03, 2014, 01:47:46 PM
It does appear to be quite similar, the Budget logo being a lighter weight -- I can't seem to figure out what the font is, however.
Looks like Hurme Geometric Sans 2 Semi Bold (http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/hurme-design/hurme-geometric-sans-2/2-semi-bold/).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mhh on June 13, 2014, 02:47:48 PM
Post by: mhh on June 13, 2014, 02:47:48 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.974015,-82.999376,3a,15y,167.79h,91.02t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6FSxlDsTR1eM3pT1i1JBEQ!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.974015,-82.999376,3a,15y,167.79h,91.02t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6FSxlDsTR1eM3pT1i1JBEQ!2e0)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on June 13, 2014, 05:52:59 PM
Post by: thenetwork on June 13, 2014, 05:52:59 PM
Quote from: mhh on June 13, 2014, 02:47:48 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.974015,-82.999376,3a,15y,167.79h,91.02t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6FSxlDsTR1eM3pT1i1JBEQ!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.974015,-82.999376,3a,15y,167.79h,91.02t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6FSxlDsTR1eM3pT1i1JBEQ!2e0)
I D o n ' t L i k e T h a t S i g n. N o t A t A l l.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on June 14, 2014, 07:23:55 PM
Post by: vtk on June 14, 2014, 07:23:55 PM
Yeah, I have to wonder how that sign came to be... I don't think I've seen another like it around central Ohio.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: amroad17 on June 14, 2014, 09:08:34 PM
Post by: amroad17 on June 14, 2014, 09:08:34 PM
Didn't the Ohio Turnpike have some BGS's that had a similar spacing on them? They were not as pronounced as this one above, but to me, the spacing between letters was a bit wider than normal.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on June 14, 2014, 10:00:19 PM
Post by: hbelkins on June 14, 2014, 10:00:19 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 14, 2014, 09:08:34 PM
Didn't the Ohio Turnpike have some BGS's that had a similar spacing on them? They were not as pronounced as this one above, but to me, the spacing between letters was a bit wider than normal.
I haven't traveled extensively on the Ohio Turnpike, but from what I do remember of my travel on the western part of it, there were some signs with unusual letterspacing.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on June 16, 2014, 03:06:43 PM
Post by: jbnv on June 16, 2014, 03:06:43 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 14, 2014, 09:08:34 PMYes. I remember quite a few west of Toledo. Don't know if they are still there.
Didn't the Ohio Turnpike have some BGS's that had a similar spacing on them? They were not as pronounced as this one above, but to me, the spacing between letters was a bit wider than normal.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 17, 2014, 08:55:23 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 17, 2014, 08:55:23 AM
A bit of a funky one from IDOT.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FI1St6F9.png&hash=4c234b7b07825488b35b4cd241d23ede8594a442)
This is one I-55 North near Normal.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FI1St6F9.png&hash=4c234b7b07825488b35b4cd241d23ede8594a442)
This is one I-55 North near Normal.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Brandon on June 23, 2014, 01:53:46 PM
Post by: Brandon on June 23, 2014, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 17, 2014, 08:55:23 AM
A bit of a funky one from IDOT.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FI1St6F9.png&hash=4c234b7b07825488b35b4cd241d23ede8594a442)
This is one I-55 North near Normal.
It's nowhere remotely near Normal (closer to Joliet than Normal actually, as it is in Grundy County). However, some of the oddness of this sign and others for this exit seem to stem from the fact that IL-129 used to end here as well.
Quote from: jbnv on June 16, 2014, 03:06:43 PMQuote from: amroad17 on June 14, 2014, 09:08:34 PMYes. I remember quite a few west of Toledo. Don't know if they are still there.
Didn't the Ohio Turnpike have some BGS's that had a similar spacing on them? They were not as pronounced as this one above, but to me, the spacing between letters was a bit wider than normal.
Here's a one of them:
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.589211,-84.332359&spn=0.004606,0.010568&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.589211,-84.332359&panoid=ogLHB9xby_Zwg_ajgtVHfw&cbp=12,76.68,,0,2.1
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on August 07, 2014, 04:24:05 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on August 07, 2014, 04:24:05 PM
Fabricator of this D6 LGS (http://goo.gl/maps/zzA6B) (look closely) along MA 135 in Natick must be very new to MassDOT state highway shield specs. One has to wonder what state name would've been placed on that 27 shield? :hmmm:
Update: looking at that LGS more closely when I was up there 2-1/2 weeks ago (to attend a friend's father's funeral), I noticed that there's actually two shields placed on top of one another. The original larger shield lost its 27 numerals and a smaller borderless MA 27 shield was placed on top of the larger shield but positioned a bit lower.
Update: looking at that LGS more closely when I was up there 2-1/2 weeks ago (to attend a friend's father's funeral), I noticed that there's actually two shields placed on top of one another. The original larger shield lost its 27 numerals and a smaller borderless MA 27 shield was placed on top of the larger shield but positioned a bit lower.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on August 07, 2014, 05:55:36 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on August 07, 2014, 05:55:36 PM
I don't know how they managed this one...
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3906/14611529269_a23ac0d594.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ogaUAr)
Curve Ahead Sign (https://flic.kr/p/ogaUAr) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3906/14611529269_a23ac0d594.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ogaUAr)
Curve Ahead Sign (https://flic.kr/p/ogaUAr) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: odditude on November 03, 2014, 09:17:16 AM
Post by: odditude on November 03, 2014, 09:17:16 AM
sorry, no pic...
the replacement for this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1995865,-74.6214586,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1swvwK8G8aXe_zvUpGsMDanQ!2e0) on I-195 West in NJ is uniquely ugly. the trailblazer is the same size and using the same Series B numbers, but imagine each number is two sizes smaller and shares the bottom-right anchorpoint with those in the original sign. tiny, misaligned, and absurdly spaced-out numbers.
the replacement for this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1995865,-74.6214586,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1swvwK8G8aXe_zvUpGsMDanQ!2e0) on I-195 West in NJ is uniquely ugly. the trailblazer is the same size and using the same Series B numbers, but imagine each number is two sizes smaller and shares the bottom-right anchorpoint with those in the original sign. tiny, misaligned, and absurdly spaced-out numbers.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on November 16, 2014, 04:37:43 AM
Post by: vtk on November 16, 2014, 04:37:43 AM
Two design errors that are so severe, they are borderline information errors. Sorry no pics, but the first one is on GSV:
1. SE side of Columbus, US 33 WB at I-270. The bridge-mounted exit direction sign for the loop ramp to I-270 SB doesn't have any arrows or action message, making it look like an old pull-thru sign for the wrong freeway.
2. South side of Columbus, I-270 WB approaching I-71. Advance guide signs for I-71 display absolutely no indication that the right two lanes must exit. (Just in the last 24 hours, this part of 270 became four lanes WB, versus two before. The signs in question are new installs for this project, but they appear to be Clearviewized carbon copies of the old signs, complete with centered exit tabs.)
1. SE side of Columbus, US 33 WB at I-270. The bridge-mounted exit direction sign for the loop ramp to I-270 SB doesn't have any arrows or action message, making it look like an old pull-thru sign for the wrong freeway.
2. South side of Columbus, I-270 WB approaching I-71. Advance guide signs for I-71 display absolutely no indication that the right two lanes must exit. (Just in the last 24 hours, this part of 270 became four lanes WB, versus two before. The signs in question are new installs for this project, but they appear to be Clearviewized carbon copies of the old signs, complete with centered exit tabs.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on November 21, 2014, 09:32:26 PM
Post by: national highway 1 on November 21, 2014, 09:32:26 PM
Too much blank space!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fexpressway.paulrands.com%2Fgallery%2Froads%2Fqld%2Fnumbered%2Falphanumeric%2Fm-a1%2F03_brucehwy%2F02_beerburrumtonambour%2Fsouthbound%2Fimages%2F200801_06_tanawha_sunshinemwy_sr70_robtilley.jpg&hash=17d6e41d7c27600c572caf7d5bc81849ce72bb16)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fexpressway.paulrands.com%2Fgallery%2Froads%2Fqld%2Fnumbered%2Falphanumeric%2Fm-a1%2F03_brucehwy%2F02_beerburrumtonambour%2Fsouthbound%2Fimages%2F200801_06_tanawha_sunshinemwy_sr70_robtilley.jpg&hash=17d6e41d7c27600c572caf7d5bc81849ce72bb16)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: english si on November 22, 2014, 12:49:09 PM
Post by: english si on November 22, 2014, 12:49:09 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 04, 2014, 10:20:10 AMNot always. The Brits, Aussies, and Kiwis use "Give Way".Not always - sometimes the Brits use bilingual signs! English and Welsh (https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=53.082091,-3.994346&spn=0.023123,0.024161&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=53.082086,-4.002422&panoid=fxPFHdmUsCoLsBh5b9pV9w&cbp=12,35.7,,1,6.39). Sadly (London's) Chinatown's bilingual signs don't cover "Give Way", nor do the (Scottish) Gaelic signage are in Scotland (bilingual in a lot of the West/North West/Highlands, and monolingual for direction signs in
Quote from: Brandon on February 04, 2014, 04:14:21 PMFor some reason the mainland Euros like to claim their standards as "international" when they apply to maybe half the world at best.Half the world is doing it wrong and would be so much better if they did things the way the Franco-Germanics do them.
"Thou shalt be the same" is the continentals' refrain.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on November 24, 2014, 11:08:06 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on November 24, 2014, 11:08:06 AM
Not yet shown on GSV, but another erroneous SR shield for US 202 has recently been erected; this time in Delaware along DE 92 (Naaman's Road). It's a JCT. 202 trailblazer along DE 92 westbound.
Unlike other states (PA & MA for examples) that have erroneously posted SR 202 shields in the past; DE indeed has an SR 202, just not at this location (well north of I-95).
Unlike other states (PA & MA for examples) that have erroneously posted SR 202 shields in the past; DE indeed has an SR 202, just not at this location (well north of I-95).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alex4897 on November 24, 2014, 05:40:33 PM
Post by: Alex4897 on November 24, 2014, 05:40:33 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 24, 2014, 11:08:06 AM
Not yet shown on GSV, but another erroneous SR shield for US 202 has recently been erected; this time in Delaware along DE 92 (Naaman's Road). It's a JCT. 202 trailblazer along DE 92 westbound.
Unlike other states (PA & MA for examples) that have erroneously posted SR 202 shields in the past; DE indeed has an SR 202, just not at this location (well north of I-95).
It seems out of all the routes Delaware maintains, it screws up signage for US / DE 202 most often.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on November 24, 2014, 05:43:47 PM
Post by: Zeffy on November 24, 2014, 05:43:47 PM
Quote from: Alex4897 on November 24, 2014, 05:40:33 PM
It seems out of all the routes Delaware maintains, it screws up signage for US / DE 202 most often.
To be fair, this should be expected when you have a state route that shares a number with a major US Highway. Contractors don't know the difference.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on December 14, 2014, 10:06:14 PM
Post by: Takumi on December 14, 2014, 10:06:14 PM
Ugly unisign for VA 142 near its east end (a railroad bridge, which was the old Petersburg city limits, just outside this photo is where it ends and the road becomes unnumbered). I didn't want to put it in The Worst Of Road Signs because the shields look all right and it's a good font, just too large for the shields.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi42.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe343%2Fagenthydra%2FMobile%2520Uploads%2FIMG_20141214_214209.jpg&hash=a3062579aa9b3d6555aaca33a4cdfd4dc203fd39)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi42.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe343%2Fagenthydra%2FMobile%2520Uploads%2FIMG_20141214_214209.jpg&hash=a3062579aa9b3d6555aaca33a4cdfd4dc203fd39)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on December 27, 2014, 05:04:37 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on December 27, 2014, 05:04:37 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/Sl05Z
http://goo.gl/maps/DcKfS
Can't send this one into "worst", but the signs should have the farthest city on the bottom.
712 km is quite a distance to show.
http://goo.gl/maps/DcKfS
Can't send this one into "worst", but the signs should have the farthest city on the bottom.
712 km is quite a distance to show.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on December 27, 2014, 09:11:39 PM
Post by: vtk on December 27, 2014, 09:11:39 PM
Quote from: vtk on November 16, 2014, 04:37:43 AM
South side of Columbus, I-270 WB approaching I-71. Advance guide signs for I-71 display absolutely no indication that the right two lanes must exit. (Clearviewized carbon copies of the old signs, complete with centered exit tabs.)
Got some pics with my camera phone:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2FIMG_20141227_101305.jpg&hash=5cbfb18cc7f23c597690bc21a798f7735a26818e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2FIMG_20141227_101335.jpg&hash=a3a07668e488250aae9170c892a3d9653922b872)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2FIMG_20141227_101347.jpg&hash=7978f87bb382d2f53fb19fbb9814a2ca333bbc2c)
(Holy crap that looks crap. Stupid phone camera must have applied the 2X digital zoom after rescaling the whole image to VGA resolution... X-()
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: broadhurst04 on December 27, 2014, 10:40:49 PM
Post by: broadhurst04 on December 27, 2014, 10:40:49 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2012, 12:57:44 PMQuote from: kphoger on July 04, 2012, 06:13:24 PM
Couldn't they have just left out the word Center altogether and conveyed the same meaning?
then it would result in a real head-scratcher. "Level 1 Trauma". we'd be posting it in the "least explicable signs" next to "permitted vehicles prohibited" and "block mother area".
Where is that thread? I tried searching for it but came up empty.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on January 01, 2015, 06:33:43 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on January 01, 2015, 06:33:43 AM
The bottom sign leaves a lot to be desired...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fexpressway.paulrands.com%2Fgallery%2Froads%2Fqld%2Fnumbered%2Falphanumeric%2Fm-a1%2F02_gatewaymwy%2F02_brisbanerivertobaldhills%2Fnorthbound%2Fimages%2F200908_16_nudgee_nudgeeservicectr_robtilley.jpg&hash=580df5169f751a168f697b1173e2e5dbccbdd9c6)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fexpressway.paulrands.com%2Fgallery%2Froads%2Fqld%2Fnumbered%2Falphanumeric%2Fm-a1%2F02_gatewaymwy%2F02_brisbanerivertobaldhills%2Fnorthbound%2Fimages%2F200908_16_nudgee_nudgeeservicectr_robtilley.jpg&hash=580df5169f751a168f697b1173e2e5dbccbdd9c6)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 01, 2015, 11:11:48 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 01, 2015, 11:11:48 PM
Here is an ugly sign on the Loop 202 SanTan Freeway in Mesa, Arizona:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Faz%2F202%2F87to60%2F11.jpg&hash=ef2bf12e89af1b92d32832ee0f7de10996c4fc11)
This sign is still in place as of now. Arizona used demountable copy after abandoning button copy in 2000, and continued to do so until switching to Clearview which is only available in direct-applied copy. I presume the sign makers were out of the correct mixed case FHWA Series E Modified demountable letters.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Faz%2F202%2F87to60%2F11.jpg&hash=ef2bf12e89af1b92d32832ee0f7de10996c4fc11)
This sign is still in place as of now. Arizona used demountable copy after abandoning button copy in 2000, and continued to do so until switching to Clearview which is only available in direct-applied copy. I presume the sign makers were out of the correct mixed case FHWA Series E Modified demountable letters.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 02, 2015, 01:25:11 AM
Post by: jakeroot on January 02, 2015, 01:25:11 AM
241 at the 91 (http://goo.gl/XhpAkY) outside Yorba Linda, California ... white "exit only" plate and oddly placed cardinal directions. No certainty in regards to whether or not sign still exists (though GMSV is from May of last year):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuOue1DX.png&hash=b7c904b50da0a0223a95f895ecb59898fd0c0dd8)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuOue1DX.png&hash=b7c904b50da0a0223a95f895ecb59898fd0c0dd8)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: dfwmapper on January 02, 2015, 04:24:55 AM
Post by: dfwmapper on January 02, 2015, 04:24:55 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 01, 2015, 11:11:48 PMThe positioning of the 60 makes it look like they reused the old 60 EAST - Mesa/Globe sign from SB Loop 101 back in the day when it was only open from Loop 202 to US 60 and only the S->E and W->N ramps had been constructed at the US 60 interchange.
Here is an ugly sign on the Loop 202 SanTan Freeway in Mesa, Arizona:
This sign is still in place as of now. Arizona used demountable copy after abandoning button copy in 2000, and continued to do so until switching to Clearview which is only available in direct-applied copy. I presume the sign makers were out of the correct mixed case FHWA Series E Modified demountable letters.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on January 03, 2015, 10:08:29 PM
Post by: jbnv on January 03, 2015, 10:08:29 PM
I don't have a picture of this, because I happened to notice it as I drove past it and GSV shows a different sign at the point (it's almost 4 years old). Anyway, the sign is the EXIT 1 gore sign (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kenner,+LA/@30.0016601,-90.2940451,3a,15y,29.71h,89.11t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sR_YwsjXYzvz7jYhJZFYFWg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x8620b71a8fb99541:0x70eb037035c6a40?hl=en) at the northern terminus of I-310 near New Orleans. When I passed that point on Thursday, the EXIT 1 sign has the leftward arrow in the right-hand corner.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on January 06, 2015, 10:50:10 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on January 06, 2015, 10:50:10 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/Jda77
I think this should be black on white ("normal" speed limit), rather than an advisory "ramp" speed.
I think this should be black on white ("normal" speed limit), rather than an advisory "ramp" speed.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 06, 2015, 11:23:17 PM
Post by: jakeroot on January 06, 2015, 11:23:17 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on January 06, 2015, 10:50:10 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/Jda77
I think this should be black on white ("normal" speed limit), rather than an advisory "ramp" speed.
Probably should be, but maybe they're fulling expecting people to exceed 20 km/h, so they just said "install an advisory speed so at least we aren't responsible when they crash going 110".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 11:13:11 AM
Post by: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 11:13:11 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 02, 2015, 01:25:11 AM
241 at the 91 (http://goo.gl/XhpAkY) outside Yorba Linda, California ... white "exit only" plate and oddly placed cardinal directions. No certainty in regards to whether or not sign still exists (though GMSV is from May of last year):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuOue1DX.png&hash=b7c904b50da0a0223a95f895ecb59898fd0c0dd8)
The magic of greenout, brought to you by Caltrans.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on January 10, 2015, 01:57:11 PM
Post by: roadfro on January 10, 2015, 01:57:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 02, 2015, 01:25:11 AM
241 at the 91 (http://goo.gl/XhpAkY) outside Yorba Linda, California ... white "exit only" plate and oddly placed cardinal directions. No certainty in regards to whether or not sign still exists (though GMSV is from May of last year):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuOue1DX.png&hash=b7c904b50da0a0223a95f895ecb59898fd0c0dd8)
Is that a white ONLY panel, or is it sun-faded?
Odd thing here: if Caltrans had used their stacked/square internal exit tab variant, they may have been able to retain the original cardinal directions on the sign. In any event, they should have aligned the cardinal patches much closer to the shield--I doubt the exit patch and cardinals were manufactured as one solid piece.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: myosh_tino on January 10, 2015, 03:50:51 PM
Post by: myosh_tino on January 10, 2015, 03:50:51 PM
Quote from: roadfro on January 10, 2015, 01:57:11 PMQuote from: jakeroot on January 02, 2015, 01:25:11 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuOue1DX.png&hash=b7c904b50da0a0223a95f895ecb59898fd0c0dd8)
Is that a white ONLY panel, or is it sun-faded?
You know, given how much sun SoCal gets and the fact that these signs face south, I thought they were faded as well.
Quote from: roadfro on January 10, 2015, 01:57:11 PM
Odd thing here: if Caltrans had used their stacked/square internal exit tab variant, they may have been able to retain the original cardinal directions on the sign. In any event, they should have aligned the cardinal patches much closer to the shield--I doubt the exit patch and cardinals were manufactured as one solid piece.
I don't think there's enough room for California's box-style exit "tab" unless you shrink it to fit (something Caltrans has done on occasion) and the location of the cardinal direction is far from ideal. I would rather have seen new signs installed instead of this patch job.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 10, 2015, 03:55:21 PM
Post by: jakeroot on January 10, 2015, 03:55:21 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 10, 2015, 03:50:51 PMQuote from: roadfro on January 10, 2015, 01:57:11 PMQuote from: jakeroot on January 02, 2015, 01:25:11 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuOue1DX.png&hash=b7c904b50da0a0223a95f895ecb59898fd0c0dd8)
Is that a white ONLY panel, or is it sun-faded?
You know, given how much sun SoCal gets and the fact that these signs face south, I thought they were faded as well.
Pretty decent chance they are sun faded. I forgot that was I thing (living in such a cloudy area).
EDIT: are they any other examples of faded "only's"?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on January 10, 2015, 09:47:15 PM
Post by: SignBridge on January 10, 2015, 09:47:15 PM
Those signs are so old, that Caltrans just should have replaced them. That's what New York State DOT would have done.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: MarkF on January 11, 2015, 01:16:17 AM
Post by: MarkF on January 11, 2015, 01:16:17 AM
Here's a still from a video I shot in 2006, they were yellow then:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F2006_241at91_zpse8eaaca9.jpg&hash=512561c9c2331df1f9b46383d6c8adc8a27b2ea5)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F2006_241at91_zpse8eaaca9.jpg&hash=512561c9c2331df1f9b46383d6c8adc8a27b2ea5)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 11, 2015, 03:26:32 AM
Post by: jakeroot on January 11, 2015, 03:26:32 AM
Quote from: MarkF on January 11, 2015, 01:16:17 AM
Here's a still from a video I shot in 2006, they were yellow then:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F2006_241at91_zpse8eaaca9.jpg&hash=512561c9c2331df1f9b46383d6c8adc8a27b2ea5)
Technically that's a different sign but the oddity remains ... GMSV is from late 2008. What the hell happened over the course of two years to make them completely lose their yellow?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fm8cnYE2.png&hash=2074e5b8cac84d5954bb1dc83b09c8a52ef5b9ab)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on January 11, 2015, 08:19:00 PM
Post by: SignBridge on January 11, 2015, 08:19:00 PM
They reached the end of their service life........
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 11, 2015, 08:51:21 PM
Post by: jakeroot on January 11, 2015, 08:51:21 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 11, 2015, 08:19:00 PM
They reached the end of their service life........
They're like Maserati's... the second the warranty ends **BANG** useless.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Stratuscaster on January 11, 2015, 10:04:56 PM
Post by: Stratuscaster on January 11, 2015, 10:04:56 PM
Not only did they change from yellow to white, but the arrows changed directions, too.
;)
;)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 11, 2015, 11:31:10 PM
Post by: jakeroot on January 11, 2015, 11:31:10 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on January 11, 2015, 10:04:56 PM
Not only did they change from yellow to white, but the arrows changed directions, too.
;)
It took me a long time to catch it. In fact, my post just above in response to the video frame originally included this "modern-day" GMSV shot to compare the changes over the two years since the video:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F68P3YkL.png&hash=654958bbfec50b0c9ab268d7dc3de96630c257dc)
You can tell by the edit time that it took me over a half hour to notice the error.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: MarkF on January 12, 2015, 02:15:49 AM
Post by: MarkF on January 12, 2015, 02:15:49 AM
Oops, should have been this one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F2006_241at91_2_zps09d2ac3c.jpg&hash=73eca9e8d6d433d4a423ebca6fff94ac785f7072)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F2006_241at91_2_zps09d2ac3c.jpg&hash=73eca9e8d6d433d4a423ebca6fff94ac785f7072)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: dfwmapper on January 12, 2015, 04:27:54 AM
Post by: dfwmapper on January 12, 2015, 04:27:54 AM
Caltrans may have just replaced the yellow panels with white ones when they updated the signs. They do love their random white panels.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 12, 2015, 04:40:35 AM
Post by: jakeroot on January 12, 2015, 04:40:35 AM
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 12, 2015, 04:27:54 AM
Caltrans may have just replaced the yellow panels with white ones when they updated the signs. They do love their random white panels.
I wouldn't have told you that a few days ago, but I'm really starting to think that's what happened.
1) in two years, they've faded from very yellow to completely white -- unlikely
2) the "only" tabs are round in the film frame, versus square in the current sign
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on January 12, 2015, 09:18:24 PM
Post by: SignBridge on January 12, 2015, 09:18:24 PM
Strange bunch, those Caltrans sign engineers..........
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on January 12, 2015, 10:47:28 PM
Post by: NE2 on January 12, 2015, 10:47:28 PM
Caltrans doesn't maintain SR 241...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 12, 2015, 11:50:51 PM
Post by: jakeroot on January 12, 2015, 11:50:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2015, 10:47:28 PM
Caltrans doesn't maintain SR 241...
Wikipedia indicates dual-maintenance by both TCA and Caltrans. I would guess TCA does about 90% of the maintaining, with Caltrans doing the other 10%, maybe including things like the signs. Just spitballing.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: dfwmapper on January 13, 2015, 02:16:08 AM
Post by: dfwmapper on January 13, 2015, 02:16:08 AM
Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2015, 10:47:28 PMhttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/technical_resources/federal_credit_policy_paper/appendix_d.aspx
Caltrans doesn't maintain SR 241...
QuoteAs with the SJC, Caltrans will be responsible for traffic operations, maintenance, and liability, pursuant to a Cooperative Agreement between TCA and Caltrans. Pursuant to the terms of an agreement between Lockheed Management Information Services Company, Inc. and TCA, Lockheed will design, construct, operate, and maintain the integrated toll collection and management system. Upon completion of both SJC and FETC, the operations of the two corridors will be integrated into one and managed under the terms of a Multiple Use Agreement. TCA will retain ownership of the toll collection system and equipment for the FETC.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on January 18, 2015, 09:07:24 PM
Post by: national highway 1 on January 18, 2015, 09:07:24 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_103a_07a.jpg)
The legend for the Exit 103B panel seems awfully cramped amongst that exit tab. A very awkwardly designed sign on this sign assembly.
The legend for the Exit 103B panel seems awfully cramped amongst that exit tab. A very awkwardly designed sign on this sign assembly.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Stratuscaster on January 18, 2015, 10:22:26 PM
Post by: Stratuscaster on January 18, 2015, 10:22:26 PM
Not a design error per se, just poorly laid out within the confines of the California MUTCD.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: myosh_tino on January 19, 2015, 01:02:37 AM
Post by: myosh_tino on January 19, 2015, 01:02:37 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on January 18, 2015, 09:07:24 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_103a_07a.jpg)
The legend for the Exit 103B panel seems awfully cramped amongst that exit tab. A very awkwardly designed sign on this sign assembly.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on January 18, 2015, 10:22:26 PM
Not a design error per se, just poorly laid out within the confines of the California MUTCD.
IMO, there's very little Caltrans could have done to make layout any better. The problem is you have a single dropped lane for CA-55 south which also serves as an option lane for CA-55 north. Because Caltrans chose to include an I-5 pull through with down arrows pointing to each through lane, the CA-55 south sign is only 10 1/2 feet wide by my estimation which doesn't give you much room for a route shield, two lines of legend, a lane-drop panel and an exit "tab". Even if California used external tabs, that CA-55 south sign would still have needed to use 12" E-modified for "Newport Beach" because the sign is too narrow to accommodate 16" legend.
For those of you with sign-making abilities, here is my drawing of the original sign with dimensions and details below...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-55_orig.png&hash=cd786a3b49bacf944e8c543c6259e601d1718498)
I-5 Pull Through --- 486" x 120", 16" "Santa Ana", 36" I-5 Shield, 12" "NORTH"
CA-55 South --- 126" x 120", 12" "Newport Beach", 36" CA-55 Shield, 12" "SOUTH"
CA-55 North --- 220" x 120", 12" "Anaheim / Riverside", 36" CA-55 Shield, 12" "NORTH"
If you can lay this out any better while remaining within the dimensions of the existing sign panels, I would be thoroughly impressed. I'll even allow the use of external exit tabs.
With all that said, I did try to improve the layout and here's the result...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-55_alt.png&hash=2fe505da49ca382509f65e8f4d7587c242286f23)
The big change was to combine the two CA-55 signs into one so you'd only need one instance of the CA-55 shield. I also reduced the size of the cardinal directions from 12" to 10" so I could increase "Newport Beach" from 12" to 13.3" E-modified. The last change made was to drop Anaheim from the CA-55 north sign because, CA-55 doesn't go anywhere near Anaheim. I-5 and CA-57 do.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on January 24, 2015, 08:39:31 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on January 24, 2015, 08:39:31 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/qyCi5
Not sure if you can count this as a design error, but that arrow should be higher on that sign, not at the very bottom.
Not sure if you can count this as a design error, but that arrow should be higher on that sign, not at the very bottom.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 25, 2015, 02:47:41 AM
Post by: jakeroot on January 25, 2015, 02:47:41 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on January 24, 2015, 08:39:31 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/qyCi5
Not sure if you can count this as a design error, but that arrow should be higher on that sign, not at the very bottom.
I'm not sure why the MOT went with the stubby arrow for those signs when just about every other sign has full-height arrows.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: KEK Inc. on January 25, 2015, 06:46:23 AM
Post by: KEK Inc. on January 25, 2015, 06:46:23 AM
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.195286,-122.789801,3a,21.1y,112.57h,90.6t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5w9l7vWjMWj5PDetwkwKHQ!2e0
No; don't abuse 'NO ENTRY' signs like that.
No; don't abuse 'NO ENTRY' signs like that.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Brandon on January 25, 2015, 10:24:04 AM
Post by: Brandon on January 25, 2015, 10:24:04 AM
This has since been fixed:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_4867_zpswmvxwgqc.jpg&hash=8e4ab655b3ae03ff343bb5bac188f06d0dfd9063) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_4867_zpswmvxwgqc.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_4867_zpswmvxwgqc.jpg&hash=8e4ab655b3ae03ff343bb5bac188f06d0dfd9063) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_4867_zpswmvxwgqc.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on January 25, 2015, 01:33:49 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on January 25, 2015, 01:33:49 PM
These brand new signs have a capital K when it should be a lowercase.
http://goo.gl/maps/UT5ZL
http://goo.gl/maps/UT5ZL
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 25, 2015, 04:03:39 PM
Post by: jakeroot on January 25, 2015, 04:03:39 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on January 25, 2015, 01:33:49 PM
These brand new signs have a capital K when it should be a lowercase.
http://goo.gl/maps/UT5ZL
Improper use of metric! -- unless I'm mistaken, I do believe the SI symbols are supposed to be all lowercase, minus some like "mL".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: riiga on January 25, 2015, 06:56:26 PM
Post by: riiga on January 25, 2015, 06:56:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 25, 2015, 04:03:39 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on January 25, 2015, 01:33:49 PM
These brand new signs have a capital K when it should be a lowercase.
http://goo.gl/maps/UT5ZL
Improper use of metric! -- unless I'm mistaken, I do believe the SI symbols are supposed to be all lowercase, minus some like "mL".
Both mL and ml are fine, but you're both right about the K. K is the symbol for (degrees) Kelvin, k the kilo prefix. There is no general rule about the case of SI symbols or prefixes though, some prefixes are upper case, but most are lower case.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on January 25, 2015, 09:00:45 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on January 25, 2015, 09:00:45 PM
Quote from: riiga on January 25, 2015, 06:56:26 PMQuote from: jakeroot on January 25, 2015, 04:03:39 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on January 25, 2015, 01:33:49 PM
These brand new signs have a capital K when it should be a lowercase.
http://goo.gl/maps/UT5ZL
Improper use of metric! -- unless I'm mistaken, I do believe the SI symbols are supposed to be all lowercase, minus some like "mL".
Both mL and ml are fine, but you're both right about the K. K is the symbol for (degrees) Kelvin, k the kilo prefix. There is no general rule about the case of SI symbols or prefixes though, some prefixes are upper case, but most are lower case.
SI uses uppercase notation when the unit is named after someone. Examples include the Watt for James Watt, Pascal named after Blaise Pascal etc etc. Kilometre isn't named after anyone, so it should be a lowercase. mL (or L) is the only exception, because l looks like a 1.
100 L versus 100 l
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on January 26, 2015, 12:30:51 AM
Post by: PurdueBill on January 26, 2015, 12:30:51 AM
To be pedantic about a fine point: the abbreviation for a SI/metric (not exactly the same thing, but close) unit named after someone is capitalized, but the unit itself is not. (e.g., the joule is named after Joule; the unit is lowercase but the unit capital J--same with the coulomb, volt, kelvin, hertz, newton, pascal, becquerel, etc.) It's similar in formatting to chemical elements in that they are not proper nouns but their symbol gets first letter uppercase.
Want fun with units and cases of letters? The pressure unit "torr"....
name: torr (lowercase)
abbreviation: Torr (capital T)
Nearly every general chemistry text and most upper-level texts get it wrong according to the powers that be and use the lowercase one as the abbreviation. Can you blame them though?
I can see that it's consistent across honorary units but the abbreviation being the same as the name is what kills you there.
On design errors, this two-for-one special (http://goo.gl/maps/UFJXs) drives me crazy every time I see it. Both panels should read "next right" if not "Exit 3" (they were put in as part of the signage project that included adding exit numbering to OH 8), but neither does. The lower sign looks like it belongs on the ramp approaching the signal. "Keep right" is somewhat ambiguous as to whether or not to exit. (Fortunately, if you did not exit, there is yet another hospital if you take the next exit--a couple to choose from, actually.)
Want fun with units and cases of letters? The pressure unit "torr"....
name: torr (lowercase)
abbreviation: Torr (capital T)
Nearly every general chemistry text and most upper-level texts get it wrong according to the powers that be and use the lowercase one as the abbreviation. Can you blame them though?
I can see that it's consistent across honorary units but the abbreviation being the same as the name is what kills you there.
On design errors, this two-for-one special (http://goo.gl/maps/UFJXs) drives me crazy every time I see it. Both panels should read "next right" if not "Exit 3" (they were put in as part of the signage project that included adding exit numbering to OH 8), but neither does. The lower sign looks like it belongs on the ramp approaching the signal. "Keep right" is somewhat ambiguous as to whether or not to exit. (Fortunately, if you did not exit, there is yet another hospital if you take the next exit--a couple to choose from, actually.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on January 26, 2015, 09:44:52 AM
Post by: freebrickproductions on January 26, 2015, 09:44:52 AM
Would Km be Kelvin*meters?
What in the world would you use that unit for anyways?
What in the world would you use that unit for anyways?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: riiga on January 26, 2015, 10:00:48 AM
Post by: riiga on January 26, 2015, 10:00:48 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on January 26, 2015, 09:44:52 AM
Would Km be Kelvin*meters?
What in the world would you use that unit for anyways?
Some sort of thermal bandwidth I'd guess, but I've never heard of such a unit being used.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on January 26, 2015, 11:52:43 AM
Post by: PurdueBill on January 26, 2015, 11:52:43 AM
Properly I think that either a space or a raised dot should be used to indicate the multiplication (versus prefixing). Not always a fan of citing Wikipedia, but the Derived Units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units#Derived_units) section of the SI article shows examples with the raised dots as well as negative exponents which are used for denominator units. So kelvin * meter would be K∙m. One can probably come up with all sorts of interesting units that might wind up being needed to cancel others in an equation, I suppose.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Thing 342 on January 26, 2015, 12:09:14 PM
Post by: Thing 342 on January 26, 2015, 12:09:14 PM
Quote from: riiga on January 25, 2015, 06:56:26 PMQuote from: jakeroot on January 25, 2015, 04:03:39 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on January 25, 2015, 01:33:49 PM
These brand new signs have a capital K when it should be a lowercase.
http://goo.gl/maps/UT5ZL
Improper use of metric! -- unless I'm mistaken, I do believe the SI symbols are supposed to be all lowercase, minus some like "mL".
Both mL and ml are fine, but you're both right about the K. K is the symbol for (degrees) Kelvin, k the kilo prefix. There is no general rule about the case of SI symbols or prefixes though, some prefixes are upper case, but most are lower case.
Prefixes beyond kilo (such as mega, giga, tera, and so on) are supposed to be capitalized, IIRC. Unit capitalization matters as well, with Mb and MB (the megabit and megabyte, respectively) being different units.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on January 26, 2015, 12:16:47 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on January 26, 2015, 12:16:47 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 26, 2015, 12:09:14 PMQuote from: riiga on January 25, 2015, 06:56:26 PMQuote from: jakeroot on January 25, 2015, 04:03:39 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on January 25, 2015, 01:33:49 PM
These brand new signs have a capital K when it should be a lowercase.
http://goo.gl/maps/UT5ZL
Improper use of metric! -- unless I'm mistaken, I do believe the SI symbols are supposed to be all lowercase, minus some like "mL".
Both mL and ml are fine, but you're both right about the K. K is the symbol for (degrees) Kelvin, k the kilo prefix. There is no general rule about the case of SI symbols or prefixes though, some prefixes are upper case, but most are lower case.
Prefixes beyond kilo (such as mega, giga, tera, and so on) are supposed to be capitalized, IIRC. Unit capitalization matters as well, with Mb and MB (the megabit and megabyte, respectively) being different units.
Indeed, the case of the prefix is a big deal, and the unit should be in its proper case to avoid the wrong unit. That is where this comes in as far as signs with design errors--on what signs you can find that are one-off metric ones, it's not uncommon to see things like "1 Km" or "1 KM" where it should/must be "1 km". People used to laying out the bottom line in all caps (e.g., EXIT 1 MILE) may not be aware that the case of the letters is really important when metric units are used.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: KEK Inc. on January 26, 2015, 05:36:43 PM
Post by: KEK Inc. on January 26, 2015, 05:36:43 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 25, 2015, 10:24:04 AM
This has since been fixed:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_4867_zpswmvxwgqc.jpg&hash=8e4ab655b3ae03ff343bb5bac188f06d0dfd9063) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_4867_zpswmvxwgqc.jpg.html)
Pretty much all of the signs in Cowlitz Co., WA are like that.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 26, 2015, 06:00:21 PM
Post by: jakeroot on January 26, 2015, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on January 26, 2015, 05:36:43 PMQuote from: Brandon on January 25, 2015, 10:24:04 AM
This has since been fixed:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_4867_zpswmvxwgqc.jpg&hash=8e4ab655b3ae03ff343bb5bac188f06d0dfd9063) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_4867_zpswmvxwgqc.jpg.html)
Pretty much all of the signs in Cowlitz Co., WA are like that.
Just to confirm my suspicions, is the tab on the wrong side? I'm only hesitant to say "well of course" because A) the sign is on the right side of the road, and a left exit sign on the right side of the road sounds like nonsense, and B) the tab is on the side of the sign closest to the road, where (in my opinion) it is likelier to be spotted.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: KEK Inc. on January 26, 2015, 06:02:26 PM
Post by: KEK Inc. on January 26, 2015, 06:02:26 PM
Pretty sure vanilla MUTCD standards state that exit tabs should reflect where the exit is going to be. Of course, with the yellow 'LEFT' banner, that makes it sort of redundant. For visibility sake, it really only matters in areas with overgrown foliage that may cover the right side of the sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Kacie Jane on January 27, 2015, 11:34:37 AM
Post by: Kacie Jane on January 27, 2015, 11:34:37 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on January 26, 2015, 05:36:43 PMQuote from: Brandon on January 25, 2015, 10:24:04 AM
This has since been fixed:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_4867_zpswmvxwgqc.jpg&hash=8e4ab655b3ae03ff343bb5bac188f06d0dfd9063) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_4867_zpswmvxwgqc.jpg.html)
Pretty much all of the signs in Cowlitz Co., WA are like that.
It's only actually a few. I think I counted 3 on my last trip down there, two happened to be for the same exit (one in each direction).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on January 31, 2015, 11:44:50 AM
Post by: SignGeek101 on January 31, 2015, 11:44:50 AM
I don't know if this is a design error or not, but the shape of the interstate shield doesn't really look... standard. Not a fan of the series B use, but that happens often enough on 3 digit interstates.
http://goo.gl/maps/gdmf8
Compared to:
http://goo.gl/maps/nEx4f
http://goo.gl/maps/gdmf8
Compared to:
http://goo.gl/maps/nEx4f
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on January 31, 2015, 12:03:48 PM
Post by: Zeffy on January 31, 2015, 12:03:48 PM
^ Ah yes, the infamous bubble shield variant of the Interstate shield.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 6a on January 31, 2015, 02:32:03 PM
Post by: 6a on January 31, 2015, 02:32:03 PM
Quote from: vtk on November 16, 2014, 04:37:43 AM
Two design errors that are so severe, they are borderline information errors. Sorry no pics, but the first one is on GSV:
2. South side of Columbus, I-270 WB approaching I-71. Advance guide signs for I-71 display absolutely no indication that the right two lanes must exit. (Just in the last 24 hours, this part of 270 became four lanes WB, versus two before. The signs in question are new installs for this project, but they appear to be Clearviewized carbon copies of the old signs, complete with centered exit tabs.)
Passed through there today, they finally put up a portable message sign that no one reads, so at least they're aware of a problem.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on January 31, 2015, 02:48:07 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on January 31, 2015, 02:48:07 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on January 31, 2015, 12:03:48 PM
^ Ah yes, the infamous bubble shield variant of the Interstate shield.
Less common is the opposite--a squished 3DI shield for a 2DI. It happens....Steve has a pic I got of one a few years back on his I-280 Ohio page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/oh/i-280/).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Foh%2Fi-280%2Fn11.jpg&hash=111e030a447db96bb9cf3907c15e2a1b4c7a6673)
If only they'd started with a bubble shield and compressed it back, it'd be fine. But they started with a proper 3DI shield and compressed it. Ugh!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Stratuscaster on January 31, 2015, 05:38:59 PM
Post by: Stratuscaster on January 31, 2015, 05:38:59 PM
That reminds me of some of the squished 2di shields in Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on January 31, 2015, 06:02:34 PM
Post by: vtk on January 31, 2015, 06:02:34 PM
Quote from: 6a on January 31, 2015, 02:32:03 PMQuote from: vtk on November 16, 2014, 04:37:43 AM
Two design errors that are so severe, they are borderline information errors. Sorry no pics, but the first one is on GSV:
2. South side of Columbus, I-270 WB approaching I-71. Advance guide signs for I-71 display absolutely no indication that the right two lanes must exit. (Just in the last 24 hours, this part of 270 became four lanes WB, versus two before. The signs in question are new installs for this project, but they appear to be Clearviewized carbon copies of the old signs, complete with centered exit tabs.)
Passed through there today, they finally put up a portable message sign that no one reads, so at least they're aware of a problem.
Those portables appeared Friday or Saturday I think – just in time for the All Star Game.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on January 31, 2015, 08:21:39 PM
Post by: hbelkins on January 31, 2015, 08:21:39 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on January 31, 2015, 02:48:07 PMQuote from: Zeffy on January 31, 2015, 12:03:48 PM
^ Ah yes, the infamous bubble shield variant of the Interstate shield.
Less common is the opposite--a squished 3DI shield for a 2DI. It happens....Steve has a pic I got of one a few years back on his I-280 Ohio page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/oh/i-280/).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Foh%2Fi-280%2Fn11.jpg&hash=111e030a447db96bb9cf3907c15e2a1b4c7a6673)
If only they'd started with a bubble shield and compressed it back, it'd be fine. But they started with a proper 3DI shield and compressed it. Ugh!
Quite a few of those in the OKC area, too.
A normal 2di marker, when stretched, becomes a bubble shield.
What most consider a normal 3di marker, when compressed, becomes what you see above.
I actually prefer the bubble shield to the alternative.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on February 06, 2015, 10:34:46 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on February 06, 2015, 10:34:46 PM
Although I do prefer the FHWA arrows, it is technically incorrect to use them here:
http://goo.gl/maps/dYBxA
Ontario uses the "Ontario arrow" which I personally don't really like.
http://goo.gl/maps/dYBxA
Ontario uses the "Ontario arrow" which I personally don't really like.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on February 09, 2015, 12:18:04 AM
Post by: jakeroot on February 09, 2015, 12:18:04 AM
WSDOT doesn't usually pull this kind of shit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuNIfzJX.png&hash=45004ecb6431c1556523920d84e755c58294014f)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuNIfzJX.png&hash=45004ecb6431c1556523920d84e755c58294014f)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: steviep24 on February 17, 2015, 09:27:40 PM
Post by: steviep24 on February 17, 2015, 09:27:40 PM
Ooops!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F13wham.com%2Fnews%2Ffeatures%2Ftop-stories%2Fstories%2F%2Fimages%2Fwebster-phillips-rd-sign_19517.jpg&hash=38898f57b7db9122bebd05a2026a3b65e32f1997)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F13wham.com%2Fnews%2Ffeatures%2Ftop-stories%2Fstories%2F%2Fimages%2Fwebster-phillips-rd-sign_19517.jpg&hash=38898f57b7db9122bebd05a2026a3b65e32f1997)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on February 17, 2015, 09:42:15 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on February 17, 2015, 09:42:15 PM
Borderless "No Left Turn" sign at a hospital here in Huntsville. I'm not sure if this counts as a "design error" or not:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7347/16380296227_41e5aa3c88.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qXtiot)Borderless No Left Turn Sign (https://flic.kr/p/qXtiot) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7347/16380296227_41e5aa3c88.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qXtiot)Borderless No Left Turn Sign (https://flic.kr/p/qXtiot) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on February 17, 2015, 09:50:00 PM
Post by: thenetwork on February 17, 2015, 09:50:00 PM
Quote from: steviep24 on February 17, 2015, 09:27:40 PM
Ooops!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F13wham.com%2Fnews%2Ffeatures%2Ftop-stories%2Fstories%2F%2Fimages%2Fwebster-phillips-rd-sign_19517.jpg&hash=38898f57b7db9122bebd05a2026a3b65e32f1997)
What's the OOPS on this one? (Never mind..I see the different spelling on both signs) However, there are two ways this word is commonly spelled:
- PHILLIPS -- As in Phillips 66
- PHILIPS -- As in Philips/Magnavox
So in this case, which of the two signs is wrong?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: steviep24 on February 17, 2015, 09:53:58 PM
Post by: steviep24 on February 17, 2015, 09:53:58 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on February 17, 2015, 09:50:00 PMIn this case the sign with one L has the mistake. A smaller sign near the end of the off ramp also had the error. The signs were only a few months old.Quote from: steviep24 on February 17, 2015, 09:27:40 PM
Ooops!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F13wham.com%2Fnews%2Ffeatures%2Ftop-stories%2Fstories%2F%2Fimages%2Fwebster-phillips-rd-sign_19517.jpg&hash=38898f57b7db9122bebd05a2026a3b65e32f1997)
What's the OOPS on this one? (Never mind..I see the different spelling on both signs) However, there are two ways this word is commonly spelled:
- PHILLIPS -- As in Phillips 66
- PHILIPS -- As in Philips/Magnavox
So in this case, which of the two signs is wrong?
I'll add that this is on NY 104 EB in Webster, NY. It cost NYSDOT $2000 to replace the signs due to their mistake.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on February 18, 2015, 03:33:33 PM
Post by: hbelkins on February 18, 2015, 03:33:33 PM
Quote from: steviep24 on February 17, 2015, 09:53:58 PM
I'll add that this is on NY 104 EB in Webster, NY. It cost NYSDOT $2000 to replace the signs due to their mistake.
Two words: demountable copy.
Or one word: greenout.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 03:39:27 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 03:39:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 18, 2015, 03:33:33 PMQuote from: steviep24 on February 17, 2015, 09:53:58 PM
I'll add that this is on NY 104 EB in Webster, NY. It cost NYSDOT $2000 to replace the signs due to their mistake.
Two words: demountable copy.
Or one word: greenout.
I think any additional letters on the first sign would have put the text against the border.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 04:39:37 PM
Post by: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 04:39:37 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 17, 2015, 09:42:15 PM
Borderless "No Left Turn" sign at a hospital here in Huntsville. I'm not sure if this counts as a "design error" or not:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7347/16380296227_41e5aa3c88.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qXtiot)Borderless No Left Turn Sign (https://flic.kr/p/qXtiot) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Is that a city sign or a private installation?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on February 18, 2015, 05:57:40 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on February 18, 2015, 05:57:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 04:39:37 PMPrivate install as far as I'm aware.Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 17, 2015, 09:42:15 PM
Borderless "No Left Turn" sign at a hospital here in Huntsville. I'm not sure if this counts as a "design error" or not:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7347/16380296227_41e5aa3c88.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qXtiot)Borderless No Left Turn Sign (https://flic.kr/p/qXtiot) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Is that a city sign or a private installation?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 18, 2015, 06:27:38 PM
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 18, 2015, 06:27:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 09, 2015, 12:18:04 AMHopefully that sign will be scrapped once the construction is finished.
WSDOT doesn't usually pull this kind of shit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuNIfzJX.png&hash=45004ecb6431c1556523920d84e755c58294014f)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 10:09:34 PM
Post by: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 10:09:34 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 18, 2015, 05:57:40 PMQuote from: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 04:39:37 PMPrivate install as far as I'm aware.Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 17, 2015, 09:42:15 PM
Borderless "No Left Turn" sign at a hospital here in Huntsville. I'm not sure if this counts as a "design error" or not:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7347/16380296227_41e5aa3c88.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qXtiot)Borderless No Left Turn Sign (https://flic.kr/p/qXtiot) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Is that a city sign or a private installation?
Well, I'm not going to knock a sign too hard when it's a homemade job.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 10:14:14 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 10:14:14 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 18, 2015, 06:27:38 PMQuote from: jakeroot on February 09, 2015, 12:18:04 AM
WSDOT doesn't usually pull this kind of shit:
Hopefully that sign will be scrapped once the construction is finished.
God help us if it isn't.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 18, 2015, 11:16:27 PM
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 18, 2015, 11:16:27 PM
That said SW division isn't impressing me with their new signs.
iPhone
iPhone
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 11:39:07 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 11:39:07 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on February 18, 2015, 11:16:27 PM
That said SW division isn't impressing me with their new signs.
I like that the signs with smaller exit tabs (versus full-width exit tabs) have a square corner in the area of the sign with the tab.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 19, 2015, 03:02:12 AM
Post by: KEK Inc. on February 19, 2015, 03:02:12 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 11:39:07 PMQuote from: KEK Inc. on February 18, 2015, 11:16:27 PM
That said SW division isn't impressing me with their new signs.
I like that the signs with smaller exit tabs (versus full-width exit tabs) have a square corner in the area of the sign with the tab.
I'm totally fine with the exit tabs that aren't full-width. I'm talking about the Salmon Creek project where they printed all of the signs a bit way too small.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on February 19, 2015, 11:31:38 AM
Post by: hbelkins on February 19, 2015, 11:31:38 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2015, 03:39:27 PM
I think any additional letters on the first sign would have put the text against the border.
Make the text a little smaller, or adjust the letter and word spacing.
I used to be a newspaper editor. I did all kinds of tricks to get headlines to fit.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on February 19, 2015, 10:47:59 PM
Post by: roadfro on February 19, 2015, 10:47:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 10:09:34 PMQuote from: freebrickproductions on February 18, 2015, 05:57:40 PMQuote from: kphoger on February 18, 2015, 04:39:37 PMPrivate install as far as I'm aware.Quote from: freebrickproductions on February 17, 2015, 09:42:15 PM
Borderless "No Left Turn" sign at a hospital here in Huntsville. I'm not sure if this counts as a "design error" or not:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7347/16380296227_41e5aa3c88.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qXtiot)Borderless No Left Turn Sign (https://flic.kr/p/qXtiot) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Is that a city sign or a private installation?
Well, I'm not going to knock a sign too hard when it's a homemade job.
I would, if you're dealing with a standard sign that doesn't need a custom design.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: busman_49 on February 20, 2015, 07:44:03 AM
Post by: busman_49 on February 20, 2015, 07:44:03 AM
Around 10-12 years ago, this interchange underwent major construction. That's probably the only good explanation for the downward arrow to be greened-out, then later replaced with this ugliness:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7288/16564014696_511107aa75.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/reGUuh)P1130455 (https://flic.kr/p/reGUuh) by Ryan busman_49 (https://www.flickr.com/people/23731450@N05/), on Flickr
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7288/16564014696_511107aa75.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/reGUuh)P1130455 (https://flic.kr/p/reGUuh) by Ryan busman_49 (https://www.flickr.com/people/23731450@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: TEG24601 on February 20, 2015, 01:40:11 PM
Post by: TEG24601 on February 20, 2015, 01:40:11 PM
Am I the only person who finds most every sign CalTrans makes to be in error?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on February 20, 2015, 01:42:17 PM
Post by: roadman on February 20, 2015, 01:42:17 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 20, 2015, 01:40:11 PM
Am I the only person who finds most every sign CalTrans makes to be in error?
Every sign CalTrans has made that has an exit number on it is in error.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: myosh_tino on February 20, 2015, 02:51:31 PM
Post by: myosh_tino on February 20, 2015, 02:51:31 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 20, 2015, 01:42:17 PMQuote from: TEG24601 on February 20, 2015, 01:40:11 PM
Am I the only person who finds most every sign CalTrans makes to be in error?
Every sign CalTrans has made that has an exit number on it is in error.
Then perhaps Caltrans should just abandon exit numbering all together then! :rolleyes:
Let's face it, the majority of Californians navigate by street name and highway number. Exit numbers are pretty useless IMO.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on February 20, 2015, 02:56:56 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 20, 2015, 02:56:56 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 20, 2015, 01:40:11 PM
Am I the only person who finds most every sign CalTrans makes to be in error?
Errors are relative, of course. Are you saying CalTrans is producing an abundance of poor signs relative to their own guidelines? Or federal guidelines?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 20, 2015, 03:02:13 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 20, 2015, 03:02:13 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 20, 2015, 01:42:17 PMQuote from: TEG24601 on February 20, 2015, 01:40:11 PM
Am I the only person who finds most every sign CalTrans makes to be in error?
Every sign CalTrans has made that has an exit number on it is in error.
Under this theory, every guide sign the NJ Turnpike has used is in error also.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on February 20, 2015, 08:44:50 PM
Post by: SignBridge on February 20, 2015, 08:44:50 PM
Jeff and Nicole, I respectfully disagree. NJTA used its own format, arrows, etc. but pretty much stuck to its own rules and procedures so you have reasonable signing uniformity on the NJ Turnpike, until recently anyway.
But California is all over the place with their signing. Some are MUTCD compliant. Some aren't. They don't have a lot of uniformity. It's like there are no rules out there. Check out the messed up layout and legend on some of their signs. It's unreal. I'm told on that board that each region of Caltrans is very independent and does their own thing with signing. And it shows.......
But California is all over the place with their signing. Some are MUTCD compliant. Some aren't. They don't have a lot of uniformity. It's like there are no rules out there. Check out the messed up layout and legend on some of their signs. It's unreal. I'm told on that board that each region of Caltrans is very independent and does their own thing with signing. And it shows.......
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Occidental Tourist on February 20, 2015, 10:28:32 PM
Post by: Occidental Tourist on February 20, 2015, 10:28:32 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 20, 2015, 01:40:11 PM
Am I the only person who finds most every sign CalTrans makes to be in error?
With much appreciation for Joe and the other Caltrans employees who post on here, no, you're not the only one.
In another thread, I saw a picture of an Ohio overhead with three left exits on it, and I thought to myself, "how badly would Caltrans screw that up if it were in California?"
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on February 22, 2015, 05:21:18 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 22, 2015, 05:21:18 PM
I do believe single-letter cardinal directions are prohibited (though I wish I knew why):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvgdFUYj.png&hash=ab70e4b68a988bdcdfca736a58ef277cab79bb5e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvgdFUYj.png&hash=ab70e4b68a988bdcdfca736a58ef277cab79bb5e)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alex4897 on February 22, 2015, 10:26:31 PM
Post by: Alex4897 on February 22, 2015, 10:26:31 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 22, 2015, 05:21:18 PM
I do believe single-letter cardinal directions are prohibited (though I wish I knew why):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvgdFUYj.png&hash=ab70e4b68a988bdcdfca736a58ef277cab79bb5e)
This is actually an interesting concept. Obviously it wouldn't work in high-speed scenarios, but for low speed rural/suburban scenarios this could be a way to reduce clutter without leaving information out.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 03, 2015, 11:42:12 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 03, 2015, 11:42:12 PM
The signs here all look like this (although I still consider it an error unless Saskatchewan uses a modified version of FHWA). This one is subtle, yet if you closely, you can find it:
http://goo.gl/maps/Kd5Rb
http://goo.gl/maps/Kd5Rb
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on March 03, 2015, 11:53:47 PM
Post by: jakeroot on March 03, 2015, 11:53:47 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on March 03, 2015, 11:42:12 PM
The signs here all look like this (although I still consider it an error unless Saskatchewan uses a modified version of FHWA). This one is subtle, yet if you closely, you can find it:
http://goo.gl/maps/Kd5Rb
Is it normal for the sign to be rounded off?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 04, 2015, 12:03:33 AM
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 04, 2015, 12:03:33 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2015, 11:53:47 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on March 03, 2015, 11:42:12 PM
The signs here all look like this (although I still consider it an error unless Saskatchewan uses a modified version of FHWA). This one is subtle, yet if you closely, you can find it:
http://goo.gl/maps/Kd5Rb
Is it normal for the sign to be rounded off?
That was an old Saskatchewan standard I believe. Newer signs (Clearview) don't have the rounding.
The lowercase 'd' is really a backwards 'b'. Look at the slant at the top. However, all the signs in the city (if not the province) have this, so I don't know if I'm missing something.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: HTM Duke on March 04, 2015, 01:38:30 AM
Post by: HTM Duke on March 04, 2015, 01:38:30 AM
Double error here, save for the 'M.P.H.' legend on the bottom of this speed hump warning sign:
https://goo.gl/maps/NUe14 (https://goo.gl/maps/NUe14)
https://goo.gl/maps/NUe14 (https://goo.gl/maps/NUe14)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on March 04, 2015, 02:54:11 PM
Post by: vtk on March 04, 2015, 02:54:11 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on March 04, 2015, 12:03:33 AMQuote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2015, 11:53:47 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on March 03, 2015, 11:42:12 PM
The signs here all look like this (although I still consider it an error unless Saskatchewan uses a modified version of FHWA). This one is subtle, yet if you closely, you can find it:
http://goo.gl/maps/Kd5Rb
Is it normal for the sign to be rounded off?
That was an old Saskatchewan standard I believe. Newer signs (Clearview) don't have the rounding.
The lowercase 'd' is really a backwards 'b'. Look at the slant at the top. However, all the signs in the city (if not the province) have this, so I don't know if I'm missing something.
A bunch of the drawings in Ohio's Sign Design Manual are like that. I think a certain software package has that error in its built-in letterforms, but usually when the signs are fabricated, they're done correctly.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 08, 2015, 09:04:55 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 08, 2015, 09:04:55 PM
Quote from: HTM Duke on March 04, 2015, 01:38:30 AM
Double error here, save for the 'M.P.H.' legend on the bottom of this speed hump warning sign:
https://goo.gl/maps/NUe14 (https://goo.gl/maps/NUe14)
Ah yes, the Arialveticverstesk. Probably a local install. :banghead:
Anyway,
http://goo.gl/maps/Uturh
Not sure if done intentionally, but the "R" in Route is in FHWA, but the rest of the letters following are in Clearview. Hard to tell if the "H" in Harwood is FHWA or Clearview. "Montreal" is FHWA as well.
Control cities on MTQ signs are supposed to be done in Clearview these days, so I'm not sure what's going on.
If anything, this sign is a little interesting in its design.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: WNYroadgeek on March 08, 2015, 10:34:33 PM
Post by: WNYroadgeek on March 08, 2015, 10:34:33 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/uzXcS
Yeah, so the arrow under the I-90 shield might want to consider going on a diet...
Yeah, so the arrow under the I-90 shield might want to consider going on a diet...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on March 18, 2015, 06:31:07 PM
Post by: jakeroot on March 18, 2015, 06:31:07 PM
I'm trying to convince myself that the arrows on the center sign are pointing the right direction, but I haven't been able to:
EDIT: Sign is located along Broadway at Howell in Seattle.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FY75NFZj.jpg&hash=f709af543409babf5d6cd3a7cbaac169e120c2c8)
EDIT: Sign is located along Broadway at Howell in Seattle.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FY75NFZj.jpg&hash=f709af543409babf5d6cd3a7cbaac169e120c2c8)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 6a on March 19, 2015, 07:04:50 PM
Post by: 6a on March 19, 2015, 07:04:50 PM
Quote from: vtk on November 16, 2014, 04:37:43 AM
2. South side of Columbus, I-270 WB approaching I-71. Advance guide signs for I-71 display absolutely no indication that the right two lanes must exit. (Just in the last 24 hours, this part of 270 became four lanes WB, versus two before. The signs in question are new installs for this project, but they appear to be Clearviewized carbon copies of the old signs, complete with centered exit tabs.)
So the temporary fix for this might just satisfy this thread as well. Dancing arrows ahoy!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F03%2F19%2F72fe2f7e61271fdcb379caf8045fdc7d.jpg&hash=27922ed6d6e82ba66e3fc5f8f3af5aa90b78a84b)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 19, 2015, 07:07:02 PM
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 19, 2015, 07:07:02 PM
I guess this could be a design error. Should the I-84 EB sign have the arrow point straight up? It could be confusing to some who think they should turn left "now" onto I-84 WB.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.387907,-73.476993,3a,75y,35.88h,83.42t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sH8GU_KdIzULA3-lpbUextA!2e0
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.387907,-73.476993,3a,75y,35.88h,83.42t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sH8GU_KdIzULA3-lpbUextA!2e0
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 19, 2015, 07:48:16 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 19, 2015, 07:48:16 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on March 19, 2015, 07:07:02 PM
I guess this could be a design error. Should the I-84 EB sign have the arrow point straight up? It could be confusing to some who think they should turn left "now" onto I-84 WB.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.387907,-73.476993,3a,75y,35.88h,83.42t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sH8GU_KdIzULA3-lpbUextA!2e0
I don't know if that would be considered a design error. I guess they may have done that because maybe they thought motorists could get confused somehow? Not sure.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 19, 2015, 09:19:56 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 19, 2015, 09:19:56 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/3FPQF
Not sure what the bigger design error is: the 'B' in FHWA or the 401 not being in black on the other sign.
Not sure what the bigger design error is: the 'B' in FHWA or the 401 not being in black on the other sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on March 19, 2015, 10:41:51 PM
Post by: vtk on March 19, 2015, 10:41:51 PM
Quote from: 6a on March 19, 2015, 07:04:50 PMQuote from: vtk on November 16, 2014, 04:37:43 AM
2. South side of Columbus, I-270 WB approaching I-71. Advance guide signs for I-71 display absolutely no indication that the right two lanes must exit. (Just in the last 24 hours, this part of 270 became four lanes WB, versus two before. The signs in question are new installs for this project, but they appear to be Clearviewized carbon copies of the old signs, complete with centered exit tabs.)
So the temporary fix for this might just satisfy this thread as well. Dancing arrows ahoy!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F03%2F19%2F72fe2f7e61271fdcb379caf8045fdc7d.jpg&hash=27922ed6d6e82ba66e3fc5f8f3af5aa90b78a84b)
It took them this long to come up with an orange patch that doesn't even fit right?
Also, your post was apparently number 614. Kudos.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 6a on March 21, 2015, 12:46:14 PM
Post by: 6a on March 21, 2015, 12:46:14 PM
Quote from: vtk on March 19, 2015, 10:41:51 PM
It took them this long to come up with an orange patch that doesn't even fit right?
Just to tie up loose ends, namely point 1 in your earlier post:
Quote from: vtk on November 16, 2014, 04:37:43 AM
1. SE side of Columbus, US 33 WB at I-270. The bridge-mounted exit direction sign for the loop ramp to I-270 SB doesn't have any arrows or action message, making it look like an old pull-thru sign for the wrong freeway.
I stumbled across this today, even though ODOT disagrees there's a problem regarding the sign to be removed:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F03%2F21%2F745f99ec1e721fb2b45d51aa186a47ec.jpg&hash=a8f8932aad5ff8e7dfbff9ba850a673cc45aebf3)
Some things of note - 33 is getting exit numbers, 270 is losing control cities (is this new or did I just notice it?), and further down the road a bunch of 1966 signs are going away...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F03%2F21%2F4970878abe510a6988caa14d3010c161.jpg&hash=1e82286c2e15ecb5657d4ebf801ae6c403bce97a)
Quote
Also, your post was apparently number 614. Kudos.
Given recent news I had to look for post 380 :) it was lordsutch.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: TEG24601 on March 22, 2015, 05:05:59 PM
Post by: TEG24601 on March 22, 2015, 05:05:59 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on February 20, 2015, 10:28:32 PMQuote from: TEG24601 on February 20, 2015, 01:40:11 PM
Am I the only person who finds most every sign CalTrans makes to be in error?
With much appreciation for Joe and the other Caltrans employees who post on here, no, you're not the only one.
In another thread, I saw a picture of an Ohio overhead with three left exits on it, and I thought to myself, "how badly would Caltrans screw that up if it were in California?"
Thanks, at least I know I'm not the only one. I know WSDOT, ODOT, and MDOT aren't perfect, and have their own idiosyncrasies, but when I was living in California, I found the signs so difficult to read, it drove me crazy... albeit, that was 10 years ago.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: machias on March 23, 2015, 12:55:58 PM
Post by: machias on March 23, 2015, 12:55:58 PM
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/314912/IMG_0634.jpg)
This one replaced a same-sized sign that simply said
N Y 5 S
Broad St
Whitesboro St
\/ \/
NYSDOT Region 2 likes to design the sign to the size of the panel they're replacing instead of designing the size of the panel to accommodate the legend on the sign.
This one replaced a same-sized sign that simply said
N Y 5 S
Broad St
Whitesboro St
\/ \/
NYSDOT Region 2 likes to design the sign to the size of the panel they're replacing instead of designing the size of the panel to accommodate the legend on the sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 23, 2015, 11:59:33 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 23, 2015, 11:59:33 PM
Wondering if I should post this here or erroneous road signs.
http://goo.gl/maps/JQGxx
124 does end here, but the END sign has been used incorrectly. That sign is supposed to be for reserved lanes according to Book 5 in the Ontario Traffic Manual.
This rusty old sign is more appropriate: http://goo.gl/maps/71P9G
It is a nitpick, but guidelines are guidelines.
http://goo.gl/maps/JQGxx
124 does end here, but the END sign has been used incorrectly. That sign is supposed to be for reserved lanes according to Book 5 in the Ontario Traffic Manual.
This rusty old sign is more appropriate: http://goo.gl/maps/71P9G
It is a nitpick, but guidelines are guidelines.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 28, 2015, 07:44:18 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 28, 2015, 07:44:18 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsrquebec.net%2Fphotos%2Fa15nlkm69.JPG&hash=fb68870ced6f5b2e19fa52452468b853f66a5463)
NOT my pic.
GMSV: http://goo.gl/maps/JAxyt
The letters here seem to be differently sized.
I made a remake:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2FA15South_zps52gs5qps.png&hash=73a159894b026fd7401986c387aa8047be159e99)
Yes, the shield is stretched...
NOT my pic.
GMSV: http://goo.gl/maps/JAxyt
The letters here seem to be differently sized.
I made a remake:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2FA15South_zps52gs5qps.png&hash=73a159894b026fd7401986c387aa8047be159e99)
Yes, the shield is stretched...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 28, 2015, 09:27:59 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 28, 2015, 09:27:59 PM
Thanks to Northbrook, we have this interesting IL route shield.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.137544,-87.791322,3a,21.9y,14.17h,83.01t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCHi6kZDNGZjYo0xAqgAE7Q!2e0
If you go a bit south of this sign, you'll spot an older spec US shield presumably left over from when IDOT maintained that road. :spin:
EDIT: The sign could even be considered slightly erroneous as this is basically IL-68's eastern terminus. It should only have the arrow pointed to the left (West).
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.137544,-87.791322,3a,21.9y,14.17h,83.01t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCHi6kZDNGZjYo0xAqgAE7Q!2e0
If you go a bit south of this sign, you'll spot an older spec US shield presumably left over from when IDOT maintained that road. :spin:
EDIT: The sign could even be considered slightly erroneous as this is basically IL-68's eastern terminus. It should only have the arrow pointed to the left (West).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 29, 2015, 02:58:21 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 29, 2015, 02:58:21 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 28, 2015, 09:27:59 PM
Thanks to Northbrook, we have this interesting IL route shield.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.137544,-87.791322,3a,21.9y,14.17h,83.01t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCHi6kZDNGZjYo0xAqgAE7Q!2e0
If you go a bit south of this sign, you'll spot an older spec US shield presumably left over from when IDOT maintained that road. :spin:
EDIT: The sign could even be considered slightly erroneous as this is basically IL-68's eastern terminus. It should only have the arrow pointed to the left (West).
Reminds me of this sign I found on Streetview:
http://goo.gl/maps/8ohh9
It's correct, but it really should look like this:
http://goo.gl/maps/1AVNv
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: TrevorB on April 06, 2015, 06:50:04 PM
Post by: TrevorB on April 06, 2015, 06:50:04 PM
Probably been posted before since its in Nashville, but anyway:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.152501,-86.76655,3a,36.2y,235.11h,97.87t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKoQ8R3EdApr24RsX9McQpQ!2e0
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS0HWE6W.png&hash=d48cc4342dcc57bb4ed1ec8754c27442deb43939)
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.152501,-86.76655,3a,36.2y,235.11h,97.87t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKoQ8R3EdApr24RsX9McQpQ!2e0
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS0HWE6W.png&hash=d48cc4342dcc57bb4ed1ec8754c27442deb43939)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on May 20, 2015, 06:50:37 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on May 20, 2015, 06:50:37 PM
A little Oops on the placement of the NORTH cardinal. (https://www.google.com/maps?q=Claymont,+DE&hl=en&ll=39.800525,-75.451055&spn=0.000033,0.016801&sll=39.796782,-75.454246&sspn=0.002358,0.0042&oq=clymont&t=h&hnear=Claymont,+New+Castle+County,+Delaware&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.800608,-75.451017&panoid=EoqRRE3oSZzYEyfgZeaIEQ&cbp=12,13.86,,0,2.02)
More likely a fabrication error than a design error since all the other northbound pull-through BGS' along the way don't have the same error, per this example. (https://www.google.com/maps?q=Claymont,+DE&hl=en&ll=39.803178,-75.450522&spn=0.000016,0.008401&sll=40.002498,-75.118033&sspn=0.298758,0.537643&oq=clymont&t=h&hnear=Claymont,+New+Castle+County,+Delaware&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.803178,-75.450522&panoid=X9AJnpwcUkTdqGqnX1xhDA&cbp=12,7.5,,0,8.18)
While it could be argued that these pull-throughs are erroneous since the highway's actually I-495 not I-95; this is one of those (I started this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11791.0) covering such) situations where such omission gets a pass given that I-495 northbound ends at I-95 northbound about 1 mile from this interchange.
Previous generation signage had JUNCTION X MILE banners above the 95 NORTH Chester Philadelphia a la PA Turnpike style interchange name banners.
More likely a fabrication error than a design error since all the other northbound pull-through BGS' along the way don't have the same error, per this example. (https://www.google.com/maps?q=Claymont,+DE&hl=en&ll=39.803178,-75.450522&spn=0.000016,0.008401&sll=40.002498,-75.118033&sspn=0.298758,0.537643&oq=clymont&t=h&hnear=Claymont,+New+Castle+County,+Delaware&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.803178,-75.450522&panoid=X9AJnpwcUkTdqGqnX1xhDA&cbp=12,7.5,,0,8.18)
While it could be argued that these pull-throughs are erroneous since the highway's actually I-495 not I-95; this is one of those (I started this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11791.0) covering such) situations where such omission gets a pass given that I-495 northbound ends at I-95 northbound about 1 mile from this interchange.
Previous generation signage had JUNCTION X MILE banners above the 95 NORTH Chester Philadelphia a la PA Turnpike style interchange name banners.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on May 20, 2015, 08:11:15 PM
Post by: formulanone on May 20, 2015, 08:11:15 PM
Quote from: TrevorB on April 06, 2015, 06:50:04 PM
Probably been posted before since its in Nashville, but anyway:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.152501,-86.76655,3a,36.2y,235.11h,97.87t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKoQ8R3EdApr24RsX9McQpQ!2e0
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS0HWE6W.png&hash=d48cc4342dcc57bb4ed1ec8754c27442deb43939)
There's an all-caps BGS like this at US 280 at I-85 in Auburn/Opelika (https://www.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.61843,-85.403144&spn=0.011404,0.01929&sll=32.626667,-117.13748&sspn=0.004006,0.004823&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=32.619046,-85.403707&panoid=YRS42hpZO_WgR2_qMudAQQ&cbp=12,152.67,,0,-2.4).
It's more of a double-take than anything...the spacing looks okay to me even if it isn't following modern specs, and apparently, they've been in place for several years.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on May 21, 2015, 10:57:31 AM
Post by: hbelkins on May 21, 2015, 10:57:31 AM
That Nashville sign can't be that old. All the overheads at the interstate splits downtown were replaced in their entirety, IIRC, when I-265 bit the dust and I-65 was rerouted.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on May 25, 2015, 11:52:29 AM
Post by: NE2 on May 25, 2015, 11:52:29 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.dot.state.fl.us%2Fvideologsource2%2F13575007%2FA75280000N%2FI_03204.jpg&hash=ba689d9a8e79a60fd9367797fb6a3a34a65ce775)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on May 25, 2015, 12:04:24 PM
Post by: thenetwork on May 25, 2015, 12:04:24 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 25, 2015, 11:52:29 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.dot.state.fl.us%2Fvideologsource2%2F13575007%2FA75280000N%2FI_03204.jpg&hash=ba689d9a8e79a60fd9367797fb6a3a34a65ce775)
Maybe I'm all too familiar with the Chicago highway system, but in my book, "expressways" are always freeways. Tolled Highways are always Turnpikes, Tollways or Toll Roads. Never the twain shall meet,... er overlap.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on May 25, 2015, 01:34:58 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on May 25, 2015, 01:34:58 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on May 25, 2015, 12:04:24 PMQuote from: NE2 on May 25, 2015, 11:52:29 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.dot.state.fl.us%2Fvideologsource2%2F13575007%2FA75280000N%2FI_03204.jpg&hash=ba689d9a8e79a60fd9367797fb6a3a34a65ce775)
Maybe I'm all too familiar with the Chicago highway system, but in my book, "expressways" are always freeways. Tolled Highways are always Turnpikes, Tollways or Toll Roads. Never the twain shall meet,... er overlap.
I th▃ug█t tha█ ex▀re▀█way▄ were ▄lmost f▄eew█ys, but▄not q▀ite▀▄reeways. ▄▄█eways can be█toll roa▀s, ▀hough█
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 01:38:53 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 01:38:53 PM
If it's okay, I'd rather go north on the 408.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on May 25, 2015, 01:41:41 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on May 25, 2015, 01:41:41 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 01:38:53 PM
If it's okay, I'd rather go north on the 408.
California has taken over Florida...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 01:57:54 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 01:57:54 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 25, 2015, 01:41:41 PMQuote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 01:38:53 PM
If it's okay, I'd rather go north on the 408.
California has taken over Florida...
You can thank my mom for me saying that. I've never lived in California, but anytime we go anywhere, it's "take the 5 to the 405, then go a few miles to the 90...."
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: OracleUsr on May 25, 2015, 02:00:18 PM
Post by: OracleUsr on May 25, 2015, 02:00:18 PM
I assume the design error is the raised caps on the name?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on May 25, 2015, 02:13:15 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on May 25, 2015, 02:13:15 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on May 25, 2015, 02:00:18 PM
I assume the design error is the raised caps on the name?
I thought it was the bugged VMS (which I parodied a few posts ago by blanking out letters).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 02:21:50 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 02:21:50 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 25, 2015, 02:13:15 PMQuote from: OracleUsr on May 25, 2015, 02:00:18 PM
I assume the design error is the raised caps on the name?
I thought it was the bugged VMS (which I parodied a few posts ago by blanking out letters).
I'm still wondering the purpose of "EAST-WEST".
PS: It's not bugged, it's just LED's mixing poorly with camera lenses (though I must admit, some characters, regardless, look out of place).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Mr. Matté on May 25, 2015, 02:24:51 PM
Post by: Mr. Matté on May 25, 2015, 02:24:51 PM
Yellow speed limit sign ∴ not enforceable (except in cases of end of the month and/or DWB):
https://www.google.com/lochp?ll=40.287055,-74.791489&spn=0.056307,0.111494&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=40.287013,-74.791402&panoid=kevilpTBZ-LEt8VOBzzdig&cbp=12,350.91,,2,3.31
https://www.google.com/lochp?ll=40.287055,-74.791489&spn=0.056307,0.111494&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=40.287013,-74.791402&panoid=kevilpTBZ-LEt8VOBzzdig&cbp=12,350.91,,2,3.31
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Stratuscaster on May 25, 2015, 06:18:38 PM
Post by: Stratuscaster on May 25, 2015, 06:18:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 02:21:50 PMIs that not the name of the road?
I'm still wondering the purpose of "EAST-WEST".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 06:47:30 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 06:47:30 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on May 25, 2015, 06:18:38 PMQuote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 02:21:50 PM
I'm still wondering the purpose of "EAST-WEST".
Is that not the name of the road?
I'll be damned, it is. I thought they were over-designing the sign (cardinal directions are only included if the exit is for one or the other -- both directions, it's excluded).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: UCFKnights on May 25, 2015, 07:05:39 PM
Post by: UCFKnights on May 25, 2015, 07:05:39 PM
Also that is a relatively new VMS... has animations between each one, it is just midchange. I don't get why, but all of that style seem to do that. I also don't get the multicolor aspect of it
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 6a on May 25, 2015, 07:15:25 PM
Post by: 6a on May 25, 2015, 07:15:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 06:47:30 PMIn that case...
(cardinal directions are only included if the exit is for one or the other -- both directions, it's excluded).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F05%2F25%2F8382b8ada9a1c04beaba0dfb09056831.jpg&hash=c1c7c97e49a7956916d8702d5dfb80a9371176c0)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 07:17:20 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 07:17:20 PM
Quote from: 6a on May 25, 2015, 07:15:25 PMQuote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 06:47:30 PM
(cardinal directions are only included if the exit is for one or the other -- both directions, it's excluded).
In that case...
...When there's only one lane. My mistake.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: NE2 on May 25, 2015, 07:26:07 PM
Post by: NE2 on May 25, 2015, 07:26:07 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on May 25, 2015, 02:00:18 PMYes. The name is East-West Expressway.
I assume the design error is the raised caps on the name?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on May 25, 2015, 08:03:50 PM
Post by: vtk on May 25, 2015, 08:03:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 25, 2015, 11:52:29 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.dot.state.fl.us%2Fvideologsource2%2F13575007%2FA75280000N%2FI_03204.jpg&hash=ba689d9a8e79a60fd9367797fb6a3a34a65ce775)
To clarify for others what was obvious to me:...
The design error is that East and West are formatted as cardinal direction elements, rather than as a road name (which should be mixed EM), because that's the name of the road. "Expwy" should probably be mixed case, too, as it is also part of the road name.
The VMS looks glitchy only because the camera's shutter speed was much faster than the scan rate of the display. Only one row of LEDs are ever lit at a time, each row lit in sequence, in a cycle that repeats at least 30 times per second. In the time the camera's shutter was open, several (but not all) rows of LEDs lit and extinguished. The sign is actually made up of several smaller modules which have scan cycles independent from one another, so different modules were caught in different phases of their cycles, making the sign look glitchier than if the whole sign were driven by a single controller. I'm sure it looked just fine in person
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: odditude on May 26, 2015, 07:51:48 AM
Post by: odditude on May 26, 2015, 07:51:48 AM
Quote from: vtk on May 25, 2015, 08:03:50 PMTrollin' trollin' trollin', NE2's just trollin'...
To clarify for others what was obvious to me:...
Quote from: Mr. Matté on May 25, 2015, 02:24:51 PM...except it's an advisory speed for the curve, using the wrong-style panel - the speed limit on the road is 35. right thread, wrong reason.
Yellow speed limit sign ∴ not enforceable (except in cases of end of the month and/or DWB):
https://www.google.com/lochp?ll=40.287055,-74.791489&spn=0.056307,0.111494&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=40.287013,-74.791402&panoid=kevilpTBZ-LEt8VOBzzdig&cbp=12,350.91,,2,3.31
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on May 28, 2015, 09:42:27 PM
Post by: formulanone on May 28, 2015, 09:42:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 01:57:54 PMQuote from: 1 on May 25, 2015, 01:41:41 PMQuote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 01:38:53 PM
If it's okay, I'd rather go north on the 408.
California has taken over Florida...
You can thank my mom for me saying that. I've never lived in California, but anytime we go anywhere, it's "take the 5 to the 405, then go a few miles to the 90...."
You might find this odd...but you won't be flogged, pimp-slapped, hit with a fish, murdered, strangled, laughed at, nor turned over local authorities for saying "freeway" or "The (interstate number)" in Florida. I know, hard to believe.
EXPWY is an odd abbreviation and I've always detested raised caps.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cl94 on May 28, 2015, 09:46:59 PM
Post by: cl94 on May 28, 2015, 09:46:59 PM
Quote from: formulanone on May 28, 2015, 09:42:27 PMQuote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 01:57:54 PMQuote from: 1 on May 25, 2015, 01:41:41 PMQuote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 01:38:53 PM
If it's okay, I'd rather go north on the 408.
California has taken over Florida...
You can thank my mom for me saying that. I've never lived in California, but anytime we go anywhere, it's "take the 5 to the 405, then go a few miles to the 90...."
You might find this odd...but you won't be flogged, pimp-slapped, hit with a fish, murdered, strangled, laughed at, nor turned over local authorities for saying "freeway" or "the (interstate number)" in Florida. I know, hard to believe.
EXPWY is an odd abbreviation.
I hate how people in Buffalo refer to everything as "the (number)". HATE it. Go to the eastern part of New York and people would probably laugh or perform one of the aforementioned action. Hell, the local news was once reporting an issue on I-87 and referred to it as "the 87". My ears started to bleed.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on May 28, 2015, 10:13:09 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 28, 2015, 10:13:09 PM
Quote from: cl94 on May 28, 2015, 09:46:59 PM
I hate how people in Buffalo refer to everything as "the (number)". HATE it. Go to the eastern part of New York and people would probably laugh or perform one of the aforementioned action. Hell, the local news was once reporting an issue on I-87 and referred to it as "the 87". My ears started to bleed.
Oh my god it's not that bad. I mean, at least it's not grammatically incorrect. Definite articles ("the" for example) are used to describe a particular noun; in this case, a freeway is a particular thing, therefore "the [highway number]" isn't wrong. Sure, you're dropping the highway prefix, but as long as your state isn't really bad about reusing numbers, the issue is nil.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 30, 2015, 09:11:00 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 30, 2015, 09:11:00 PM
Woops.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2FI%252019_zpsvepeqh1e.jpg&hash=174d4f4145e64cce1ddcb951887d5208907895b6)
Go' old snipping tool on my computer didn't work as I would like. Oh well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2FI%252019_zpsvepeqh1e.jpg&hash=174d4f4145e64cce1ddcb951887d5208907895b6)
Go' old snipping tool on my computer didn't work as I would like. Oh well.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mrsman on May 31, 2015, 07:50:22 AM
Post by: mrsman on May 31, 2015, 07:50:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 01:57:54 PMQuote from: 1 on May 25, 2015, 01:41:41 PMQuote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 01:38:53 PM
If it's okay, I'd rather go north on the 408.
California has taken over Florida...
You can thank my mom for me saying that. I've never lived in California, but anytime we go anywhere, it's "take the 5 to the 405, then go a few miles to the 90...."
And what's really weird is that those directions would also work in California. Although 405/90 freeway is more than a few miles from either 5/405 junction (23 miles from San Fernando, 50 miles from the El Toro Y). In Seattle, 405/90 is 11 miles from the southern 5/405 and 16 miles from the northern 5/405.
And unlike I-90 which basically does take you from Seattle to the rest of the country, CA-90 only gets you to Marina del Rey.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on May 31, 2015, 10:50:17 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on May 31, 2015, 10:50:17 PM
Two digit number on a three digit shield:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/401/17708558663_1a291c597e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/sYQZwX)US 31/US 72 Alt./AL 20 (https://flic.kr/p/sYQZwX) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/401/17708558663_1a291c597e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/sYQZwX)US 31/US 72 Alt./AL 20 (https://flic.kr/p/sYQZwX) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: route56 on June 01, 2015, 06:09:50 PM
Post by: route56 on June 01, 2015, 06:09:50 PM
A slight design error on K-68 in Ottawa.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8870/18143284168_469f187d7f.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/tDg5hh)
51411 (https://flic.kr/p/tDg5hh) by Richie Kennedy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8870/18143284168_469f187d7f.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/tDg5hh)
51411 (https://flic.kr/p/tDg5hh) by Richie Kennedy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on June 01, 2015, 11:42:55 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on June 01, 2015, 11:42:55 PM
Not sure whether this is the correct thread, but meh.
http://goo.gl/maps/gH529
"72nd Ave" and not "72 Ave"
http://goo.gl/maps/gH529
"72nd Ave" and not "72 Ave"
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on June 02, 2015, 03:44:18 AM
Post by: jakeroot on June 02, 2015, 03:44:18 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on June 01, 2015, 11:42:55 PM
Not sure whether this is the correct thread, but meh.
http://goo.gl/maps/gH529
"72nd Ave" and not "72 Ave"
Probably more of a linguistic error than a design one, but, indeed, meh.
BC speakers, even in informal conversation, generally drop the ordinal indicators after street numbers (the opposite of American behaviour; more in tune with the rest of Canada), so I'm rather baffled as to how this sign slipped through the cracks.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on June 02, 2015, 10:44:04 AM
Post by: thenetwork on June 02, 2015, 10:44:04 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 02, 2015, 03:44:18 AMQuote from: SignGeek101 on June 01, 2015, 11:42:55 PM
Not sure whether this is the correct thread, but meh.
http://goo.gl/maps/gH529
"72nd Ave" and not "72 Ave"
Probably more of a linguistic error than a design one, but, indeed, meh.
BC speakers, even in informal conversation, generally drop the ordinal indicators after street numbers (the opposite of American behaviour; more in tune with the rest of Canada), so I'm rather baffled as to how this sign slipped through the cracks.
Doesn't the Arroyo Seco Parkway (the 110) in Los Angeles do the same thing?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on June 02, 2015, 11:46:51 AM
Post by: SignGeek101 on June 02, 2015, 11:46:51 AM
This one is quite subtle:
http://goo.gl/maps/AaFaA
http://goo.gl/maps/AaFaA
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on June 02, 2015, 12:52:01 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 02, 2015, 12:52:01 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on June 02, 2015, 10:44:04 AMQuote from: jakeroot on June 02, 2015, 03:44:18 AMQuote from: SignGeek101 on June 01, 2015, 11:42:55 PM
Not sure whether this is the correct thread, but meh.
http://goo.gl/maps/gH529
"72nd Ave" and not "72 Ave"
Probably more of a linguistic error than a design one, but, indeed, meh.
BC speakers, even in informal conversation, generally drop the ordinal indicators after street numbers (the opposite of American behaviour; more in tune with the rest of Canada), so I'm rather baffled as to how this sign slipped through the cracks.
Doesn't the Arroyo Seco Parkway (the 110) in Los Angeles do the same thing?
I don't think there's any requirement that signs display the ordinal indicator or not (I think both are acceptable variations of one another, at least in the US). For example, here's a BGS (https://goo.gl/Z4XfOu) for an exit for "94th Ave E" and "9th St SW" but the street blades read (https://goo.gl/fifLkb) "94 Ave E" and "9 St SW".
But again, in my experience, BC basically never uses the ordinal indicator, in speech or writing, so the "72nd Ave" signs are pretty baffling.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cbeach40 on June 02, 2015, 02:50:14 PM
Post by: cbeach40 on June 02, 2015, 02:50:14 PM
And some explanations:
It would be a black on white regulatory sign if there's a bylaw to set it at that speed. Otherwise it would be under the general provisions of the Highway Traffic Act, which would be 80 km/h rural, 50 km/h urban. Those signs probably are just there to warn that it's a pretty crappy road, rather than any legal bearing.
Those are not MTO signs, so it would appear as though Toronto or their contractor just went with a single colour to save time/money/whatever. Doesn't look good, but not technically an error.
That's not an Ontario highway, so that arrow is acceptable.
That one was stuck up by the contractor back in the day. Yes, that style is for regulatory signs, but it does convey the message.
Guidelines are guidelines. Not rules or regulations. Certainly any of those examples don't look very good, but they're not inaccurate or errors.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on January 06, 2015, 10:50:10 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/Jda77
I think this should be black on white ("normal" speed limit), rather than an advisory "ramp" speed.
It would be a black on white regulatory sign if there's a bylaw to set it at that speed. Otherwise it would be under the general provisions of the Highway Traffic Act, which would be 80 km/h rural, 50 km/h urban. Those signs probably are just there to warn that it's a pretty crappy road, rather than any legal bearing.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on March 19, 2015, 09:19:56 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/3FPQF
Not sure what the bigger design error is: the 'B' in FHWA or the 401 not being in black on the other sign.
Those are not MTO signs, so it would appear as though Toronto or their contractor just went with a single colour to save time/money/whatever. Doesn't look good, but not technically an error.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on February 06, 2015, 10:34:46 PM
Although I do prefer the FHWA arrows, it is technically incorrect to use them here:
http://goo.gl/maps/dYBxA
Ontario uses the "Ontario arrow" which I personally don't really like.
That's not an Ontario highway, so that arrow is acceptable.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on March 23, 2015, 11:59:33 PM
Wondering if I should post this here or erroneous road signs.
http://goo.gl/maps/JQGxx
124 does end here, but the END sign has been used incorrectly. That sign is supposed to be for reserved lanes according to Book 5 in the Ontario Traffic Manual.
This rusty old sign is more appropriate: http://goo.gl/maps/71P9G
That one was stuck up by the contractor back in the day. Yes, that style is for regulatory signs, but it does convey the message.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on March 23, 2015, 11:59:33 PM
It is a nitpick, but guidelines are guidelines.
Guidelines are guidelines. Not rules or regulations. Certainly any of those examples don't look very good, but they're not inaccurate or errors.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on June 02, 2015, 04:16:09 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 02, 2015, 04:16:09 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on June 02, 2015, 02:50:14 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on February 06, 2015, 10:34:46 PM
Although I do prefer the FHWA arrows, it is technically incorrect to use them here:
http://goo.gl/maps/dYBxA
Ontario uses the "Ontario arrow" which I personally don't really like.
That's not an Ontario highway, so that arrow is acceptable.
Acceptable, sure, but it's still a design error. The rest of the sign clearly corresponds to MTO standards, however, the contractor slipped when they forwent the use of the Ontario arrow. Thus, the arrow is a design mistake. The only way the arrow isn't a mistake would be if the contractor clearly stated that they intended to use the traditional down arrow (which still wouldn't make sense, since the rest of the signs along the ETR use the Ontario arrow).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cbeach40 on June 02, 2015, 05:17:32 PM
Post by: cbeach40 on June 02, 2015, 05:17:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 02, 2015, 04:16:09 PM
Acceptable, sure, but it's still a design error. The rest of the sign clearly corresponds to MTO standards, however, the contractor slipped when they forwent the use of the Ontario arrow. Thus, the arrow is a design mistake. The only way the arrow isn't a mistake would be if the contractor clearly stated that they intended to use the traditional down arrow (which still wouldn't make sense, since the rest of the signs along the ETR use the Ontario arrow).
Looking at the other signs in the area, it would appear as though that is intentional. Based on other signs in the area, its design would appear to be based on the old MTO standards. So its not so much an error as it is a relic.
Various signs in the area, since replaced:
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_407-409_images/407_dv_33_east_Jun07.jpg
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_407-409_images/407_dv_33-5_east.jpg
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_407-409_images/407_dv_34_east.jpg
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on June 06, 2015, 05:04:58 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on June 06, 2015, 05:04:58 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps/myplaces?ll=44.025131,-75.908275&spn=0.018175,0.042272&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=44.024515,-75.91644&panoid=L999ZA3wQe-pMTpeC3AyaQ&cbp=12,56.04,,1,-6.82
Sorry for the long link.
"NORTH" is written as "North".
Sorry for the long link.
"NORTH" is written as "North".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on June 09, 2015, 05:11:13 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on June 09, 2015, 05:11:13 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/pj3Kv
'5' on this speed limit sign got messed up somehow. Looks like a series E wanna be.
'5' on this speed limit sign got messed up somehow. Looks like a series E wanna be.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Bruce on June 12, 2015, 10:43:48 PM
Post by: Bruce on June 12, 2015, 10:43:48 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnzggUzH.jpg&hash=5e1c0d44b2db2034ee4572b16fcbd136f21122db)
On SR 525 northbound approaching SR 99 in Mukilteo.
On SR 525 northbound approaching SR 99 in Mukilteo.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on June 15, 2015, 07:35:50 AM
Post by: 1995hoo on June 15, 2015, 07:35:50 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 07:17:20 PMQuote from: 6a on May 25, 2015, 07:15:25 PMQuote from: jakeroot on May 25, 2015, 06:47:30 PM
(cardinal directions are only included if the exit is for one or the other -- both directions, it's excluded).
In that case...
...When there's only one lane. My mistake.
I can think of a couple of exits that use single-lane C/D roads yet list both directions for the other road. Eastbound I-66 at VA-123 comes to mind (the signs have "SOUTH" and "NORTH" stacked above each other next to the 123 shield). So do both I-81 and I-70 at said roads' junction near Hagerstown (e.g., on westbound I-70 the sign says I-81 "NORTH & SOUTH"). In both cases, separate smaller BGSs on the C/D roads segregate the directions.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: theline on June 28, 2015, 12:14:48 AM
Post by: theline on June 28, 2015, 12:14:48 AM
I wasn't sure where to post this one. There is a definite design error on this street sign, posted on Facebook by a friend:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi59.tinypic.com%2F2a4zbcg.jpg&hash=eb2497136ce0896f965b12a209639188fe7653db)
When I first saw it, I thought it could go in the vandalized sign thread, because somebody flipped the blade over, but my friend reported that "Pulling St." is right side up on the other side of the sign. It could also go in the funny street name thread, I suppose.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi59.tinypic.com%2F2a4zbcg.jpg&hash=eb2497136ce0896f965b12a209639188fe7653db)
When I first saw it, I thought it could go in the vandalized sign thread, because somebody flipped the blade over, but my friend reported that "Pulling St." is right side up on the other side of the sign. It could also go in the funny street name thread, I suppose.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: TEG24601 on June 28, 2015, 11:55:06 AM
Post by: TEG24601 on June 28, 2015, 11:55:06 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 12, 2015, 10:43:48 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnzggUzH.jpg&hash=5e1c0d44b2db2034ee4572b16fcbd136f21122db)
On SR 525 northbound approaching SR 99 in Mukilteo.
I drive by that often, and it has always bothered me, but I'm not sure why. Could you elaborate?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on June 28, 2015, 05:02:32 PM
Post by: 1995hoo on June 28, 2015, 05:02:32 PM
Passed this last week outside the Watergate on Virginia Avenue in DC. The arrow looks mighty odd. It's also an odd sign because the crosswalk on that side is at a traffic light, so the sign seems unnecessary. (The other crosswalk where that car is has no signal associated with it but no warning sign. )
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fc1b730e5a8622b6d8415e35345c7ce22_zpsy9omje8n.jpg&hash=218146aaf86a964c0eb3bee7f679e48c67b5b60c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fc1b730e5a8622b6d8415e35345c7ce22_zpsy9omje8n.jpg&hash=218146aaf86a964c0eb3bee7f679e48c67b5b60c)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: okroads on June 28, 2015, 06:12:12 PM
Post by: okroads on June 28, 2015, 06:12:12 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/528/19219872196_d037aa9015_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vhoSoQ)DSC05124 (https://flic.kr/p/vhoSoQ) by
Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on June 28, 2015, 06:36:21 PM
Post by: thenetwork on June 28, 2015, 06:36:21 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 28, 2015, 11:55:06 AMQuote from: Bruce on June 12, 2015, 10:43:48 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnzggUzH.jpg&hash=5e1c0d44b2db2034ee4572b16fcbd136f21122db)
On SR 525 northbound approaching SR 99 in Mukilteo.
I drive by that often, and it has always bothered me, but I'm not sure why. Could you elaborate?
My guess is that on the Everett sign, the exit arrow should be below Everett or the sign should've been wider so that the exit arrow is to the right of all text. As I see it, the BGS looks like a pull-through with an arrow crammed inside.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Bruce on June 28, 2015, 06:41:48 PM
Post by: Bruce on June 28, 2015, 06:41:48 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on June 28, 2015, 06:36:21 PMQuote from: TEG24601 on June 28, 2015, 11:55:06 AMQuote from: Bruce on June 12, 2015, 10:43:48 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnzggUzH.jpg&hash=5e1c0d44b2db2034ee4572b16fcbd136f21122db)
On SR 525 northbound approaching SR 99 in Mukilteo.
I drive by that often, and it has always bothered me, but I'm not sure why. Could you elaborate?
My guess is that on the Everett sign, the exit arrow should be below Everett or the sign should've been wider so that the exit arrow is to the right of all text. As I see it, the BGS looks like a pull-through with an arrow crammed inside.
I didn't notice that one.
My main concern was with the highway numbers, which are a bit too big and badly spaced inside the shield.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: spooky on June 29, 2015, 07:48:14 AM
Post by: spooky on June 29, 2015, 07:48:14 AM
If someone was going to consider misplaced arrows a design error, then almost every BGS in the State of Rhode Island would end up in this thread.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: TEG24601 on June 29, 2015, 11:42:23 AM
Post by: TEG24601 on June 29, 2015, 11:42:23 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 28, 2015, 06:41:48 PMQuote from: thenetwork on June 28, 2015, 06:36:21 PMQuote from: TEG24601 on June 28, 2015, 11:55:06 AMQuote from: Bruce on June 12, 2015, 10:43:48 PM
On SR 525 northbound approaching SR 99 in Mukilteo.
I drive by that often, and it has always bothered me, but I'm not sure why. Could you elaborate?
My guess is that on the Everett sign, the exit arrow should be below Everett or the sign should've been wider so that the exit arrow is to the right of all text. As I see it, the BGS looks like a pull-through with an arrow crammed inside.
I didn't notice that one.
My main concern was with the highway numbers, which are a bit too big and badly spaced inside the shield.
Which I don't notice, because that seems to be the common layout for SR 99, although these are a little large, but at least they aren't the tiny ones you see down south. I'm not a fan of the way the signs are laid out. The Shields don't match position, and I'd make the right sign wider, and put the arrow on the end, and replace the Arrow on the Left Sign with "Right at Signal", since there is no exit to speak of.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 29, 2015, 07:20:50 PM
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 29, 2015, 07:20:50 PM
The 99 digits don't seem "too large" to me, but are definitely more widely spaced than they should be. The arrow on the Everett sign though is relatively standard for Washington. We do have a tendency to shove them wherever they (kind of) fit.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on June 30, 2015, 01:26:17 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on June 30, 2015, 01:26:17 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fm5Q3UtG.jpg&hash=68549153de235290bb257c53cdb74d45093eccea)
The A28 shield should be aligned up against the up arrow, between the two lines of text.
The A28 shield should be aligned up against the up arrow, between the two lines of text.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 01, 2015, 07:26:36 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 01, 2015, 07:26:36 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 29, 2015, 11:42:23 AMQuote from: Bruce on June 28, 2015, 06:41:48 PMQuote from: thenetwork on June 28, 2015, 06:36:21 PMQuote from: TEG24601 on June 28, 2015, 11:55:06 AMQuote from: Bruce on June 12, 2015, 10:43:48 PM
On SR 525 northbound approaching SR 99 in Mukilteo.
I drive by that often, and it has always bothered me, but I'm not sure why. Could you elaborate?
My guess is that on the Everett sign, the exit arrow should be below Everett or the sign should've been wider so that the exit arrow is to the right of all text. As I see it, the BGS looks like a pull-through with an arrow crammed inside.
I didn't notice that one.
My main concern was with the highway numbers, which are a bit too big and badly spaced inside the shield.
Which I don't notice, because that seems to be the common layout for SR 99, although these are a little large, but at least they aren't the tiny ones you see down south. I'm not a fan of the way the signs are laid out. The Shields don't match position, and I'd make the right sign wider, and put the arrow on the end, and replace the Arrow on the Left Sign with "Right at Signal", since there is no exit to speak of.
I think the sign is fine, but if we were to change the sign, I would make it look more like this (below). I dumped a second through arrow because the left through lane does not go to 99 South:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUF9suJR.png&hash=b1ce817a4d1ab29b8b24b51fefed4509f2c83653)
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 29, 2015, 07:20:50 PM
We do have a tendency to shove them wherever they (kind of) fit.
Since this thread, I've been paying attention to where WSDOT seems to put those stubby arrows. It seems they do, quite often, just throw them inside the sign wherever they'll fit. Which to me is fine, as long as the exit isn't mandatory, in which case, the arrow should be placed relatively as central as possible to the lane it represents (so something like this (https://goo.gl/TQgz2h) bothers me).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on July 02, 2015, 11:06:51 AM
Post by: thenetwork on July 02, 2015, 11:06:51 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2015, 07:26:36 PM
Since this thread, I've been paying attention to where WSDOT seems to put those stubby arrows. It seems they do, quite often, just throw them inside the sign wherever they'll fit. Which to me is fine, as long as the exit isn't mandatory, in which case, the arrow should be placed relatively as central as possible to the lane it represents (so something like this (https://goo.gl/TQgz2h) bothers me).
The placement of the arrow there is good and aesthetically better than the Everett sign. It's the arrow itself that sucks on this example. Definitely the stem is a few inches too short.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on July 22, 2015, 05:50:08 PM
Post by: formulanone on July 22, 2015, 05:50:08 PM
Looking through some old pics (November 2011) revealed some backwards lower-case L's on these two BGSs, located a stone's throw south of the Broward/Miami-Dade county line on I-95:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/456/19736764818_c0b1ac0c0f_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/w555yA)
Int95nMM19-UpcomingExitsFL858FL824FL820 (https://flic.kr/p/w555yA) by formulanone (https://www.flickr.com/photos/formulanone/), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3828/19736762808_5165031bca_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/w554XW)
Int95nMM19-Exit18signFL858withBackwardsLs (https://flic.kr/p/w554XW) by formulanone (https://www.flickr.com/photos/formulanone/), on Flickr
Looks like these signs are consigned to history, after having a peek at Street View.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/456/19736764818_c0b1ac0c0f_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/w555yA)
Int95nMM19-UpcomingExitsFL858FL824FL820 (https://flic.kr/p/w555yA) by formulanone (https://www.flickr.com/photos/formulanone/), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3828/19736762808_5165031bca_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/w554XW)
Int95nMM19-Exit18signFL858withBackwardsLs (https://flic.kr/p/w554XW) by formulanone (https://www.flickr.com/photos/formulanone/), on Flickr
Looks like these signs are consigned to history, after having a peek at Street View.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on July 24, 2015, 08:09:23 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on July 24, 2015, 08:09:23 AM
The 189 text is too small for the shield and is off-center
(https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/11742629_10153547320262948_6665962484754683230_n.jpg?oh=bd5ac497ba5321977258e0865215c751&oe=5650DD5B)
US 287 shields in 2dus shields and with text that is too small.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/v/t1.0-9/156761_474862382947_5365651_n.jpg?oh=0982c1c955bd365a0455358dd84b5253&oe=5654F461&__gda__=1444363957_1039fb63025f5b6480bb3156061913ac)
(https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/11742629_10153547320262948_6665962484754683230_n.jpg?oh=bd5ac497ba5321977258e0865215c751&oe=5650DD5B)
US 287 shields in 2dus shields and with text that is too small.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/v/t1.0-9/156761_474862382947_5365651_n.jpg?oh=0982c1c955bd365a0455358dd84b5253&oe=5654F461&__gda__=1444363957_1039fb63025f5b6480bb3156061913ac)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: noelbotevera on July 24, 2015, 09:38:45 AM
Post by: noelbotevera on July 24, 2015, 09:38:45 AM
US 287 is also not a business route - that is mainline 287.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on July 24, 2015, 02:12:02 PM
Post by: hbelkins on July 24, 2015, 02:12:02 PM
North Carolina used to have gobs of 3dUS signs like that. Not very many remain, but here are a few along US 158 and there used to be some near Boone as well.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on August 10, 2015, 08:13:12 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on August 10, 2015, 08:13:12 AM
Just an afterthought.
(https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11218938_10153586625102948_2260761374228751306_n.jpg?oh=b9ff3ec85ce3fcd3375edc60d524d7c5&oe=56528F27)
(https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11218938_10153586625102948_2260761374228751306_n.jpg?oh=b9ff3ec85ce3fcd3375edc60d524d7c5&oe=56528F27)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on August 10, 2015, 08:19:04 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on August 10, 2015, 08:19:04 AM
The Y in Sidney
(https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11800428_10153553540657948_7051518947535636542_n.jpg?oh=74c16e52baadbe13f868387b65e9e2c6&oe=563AFC3E)
(https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11800428_10153553540657948_7051518947535636542_n.jpg?oh=74c16e52baadbe13f868387b65e9e2c6&oe=563AFC3E)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on August 10, 2015, 09:42:20 AM
Post by: thenetwork on August 10, 2015, 09:42:20 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 10, 2015, 08:13:12 AM
Just an afterthought.
(https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11218938_10153586625102948_2260761374228751306_n.jpg?oh=b9ff3ec85ce3fcd3375edc60d524d7c5&oe=56528F27)
Reminds me of the "homemade modification" of another BGS in L.A.: https://kentringer.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/richard_ankrom.jpg
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ned Weasel on August 10, 2015, 02:52:23 PM
Post by: Ned Weasel on August 10, 2015, 02:52:23 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 10, 2015, 09:42:20 AMQuote from: national highway 1 on August 10, 2015, 08:13:12 AM
Just an afterthought.
Reminds me of the "homemade modification" of another BGS in L.A.: https://kentringer.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/richard_ankrom.jpg
Except Richard Ankrom actually went through the trouble of making it look good.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: admtrap on August 11, 2015, 02:27:25 AM
Post by: admtrap on August 11, 2015, 02:27:25 AM
It's not _quite_ Craig County, but found a fun little gem heading up to Mariposa, CA on SR 49 in last week. For a bonus - the exact same error occurs on both direction of the road.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3442832,-119.7117712,3a,15y,326.44h,79.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srtlFp2eNayUkVJP8lmROGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv631%2Fdst3313%2Fsb49_zpsgpghrui6.png&hash=35bc666996f667c99460fec5158511e0d7091c2a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv631%2Fdst3313%2Fnb49_zpsukoydajo.png&hash=6b87653cae7207e91a9e8e21a224bb70be8f4f0d)
If you take SR 140 down instead, you get an even more fun one (but only westbound)
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3283125,-120.249971,3a,15y,273.06h,84.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stDoFRlmPyToRsjASf3whWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv631%2Fdst3313%2Fsr140_zpsjihwjzvq.png&hash=28aa01cc4e34afeb63990933fd4f0c233f6c9ccf)
Yes, there are GMV artifacts, but the lower case 'e' there in Le Grand is not an artifact - it really is that dinky.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3442832,-119.7117712,3a,15y,326.44h,79.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srtlFp2eNayUkVJP8lmROGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv631%2Fdst3313%2Fsb49_zpsgpghrui6.png&hash=35bc666996f667c99460fec5158511e0d7091c2a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv631%2Fdst3313%2Fnb49_zpsukoydajo.png&hash=6b87653cae7207e91a9e8e21a224bb70be8f4f0d)
If you take SR 140 down instead, you get an even more fun one (but only westbound)
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3283125,-120.249971,3a,15y,273.06h,84.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stDoFRlmPyToRsjASf3whWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv631%2Fdst3313%2Fsr140_zpsjihwjzvq.png&hash=28aa01cc4e34afeb63990933fd4f0c233f6c9ccf)
Yes, there are GMV artifacts, but the lower case 'e' there in Le Grand is not an artifact - it really is that dinky.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cl94 on August 11, 2015, 07:24:44 PM
Post by: cl94 on August 11, 2015, 07:24:44 PM
As we all know, both the City and Town of Tonawanda, NY are infamous for their signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0105478,-78.8649119,3a,24.9y,213.28h,87.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIFGGXDyfHTaINhl2S1AjwQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and signals (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9911375,-78.8531252,3a,20.3y,98.89h,93.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn-G-dwetLp8wVHsa2WjbjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), but I found something that takes it to a new extreme. Just because it's in a school zone doesn't mean it should be green (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9826689,-78.8700118,3a,73.8y,18.18h,84.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1DElb33YwR6jRS4XeAXuNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: noelbotevera on August 11, 2015, 09:44:26 PM
Post by: noelbotevera on August 11, 2015, 09:44:26 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 11, 2015, 07:24:44 PMIt's in Buffalo.
As we all know, both the City and Town of Tonawanda, NY are infamous for their signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0105478,-78.8649119,3a,24.9y,213.28h,87.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIFGGXDyfHTaINhl2S1AjwQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and signals (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9911375,-78.8531252,3a,20.3y,98.89h,93.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn-G-dwetLp8wVHsa2WjbjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), but I found something that takes it to a new extreme. Just because it's in a school zone doesn't mean it should be green (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9826689,-78.8700118,3a,73.8y,18.18h,84.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1DElb33YwR6jRS4XeAXuNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cl94 on August 11, 2015, 09:58:23 PM
Post by: cl94 on August 11, 2015, 09:58:23 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 11, 2015, 09:44:26 PMQuote from: cl94 on August 11, 2015, 07:24:44 PMIt's in Buffalo.
As we all know, both the City and Town of Tonawanda, NY are infamous for their signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0105478,-78.8649119,3a,24.9y,213.28h,87.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIFGGXDyfHTaINhl2S1AjwQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and signals (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9911375,-78.8531252,3a,20.3y,98.89h,93.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn-G-dwetLp8wVHsa2WjbjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), but I found something that takes it to a new extreme. Just because it's in a school zone doesn't mean it should be green (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9826689,-78.8700118,3a,73.8y,18.18h,84.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1DElb33YwR6jRS4XeAXuNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Google is incorrect. Town of Tonawanda. It's in front of the Tonawanda pool/fitness center in the center of the town. Heck, Google says I'm in Buffalo where I live and I'm a few miles from the city line.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on August 11, 2015, 10:28:17 PM
Post by: Zeffy on August 11, 2015, 10:28:17 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 11, 2015, 09:58:23 PM
Google is incorrect. Town of Tonawanda. It's in front of the Tonawanda pool/fitness center in the center of the town. Heck, Google says I'm in Buffalo where I live and I'm a few miles from the city line.
Google identifies a lot of places near Trenton (Ewing, Hamilton) as Trenton itself plenty of times. I think it may be based on the metro area which is named after the city itself.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: odditude on August 12, 2015, 04:57:36 PM
Post by: odditude on August 12, 2015, 04:57:36 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 11, 2015, 10:28:17 PMQuote from: cl94 on August 11, 2015, 09:58:23 PM
Google is incorrect. Town of Tonawanda. It's in front of the Tonawanda pool/fitness center in the center of the town. Heck, Google says I'm in Buffalo where I live and I'm a few miles from the city line.
Google identifies a lot of places near Trenton (Ewing, Hamilton) as Trenton itself plenty of times. I think it may be based on the metro area which is named after the city itself.
it could be based on ZIP code, as well.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on August 12, 2015, 06:36:02 PM
Post by: roadman on August 12, 2015, 06:36:02 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 10, 2015, 02:52:23 PMAnd, as I recall the story, nobody from Caltrans even noticed Mr. Ankron's handiwork until somebody complemented them on the addition to the BGS a couple of months later.Quote from: thenetwork on August 10, 2015, 09:42:20 AMQuote from: national highway 1 on August 10, 2015, 08:13:12 AM
Just an afterthought.
Reminds me of the "homemade modification" of another BGS in L.A.: https://kentringer.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/richard_ankrom.jpg
Except Richard Ankrom actually went through the trouble of making it look good.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cl94 on August 12, 2015, 06:46:13 PM
Post by: cl94 on August 12, 2015, 06:46:13 PM
This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9490924,-78.8133539,3a,50.9y,88.64h,81.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syqQlGRzKSP6BRWY9_IZYIg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is in Buffalo. This one also has no excuse for being green.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mrsman on August 16, 2015, 05:42:21 PM
Post by: mrsman on August 16, 2015, 05:42:21 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 10, 2015, 08:13:12 AM
Just an afterthought.
(https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11218938_10153586625102948_2260761374228751306_n.jpg?oh=b9ff3ec85ce3fcd3375edc60d524d7c5&oe=56528F27)
On doing some research on GSV, this is very recent indeed.
Check out this picture from July 2014:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0242114,-118.17232,3a,75y,348.52h,83.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfk2JwlJq3KIADgETvkCbhQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
It seems like it was added to account for a construction project that separates the left two lanes from the rest just after the ramp to CA 60. So you really need to be in the 3rd lane at that point to access 3rd street and not simply merge right at a later point.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on September 02, 2015, 10:34:11 PM
Post by: jbnv on September 02, 2015, 10:34:11 PM
Let's STREEEEEETCHHH it to make it fit better. (http://imgur.com/r/mildlyinteresting/mvTPdG2)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Stratuscaster on September 02, 2015, 11:12:45 PM
Post by: Stratuscaster on September 02, 2015, 11:12:45 PM
Quote from: jbnv on September 02, 2015, 10:34:11 PMI swear Dupage County Illinois does this quite a bit.
Let's STREEEEEETCHHH it to make it fit better. (http://imgur.com/r/mildlyinteresting/mvTPdG2)
Make the text box, then resize the box to fit the sign, but they actually stretch the text rather than resize it.
(They also can't seem to properly deal with lower-case descenders, but that's another rant.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on September 11, 2015, 11:18:00 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on September 11, 2015, 11:18:00 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/ZZHBj
Lowercase where a capital should be. oOps.
Lowercase where a capital should be. oOps.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on September 25, 2015, 02:52:27 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on September 25, 2015, 02:52:27 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/Pa72eXZkesz
The '25' shield on the left is missing something, compared with the 440 shield on the right.
The '25' shield on the left is missing something, compared with the 440 shield on the right.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: odditude on September 25, 2015, 03:28:27 PM
Post by: odditude on September 25, 2015, 03:28:27 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on September 25, 2015, 02:52:27 PMno fleur-de-lis for you!
https://goo.gl/maps/Pa72eXZkesz
The '25' shield on the left is missing something, compared with the 440 shield on the right.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on September 30, 2015, 10:05:24 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on September 30, 2015, 10:05:24 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/xfziVC77Jez
Other than it being wrong, it's been done horribly :-D
It should be 307-S. It turns out, the yellow was added later to express the 'exit only' for that lane.
Other than it being wrong, it's been done horribly :-D
It should be 307-S. It turns out, the yellow was added later to express the 'exit only' for that lane.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: noelbotevera on October 01, 2015, 09:20:05 PM
Post by: noelbotevera on October 01, 2015, 09:20:05 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on September 30, 2015, 10:05:24 PMFunny thing is that there's room to scrunch over 307 and slap on -S.
https://goo.gl/maps/xfziVC77Jez
Other than it being wrong, it's been done horribly :-D
It should be 307-S. It turns out, the yellow was added later to express the 'exit only' for that lane.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: WNYroadgeek on February 14, 2016, 09:19:06 PM
Post by: WNYroadgeek on February 14, 2016, 09:19:06 PM
Somebody forgot to cut out this Thruway shield before mounting it: https://goo.gl/maps/ips7w9HDM4s
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on February 14, 2016, 10:16:52 PM
Post by: SignBridge on February 14, 2016, 10:16:52 PM
I think it looks good that way; better contrast. Similar to New Jersey DOT's practice of putting the state-route circular shield in a black box on BGS's.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: peterj920 on February 16, 2016, 05:19:03 AM
Post by: peterj920 on February 16, 2016, 05:19:03 AM
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1601/24429065164_fd7e48cf3c_k_d.jpg)
The US 41 sign was an erroneous US 141 sign. Notice that the first 1 was whitewashed and the 4 is in the center.
The US 41 sign was an erroneous US 141 sign. Notice that the first 1 was whitewashed and the 4 is in the center.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 16, 2016, 09:18:36 PM
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 16, 2016, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on September 11, 2015, 11:18:00 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/ZZHBj
Lowercase where a capital should be. oOps.
That's actually grammatically correct in French. In french, street, road, avenue, ect. aren't supposed to be capitalized, only the proper noun should be.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on February 16, 2016, 09:31:08 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on February 16, 2016, 09:31:08 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 16, 2016, 09:18:36 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on September 11, 2015, 11:18:00 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/ZZHBj
Lowercase where a capital should be. oOps.
That's actually grammatically correct in French. In french, street, road, avenue, ect. aren't supposed to be capitalized, only the proper noun should be.
I was actually thinking about the cardinal direction. The 'O' in 'OUEST' in the middle sign is a lower case letter 'o'. Compare how it looks with the word "Brandon" underneath it and the "NORTH" on the sign to the right.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on February 17, 2016, 12:19:20 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on February 17, 2016, 12:19:20 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 16, 2016, 09:18:36 PMThat's actually grammatically correct in French. In french, street, road, avenue, etc. aren't supposed to be capitalized, only the proper noun should be.
This is true (compare "rue St.-Jacques" with "St. James Street"), but in Québec at least, primary destination legend is treated as if it is in title case: hence "Centre Infotouriste" instead of "Centre infotouriste," "Rue Hochelaga" instead of "rue Hochelaga," etc.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 17, 2016, 03:51:15 PM
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 17, 2016, 03:51:15 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on February 16, 2016, 09:31:08 PMQuote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 16, 2016, 09:18:36 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on September 11, 2015, 11:18:00 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/ZZHBj
Lowercase where a capital should be. oOps.
That's actually grammatically correct in French. In french, street, road, avenue, ect. aren't supposed to be capitalized, only the proper noun should be.
I was actually thinking about the cardinal direction. The 'O' in 'OUEST' in the middle sign is a lower case letter 'o'. Compare how it looks with the word "Brandon" underneath it and the "NORTH" on the sign to the right.
I didn't notice that one.
I quite like how Winnipeg signs the by-pass in blue.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 17, 2016, 06:29:55 PM
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 17, 2016, 06:29:55 PM
Green instead of blue on new signage for the 407 along the southbound lanes of the 410:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2FOntroads%2F410_407SB_adv_Feb16_aaroads.jpg&hash=82b70edd92b99d3e45ce36fa705cccaf7bd1cda6)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2FOntroads%2F410_407SB_adv_Feb16_aaroads.jpg&hash=82b70edd92b99d3e45ce36fa705cccaf7bd1cda6)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on February 17, 2016, 09:50:26 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on February 17, 2016, 09:50:26 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 17, 2016, 06:29:55 PM
Green instead of blue on new signage for the 407 along the southbound lanes of the 410:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2FOntroads%2F410_407SB_adv_Feb16_aaroads.jpg&hash=82b70edd92b99d3e45ce36fa705cccaf7bd1cda6)
Ontario keeps replacing those gantries I see. The old ones are eyesores IMO. The green is interesting. I wonder if there was something done within MTO to change the colour of ETR signs with the new 407 coming this spring and all. Perhaps they are trying to differentiate the two freeways more.
Or maybe, like you said, it's simply a mistake :-D
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jblock42 on February 18, 2016, 03:38:28 PM
Post by: jblock42 on February 18, 2016, 03:38:28 PM
Two signs that always make me irrationally upset are on US-31 right by me at Ferris and Hayes Sts (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTwAMafu.jpg&hash=633b68840cf17cea59991db6e4c3a47538854db8) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDEB49qX.jpg&hash=ea4fb0ccc69ba8fe4648805604e4fe9015545913)
I'm not sure exactly what's wrong with them, it looks like the shield is too wide, but that doesn't make sense if the south mark is also 24" then the sign looks like it's also 24" ???
(excuse the photo quality I took these on my phone as I was driving past them earlier today)
I'm not sure exactly what's wrong with them, it looks like the shield is too wide, but that doesn't make sense if the south mark is also 24" then the sign looks like it's also 24" ???
(excuse the photo quality I took these on my phone as I was driving past them earlier today)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Brandon on February 18, 2016, 03:46:04 PM
Post by: Brandon on February 18, 2016, 03:46:04 PM
^^ The second curse is worse than the first! Because ugly Clearview numbers.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on February 18, 2016, 03:47:21 PM
Post by: thenetwork on February 18, 2016, 03:47:21 PM
Quote from: jblock42 on February 18, 2016, 03:38:28 PM
Two signs that always make me irrationally upset are on US-31 right by me at Ferris and Hayes Sts (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTwAMafu.jpg&hash=633b68840cf17cea59991db6e4c3a47538854db8) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDEB49qX.jpg&hash=ea4fb0ccc69ba8fe4648805604e4fe9015545913)
I'm not sure exactly what's wrong with them, it looks like the shield is too wide, but that doesn't make sense if the south mark is also 24" then the sign looks like it's also 24" ???
(excuse the photo quality I took these on my phone as I was driving past them earlier today)
In the second one, the "31" is in butt-ugly Clearview. Plus both shields are placing 2-digits within a 3-digit shield.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jblock42 on February 18, 2016, 03:49:59 PM
Post by: jblock42 on February 18, 2016, 03:49:59 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on February 18, 2016, 03:47:21 PMI wasn't exactly sure if they were 3 digit shields because of the south marks still looking like the normal 24" ones, because they look pretty much lined up as well as they can be?Quote from: jblock42 on February 18, 2016, 03:38:28 PM
Two signs that always make me irrationally upset are on US-31 right by me at Ferris and Hayes Sts (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTwAMafu.jpg&hash=633b68840cf17cea59991db6e4c3a47538854db8) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDEB49qX.jpg&hash=ea4fb0ccc69ba8fe4648805604e4fe9015545913)
I'm not sure exactly what's wrong with them, it looks like the shield is too wide, but that doesn't make sense if the south mark is also 24" then the sign looks like it's also 24" ???
(excuse the photo quality I took these on my phone as I was driving past them earlier today)
In the second one, the "31" is in butt-ugly Clearview. Plus both shields are placing 2-digits within a 3-digit shield.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 05:08:12 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 05:08:12 PM
Quote from: jblock42 on February 18, 2016, 03:49:59 PMI wasn't exactly sure if they were 3 digit shields because of the south marks still looking like the normal 24" ones, because they look pretty much lined up as well as they can be?For the size of the shield, the SOUTH banners appear to be one size larger; i.e. intended for a larger route shield size.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jblock42 on February 18, 2016, 08:51:37 PM
Post by: jblock42 on February 18, 2016, 08:51:37 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 05:08:12 PMI was wondering if that was the case! Seems so stupid that they'd put it on the non freeway part of the highway, and with a 3 digit shied??Quote from: jblock42 on February 18, 2016, 03:49:59 PMI wasn't exactly sure if they were 3 digit shields because of the south marks still looking like the normal 24" ones, because they look pretty much lined up as well as they can be?For the size of the shield, the SOUTH banners appear to be one size larger; i.e. intended for a larger route shield size.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 19, 2016, 08:25:56 AM
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 19, 2016, 08:25:56 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on February 17, 2016, 09:50:26 PMQuote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 17, 2016, 06:29:55 PM
Green instead of blue on new signage for the 407 along the southbound lanes of the 410:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2FOntroads%2F410_407SB_adv_Feb16_aaroads.jpg&hash=82b70edd92b99d3e45ce36fa705cccaf7bd1cda6)
Ontario keeps replacing those gantries I see. The old ones are eyesores IMO. The green is interesting. I wonder if there was something done within MTO to change the colour of ETR signs with the new 407 coming this spring and all. Perhaps they are trying to differentiate the two freeways more.
Or maybe, like you said, it's simply a mistake :-D
I have to think it's a mistake. I can't see the logic of deliberately changing the signs from blue to green. Particularly since so many of the entrance signs would be maintained by the 407 ETR themselves, who in my opinion, would be unlikely to update their signage stock without absolutely needing to. The thing that does surprise me about this sign however, is that it looks like it's come from the MTO sign shop. Usually signage from the sign shop is pretty good, as I get the impression that the staff who work their understand how Ontario's highways are typically signed. Contractor signage is typically less reliable.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 19, 2016, 09:05:32 AM
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 19, 2016, 09:05:32 AM
Quote from: Brandon on February 18, 2016, 03:46:04 PM
^^ The second curse is worse than the first! Because ugly Clearview numbers.
The second sign's font looks like something I've seen on Maine state route signs. :hmmm:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on February 19, 2016, 09:44:49 AM
Post by: Zeffy on February 19, 2016, 09:44:49 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 19, 2016, 09:05:32 AMQuote from: Brandon on February 18, 2016, 03:46:04 PM
^^ The second curse is worse than the first! Because ugly Clearview numbers.
The second sign's font looks like something I've seen on Maine state route signs. :hmmm:
That's LeHay, which is a mysterious font that doesn't have any sort of documentation or anything besides road signs that use them. Massachusetts and Maryland, among others, also used the font.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ian on February 19, 2016, 03:22:12 PM
Post by: Ian on February 19, 2016, 03:22:12 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 19, 2016, 09:44:49 AMQuote from: KEVIN_224 on February 19, 2016, 09:05:32 AMQuote from: Brandon on February 18, 2016, 03:46:04 PM
^^ The second curse is worse than the first! Because ugly Clearview numbers.
The second sign's font looks like something I've seen on Maine state route signs. :hmmm:
That's LeHay, which is a mysterious font that doesn't have any sort of documentation or anything besides road signs that use them. Massachusetts and Maryland, among others, also used the font.
No they haven't. LeHay was only ever used in Maine, since it was created by a sign shop worker who used to work for MaineDOT way back when. While the fonts used in Mass and Maryland were very similar, they aren't the same.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on February 19, 2016, 04:09:48 PM
Post by: hbelkins on February 19, 2016, 04:09:48 PM
Quote from: Ian on February 19, 2016, 03:22:12 PMQuote from: Zeffy on February 19, 2016, 09:44:49 AMQuote from: KEVIN_224 on February 19, 2016, 09:05:32 AMQuote from: Brandon on February 18, 2016, 03:46:04 PM
^^ The second curse is worse than the first! Because ugly Clearview numbers.
The second sign's font looks like something I've seen on Maine state route signs. :hmmm:
That's LeHay, which is a mysterious font that doesn't have any sort of documentation or anything besides road signs that use them. Massachusetts and Maryland, among others, also used the font.
No they haven't. LeHay was only ever used in Maine, since it was created by a sign shop worker who used to work for MaineDOT way back when. While the fonts used in Mass and Maryland were very similar, they aren't the same.
I've seen it used at least once in West Virginia. When I originally took and posted the years ago, someone (Adam Prince maybe) noted that it looked like a "northeastern font."
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on February 20, 2016, 02:41:55 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 20, 2016, 02:41:55 PM
This is the second time WSDOT has used a 2DI shield to display a 3DI. The first time was on this (https://goo.gl/SYmGRI) BGS (which, interestingly enough, uses Series E for the numerals).
If it was a reassurance shield, I'd shit bricks. But it isn't. :-|
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6BINfgd.png&hash=639effc5e02dd0c0c11b571382234ba603024357)
If it was a reassurance shield, I'd shit bricks. But it isn't. :-|
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6BINfgd.png&hash=639effc5e02dd0c0c11b571382234ba603024357)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: lordsutch on February 22, 2016, 02:15:10 PM
Post by: lordsutch on February 22, 2016, 02:15:10 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 19, 2016, 08:25:56 AM
I have to think it's a mistake. I can't see the logic of deliberately changing the signs from blue to green. Particularly since so many of the entrance signs would be maintained by the 407 ETR themselves, who in my opinion, would be unlikely to update their signage stock without absolutely needing to. The thing that does surprise me about this sign however, is that it looks like it's come from the MTO sign shop. Usually signage from the sign shop is pretty good, as I get the impression that the staff who work their understand how Ontario's highways are typically signed. Contractor signage is typically less reliable.
I think the logic is that the through route isn't tolled (or the local part of an express/local setup, which is the other use case for blue guide signs by MTO), so the proper background should be green rather than blue.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 22, 2016, 02:25:18 PM
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 22, 2016, 02:25:18 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on February 22, 2016, 02:15:10 PMQuote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 19, 2016, 08:25:56 AM
I have to think it's a mistake. I can't see the logic of deliberately changing the signs from blue to green. Particularly since so many of the entrance signs would be maintained by the 407 ETR themselves, who in my opinion, would be unlikely to update their signage stock without absolutely needing to. The thing that does surprise me about this sign however, is that it looks like it's come from the MTO sign shop. Usually signage from the sign shop is pretty good, as I get the impression that the staff who work their understand how Ontario's highways are typically signed. Contractor signage is typically less reliable.
I think the logic is that the through route isn't tolled (or the local part of an express/local setup, which is the other use case for blue guide signs by MTO), so the proper background should be green rather than blue.
The standard is to sign the 407 with a blue sign on all routes:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_401_images%2F401_dv_329_east.jpg&hash=bdfe010cccd45bbbddb1bbb1bf6b16f9d841af85)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_401_images%2F401_dv_330_east.jpg&hash=5eb00d4755332157c380486a9610109f77ec41c1)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_400_images%2F400_dv_30-5_south_E_Jun14.jpg&hash=b638a042baed98558386b14959e9859db4e48963)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_402-403_images%2F403_dv_108-5_east_Oct14.jpg&hash=950ae3967afe912684d443509db520e4aec480ae)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_402-403_images%2F403_dv_80_east.jpg&hash=dbf19fb96bb9e91b2e9d5596f314e4109296dc91)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_404-406_images%2F404_dv_27_south_Aug11.jpg&hash=2baa1fb0315bfa8a75f5901f067e06e3665fab24)
That standard has been emulated on the 407 extension as well (these signs were erected in November of 2015:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_401_images%2F401_dv_406_east_Dec15.jpg&hash=51720ac5690c040c1d6443738ae18834335d5b79)
The only exception to signing the 407 in blue is when the 407 shares a sign with a non-tolled route. The blue is reserved for signs that are exclusively for the 407.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2FQEW_images%2FQEW_dv_100_Oct10_TB.jpg&hash=3e1bdc66c3b29d770b92c956378b40a4d56865bb)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on February 22, 2016, 02:57:52 PM
Post by: thenetwork on February 22, 2016, 02:57:52 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 22, 2016, 02:25:18 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_402-403_images%2F403_dv_108-5_east_Oct14.jpg&hash=950ae3967afe912684d443509db520e4aec480ae)
This sign needs more clarity since it spans over all lanes of traffic. I perceive this sign as to stay straight in the right lane for the 407 and thru traffic should keep left -- even with the left exit tab. The signs further up are better defined.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 22, 2016, 03:08:49 PM
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 22, 2016, 03:08:49 PM
These signs are standard in Ontario, so there are dozens if not hundreds of them across the province. They are signed in conjunction with pre-advanced and turn-off signs that reinforce which direction the exit lanes depart at, and the configuration at each interchange. Furthermore, when the signs were developed in the 1990s, human factors studies were conducted, which found that the vast majority of drivers understood the basic configuration of the approaching interchange, including which side of the road the lanes departed on, even if they didn't necessarily understand all of the subtle nuances of the specific exit configuration that they were approaching.
It's easy to look at a single photo on the vacuum that is the internet, and not get the full experiences of how the signs operate in the field.
It's easy to look at a single photo on the vacuum that is the internet, and not get the full experiences of how the signs operate in the field.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ekt8750 on February 22, 2016, 04:56:39 PM
Post by: ekt8750 on February 22, 2016, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 20, 2016, 02:41:55 PM
This is the second time WSDOT has used a 2DI shield to display a 3DI. The first time was on this (https://goo.gl/SYmGRI) BGS (which, interestingly enough, uses Series E for the numerals).
If it was a reassurance shield, I'd shit bricks. But it isn't. :-|
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6BINfgd.png&hash=639effc5e02dd0c0c11b571382234ba603024357)
I have no issue with this at all. It looks clean and nothing's been distorted to make everything fit. I do agree, if it were made of cutouts it would be perfect. What's bad are those shields that are actually 2DI shields that have the wide portion of it stretched out in a sign program to fit squished in numerals. I see on I-295 in Jersey a lot.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cl94 on February 22, 2016, 05:27:08 PM
Post by: cl94 on February 22, 2016, 05:27:08 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 22, 2016, 03:08:49 PM
These signs are standard in Ontario, so there are dozens if not hundreds of them across the province. They are signed in conjunction with pre-advanced and turn-off signs that reinforce which direction the exit lanes depart at, and the configuration at each interchange. Furthermore, when the signs were developed in the 1990s, human factors studies were conducted, which found that the vast majority of drivers understood the basic configuration of the approaching interchange, including which side of the road the lanes departed on, even if they didn't necessarily understand all of the subtle nuances of the specific exit configuration that they were approaching.
It's easy to look at a single photo on the vacuum that is the internet, and not get the full experiences of how the signs operate in the field.
I agree completely. I remember seeing them for the first time and they were part of a group of signs. It makes perfect sense in the field and it's not the first sign you encounter. I actually wouldn't mind seeing stuff like this in the states.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on February 22, 2016, 06:29:10 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 22, 2016, 06:29:10 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 22, 2016, 04:56:39 PMQuote from: jakeroot on February 20, 2016, 02:41:55 PM
This is the second time WSDOT has used a 2DI shield to display a 3DI. The first time was on this (https://goo.gl/SYmGRI) BGS (which, interestingly enough, uses Series E for the numerals).
If it was a reassurance shield, I'd shit bricks. But it isn't. :-|
http://i.imgur.com/6BINfgd.png
I have no issue with this at all. It looks clean and nothing's been distorted to make everything fit. I do agree, if it were made of cutouts it would be perfect. What's bad are those shields that are actually 2DI shields that have the wide portion of it stretched out in a sign program to fit squished in numerals. I see on I-295 in Jersey a lot.
I absolutely agree. I very much like 2DI shields for 3DI's, I just don't think it's technically correct (hence why I posted it here).
On the flip side, WSDOT has a lot of bubble shields for their 3DI's (like New Jersey evidently?). I'd take 2DI shields for 3DI's over bubble shields any day!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cl94 on February 22, 2016, 06:45:23 PM
Post by: cl94 on February 22, 2016, 06:45:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 22, 2016, 06:29:10 PMQuote from: ekt8750 on February 22, 2016, 04:56:39 PMQuote from: jakeroot on February 20, 2016, 02:41:55 PM
This is the second time WSDOT has used a 2DI shield to display a 3DI. The first time was on this (https://goo.gl/SYmGRI) BGS (which, interestingly enough, uses Series E for the numerals).
If it was a reassurance shield, I'd shit bricks. But it isn't. :-|
http://i.imgur.com/6BINfgd.png
I have no issue with this at all. It looks clean and nothing's been distorted to make everything fit. I do agree, if it were made of cutouts it would be perfect. What's bad are those shields that are actually 2DI shields that have the wide portion of it stretched out in a sign program to fit squished in numerals. I see on I-295 in Jersey a lot.
I absolutely agree. I very much like 2DI shields for 3DI's, I just don't think it's technically correct (hence why I posted it here).
On the flip side, WSDOT has a lot of bubble shields for their 3DI's (like New Jersey evidently?). I'd take 2DI shields for 3DI's over bubble shields any day!
New Jersey doesn't have a lot of bubble shields. NYSDOT, on the other hand, installed nothing but for a good 10-15 years before they switched to Series C.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ekt8750 on February 23, 2016, 10:33:38 AM
Post by: ekt8750 on February 23, 2016, 10:33:38 AM
Quote from: cl94 on February 22, 2016, 06:45:23 PM
Jersey doesn't have a lot of bubble shields. NYSDOT, on the other hand, installed nothing but for a good 10-15 years before they switched to Series C.
As a whole no but the northern half of I-295 has a bunch.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 23, 2016, 11:27:43 AM
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 23, 2016, 11:27:43 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 23, 2016, 10:33:38 AMQuote from: cl94 on February 22, 2016, 06:45:23 PM
Jersey doesn't have a lot of bubble shields. NYSDOT, on the other hand, installed nothing but for a good 10-15 years before they switched to Series C.
As a whole no but the northern half of I-295 has a bunch.
Where?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ekt8750 on February 23, 2016, 12:00:45 PM
Post by: ekt8750 on February 23, 2016, 12:00:45 PM
Off the top of my head, there's a couple NB between US 30 and NJ 73. Here's one just before NJ 70. Hard to see from this angle but you can tell by just how round it is and the fact that they smushed in Series D numerals: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8772587,-75.0132634,3a,15y,72.36h,84.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIItXMUhyPpBwfqAogT3Oew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: machias on February 23, 2016, 12:32:05 PM
Post by: machias on February 23, 2016, 12:32:05 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 22, 2016, 06:45:23 PMQuote from: jakeroot on February 22, 2016, 06:29:10 PMQuote from: ekt8750 on February 22, 2016, 04:56:39 PMQuote from: jakeroot on February 20, 2016, 02:41:55 PM
This is the second time WSDOT has used a 2DI shield to display a 3DI. The first time was on this (https://goo.gl/SYmGRI) BGS (which, interestingly enough, uses Series E for the numerals).
If it was a reassurance shield, I'd shit bricks. But it isn't. :-|
http://i.imgur.com/6BINfgd.png
I have no issue with this at all. It looks clean and nothing's been distorted to make everything fit. I do agree, if it were made of cutouts it would be perfect. What's bad are those shields that are actually 2DI shields that have the wide portion of it stretched out in a sign program to fit squished in numerals. I see on I-295 in Jersey a lot.
I absolutely agree. I very much like 2DI shields for 3DI's, I just don't think it's technically correct (hence why I posted it here).
On the flip side, WSDOT has a lot of bubble shields for their 3DI's (like New Jersey evidently?). I'd take 2DI shields for 3DI's over bubble shields any day!
New Jersey doesn't have a lot of bubble shields. NYSDOT, on the other hand, installed nothing but for a good 10-15 years before they switched to Series C.
I'm not sure I agree with that, there was one or two NYSDOT contractors that seemed to be quite fond of the bubble-shield for 3di interstates, but I can think of many installations within 50 miles of my location that didn't use bubble shields.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mrsman on February 24, 2016, 12:57:36 PM
Post by: mrsman on February 24, 2016, 12:57:36 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 22, 2016, 02:25:18 PMQuote from: lordsutch on February 22, 2016, 02:15:10 PMQuote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 19, 2016, 08:25:56 AM
I have to think it's a mistake. I can't see the logic of deliberately changing the signs from blue to green. Particularly since so many of the entrance signs would be maintained by the 407 ETR themselves, who in my opinion, would be unlikely to update their signage stock without absolutely needing to. The thing that does surprise me about this sign however, is that it looks like it's come from the MTO sign shop. Usually signage from the sign shop is pretty good, as I get the impression that the staff who work their understand how Ontario's highways are typically signed. Contractor signage is typically less reliable.
I think the logic is that the through route isn't tolled (or the local part of an express/local setup, which is the other use case for blue guide signs by MTO), so the proper background should be green rather than blue.
The standard is to sign the 407 with a blue sign on all routes:
Are other toll routes in Ontario also signed with blue signs?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 01:04:05 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 01:04:05 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 23, 2016, 12:00:45 PM
Off the top of my head, there's a couple NB between US 30 and NJ 73. Here's one just before NJ 70. Hard to see from this angle but you can tell by just how round it is and the fact that they smushed in Series D numerals: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8772587,-75.0132634,3a,15y,72.36h,84.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIItXMUhyPpBwfqAogT3Oew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
OK, that's one. Maybe a few more ground mounted ones if I paid attention. Although I wouldn't say that's "a bunch", and when you're at MP 32 of a 68 mile highway, I wouldn't say that's on the northern half either...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cl94 on February 24, 2016, 01:07:33 PM
Post by: cl94 on February 24, 2016, 01:07:33 PM
Quote from: mrsman on February 24, 2016, 12:57:36 PMQuote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 22, 2016, 02:25:18 PMQuote from: lordsutch on February 22, 2016, 02:15:10 PMQuote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 19, 2016, 08:25:56 AM
I have to think it's a mistake. I can't see the logic of deliberately changing the signs from blue to green. Particularly since so many of the entrance signs would be maintained by the 407 ETR themselves, who in my opinion, would be unlikely to update their signage stock without absolutely needing to. The thing that does surprise me about this sign however, is that it looks like it's come from the MTO sign shop. Usually signage from the sign shop is pretty good, as I get the impression that the staff who work their understand how Ontario's highways are typically signed. Contractor signage is typically less reliable.
I think the logic is that the through route isn't tolled (or the local part of an express/local setup, which is the other use case for blue guide signs by MTO), so the proper background should be green rather than blue.
The standard is to sign the 407 with a blue sign on all routes:
Are other toll routes in Ontario also signed with blue signs?
It's the only toll road that isn't a bridge/tunnel.
Now back to the bubble shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6710104,-73.7486043,3a,15y,230.34h,87.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIj8j8pxbEZjIfx8bh39SsQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Region 1 has replaced most of the freestanding bubble shields, but this is one was up when I drove through an hour ago. This one is doubly ugly thanks to the font.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on February 24, 2016, 01:08:33 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on February 24, 2016, 01:08:33 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 23, 2016, 12:00:45 PMThose numerals look like Series C to me. The ones on the Mile Marker are Series B.
Off the top of my head, there's a couple NB between US 30 and NJ 73. Here's one just before NJ 70. Hard to see from this angle but you can tell by just how round it is and the fact that they smushed in Series D numerals: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8772587,-75.0132634,3a,15y,72.36h,84.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIItXMUhyPpBwfqAogT3Oew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: odditude on February 25, 2016, 09:47:44 AM
Post by: odditude on February 25, 2016, 09:47:44 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 24, 2016, 01:08:33 PMit is a bubble shield, it is series C, and there are indeed a handful of them between 30 and 73. haven't seen any north of that, though - most are series C in a proper shield.Quote from: ekt8750 on February 23, 2016, 12:00:45 PMThose numerals look like Series C to me. The ones on the Mile Marker are Series B.
Off the top of my head, there's a couple NB between US 30 and NJ 73. Here's one just before NJ 70. Hard to see from this angle but you can tell by just how round it is and the fact that they smushed in Series D numerals: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8772587,-75.0132634,3a,15y,72.36h,84.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIItXMUhyPpBwfqAogT3Oew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
there ARE some normal shields with series D on NJ 38 WB just past the 295 SB ramp - on the jughandle to Marter Ave and the U-turn to 295 NB (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9671056,-74.9175885,3a,75y,285.76h,86.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s85FplVZBo-Esfdf2xga8iw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on February 25, 2016, 12:45:01 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on February 25, 2016, 12:45:01 PM
Quote from: odditude on February 25, 2016, 09:47:44 AMI will be using I-295 between NJ 70 and I-195 this coming weekend; I can do a quick check while en route.
One highway that's recently sported bubble 3dI shields is I-476 (with Series D numerals); mostly on the NE Extension but there's at least one or two along the Blue Route (northern end) as well.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 01:04:05 PMUpdate: During my recent weekend trip to/from Massachusetts, which included using I-295 from I-76 (exit 26) to I-195 (Exit 60); I counted a total of either 8 or 9 bubble I-295 (in Series C numerals) shields between Exits 31 (PATCO Woodcrest Station exit) and 40 (NJ 38). 4 or 5 along I-295 North and 3 along I-295 South.Quote from: ekt8750 on February 23, 2016, 12:00:45 PM
Off the top of my head, there's a couple NB between US 30 and NJ 73. Here's one just before NJ 70. Hard to see from this angle but you can tell by just how round it is and the fact that they smushed in Series D numerals: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8772587,-75.0132634,3a,15y,72.36h,84.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIItXMUhyPpBwfqAogT3Oew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
OK, that's one. Maybe a few more ground mounted ones if I paid attention. Although I wouldn't say that's "a bunch", and when you're at MP 32 of a 68 mile highway, I wouldn't say that's on the northern half either...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: theFXexpert on March 04, 2016, 01:10:21 PM
Post by: theFXexpert on March 04, 2016, 01:10:21 PM
I just now noticed that the 3 in the exit tab is actually an 8 cut in half.
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.0792306,-81.9785648,3a,15y,270.34h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfaZ0A9vIZc_K9J2p44_yTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.0792306,-81.9785648,3a,15y,270.34h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfaZ0A9vIZc_K9J2p44_yTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: busman_49 on March 04, 2016, 01:54:51 PM
Post by: busman_49 on March 04, 2016, 01:54:51 PM
Quote from: theFXexpert on March 04, 2016, 01:10:21 PM
I just now noticed that the 3 in the exit tab is actually an 8 cut in half.
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.0792306,-81.9785648,3a,15y,270.34h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfaZ0A9vIZc_K9J2p44_yTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Now that's just bad. It would've taken very little effort to cut it properly & make it look halfway decent.
Unless...there's half an upside-down 8 out there serving as ANOTHER number 3...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on March 05, 2016, 10:21:45 AM
Post by: PurdueBill on March 05, 2016, 10:21:45 AM
Quote from: theFXexpert on March 04, 2016, 01:10:21 PM
I just now noticed that the 3 in the exit tab is actually an 8 cut in half.
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.0792306,-81.9785648,3a,15y,270.34h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfaZ0A9vIZc_K9J2p44_yTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Everyone knows that the correct thing to do when out of 3s is to use most of a B.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Faz%2Faz_101%2Fw31.jpg&hash=52e497557cd790ce8dafef01913898bbcce494bf)
(from Steve's AZ 101 (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/az/az_101/w.html) page)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 05, 2016, 12:05:56 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 05, 2016, 12:05:56 PM
I think I prefer the one made out an 8 to be honest.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 05, 2016, 06:59:41 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 05, 2016, 06:59:41 PM
Not the first time I've seen this:
https://goo.gl/maps/pxX1YihzeM92
https://goo.gl/maps/pxX1YihzeM92
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on March 05, 2016, 07:26:38 PM
Post by: thenetwork on March 05, 2016, 07:26:38 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on March 05, 2016, 06:59:41 PM
Not the first time I've seen this:
https://goo.gl/maps/pxX1YihzeM92
What is the error here?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 05, 2016, 07:33:41 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 05, 2016, 07:33:41 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on March 05, 2016, 07:26:38 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on March 05, 2016, 06:59:41 PM
Not the first time I've seen this:
https://goo.gl/maps/pxX1YihzeM92
What is the error here?
Looks at the 'S' in SOUTH and Pittsburgh. They've been swapped.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 05, 2016, 07:46:48 PM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 05, 2016, 07:46:48 PM
Someone is selling a bunch of surplus highway signs from Texas on Ebay. Looks like they made an error on State Route 99 which looks like a new age US 99 shield:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/TEXAS-INTERSTATE-99-HIGHWAY-WESTERN-MAN-CAVE-24-x-24-/222017121311?hash=item33b1406c1f:g:7XAAAOSwpzdWrTzg
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthumbs.ebaystatic.com%2Fimages%2Fg%2F7XAAAOSwpzdWrTzg%2Fs-l225.jpg&hash=b027d7f3c7319082a131e262b403f9b4eb1bafff)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/TEXAS-INTERSTATE-99-HIGHWAY-WESTERN-MAN-CAVE-24-x-24-/222017121311?hash=item33b1406c1f:g:7XAAAOSwpzdWrTzg
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthumbs.ebaystatic.com%2Fimages%2Fg%2F7XAAAOSwpzdWrTzg%2Fs-l225.jpg&hash=b027d7f3c7319082a131e262b403f9b4eb1bafff)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on March 05, 2016, 09:19:45 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on March 05, 2016, 09:19:45 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on March 05, 2016, 07:33:41 PMMy photo from 2012 might save the trip to Google Maps.Quote from: thenetwork on March 05, 2016, 07:26:38 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on March 05, 2016, 06:59:41 PM
Not the first time I've seen this:
https://goo.gl/maps/pxX1YihzeM92
What is the error here?
Looks at the 'S' in SOUTH and Pittsburgh. They've been swapped.
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/192015_10101693528437368_1753192871_o.jpg)
Such a switcheroo is odd when using non-button-copy unless it's demountable. There are more than one sign on I-80 in that area, though, with switcheroos.
A and a switched; O and o switched::
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-0/q83/p526x296/2947_10106046823129908_3284629511219853472_n.jpg?oh=b415e27e37a67ca9cdebe6efb1861848&oe=574DD8D2)
I just drove under this switcheroo on OH 82 today; S and s swapped.
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/243002_10100545279168108_6465261_o.jpg)
Two more such examples, always involving SOUTH (the only pics in this post not mine but appropriated from Steve's site's OH I-490 and MA 203 pages.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Foh%2Fi-490%2Fw1r1.jpg&hash=7d7bfa417d273c11234d5a88919a87f3d3c58b8c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_203%2Fe3a_1.jpg&hash=35eb4015570dc0d8ae7ad218f3be18f21d5ca93f)
The MA 203 one is interesting because there wasn't another S to switch with; they just reached in the bin for the wrong kind or ran out of small caps letter S.
The real loser is the signage for I-80 on I-79. This kind of thing is why Clearview had to die. This didn't happen rampantly until Clearview came along.
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlt1/t31.0-8/12841191_10106046823084998_2974461204763156802_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on March 05, 2016, 09:48:41 PM
Post by: jakeroot on March 05, 2016, 09:48:41 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 05, 2016, 09:19:45 PM
A and a switched; O and o switched::
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-0/q83/p526x296/2947_10106046823129908_3284629511219853472_n.jpg?oh=b415e27e37a67ca9cdebe6efb1861848&oe=574DD8D2)
I'm usually not phased by small errors, but this is pretty bad.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on March 05, 2016, 10:32:03 PM
Post by: hbelkins on March 05, 2016, 10:32:03 PM
That gets pretty close to Craig County.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cl94 on March 05, 2016, 11:00:24 PM
Post by: cl94 on March 05, 2016, 11:00:24 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 05, 2016, 10:32:03 PM
That gets pretty close to Craig County.
I was thinking that
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on March 06, 2016, 12:19:48 AM
Post by: thenetwork on March 06, 2016, 12:19:48 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on March 05, 2016, 07:33:41 PMQuote from: thenetwork on March 05, 2016, 07:26:38 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on March 05, 2016, 06:59:41 PM
Not the first time I've seen this:
https://goo.gl/maps/pxX1YihzeM92
What is the error here?
Looks at the 'S' in SOUTH and Pittsburgh. They've been swapped.
Good eye on that on. Totally missed that. Now that I look at the sign again, the letter P looks a little off as well.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on March 06, 2016, 01:37:23 PM
Post by: roadfro on March 06, 2016, 01:37:23 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on March 06, 2016, 12:19:48 AMQuote from: SignGeek101 on March 05, 2016, 07:33:41 PMQuote from: thenetwork on March 05, 2016, 07:26:38 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on March 05, 2016, 06:59:41 PM
Not the first time I've seen this:
https://goo.gl/maps/pxX1YihzeM92
What is the error here?
Looks at the 'S' in SOUTH and Pittsburgh. They've been swapped.
Good eye on that on. Totally missed that. Now that I look at the sign again, the letter P looks a little off as well.
First thing I noticed on that one was that the fraction rectangle looks too tall...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on March 06, 2016, 08:44:02 PM
Post by: jbnv on March 06, 2016, 08:44:02 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 05, 2016, 09:19:45 PM
The real loser is the signage for I-80 on I-79. This kind of thing is why Clearview had to die. This didn't happen rampantly until Clearview came along.
Right. because nobody ever made the lowercase letters too small until they started doing it in Clearview. :pan:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 09:18:27 PM
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 09:18:27 PM
This was viral a while ago, but it fits the thread so well. It was located somewhere on the Northern State Parkway on Long Island.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsday.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.11354949.1453516003%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Fdisplay_600%2Fimage.jpg&hash=dd1df3eef1c5de08433ea12803f8b18892d6a058)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsday.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.11354949.1453516003%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Fdisplay_600%2Fimage.jpg&hash=dd1df3eef1c5de08433ea12803f8b18892d6a058)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on March 06, 2016, 09:20:32 PM
Post by: jbnv on March 06, 2016, 09:20:32 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 09:18:27 PM
This was viral a while ago, but it fits the thread so well. It was located somewhere on the Northern State Parkway on Long Island.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsday.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.11354949.1453516003%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Fdisplay_600%2Fimage.jpg&hash=dd1df3eef1c5de08433ea12803f8b18892d6a058)
Where's the design error?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Big John on March 06, 2016, 09:24:11 PM
Post by: Big John on March 06, 2016, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 09:18:27 PM
This was viral a while ago, but it fits the thread so well. It was located somewhere on the Northern State Parkway on Long Island.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsday.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.11354949.1453516003%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Fdisplay_600%2Fimage.jpg&hash=dd1df3eef1c5de08433ea12803f8b18892d6a058)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 09:27:39 PM
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 09:27:39 PM
Quote from: jbnv on March 06, 2016, 09:20:32 PMQuote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 09:18:27 PM
This was viral a while ago, but it fits the thread so well. It was located somewhere on the Northern State Parkway on Long Island.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsday.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.11354949.1453516003%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Fdisplay_600%2Fimage.jpg&hash=dd1df3eef1c5de08433ea12803f8b18892d6a058)
Where's the design error?
It's supposed to say "Blizzard Warning 4AM Saturday to <insert time here> on Sunday" but they kind of missed it. It's more of a display error than a design error.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2016, 10:55:49 PM
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2016, 10:55:49 PM
It still made me just about spit my drink out.
"Lizzard" sounds like a heavy metal band.
"Lizzard" sounds like a heavy metal band.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on March 07, 2016, 12:07:04 AM
Post by: PurdueBill on March 07, 2016, 12:07:04 AM
Quote from: jbnv on March 06, 2016, 08:44:02 PMQuote from: PurdueBill on March 05, 2016, 09:19:45 PM
The real loser is the signage for I-80 on I-79. This kind of thing is why Clearview had to die. This didn't happen rampantly until Clearview came along.
Right. because nobody ever made the lowercase letters too small until they started doing it in Clearview. :pan:
Not literally never, but it became rampant after. The recindment of the interim approval mentioned all the design problems that started to happen after Clearview spread.
The irony of those signs is that one benefit of Clearview was the taller lowercase letters, but what did they do designing and assembling those signs?
I think the spirit of the elimination was basically FHWA saying "we let you try using it; many of you can't seem to handle it properly or listen to our directions; go back to using what we all used before which you seemed to be able to handle better."
Now to avoid totally derailing the thread, here's one more S/s switcheroo, this time from Arizona, from Steve's AZ 202 page. Small caps S and lowercase full-size s seemed to have traded places around the country (MA, OH, AZ) back in button copy days!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Faz%2Faz_202%2Femesa.jpg&hash=ec33b13a8f0c1a995f8b76d285e3b614c8b55210)
For comparison, S's in the correct placeS:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Faz%2Faz_202%2Femes.jpg&hash=3ba4bad09acbff0f83c966ac68a9a506652ffd32)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 07, 2016, 02:41:56 PM
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 07, 2016, 02:41:56 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2016, 10:55:49 PM
It still made me just about spit my drink out.
"Lizzard" sounds like a heavy metal band.
Have you heard the band Mewt Lizzard? They're awesome, but they got sued for ripping off Def Leppard. :-P
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ian on March 07, 2016, 09:45:26 PM
Post by: Ian on March 07, 2016, 09:45:26 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 09:18:27 PM
This was viral a while ago, but it fits the thread so well. It was located somewhere on the Northern State Parkway on Long Island.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsday.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.11354949.1453516003%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Fdisplay_600%2Fimage.jpg&hash=dd1df3eef1c5de08433ea12803f8b18892d6a058)
Must be those Lizard People of New York (https://www.facebook.com/lizardpeopleofny/?fref=ts).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 07, 2016, 10:03:57 PM
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on March 07, 2016, 10:03:57 PM
Quote from: Ian on March 07, 2016, 09:45:26 PMQuote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 09:18:27 PM
This was viral a while ago, but it fits the thread so well. It was located somewhere on the Northern State Parkway on Long Island.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsday.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.11354949.1453516003%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Fdisplay_600%2Fimage.jpg&hash=dd1df3eef1c5de08433ea12803f8b18892d6a058)
Must be those Lizard People of New York (https://www.facebook.com/lizardpeopleofny/?fref=ts).
This was in a suburb on New York City, so I guess that works. haha
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 07, 2016, 10:15:38 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 07, 2016, 10:15:38 PM
On the way into the city on Cicero today, spotted this lovely advisory sign. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9639909,-87.7475233,3a,36.6y,183.55h,84.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8hvPUVNwyffDWq8IyY2eAQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Also found a possible candidate for the Department of Redundancy Department thread which I'll post there.
Also found a possible candidate for the Department of Redundancy Department thread which I'll post there.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: noelbotevera on March 07, 2016, 10:26:35 PM
Post by: noelbotevera on March 07, 2016, 10:26:35 PM
CoNCessiOnS (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2719/4209632583_896181b58b.jpg%5Burl=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2719/4209632583_896181b58b.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 07, 2016, 10:44:53 PM
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 07, 2016, 10:44:53 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 07, 2016, 02:41:56 PMQuote from: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2016, 10:55:49 PM
It still made me just about spit my drink out.
"Lizzard" sounds like a heavy metal band.
Have you heard the band Mewt Lizzard? They're awesome, but they got sued for ripping off Def Leppard. :-P
You got me.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: theFXexpert on March 07, 2016, 11:11:29 PM
Post by: theFXexpert on March 07, 2016, 11:11:29 PM
I hope this sign dies during construction.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FidZhxGI.jpg&hash=548bdf503d157b35b0fdca01bb4a1ce3c7f64d55)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FidZhxGI.jpg&hash=548bdf503d157b35b0fdca01bb4a1ce3c7f64d55)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on March 08, 2016, 05:21:35 AM
Post by: hotdogPi on March 08, 2016, 05:21:35 AM
Quote from: theFXexpert on March 07, 2016, 11:11:29 PM
I hope this sign dies during construction.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FidZhxGI.jpg&hash=548bdf503d157b35b0fdca01bb4a1ce3c7f64d55)
What's the error, other than that FL 52 doesn't go to San Antonio?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Big John on March 08, 2016, 08:45:56 AM
Post by: Big John on March 08, 2016, 08:45:56 AM
^^ The 5 looks to be D while the 2 is C and the panhandle is not that thick.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: renegade on March 08, 2016, 08:53:00 AM
Post by: renegade on March 08, 2016, 08:53:00 AM
OK, so replace the State Route 52 shield, and everything will be awesome in the universe, right?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: theFXexpert on March 08, 2016, 09:40:11 AM
Post by: theFXexpert on March 08, 2016, 09:40:11 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 08, 2016, 05:21:35 AMExcept that it does. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Antonio,+FL/)
What's the error, other than that FL 52 doesn't go to San Antonio?
And, yes. The shield is a bit of a mess.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2016, 09:56:03 AM
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2016, 09:56:03 AM
Quote from: theFXexpert on March 08, 2016, 09:40:11 AMQuote from: 1 on March 08, 2016, 05:21:35 AMExcept that it does. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Antonio,+FL/)
What's the error, other than that FL 52 doesn't go to San Antonio?
And, yes. The shield is a bit of a mess.
Yeah, the shield is bad, but we're not really talking the entire sign should die-type level of disaster. The shield can be replaced pretty easily if they really wanted to.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Alex on March 08, 2016, 10:10:19 AM
Post by: Alex on March 08, 2016, 10:10:19 AM
Quote from: theFXexpert on March 07, 2016, 11:11:29 PM
I hope this sign dies during construction.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FidZhxGI.jpg&hash=548bdf503d157b35b0fdca01bb4a1ce3c7f64d55)
It will, every sign for CR 41 is now posted on an overhead (as you saw per your recent post). It appears that the six laning of I-75 will result in new overheads for all the other Hernando, Pasco and Sumter exits as well.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: theFXexpert on March 08, 2016, 10:18:34 AM
Post by: theFXexpert on March 08, 2016, 10:18:34 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2016, 09:56:03 AMCorrect. I should have chosen my words more carefully.
Yeah, the shield is bad, but we're not really talking the entire sign should die-type level of disaster. The shield can be replaced pretty easily if they really wanted to.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on March 08, 2016, 10:58:22 AM
Post by: roadfro on March 08, 2016, 10:58:22 AM
Quote from: theFXexpert on March 08, 2016, 09:40:11 AMQuote from: 1 on March 08, 2016, 05:21:35 AMExcept that it does. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Antonio,+FL/)
What's the error, other than that FL 52 doesn't go to San Antonio?
And, yes. The shield is a bit of a mess.
And after looking at the map, one would first reach San Antonio, then Dade City. So the cities should be flipped.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 13, 2016, 08:47:27 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 13, 2016, 08:47:27 PM
$ sign is on the wrong side. It goes on the left side of the number, get it right! :)
https://goo.gl/maps/1abzNp79Wvo
This sign will be gone in a few years; this road will be freeway by 2020 hopefully.
https://goo.gl/maps/1abzNp79Wvo
This sign will be gone in a few years; this road will be freeway by 2020 hopefully.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on March 13, 2016, 09:07:41 PM
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on March 13, 2016, 09:07:41 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on March 13, 2016, 08:47:27 PM
$ sign is on the wrong side. It goes on the left side of the number, get it right! :)
https://goo.gl/maps/1abzNp79Wvo
This sign will be gone in a few years; this road will be freeway by 2020 hopefully.
That's interesting actually. The sign looks like it's in two parts, and it looks like english text has been paired with the french monetary values.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 14, 2016, 09:55:22 AM
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 14, 2016, 09:55:22 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on March 13, 2016, 08:47:27 PM
$ sign is on the wrong side. It goes on the left side of the number, get it right! :)
https://goo.gl/maps/1abzNp79Wvo
This sign will be gone in a few years; this road will be freeway by 2020 hopefully.
At least they give you the option of calculating the risk vs. the reward yourself! (Expressed in units of $ fine per km/h) :) yay transparency
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: theline on March 14, 2016, 03:30:22 PM
Post by: theline on March 14, 2016, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on March 13, 2016, 08:47:27 PM
$ sign is on the wrong side. It goes on the left side of the number, get it right! :)
https://goo.gl/maps/1abzNp79Wvo
This sign will be gone in a few years; this road will be freeway by 2020 hopefully.
When it's a freeway, they won't be passing out speeding tickets anymore?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 14, 2016, 06:21:21 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 14, 2016, 06:21:21 PM
Quote from: theline on March 14, 2016, 03:30:22 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on March 13, 2016, 08:47:27 PM
$ sign is on the wrong side. It goes on the left side of the number, get it right! :)
https://goo.gl/maps/1abzNp79Wvo
This sign will be gone in a few years; this road will be freeway by 2020 hopefully.
When it's a freeway, they won't be passing out speeding tickets anymore?
They will, they'll just increase the speed. Though this road may be moved to a new alignment, which means this sign (and the VMS across the road) will be gone.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: theline on March 15, 2016, 01:26:38 PM
Post by: theline on March 15, 2016, 01:26:38 PM
^^ Now I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 27, 2016, 10:12:39 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 27, 2016, 10:12:39 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/rkCEJLjT3dM2
No border on this sign for some reason.
No border on this sign for some reason.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on March 28, 2016, 01:33:33 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on March 28, 2016, 01:33:33 AM
That is NOT how you make a California miner's spade! :ded:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12670717_10154128102642948_6475118068473390927_n.jpg?oh=71e3910ff9a0d5691c867e48d7f5f0bc&oe=577818A5&__gda__=1467226983_0a22a6ba77af106f395494ba72d419ec)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12670717_10154128102642948_6475118068473390927_n.jpg?oh=71e3910ff9a0d5691c867e48d7f5f0bc&oe=577818A5&__gda__=1467226983_0a22a6ba77af106f395494ba72d419ec)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 28, 2016, 11:01:27 AM
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 28, 2016, 11:01:27 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on March 28, 2016, 01:33:33 AM
That is NOT how you make a California miner's spade! :ded:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12670717_10154128102642948_6475118068473390927_n.jpg?oh=71e3910ff9a0d5691c867e48d7f5f0bc&oe=577818A5&__gda__=1467226983_0a22a6ba77af106f395494ba72d419ec)
It looks like an upside-down interstate shield that's been flattened on top (bottom).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on March 28, 2016, 11:32:37 AM
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on March 28, 2016, 11:32:37 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FPQ%2FA%2F720%2FA720_dv_2_west_Apr15_aaroads.jpg&hash=ced2aff5c719c672df3dbcf39dced3af234fc3d5)
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/PQ/A/720/A720_dv_2_west_Apr15_24x16.jpg
The yellow exit bar on the sign for A-15 north isn't the correct width of the sign. Also on the ramp to A-20 West, the text for USA is an overlay. I'm guessing American tourists may have had somewhat of a problem understanding that they needed to go to the É-U to get back the US.
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/PQ/A/720/A720_dv_2_west_Apr15_24x16.jpg
The yellow exit bar on the sign for A-15 north isn't the correct width of the sign. Also on the ramp to A-20 West, the text for USA is an overlay. I'm guessing American tourists may have had somewhat of a problem understanding that they needed to go to the É-U to get back the US.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Rothman on March 28, 2016, 11:46:55 AM
Post by: Rothman on March 28, 2016, 11:46:55 AM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on March 28, 2016, 11:32:37 AM
I'm guessing American tourists may have had somewhat of a problem understanding that they needed to go to the É-U to get back the US.
As hard it is to believe, there were a few instances of misguided tourists following signs to "CANADA" and ending up at the I-87 crossing...when they were headed to Toronto from eastern NY. I think with the signage now focusing on Montreal that such instances are probably no longer happening, though.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 28, 2016, 12:11:08 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 28, 2016, 12:11:08 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on March 28, 2016, 11:32:37 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FPQ%2FA%2F720%2FA720_dv_2_west_Apr15_aaroads.jpg&hash=ced2aff5c719c672df3dbcf39dced3af234fc3d5)
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/PQ/A/720/A720_dv_2_west_Apr15_24x16.jpg
The yellow exit bar on the sign for A-15 north isn't the correct width of the sign. Also on the ramp to A-20 West, the text for USA is an overlay. I'm guessing American tourists may have had somewhat of a problem understanding that they needed to go to the É-U to get back the US.
There's a lot more going on with that assembly than the EXIT ONLY panel not fitting right. The 'o' in "NORD" is lowercase, the middle shield uses series C instead of series EM, and the exit (construction) sign is in a non standard font.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Michael on March 31, 2016, 07:55:09 PM
Post by: Michael on March 31, 2016, 07:55:09 PM
A couple of my friends were on their way to Ohio earlier today, and they called me to say they saw a road sign with the wrong font. After looking at it in Street View, I saw that the letter spacing is too tight. Look on the left sign on this assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0347672,-80.1165502,3a,28y,223.98h,97.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSiMQQH3s1H0QetAzDYN5Jg!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on April 12, 2016, 06:00:40 PM
Post by: formulanone on April 12, 2016, 06:00:40 PM
MA 136 Swansea, Massachusetts...disguised as Kentucky or Vermont?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.staticflickr.com%2F1450%2F25783460813_7087a5601f_c.jpg&hash=c3778886b35bb20c58a3f1f27ba1a538b873de04) (https://flic.kr/p/FhoYBP)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.staticflickr.com%2F1450%2F25783460813_7087a5601f_c.jpg&hash=c3778886b35bb20c58a3f1f27ba1a538b873de04) (https://flic.kr/p/FhoYBP)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 12, 2016, 06:02:10 PM
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 12, 2016, 06:02:10 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 12, 2016, 06:00:40 PM
MA 136 Swansea, Massachusetts...disguised as Kentucky or Vermont?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.staticflickr.com%2F1450%2F25783460813_7087a5601f_c.jpg&hash=c3778886b35bb20c58a3f1f27ba1a538b873de04) (https://flic.kr/p/FhoYBP)
That isn't Vermont. Vermont's signs are green.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on April 12, 2016, 06:03:33 PM
Post by: kphoger on April 12, 2016, 06:03:33 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on April 12, 2016, 06:02:10 PM
That isn't Vermont. Vermont's signs are green.
Not if they have local maintenance instead of state maintenance.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 12, 2016, 06:05:49 PM
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 12, 2016, 06:05:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2016, 06:03:33 PMQuote from: CobaltYoshi27 on April 12, 2016, 06:02:10 PM
That isn't Vermont. Vermont's signs are green.
Not if they have local maintenance instead of state maintenance.
Huh. That's interesting.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on April 12, 2016, 06:11:23 PM
Post by: formulanone on April 12, 2016, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on April 12, 2016, 06:02:10 PMQuote from: formulanone on April 12, 2016, 06:00:40 PM
MA 136 Swansea, Massachusetts...disguised as Kentucky or Vermont?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.staticflickr.com%2F1450%2F25783460813_7087a5601f_c.jpg&hash=c3778886b35bb20c58a3f1f27ba1a538b873de04) (https://flic.kr/p/FhoYBP)
That isn't Vermont. Vermont's signs are green.
The Shield Gallery shows a B&W "football" shield in Vermont (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=VT19752891).
The point was that this photo was taken in Massachusetts (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7686945,-71.2656405,3a,30y,216.1h,84.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfkhQWnrSt1_om3KcN1AhlQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), which uses a square.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 12, 2016, 06:27:18 PM
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 12, 2016, 06:27:18 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 12, 2016, 06:11:23 PMQuote from: CobaltYoshi27 on April 12, 2016, 06:02:10 PMQuote from: formulanone on April 12, 2016, 06:00:40 PM
MA 136 Swansea, Massachusetts...disguised as Kentucky or Vermont?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.staticflickr.com%2F1450%2F25783460813_7087a5601f_c.jpg&hash=c3778886b35bb20c58a3f1f27ba1a538b873de04) (https://flic.kr/p/FhoYBP)
That isn't Vermont. Vermont's signs are green.
I know that. I've been to Massachusetts multiple times.
The Shield Gallery shows a B&W "football" shield in Vermont (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=VT19752891).
The point was that this photo was taken in Massachusetts (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7686945,-71.2656405,3a,30y,216.1h,84.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfkhQWnrSt1_om3KcN1AhlQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), which uses a square.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 12, 2016, 07:00:26 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 12, 2016, 07:00:26 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on April 12, 2016, 06:02:10 PMQuote from: formulanone on April 12, 2016, 06:00:40 PM
MA 136 Swansea, Massachusetts...disguised as Kentucky or Vermont?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.staticflickr.com%2F1450%2F25783460813_7087a5601f_c.jpg&hash=c3778886b35bb20c58a3f1f27ba1a538b873de04) (https://flic.kr/p/FhoYBP)
That isn't Vermont. Vermont's signs are green.
Quoth the wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_highways_in_Vermont),
QuotePrior to 1995, Vermont used the standard circular highway shield to sign all of its routes, which had black numerals on a white circle over a black background. In 1995, Vermont introduced a new shield for state-maintained highways–a green shield with the word "Vermont" at the top. The circular highway shield continues to be used for locally maintained routes.[1] Some state-maintained routes are still signed with the circular highway shield, but they are being converted to the newer Vermont shield as signs are replaced. Recent guide sign replacement projects along Vermont's Interstate Highways include the newer green shields to indicate Vermont state routes, as the older guide signs used the circular shield.
Many of Vermont's circular shields still stand today; here's a photo I snapped last October on VT-17 westbound:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1517/25792490734_844240797d_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FicfU7)
Any excuse to post a sign photo, I'll probably use it. :)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cl94 on April 12, 2016, 08:34:58 PM
Post by: cl94 on April 12, 2016, 08:34:58 PM
A bunch of circle shields still exist in the wild on state-maintained roads. What I will mention is that city-maintained state highways sometimes get the green shield. Take VT 4A in Rutland city as an example.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on April 14, 2016, 03:32:51 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on April 14, 2016, 03:32:51 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 12, 2016, 06:00:40 PM... or New Jersey or Delaware.
MA 136 Swansea, Massachusetts...disguised as Kentucky or Vermont?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.staticflickr.com%2F1450%2F25783460813_7087a5601f_c.jpg&hash=c3778886b35bb20c58a3f1f27ba1a538b873de04) (https://flic.kr/p/FhoYBP)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 14, 2016, 03:52:10 PM
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 14, 2016, 03:52:10 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 14, 2016, 03:32:51 PMOr Iowa.Quote from: formulanone on April 12, 2016, 06:00:40 PM... or New Jersey or Delaware.
MA 136 Swansea, Massachusetts...disguised as Kentucky or Vermont?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.staticflickr.com%2F1450%2F25783460813_7087a5601f_c.jpg&hash=c3778886b35bb20c58a3f1f27ba1a538b873de04) (https://flic.kr/p/FhoYBP)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on April 14, 2016, 04:01:34 PM
Post by: Zeffy on April 14, 2016, 04:01:34 PM
Don't forget Mississippi!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ian on April 15, 2016, 03:41:38 PM
Post by: Ian on April 15, 2016, 03:41:38 PM
Anyone else know that CT 15 and I-95 share pavement all the way up in Bangor, ME?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFI6WD9nl.jpg&hash=80c6721ae3532812e0ce3182768807f7e5dd55b1)
There are a few of these CT/WV 15 shields along this stretch of 95.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFI6WD9nl.jpg&hash=80c6721ae3532812e0ce3182768807f7e5dd55b1)
There are a few of these CT/WV 15 shields along this stretch of 95.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 15, 2016, 08:34:25 PM
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on April 15, 2016, 08:34:25 PM
Quote from: Ian on April 15, 2016, 03:41:38 PM
Anyone else know that CT 15 and I-95 share pavement all the way up in Bangor, ME?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFI6WD9nl.jpg&hash=80c6721ae3532812e0ce3182768807f7e5dd55b1)
There are a few of these CT/WV 15 shields along this stretch of 95.
Lol CT 15, go back home to US 5, you're drunk.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 08:56:37 PM
Post by: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 08:56:37 PM
Quote from: Ian on April 15, 2016, 03:41:38 PM
Anyone else know that CT 15 and I-95 share pavement all the way up in Bangor, ME?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFI6WD9nl.jpg&hash=80c6721ae3532812e0ce3182768807f7e5dd55b1)
There are a few of these CT/WV 15 shields along this stretch of 95.
The differences are so minute that only the most devoted roadgeeks would catch that. I'm quite familiar with the MA/ME shield and I had to re-check what the difference is. Definitely a design error, but also not erroneous.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on April 15, 2016, 09:11:03 PM
Post by: jakeroot on April 15, 2016, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 08:56:37 PM
The differences are so minute that only the most devoted roadgeeks would catch that. I'm quite familiar with the MA/ME shield and I had to re-check what the difference is. Definitely a design error, but also not erroneous.
I can't spot the difference at all. Is it the border?
FWIW, Wikipedia's page on Maine state routes (https://goo.gl/C314BV) uses Mass highways shields.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 15, 2016, 09:13:10 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 15, 2016, 09:13:10 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 08:56:37 PMThere's some pretty loose adherence to standard when it comes to state highway shields in MA/ME/CT. The borders and roundings on the corners keep changing all over the place. Of course, if these states want to come up with an ACTUALLY INTERESTING DESIGN nobody would mind so much XDQuote from: Ian on April 15, 2016, 03:41:38 PM
Anyone else know that CT 15 and I-95 share pavement all the way up in Bangor, ME?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFI6WD9nl.jpg&hash=80c6721ae3532812e0ce3182768807f7e5dd55b1)
There are a few of these CT/WV 15 shields along this stretch of 95.
The differences are so minute that only the most devoted roadgeeks would catch that. I'm quite familiar with the MA/ME shield and I had to re-check what the difference is. Definitely a design error, but also not erroneous.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: noelbotevera on April 15, 2016, 09:16:09 PM
Post by: noelbotevera on April 15, 2016, 09:16:09 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 15, 2016, 09:13:10 PMI loved the old outline shields CT used to make. When I saw pictures of them, I could tell that I'm not looking at either a Maine, Massachusetts, West virginia, etc. At least i can tell the difference between a state outline and a thin border.Quote from: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 08:56:37 PMThere's some pretty loose adherence to standard when it comes to state highway shields in MA/ME/CT. The borders and roundings on the corners keep changing all over the place. Of course, if these states want to come up with an ACTUALLY INTERESTING DESIGN nobody would mind so much XDQuote from: Ian on April 15, 2016, 03:41:38 PM
Anyone else know that CT 15 and I-95 share pavement all the way up in Bangor, ME?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFI6WD9nl.jpg&hash=80c6721ae3532812e0ce3182768807f7e5dd55b1)
There are a few of these CT/WV 15 shields along this stretch of 95.
The differences are so minute that only the most devoted roadgeeks would catch that. I'm quite familiar with the MA/ME shield and I had to re-check what the difference is. Definitely a design error, but also not erroneous.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 15, 2016, 09:27:23 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 15, 2016, 09:27:23 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 15, 2016, 09:16:09 PM(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1579/25412395334_a8c2afa3ca_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EHBaM9)Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 15, 2016, 09:13:10 PMI loved the old outline shields CT used to make. When I saw pictures of them, I could tell that I'm not looking at either a Maine, Massachusetts, West virginia, etc. At least i can tell the difference between a state outline and a thin border.
There's some pretty loose adherence to standard when it comes to state highway shields in MA/ME/CT. The borders and roundings on the corners keep changing all over the place. Of course, if these states want to come up with an ACTUALLY INTERESTING DESIGN nobody would mind so much XD
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1596/25924576822_a753643d38_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FuSeus)
Here's a couple photos from Connecticut. I'm assuming the lower picture is one of the classic signs. I liked those too, and they're distinctive enough to where you can tell they're from CT and no other state. But now that things are changing I don't know what CT's deal is anymore! Connecticut I don't know who you are anymore!! :confused:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 09:38:58 PM
Post by: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 09:38:58 PM
The outline shields were only used along the Merritt. CT and WV shields have a thicker border.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: noelbotevera on April 15, 2016, 10:10:30 PM
Post by: noelbotevera on April 15, 2016, 10:10:30 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 09:38:58 PMAlso along CT 25. One was replaced recently however, but I've heard that an outline shield that dates to 1991 exists somewhere off the Merritt.
The outline shields were only used along the Merritt. CT and WV shields have a thicker border.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ian on April 16, 2016, 11:00:43 AM
Post by: Ian on April 16, 2016, 11:00:43 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 15, 2016, 09:11:03 PMQuote from: cl94 on April 15, 2016, 08:56:37 PM
The differences are so minute that only the most devoted roadgeeks would catch that. I'm quite familiar with the MA/ME shield and I had to re-check what the difference is. Definitely a design error, but also not erroneous.
I can't spot the difference at all. Is it the border?
FWIW, Wikipedia's page on Maine state routes (https://goo.gl/C314BV) uses Mass highways shields.
Yeah, Maine uses the same shield that Mass does. It's not a design error that screams "design error" when you initially look at it, but it is a design error nonetheless. The more recent shields for ME 15 where it shares pavement with I-95 and 395 look more like a Maine shield though...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fk6kgxePl.jpg&hash=fd119367b90b852bec10b49c782ecc3eecba75d1)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on April 16, 2016, 03:26:46 PM
Post by: jbnv on April 16, 2016, 03:26:46 PM
So solid black border = Connecticut or West Virginia, black-in-white border = Maine or Massachusettes, correct?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cl94 on April 16, 2016, 06:10:12 PM
Post by: cl94 on April 16, 2016, 06:10:12 PM
Quote from: jbnv on April 16, 2016, 03:26:46 PM
So solid black border = Connecticut or West Virginia, black-in-white border = Maine or Massachusettes, correct?
Yes. Of course, you sometimes see shields in the "wrong state".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on April 16, 2016, 11:03:53 PM
Post by: hbelkins on April 16, 2016, 11:03:53 PM
Wrong state? You mean like these WV 97 markers?
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6233/6276479200_23a013b2f7_b.jpg)
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6212/6275956597_8c80ec4fea_b.jpg)
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6233/6276479200_23a013b2f7_b.jpg)
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6212/6275956597_8c80ec4fea_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 17, 2016, 12:11:17 AM
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 17, 2016, 12:11:17 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 16, 2016, 11:03:53 PMI have to ask... How!? :confused:
Wrong state? You mean like these WV 97 markers?
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6233/6276479200_23a013b2f7_b.jpg)
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6212/6275956597_8c80ec4fea_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on April 17, 2016, 05:40:42 PM
Post by: hbelkins on April 17, 2016, 05:40:42 PM
Contractor error. Telltale sign is the lack of a little WVDOH watermark on the signs.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cl94 on April 17, 2016, 06:50:27 PM
Post by: cl94 on April 17, 2016, 06:50:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 17, 2016, 05:40:42 PM
Contractor error. Telltale sign is the lack of a little WVDOH watermark on the signs.
But still, that's not an error I'd expect many people to make. A square or circle showing up in the wrong state is one thing, as both are generic markers. The keystone is a different story altogether.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Zeffy on April 18, 2016, 09:34:03 AM
Post by: Zeffy on April 18, 2016, 09:34:03 AM
Where does a West Virginia contractor get a Pennsylvania shield blank anyway? Unless they use GuidSIGN or SignCAD, which has every blank for every state, but you'd think they see the file referenced as Pennslyvania and think "this is probably the wrong one". Guess not...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on April 19, 2016, 05:16:56 PM
Post by: tckma on April 19, 2016, 05:16:56 PM
How about these signs (which have since been replaced) for AL-141 and AL-10, which were posted in Massachusetts?
http://www.gribblenation.net/nepics/goofs/10alabama141.jpg
http://www.gribblenation.net/nepics/goofs/10alabama141.jpg
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 05:31:00 PM
Post by: kphoger on April 19, 2016, 05:31:00 PM
Quote from: tckma on April 19, 2016, 05:16:56 PM
How about these signs (which have since been replaced) for AL-141 and AL-10, which were posted in Massachusetts?
http://www.gribblenation.net/nepics/goofs/10alabama141.jpg
That's . . . insanity .
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: noelbotevera on April 19, 2016, 06:10:10 PM
Post by: noelbotevera on April 19, 2016, 06:10:10 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmd41280/16970328732/
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on April 21, 2016, 07:26:22 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on April 21, 2016, 07:26:22 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 19, 2016, 06:10:10 PMThat particular PA 906 trailblazer was actually installed upside down, but luckily the number 906 is read the same upside down and right way up.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmd41280/16970328732/
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on May 03, 2016, 01:47:46 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on May 03, 2016, 01:47:46 AM
*Copied from the exit number challenge thread
This CA 150 shield is way out of place - thanks to California's use of internal exit tabs.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4047/5141576773_41561a038b_b.jpg)
This CA 150 shield is way out of place - thanks to California's use of internal exit tabs.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4047/5141576773_41561a038b_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2016, 08:28:48 AM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2016, 08:28:48 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 03, 2016, 01:47:46 AM
*Copied from the exit number challenge thread
This CA 150 shield is way out of place - thanks to California's use of internal exit tabs.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4047/5141576773_41561a038b_b.jpg)
Almost all the state route markers in exit signs look like that though. There are even some old cats eye ones floating around with the same style. As terrible as they look you get used to them fairly quickly. I have a couple of the guide signs in my collection at home, you can tell because they omit the state name in the shield.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on May 03, 2016, 09:22:04 AM
Post by: tckma on May 03, 2016, 09:22:04 AM
Fun With Borders! (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3012459,-76.9102897,3a,75y,123.11h,81.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBWTIQbr8FrpCSHSGNmoMjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: myosh_tino on May 03, 2016, 01:29:09 PM
Post by: myosh_tino on May 03, 2016, 01:29:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2016, 08:28:48 AMQuote from: national highway 1 on May 03, 2016, 01:47:46 AM
This CA 150 shield is way out of place - thanks to California's use of internal exit tabs.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4047/5141576773_41561a038b_b.jpg)
Almost all the state route markers in exit signs look like that though.
I think national highway 1 was referring to the placement of the CA-150 shield on the guide sign, not the way the shield looks.
To me, it appears as if a cardinal direction was supposed to accompany the shield but was left off.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: amroad17 on May 03, 2016, 02:50:01 PM
Post by: amroad17 on May 03, 2016, 02:50:01 PM
Since California has internal exit tabs, maybe they should left-justify on the exit signs. I have seen a few left-justified exit signs on I-490 west of Rochester. It is not something seen too often but they did not look bad.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2016, 09:49:13 PM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2016, 09:49:13 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 03, 2016, 01:29:09 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2016, 08:28:48 AMQuote from: national highway 1 on May 03, 2016, 01:47:46 AM
This CA 150 shield is way out of place - thanks to California's use of internal exit tabs.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4047/5141576773_41561a038b_b.jpg)
Almost all the state route markers in exit signs look like that though.
I think national highway 1 was referring to the placement of the CA-150 shield on the guide sign, not the way the shield looks.
To me, it appears as if a cardinal direction was supposed to accompany the shield but was left off.
Yes I thought about that too when I stepped away from the computer. Unfortunately the ugly design and poor shield placement are both very common on guide signs out here. Most are dead center but they are often floating off to the left if there isn't enough room with the destination listed along with exit tab.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 03, 2016, 11:17:02 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 03, 2016, 11:17:02 PM
Left-justified exit tabs imply a Left-exit.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2016, 11:29:08 PM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2016, 11:29:08 PM
Funny thing is on the southbound lanes of US 101 the CA 150 is dead center but the exit number is missing from the guide sign. :-D
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on May 04, 2016, 11:48:59 AM
Post by: tckma on May 04, 2016, 11:48:59 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 03, 2016, 11:17:02 PM
Left-justified exit tabs imply a Left-exit.
You'd think this would be pretty easy for folks to figure out, but I've noticed with newer sign assemblies for left-hand exits, they put a giant black LEFT on a yellow background above the left-justified tab.
Also, different jurisdictions (I'm looking at YOU, Pennsylvania) sometimes center the exit tabs, so you can't even rely on that.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on May 04, 2016, 12:34:07 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on May 04, 2016, 12:34:07 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 04, 2016, 11:48:59 AMSuch is due to the latest MUTCD standards requiring such.Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 03, 2016, 11:17:02 PM
Left-justified exit tabs imply a Left-exit.
You'd think this would be pretty easy for folks to figure out, but I've noticed with newer sign assemblies for left-hand exits, they put a giant black LEFT on a yellow background above the left-justified tab.
Quote from: tckma on May 04, 2016, 11:48:59 AMAlso, different jurisdictions (I'm looking at YOU, Pennsylvania) sometimes center the exit tabs, so you can't even rely on that.Were these examples older signs (early 80s and earlier), fabricated when center-justified exit tabs were still the accepted standard?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on May 04, 2016, 01:38:06 PM
Post by: tckma on May 04, 2016, 01:38:06 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 04, 2016, 12:34:07 PM
Were these examples older signs (early 80s and earlier), fabricated when center-justified exit tabs were still the accepted standard?
Usually button-copy, so I assume so. Didn't know the left/right justification for left/right exit wasn't always standard.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: bzakharin on May 05, 2016, 12:56:11 PM
Post by: bzakharin on May 05, 2016, 12:56:11 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 04, 2016, 12:34:07 PMAlso, while a left-justified exit tab might suggest a left exit to some of the people some of the time, if you see an exit sign with a left-justified tab in isolation it doesn't necessarily jump out at you the way a left arrow or a black on yellow LEFT does. It's like a left-pointing airplane icon for airports. Does it mean you go left or is it just that the icon was designed that way?Quote from: tckma on May 04, 2016, 11:48:59 AMSuch is due to the latest MUTCD standards requiring such.Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 03, 2016, 11:17:02 PM
Left-justified exit tabs imply a Left-exit.
You'd think this would be pretty easy for folks to figure out, but I've noticed with newer sign assemblies for left-hand exits, they put a giant black LEFT on a yellow background above the left-justified tab.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on May 05, 2016, 04:31:44 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on May 05, 2016, 04:31:44 PM
That, and some DOTs are bad about randomly putting the tab on the left for a right exit.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: TEG24601 on May 05, 2016, 06:07:49 PM
Post by: TEG24601 on May 05, 2016, 06:07:49 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 05, 2016, 04:31:44 PM
That, and some DOTs are bad about randomly putting the tab on the left for a right exit.
I've come to love WSDOT's full-width "tabs" and MDOT (MI)'s center only tabs.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cl94 on May 05, 2016, 06:49:40 PM
Post by: cl94 on May 05, 2016, 06:49:40 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 05, 2016, 04:31:44 PM
That, and some DOTs are bad about randomly putting the tab on the left for a right exit.
Cough...NYSTA (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9316606,-78.7661853,3a,18.5y,359.05h,90.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ6mP1CeE4ppVlZ_mdgDOJw!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656)...cough. Said sign was replaced in 2014 with one of those miserable NYSTA Clearview signs we Northeast people keep complaining about...except it has a center tab. :banghead:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: AMLNet49 on May 05, 2016, 07:48:12 PM
Post by: AMLNet49 on May 05, 2016, 07:48:12 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 04, 2016, 01:38:06 PMQuote from: PHLBOS on May 04, 2016, 12:34:07 PM
Were these examples older signs (early 80s and earlier), fabricated when center-justified exit tabs were still the accepted standard?
Usually button-copy, so I assume so. Didn't know the left/right justification for left/right exit wasn't always standard.
However, Pennsylvania did post brand new Clearview signs with center-justified exit tabs on 378. I believe this happened because they were a "replace in kind" contract, however there was probably a missed instruction to change the tab location.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: OracleUsr on May 05, 2016, 10:01:07 PM
Post by: OracleUsr on May 05, 2016, 10:01:07 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 05, 2016, 04:31:44 PM
That, and some DOTs are bad about randomly putting the tab on the left for a right exit.
I pass by an example every time I go to my mother's house (she lives in Chapel Hill now):
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0454981,-79.8454491,3a,75y,127.86h,88.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv6R4oRug1COFFJyhG0pw_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: OracleUsr on May 05, 2016, 10:01:54 PM
Post by: OracleUsr on May 05, 2016, 10:01:54 PM
And it's still wrong, even after they upgraded the sign on the right to reflect the road's new name, Gate City Blvd.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: OracleUsr on May 05, 2016, 10:06:38 PM
Post by: OracleUsr on May 05, 2016, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 04, 2016, 01:38:06 PMQuote from: PHLBOS on May 04, 2016, 12:34:07 PM
Were these examples older signs (early 80s and earlier), fabricated when center-justified exit tabs were still the accepted standard?
Usually button-copy, so I assume so. Didn't know the left/right justification for left/right exit wasn't always standard.
The practice, which I refer to as "Directional tabbing" (I think the technical term is "Directional alignment") became more prevalent in the 90's, but some states had already taken hold. Pennsylvania did it more as they converted to distance numbering in 2001.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on May 05, 2016, 10:31:09 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 05, 2016, 10:31:09 PM
I liken this "directional alignment" of exit tabs to be similar to the type 3 object markers (seen here (http://goo.gl/p9U5LF), page 33 of 34), in terms of how a relatively minute difference has such an important meaning. Minute enough, that I'm not certain that most people fully take to heart the meaning behind left or right alignment of exit tabs. I think this is why several states can get away with centered exit tabs, with yellow "LEFT" tabs when necessary.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 08:59:59 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 08:59:59 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 05, 2016, 07:48:12 PMHowever, Pennsylvania did post brand new Clearview signs with center-justified exit tabs on 378. I believe this happened because they were a "replace in kind" contract, however there was probably a missed instruction to change the tab location.Until you mentioned the above, I wasn't even aware that PA 378 even had numbered interchanges. Looking through GSV; I noticed that the numbers are going in the opposite direction (increasing southbound rather than northbound) plus the ramps for exit 2 from 378 northbound are signed EXIT 2E and EXIT 2W (those particular tabs are right-justified BTW). Clearly 378's gone afoul on several counts.
Quote from: OracleUsr on May 05, 2016, 10:06:38 PMThe practice, which I refer to as "Directional tabbing" (I think the technical term is "Directional alignment") became more prevalent in the 90's, but some states had already taken hold. Pennsylvania did it more as they converted to distance numbering in 2001.Directional tabbing started showing up on PA BGS' (both PennDOT and PTC) during the early-to-mid 1980s. Many of the BGS' along I-76 (Schuylkill Expressway) date back to when the road was completely overhauled circa 1984-85 and those have directionally-aligned exit tabs.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: briantroutman on May 06, 2016, 12:29:02 PM
Post by: briantroutman on May 06, 2016, 12:29:02 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 08:59:59 AM
Until you mentioned the above, I wasn't even aware that PA 378 even had numbered interchanges. Looking through GSV; I noticed that the numbers are going in the opposite direction (increasing southbound rather than northbound) plus the ramps for exit 2 from 378 northbound are signed EXIT 2E and EXIT 2W (those particular tabs are right-justified BTW). Clearly 378's gone afoul on several counts.
No, not afoul–at least not in interchange numbering. Having originally been Interstate 378, the exits are numbered correctly–increasing from the parent (which at the time was I-78 as routed over the Lehigh Valley Thruway).
It's the same reason why I-180 is numbered from east to west.
The south-to-north and west-to-east conventions apply to primary Interstates, not three-digit spurs.
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD
Section 2E.31 Interchange Exit Numbering
14. Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route (see Figure 2E-20).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmutcd.fhwa.dot.gov%2Fhtm%2F2009r1r2%2Fimages%2Ffig2e_20.gif&hash=baffeb9f7f27318aa910ebe9e448ee2f2c9dc8c2)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 12:46:20 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 12:46:20 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on May 06, 2016, 12:29:02 PMNo, not afoul– at least not in interchange numbering. Having originally been Interstate 378, the exits are numbered correctly–increasing from the parent (which at the time was I-78 as routed over the Lehigh Valley Thruway).A few things:
It's the same reason why I-180 is numbered from east to west.
The south-to-north and west-to-east conventions apply to primary Interstates, not three-digit spurs.
1. I-378 was downgraded to PA 378 decades ago with no chance of such being revived. While such is still considered a spur highway; 378's no longer part of the Interstate system. I realized after I typed my previous post that the numbering was a leftover from the I-378 era.
2. As you mentioned, I-78 was moved to its new corridor well after #1 occurred.
3. PA's conversion to mile-marker based exit numbers occurred well after #s 1 & 2 happened. The redirection of the numbering IMHO should've changed then. It is my understanding that interchange numbering on PA's non-Interstate highways that have numbered interchanges increase north and/or east; regardless of whether such is a loop or spur.
Side bar: In the near-26 years I've lived in the Keystone State; I've never seen any interchanges numbers in PA with directional suffixes (they obviously exist(ed)). Such should've been changed when PA converted all their interchange numbers; even if such a change meant simply using A/B rather than E/W or N/S.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: machias on May 06, 2016, 01:37:17 PM
Post by: machias on May 06, 2016, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 04, 2016, 01:38:06 PMQuote from: PHLBOS on May 04, 2016, 12:34:07 PM
Were these examples older signs (early 80s and earlier), fabricated when center-justified exit tabs were still the accepted standard?
Usually button-copy, so I assume so. Didn't know the left/right justification for left/right exit wasn't always standard.
The left/right hand justification of exit tabs didn't come about until the late 1970s or early 1980s. Being an old-timer I really miss the centered exit tabs, I think the sign looks neater and there's more consistent than what we see today. There are installers that don't grasp the idea that right-side means right hand exit and left-side means left hand exit and we have a lot of exit tabs on the wrong side of the sign, at least in New York State.
NYSDOT and NYSTA indent the exit tab from the side of the sign and justify to the radius instead of the edge (most of the time). I think this looks better with signs that are actually rounded off vs. extruded panels that are square with a rounded border. It just looks weird to me when I'm traveling in SC.
If I was the supreme guide panel dictator, right hand exits would have centered tabs and left hand exits would have a left-justified tab with "LEFT 1 MILE" or "LEFT EXIT 1 MILE" in the bottom line legend. If we need to go to the lengths of putting the sign on the left hand side of the row, a black-on-yellow left banner and the like, we are addressing the very lowest common denominator of driver that probably shouldn't be driving anyway.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: myosh_tino on May 06, 2016, 01:45:29 PM
Post by: myosh_tino on May 06, 2016, 01:45:29 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on May 06, 2016, 12:29:02 PM
No, not afoul–at least not in interchange numbering. Having originally been Interstate 378, the exits are numbered correctly–increasing from the parent (which at the time was I-78 as routed over the Lehigh Valley Thruway).
It's the same reason why I-180 is numbered from east to west.
The south-to-north and west-to-east conventions apply to primary Interstates, not three-digit spurs.
I did not know that.
Of course, California has chosen to ignore that tidbit of information. Freeway exit numbers increase west-to-east and south-to-north regardless of type (primary interstate, interstate spur, interstate loop, U.S. route or California state route). Prime examples would be I-505, where exit numbering begins at I-80 rather than at I-5, and I-710, where exit numbering begins in Long Beach rather than at I-10.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: briantroutman on May 06, 2016, 01:59:30 PM
Post by: briantroutman on May 06, 2016, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 12:46:20 PM
3. PA's conversion to mile-marker based exit numbers occurred well after #s 1 & 2 happened. The redirection of the numbering IMHO should've changed then. It is my understanding that interchange numbering on PA's non-Interstate highways that have numbered interchanges increase north and/or east; regardless of whether such is a loop or spur.
My guess is that in this case, PennDOT just kept the original sequential numbering because, for one, if the freeway had been built as a state route, the exits likely wouldn't have been numbered to begin with. But perhaps more importantly, as a three-mile freeway with three exits, the exits would have been the same (1, 2, 3) but in reverse order. That is unless they're truly based on the mileage of the route, in which case they'd have been–somewhat awkwardly–6, 7, and 8.
But looking at the current signs in GSV, from their centered exit tabs to the somewhat anachronistic "EXIT ↓ 1/2 MILE" at Exit 2, it appears they might be an exact duplication of the original signage–just updated with Clearview and retroreflective sheeting.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 12:46:20 PMSide bar: In the near-26 years I've lived in the Keystone State; I've never seen any interchanges numbers in PA with directional suffixes (they obviously exist(ed)). Such should've been changed when PA converted all their interchange numbers; even if such a change meant simply using A/B rather than E/W or N/S.
In the near 26 years that I lived in the Keystone State (literally–odd coincidence), I can recall only two offhand. The interchange on I-80 with US 11 was for years signed as EXITS 36 N - S. When the state changed numbering to sequential, this became EXITS 241 A - B.
But strangely, I-80's interchange with I-180 and PA 147 I recall being EXITS 31 A - B, but then it changed to EXITS 212 W - S in the transition to mileage-based numbering. Yes, not only directional suffixes, but perhaps one of the only times where adjacent compass points were paired on an exit number suffix. (I'm sure someone will be quick to correct me.) It has since been changed to A - B.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 02:07:00 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 02:07:00 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on May 06, 2016, 01:59:30 PMUntil a year or two ago, there were still a couple of directional suffixed interchanges in Massachusetts along Route 128: MA 35 (Exits 23N-S) & MA 62 (Exits 22E-W, northbound only) around. Those went away when both interchanges were recently converted in to diamond
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on May 06, 2016, 02:23:47 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on May 06, 2016, 02:23:47 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 02:07:00 PMQuote from: briantroutman on May 06, 2016, 01:59:30 PMUntil a year or two ago, there were still a couple of directional suffixed interchanges in Massachusetts along Route 128: MA 35 (Exits 23N-S) & MA 62 (Exits 22E-W, northbound only) around. Those went away when both interchanges were recently converted in to diamond/SPUI interchanges... no suffixed exit ramps, just Exits 22 & 23.
Where's the SPUI? Exit 22 is not one, and neither is Exit 23.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 03:54:15 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 03:54:15 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 06, 2016, 02:23:47 PMI've since re-examined Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5609657,-70.922949,15.92z) in the area. Both interchanges are now diamonds. Earlier post has since been corrected.
Where's the SPUI? Exit 22 is not one, and neither is Exit 23.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: amroad17 on May 16, 2016, 02:36:38 AM
Post by: amroad17 on May 16, 2016, 02:36:38 AM
As for my earlier post (reply #826), I was talking about left-justifying the text of the sign. For example...
CA 150 EXIT 84
Ojai
Lake Casitas
1/2 MILE
Just place a California miner's spade in place of the CA 150.
CA 150 EXIT 84
Ojai
Lake Casitas
1/2 MILE
Just place a California miner's spade in place of the CA 150.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on May 18, 2016, 11:31:25 AM
Post by: freebrickproductions on May 18, 2016, 11:31:25 AM
I just have to ask, but HOW do you manage this!? :banghead: :ded:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/30906+Round+Lake+Rd,+Mt+Dora,+FL+32757/@28.8061301,-81.6578096,3a,19y,165.93h,99.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKD-AK8XGd-k0bkzkiSWcjQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e7a1f02b3653c9:0x9d17238c33ba152e?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/place/30906+Round+Lake+Rd,+Mt+Dora,+FL+32757/@28.8061301,-81.6578096,3a,19y,165.93h,99.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKD-AK8XGd-k0bkzkiSWcjQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e7a1f02b3653c9:0x9d17238c33ba152e?hl=en
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on May 18, 2016, 12:40:53 PM
Post by: tckma on May 18, 2016, 12:40:53 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on May 18, 2016, 11:31:25 AMMake a single metal pieces repeating "RAIL ROAD RAIL ROAD RAIL ROAD" for many such signs, then cut it in the wrong places?
I just have to ask, but HOW do you manage this!? :banghead: :ded:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on May 18, 2016, 01:16:10 PM
Post by: formulanone on May 18, 2016, 01:16:10 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on May 18, 2016, 11:31:25 AM
I just have to ask, but HOW do you manage this!? :banghead: :ded:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/30906+Round+Lake+Rd,+Mt+Dora,+FL+32757/@28.8061301,-81.6578096,3a,19y,165.93h,99.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKD-AK8XGd-k0bkzkiSWcjQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e7a1f02b3653c9:0x9d17238c33ba152e?hl=en
Backing up, it looks like that error has been there from 2011 through 2015. Oops.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on May 18, 2016, 01:54:49 PM
Post by: vtk on May 18, 2016, 01:54:49 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on May 18, 2016, 11:31:25 AM
I just have to ask, but HOW do you manage this!? :banghead: :ded:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/30906+Round+Lake+Rd,+Mt+Dora,+FL+32757/@28.8061301,-81.6578096,3a,19y,165.93h,99.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKD-AK8XGd-k0bkzkiSWcjQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e7a1f02b3653c9:0x9d17238c33ba152e?hl=en
But is it supposed to say "railroad crossing" or "rail / road crossing"? Both are true; this is a place where the rail crosses the road. So "road / rail crossing" makes just as much sense. If someone is used to interpreting the sign as three words and not two, this could be an easy mistake.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: bzakharin on May 18, 2016, 02:35:19 PM
Post by: bzakharin on May 18, 2016, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 18, 2016, 01:54:49 PMWhat else would the railroad be crossing that's relevant to a sign posted on a road? It's like requiring a JCT sign to also identify the road you're on. It makes no sense.Quote from: freebrickproductions on May 18, 2016, 11:31:25 AM
I just have to ask, but HOW do you manage this!? :banghead: :ded:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/30906+Round+Lake+Rd,+Mt+Dora,+FL+32757/@28.8061301,-81.6578096,3a,19y,165.93h,99.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKD-AK8XGd-k0bkzkiSWcjQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e7a1f02b3653c9:0x9d17238c33ba152e?hl=en
But is it supposed to say "railroad crossing" or "rail / road crossing"? Both are true; this is a place where the rail crosses the road. So "road / rail crossing" makes just as much sense. If someone is used to interpreting the sign as three words and not two, this could be an easy mistake.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on May 18, 2016, 03:21:46 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 18, 2016, 03:21:46 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 18, 2016, 01:54:49 PM
But is it supposed to say "railroad crossing" or "rail / road crossing"? Both are true; this is a place where the rail crosses the road. So "road / rail crossing" makes just as much sense. If someone is used to interpreting the sign as three words and not two, this could be an easy mistake.
"Rail" and "road" are not mutually exclusive, in the context of a junction between a railway and a road. The "road" in railroad is referencing the train track, not the road. Yes, I see your point. I think it's just a little far fetched.
Technically, the meeting point of a railroad and a road is a "railroad/road junction".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 18, 2016, 10:13:30 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 18, 2016, 10:13:30 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on May 18, 2016, 11:31:25 AM
I just have to ask, but HOW do you manage this!? :banghead: :ded:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/30906+Round+Lake+Rd,+Mt+Dora,+FL+32757/@28.8061301,-81.6578096,3a,19y,165.93h,99.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKD-AK8XGd-k0bkzkiSWcjQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e7a1f02b3653c9:0x9d17238c33ba152e?hl=en
Hahahahahaha that's amazing!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on May 18, 2016, 11:08:10 PM
Post by: vtk on May 18, 2016, 11:08:10 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 18, 2016, 02:35:19 PM
It's like requiring a JCT sign to also identify the road you're on. It makes no sense.
Michigan does that.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: slorydn1 on May 19, 2016, 04:50:43 AM
Post by: slorydn1 on May 19, 2016, 04:50:43 AM
Quote from: vtk on May 18, 2016, 11:08:10 PMQuote from: bzakharin on May 18, 2016, 02:35:19 PM
It's like requiring a JCT sign to also identify the road you're on. It makes no sense.
Michigan does that.
Michigan also requires you to make 3 right turns in order to turn left, soooo.............
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: bzakharin on May 19, 2016, 10:08:05 AM
Post by: bzakharin on May 19, 2016, 10:08:05 AM
Quote from: vtk on May 18, 2016, 11:08:10 PMCan you give me an example of what that looks like? I'm kind of curious now.Quote from: bzakharin on May 18, 2016, 02:35:19 PM
It's like requiring a JCT sign to also identify the road you're on. It makes no sense.
Michigan does that.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: lordsutch on May 19, 2016, 03:23:12 PM
Post by: lordsutch on May 19, 2016, 03:23:12 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on May 19, 2016, 04:50:43 AM
Michigan also requires you to make 3 right turns in order to turn left, soooo.............
Um, that's not how a Michigan Left works. Maybe you're thinking of a jughandle, New Jersey's specialty?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: bzakharin on May 19, 2016, 03:41:34 PM
Post by: bzakharin on May 19, 2016, 03:41:34 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on May 19, 2016, 03:23:12 PMJughandles don't require 3 right turns. There usually two turns (3 when local streets are used as a makeshift "jughandle"), the first being a right, with the second a right or a left. Same number of turns as a Michigan left except in a different order.Quote from: slorydn1 on May 19, 2016, 04:50:43 AM
Michigan also requires you to make 3 right turns in order to turn left, soooo.............
Um, that's not how a Michigan Left works. Maybe you're thinking of a jughandle, New Jersey's specialty?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on May 19, 2016, 03:49:37 PM
Post by: tckma on May 19, 2016, 03:49:37 PM
Craig County's East Coast Counterpart?
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3569715,-77.1389365,3a,15y,334h,86.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seyieGBcE16M-QG6JP2Pbxw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3569715,-77.1389365,3a,15y,334h,86.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seyieGBcE16M-QG6JP2Pbxw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on May 19, 2016, 04:02:33 PM
Post by: tckma on May 19, 2016, 04:02:33 PM
And, something about the font sizes on this distance sign has always bothered me, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3810566,-77.2767573,3a,15y,312.97h,89.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfSOr05UdaBRPZ6-kEyTCWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3810566,-77.2767573,3a,15y,312.97h,89.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfSOr05UdaBRPZ6-kEyTCWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on May 19, 2016, 05:42:56 PM
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on May 19, 2016, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 19, 2016, 03:49:37 PM
Craig County's East Coast Counterpart?
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3569715,-77.1389365,3a,15y,334h,86.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seyieGBcE16M-QG6JP2Pbxw!2e0
That Carroll CountY sign is not as bad as that of Craig County.
Also, fixed link, as basic Google Maps won't accept the original one.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: noelbotevera on May 19, 2016, 06:29:42 PM
Post by: noelbotevera on May 19, 2016, 06:29:42 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on May 19, 2016, 05:42:56 PMOr cONsessiONs and Okmulgee.Quote from: tckma on May 19, 2016, 03:49:37 PM
Craig County's East Coast Counterpart?
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3569715,-77.1389365,3a,15y,334h,86.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seyieGBcE16M-QG6JP2Pbxw!2e0
That Carroll CountY sign is not as bad as that of Craig County.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on May 20, 2016, 08:33:00 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 20, 2016, 08:33:00 PM
I'm not sure if this is a design error, or an error performed post-design, but the sign should say "Lane Restriction" not "Lane Restricted":
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F17Nhvm0.jpg&hash=232f44390794ee98e6c305b9627c4eca1603872a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F17Nhvm0.jpg&hash=232f44390794ee98e6c305b9627c4eca1603872a)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on May 20, 2016, 10:40:39 PM
Post by: thenetwork on May 20, 2016, 10:40:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 20, 2016, 08:33:00 PM
I'm not sure if this is a design error, or an error performed post-design, but the sign should say "Lane Restriction" not "Lane Restricted":
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F17Nhvm0.jpg&hash=232f44390794ee98e6c305b9627c4eca1603872a)
If anything, it should read RESTRICTED LANE.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on May 20, 2016, 10:45:51 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 20, 2016, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on May 20, 2016, 10:40:39 PMQuote from: jakeroot on May 20, 2016, 08:33:00 PM
I'm not sure if this is a design error, or an error performed post-design, but the sign should say "Lane Restriction" not "Lane Restricted":
http://i.imgur.com/17Nhvm0.jpg
If anything, it should read RESTRICTED LANE.
Most of the signs in the Seattle area (the particular sign in question here is in Gig Harbor, WA) read "Left Lane Restriction ... Ends x/x Mi": https://goo.gl/MfuJ1U
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 21, 2016, 12:55:45 AM
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 21, 2016, 12:55:45 AM
It definitely should not read "Restricted Lane Ends", since the lane itself does not end (it continues as a general-purpose lane), only the restriction ends.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: HTM Duke on May 21, 2016, 10:25:00 PM
Post by: HTM Duke on May 21, 2016, 10:25:00 PM
I-66 westbound prior to the exit for VA-28: https://goo.gl/maps/QpkQqancGbp
The two L's in Centreville are a tad small, and are no higher than the rest of the lowercase characters.
It reminds me of an exit tab (or an action message), in which the numeral is supposed to be larger than the surrounding text, and it looks like this standard was used for the design of this sign.
The two L's in Centreville are a tad small, and are no higher than the rest of the lowercase characters.
Quote from: tckma on May 19, 2016, 04:02:33 PM
And, something about the font sizes on this distance sign has always bothered me, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3810566,-77.2767573,3a,15y,312.97h,89.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfSOr05UdaBRPZ6-kEyTCWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3810566,-77.2767573,3a,15y,312.97h,89.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfSOr05UdaBRPZ6-kEyTCWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
It reminds me of an exit tab (or an action message), in which the numeral is supposed to be larger than the surrounding text, and it looks like this standard was used for the design of this sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 21, 2016, 11:11:14 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 21, 2016, 11:11:14 PM
Quote from: HTM Duke on May 21, 2016, 10:25:00 PM
I-66 westbound prior to the exit for VA-28: https://goo.gl/maps/QpkQqancGbp
The two L's in Centreville are a tad small, and are no higher than the rest of the lowercase characters.Quote from: tckma on May 19, 2016, 04:02:33 PM
And, something about the font sizes on this distance sign has always bothered me, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3810566,-77.2767573,3a,15y,312.97h,89.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfSOr05UdaBRPZ6-kEyTCWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3810566,-77.2767573,3a,15y,312.97h,89.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfSOr05UdaBRPZ6-kEyTCWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
It reminds me of an exit tab (or an action message), in which the numeral is supposed to be larger than the surrounding text, and it looks like this standard was used for the design of this sign.
The 8 is HUGE.
Also, they spelled "Centre" wrong HAHAHA TAKE THAT CANADIANS! :sombrero:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on June 08, 2016, 08:43:30 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 08, 2016, 08:43:30 PM
"Siidewalk".
Bellevue, Wash. 4 June 2016:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FL1qNnYp.jpg&hash=f336a2c29da0685ca80b66bf1775461e2957eb91)
Bellevue, Wash. 4 June 2016:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FL1qNnYp.jpg&hash=f336a2c29da0685ca80b66bf1775461e2957eb91)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: riiga on June 09, 2016, 01:56:29 AM
Post by: riiga on June 09, 2016, 01:56:29 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 08, 2016, 08:43:30 PMShouldn't it be yellow-black also given it's a caution?
"Siidewalk".
Bellevue, Wash. 4 June 2016:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FL1qNnYp.jpg&hash=f336a2c29da0685ca80b66bf1775461e2957eb91)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: noelbotevera on June 09, 2016, 02:00:32 AM
Post by: noelbotevera on June 09, 2016, 02:00:32 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 08, 2016, 08:43:30 PMI seriously thought they meant "Slidewalk". Maybe I read I's without serifs or anything as L's? "Slldewalk" doesn't roll off the tongue as well as "Siidewalk" or "Slidewalk".
"Siidewalk".
Bellevue, Wash. 4 June 2016:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FL1qNnYp.jpg&hash=f336a2c29da0685ca80b66bf1775461e2957eb91)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on June 21, 2016, 12:41:11 PM
Post by: tckma on June 21, 2016, 12:41:11 PM
Here's one I noticed yesterday when driving to a robotics team meeting. The elders are deaf, so SHA has to shout at them to tell them how far they are from their little 'burg. Baltimorons, on the other hand, can hear when spoken to in the correct case:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4296966,-77.0037906,3a,43.8y,167.32h,77.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJqldotPN6zKeT9wvnTPaLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4296966,-77.0037906,3a,43.8y,167.32h,77.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJqldotPN6zKeT9wvnTPaLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on June 22, 2016, 10:48:40 AM
Post by: roadfro on June 22, 2016, 10:48:40 AM
Quote from: tckma on June 21, 2016, 12:41:11 PM
Here's one I noticed yesterday when driving to a robotics team meeting. The elders are deaf, so SHA has to shout at them to tell them how far they are from their little 'burg. Baltimorons, on the other hand, can hear when spoken to in the correct case:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4296966,-77.0037906,3a,43.8y,167.32h,77.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJqldotPN6zKeT9wvnTPaLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Not a design error, per se.
The mileage assembly appears to be made of separate smaller signs, one for Eldersburg and one for Baltimore. I'd guess the Baltimore one is a recent addition or replacement which was made in compliance with mixed-case lettering requirements, whereas Eldersburg is likely an older sign made when all-caps was still okay for destination text.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2016, 11:01:35 PM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2016, 11:01:35 PM
Noticed the font on the US 189/US 191 is all messed up at terminus of WY 22 in Jackson, WY today. Basically they tried to stuff three digits into two digit shields...pretty easy to find on Google Street View.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on June 23, 2016, 12:52:26 PM
Post by: hbelkins on June 23, 2016, 12:52:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2016, 11:01:35 PM
Noticed the font on the US 189/US 191 is all messed up at terminus of WY 22 in Jackson, WY today. Basically they tried to stuff three digits into two digit shields...pretty easy to find on Google Street View.
That was pretty much SOP until the mid 1970's. It still is in highway districts 8 and 12 in Kentucky, and in some places in North Carolina.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on June 23, 2016, 01:06:56 PM
Post by: vtk on June 23, 2016, 01:06:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2016, 11:01:35 PM
Noticed the font on the US 189/US 191 is all messed up at terminus of WY 22 in Jackson, WY today. Basically they tried to stuff three digits into two digit shields...pretty easy to find on Google Street View.
Half the shields are blurred on GSV, but the 191 I could see has the digits in Series B or Series C, at less than half shield height. That's not "all messed up", it's just inconsistent with recommended design, while still using approved fonts.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 12:02:47 AM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 12:02:47 AM
Quote from: vtk on June 23, 2016, 01:06:56 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2016, 11:01:35 PM
Noticed the font on the US 189/US 191 is all messed up at terminus of WY 22 in Jackson, WY today. Basically they tried to stuff three digits into two digit shields...pretty easy to find on Google Street View.
Half the shields are blurred on GSV, but the 191 I could see has the digits in Series B or Series C, at less than half shield height. That's not "all messed up", it's just inconsistent with recommended design, while still using approved fonts.
It's the wrong size sign for a three digit...and worse the whole friggin state turned out to be like that. I can't believe that I didn't notice it before today, I only saw one proper 24x32 191 south from Jackson to the state line. Utah wasn't much better with the 24x24 but the fonts were at least bigger than in Wyoming.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on June 24, 2016, 08:20:55 AM
Post by: tckma on June 24, 2016, 08:20:55 AM
How about some mixed-case directions on a BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9961383,-76.5855294,3a,75y,142.08h,93.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgb2lrsClTHkABSDgYxFcDQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 09:34:28 AM
Post by: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 09:34:28 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 12:02:47 AM
It's the wrong size sign for a three digit...and worse the whole friggin state turned out to be like that. I can't believe that I didn't notice it before today, I only saw one proper 24x32 191 south from Jackson to the state line. Utah wasn't much better with the 24x24 but the fonts were at least bigger than in Wyoming.
They're actually 24x36, and we're going to have to agree to disagree on "proper." I hate the wide signs and much prefer square signs for all applications, even Kentucky's four-digit state routes.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on June 24, 2016, 11:12:45 AM
Post by: kphoger on June 24, 2016, 11:12:45 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 09:34:28 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 12:02:47 AM
It's the wrong size sign for a three digit...and worse the whole friggin state turned out to be like that. I can't believe that I didn't notice it before today, I only saw one proper 24x32 191 south from Jackson to the state line. Utah wasn't much better with the 24x24 but the fonts were at least bigger than in Wyoming.
They're actually 24x36, and we're going to have to agree to disagree on "proper." I hate the wide signs and much prefer square signs for all applications, even Kentucky's four-digit state routes.
I'm good with either oblong rectangles or squares. What I dislike is having both of them.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on June 24, 2016, 04:54:18 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on June 24, 2016, 04:54:18 PM
Haha, they failed to choose a 24x36 for a 3-digit US highway? Tell that to Iowa or Minnesota
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on June 24, 2016, 09:16:46 PM
Post by: vtk on June 24, 2016, 09:16:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 09:34:28 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 12:02:47 AM
It's the wrong size sign for a three digit...and worse the whole friggin state turned out to be like that. I can't believe that I didn't notice it before today, I only saw one proper 24x32 191 south from Jackson to the state line. Utah wasn't much better with the 24x24 but the fonts were at least bigger than in Wyoming.
They're actually 24x36, and we're going to have to agree to disagree on "proper." I hate the wide signs and much prefer square signs for all applications, even Kentucky's four-digit state routes.
I thought the 3-digit routes are typically in a 5:4 ratio, so 30×24 or 45×36.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 10:28:26 PM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 10:28:26 PM
Quote from: vtk on June 24, 2016, 09:16:46 PMQuote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 09:34:28 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 12:02:47 AM
It's the wrong size sign for a three digit...and worse the whole friggin state turned out to be like that. I can't believe that I didn't notice it before today, I only saw one proper 24x32 191 south from Jackson to the state line. Utah wasn't much better with the 24x24 but the fonts were at least bigger than in Wyoming.
They're actually 24x36, and we're going to have to agree to disagree on "proper." I hate the wide signs and much prefer square signs for all applications, even Kentucky's four-digit state routes.
I thought the 3-digit routes are typically in a 5:4 ratio, so 30×24 or 45×36.
Had my numbers backwards on my post, I meant 32x24. Speaking of weird signs today there were some oddly shaped shields here in Colorado. There was a screwed up US 550 somewhere in Montrose and a bulbus US 160 on a guide sign on the southern terminus of CO 151.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on June 25, 2016, 09:05:41 PM
Post by: hbelkins on June 25, 2016, 09:05:41 PM
Quote from: vtk on June 24, 2016, 09:16:46 PMQuote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 09:34:28 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 12:02:47 AM
It's the wrong size sign for a three digit...and worse the whole friggin state turned out to be like that. I can't believe that I didn't notice it before today, I only saw one proper 24x32 191 south from Jackson to the state line. Utah wasn't much better with the 24x24 but the fonts were at least bigger than in Wyoming.
They're actually 24x36, and we're going to have to agree to disagree on "proper." I hate the wide signs and much prefer square signs for all applications, even Kentucky's four-digit state routes.
I thought the 3-digit routes are typically in a 5:4 ratio, so 30×24 or 45×36.
Could be. I measured one a few years ago but can't remember the exact width. I do think the wide signs look wider than three inches on either side.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 10:28:26 PM
Had my numbers backwards on my post, I meant 32x24. Speaking of weird signs today there were some oddly shaped shields here in Colorado. There was a screwed up US 550 somewhere in Montrose and a bulbus US 160 on a guide sign on the southern terminus of CO 151.
Got a photographic example of a 32-inch wide sign you can show us? (As opposed to the typical, which is either 30 or 36 (my faulty memory again)).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on June 25, 2016, 10:02:07 PM
Post by: US71 on June 25, 2016, 10:02:07 PM
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13533337_10208374162584094_5696052211783074583_n.jpg?oh=4b54ba0edfa455ccc58769d5e6b9287b&oe=580185A2)
Lee's Summit, MO
3d MO on a 2d shield on a 3d sign blank.
Lee's Summit, MO
3d MO on a 2d shield on a 3d sign blank.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 25, 2016, 10:10:19 PM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 25, 2016, 10:10:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 25, 2016, 09:05:41 PMQuote from: vtk on June 24, 2016, 09:16:46 PMQuote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 09:34:28 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 12:02:47 AM
It's the wrong size sign for a three digit...and worse the whole friggin state turned out to be like that. I can't believe that I didn't notice it before today, I only saw one proper 24x32 191 south from Jackson to the state line. Utah wasn't much better with the 24x24 but the fonts were at least bigger than in Wyoming.
They're actually 24x36, and we're going to have to agree to disagree on "proper." I hate the wide signs and much prefer square signs for all applications, even Kentucky's four-digit state routes.
I thought the 3-digit routes are typically in a 5:4 ratio, so 30×24 or 45×36.
Could be. I measured one a few years ago but can't remember the exact width. I do think the wide signs look wider than three inches on either side.Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 10:28:26 PM
Had my numbers backwards on my post, I meant 32x24. Speaking of weird signs today there were some oddly shaped shields here in Colorado. There was a screwed up US 550 somewhere in Montrose and a bulbus US 160 on a guide sign on the southern terminus of CO 151.
Got a photographic example of a 32-inch wide sign you can show us? (As opposed to the typical, which is either 30 or 36 (my faulty memory again)).
This was the weird shaped 3 digit shield for US 160 that I saw yesterday:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4750522,-105.6023945,3a,15y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx9HQEA8RhBmR5SEG9ai6Ng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en
Like I said it's on a guide sign, but the design is all weird and wonky. There was a 550 like that also out in Montrose but I don't recall the exact cross-street.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: amroad17 on June 26, 2016, 04:32:19 AM
Post by: amroad17 on June 26, 2016, 04:32:19 AM
^ They call that the "pig" US shield. Fat little sucker, ain't it?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: amroad17 on June 26, 2016, 04:35:46 AM
Post by: amroad17 on June 26, 2016, 04:35:46 AM
Quote from: US71 on June 25, 2016, 10:02:07 PMThey actually have an I-470 sign along with the MO 291 sign? I thought Missouri was doing away with Interstate reassurance signs--which is stupid.
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13533337_10208374162584094_5696052211783074583_n.jpg?oh=4b54ba0edfa455ccc58769d5e6b9287b&oe=580185A2)
Lee's Summit, MO
3d MO on a 2d shield on a 3d sign blank.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2016, 08:50:44 AM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2016, 08:50:44 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 26, 2016, 04:32:19 AM
^ They call that the "pig" US shield. Fat little sucker, ain't it?
And it's weird too since for the most part Colorado seems to be pretty solid with consistent route signage. Wyoming was the one that was all over the place from what I saw on this trip. I actually forgot about the wooden signage posts and twisted directional markers. Now the one thing that I thought was unusual here in Colorado is that a lot of routes outside of place where a multiplex branches off don't have directional markers. That could just simply be due to the fact that some routes like US 24 take wild swings in different directions like going west then suddenly due north.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on June 26, 2016, 11:20:48 AM
Post by: US71 on June 26, 2016, 11:20:48 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 26, 2016, 04:35:46 AMQuote from: US71 on June 25, 2016, 10:02:07 PMThey actually have an I-470 sign along with the MO 291 sign? I thought Missouri was doing away with Interstate reassurance signs--which is stupid.
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13533337_10208374162584094_5696052211783074583_n.jpg?oh=4b54ba0edfa455ccc58769d5e6b9287b&oe=580185A2)
Lee's Summit, MO
3d MO on a 2d shield on a 3d sign blank.
I've never heard such a thing. This is also right after 291 becomes 470
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on June 26, 2016, 03:16:34 PM
Post by: hbelkins on June 26, 2016, 03:16:34 PM
Quote from: US71 on June 26, 2016, 11:20:48 AMQuote from: amroad17 on June 26, 2016, 04:35:46 AMThey actually have an I-470 sign along with the MO 291 sign? I thought Missouri was doing away with Interstate reassurance signs--which is stupid.
3d MO on a 2d shield on a 3d sign blank.
I've never heard such a thing. This is also right after 291 becomes 470
Missouri took down the I-44 reassurance markers along the US 50 concurrency a few years ago. It was a big subject of discussion.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on June 26, 2016, 08:44:56 PM
Post by: kphoger on June 26, 2016, 08:44:56 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 26, 2016, 03:16:34 PMQuote from: US71 on June 26, 2016, 11:20:48 AMQuote from: amroad17 on June 26, 2016, 04:35:46 AMThey actually have an I-470 sign along with the MO 291 sign? I thought Missouri was doing away with Interstate reassurance signs--which is stupid.
3d MO on a 2d shield on a 3d sign blank.
I've never heard such a thing. This is also right after 291 becomes 470
Missouri took down the I-44 reassurance markers along the US 50 concurrency a few years ago. It was a big subject of discussion.
[/quote]
I've only noticed the disappearance of Interstate reassurance markers in rural areas where a US Highway is part of the overlap. I've never seen it in an urban area or where a State Route is the only other part of the overlap. That could be purely coincidental due to the exact routes I've driven, or it could be informative as to the picture in question.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: peperodriguez2710 on June 27, 2016, 04:51:56 AM
Post by: peperodriguez2710 on June 27, 2016, 04:51:56 AM
I know you don't see Spanish signs everyday, but here it is:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FffQuL2M.png&hash=1ae63e5edc7dba936d091574fb386fd45b4afb49)
An exit number? What's that?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FffQuL2M.png&hash=1ae63e5edc7dba936d091574fb386fd45b4afb49)
An exit number? What's that?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on June 27, 2016, 01:34:23 PM
Post by: hbelkins on June 27, 2016, 01:34:23 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 26, 2016, 08:44:56 PM
I've only noticed the disappearance of Interstate reassurance markers in rural areas where a US Highway is part of the overlap. I've never seen it in an urban area or where a State Route is the only other part of the overlap. That could be purely coincidental due to the exact routes I've driven, or it could be informative as to the picture in question.
I believe this was also done on the new I-35/MO 110 ("CKC") overlap north of KCMo.
Somebody somewhere (here on AA Roads, MTR or the Yahoo Roadgeek group) posted correspondence from MoDOT about this.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Kniwt on June 28, 2016, 01:54:22 PM
Post by: Kniwt on June 28, 2016, 01:54:22 PM
The VMS on eastbound I-40 just outside Kingman AZ currently reads:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5QXt5J9.png&hash=304844d29c1f0e2398b841261c3e7f4ea9821345)
(Someone is threatening to jump from the bridge.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5QXt5J9.png&hash=304844d29c1f0e2398b841261c3e7f4ea9821345)
(Someone is threatening to jump from the bridge.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 28, 2016, 01:58:44 PM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 28, 2016, 01:58:44 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on June 28, 2016, 01:54:22 PM
The VMS on eastbound I-40 just outside Kingman AZ currently reads:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5QXt5J9.png&hash=304844d29c1f0e2398b841261c3e7f4ea9821345)
(Someone is threatening to jump from the bridge.)
All the more ironic that they used the word "Hover" for a jumper...maybe that's optimism on the part of the VMS guy? That would probably be one of the worst ways to go falling straight down 900 feet. You would definitely feel a crap ton of terror before being concrete smashed by the surface of the water below.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 28, 2016, 10:27:58 PM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 28, 2016, 10:27:58 PM
Found this mutant CA 180 today when I flew into Fresno on the way home:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7579449,-119.7183526,3a,37.5y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0Z-dETn9O7Lpvir5mGbYWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7579449,-119.7183526,3a,37.5y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0Z-dETn9O7Lpvir5mGbYWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: David Jr. on July 02, 2016, 11:18:32 AM
Post by: David Jr. on July 02, 2016, 11:18:32 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2012, 08:35:26 AM
The Exit 53A gore sign on Rt. 55 South in NJ had been replaced with a Exit 53 Exit sign at one point...even though it should have remained 53A. It appeared someone just took an ordinary 4 inch "A" sticker that you can get in a pack of stickers at walmart or craft stores and stuck it to the sign.
It remained that way for years. I think a proper sign has finally been installed...but I can't remember!
The E-Z Letter/Quik Stik company used to make vinyl lettering like that. Their larger Helvetica letters were actually FHWA Series C.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: TravelingBethelite on July 02, 2016, 11:30:01 AM
Post by: TravelingBethelite on July 02, 2016, 11:30:01 AM
Quote from: Kniwt on June 28, 2016, 01:54:22 PM
The VMS on eastbound I-40 just outside Kingman AZ currently reads:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5QXt5J9.png&hash=304844d29c1f0e2398b841261c3e7f4ea9821345)
(Someone is threatening to jump from the bridge.)
How do you view the VMSs' messages online?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: dfwmapper on July 02, 2016, 09:03:54 PM
Post by: dfwmapper on July 02, 2016, 09:03:54 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on July 02, 2016, 11:30:01 AMhttp://www.az511.com/traffic/
How do you view the VMSs' messages online?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on July 04, 2016, 09:14:03 AM
Post by: roadman on July 04, 2016, 09:14:03 AM
Sign just installed on VFW Parkway in Boston references US Route 1. Only problem is that US 1 Route 1 was re-routed off VFW Parkway, and other MDC/DCR roadways, in 1989 to its current routing between Dedham and Charlestown via I-95 and I-93. Photo is at http://www.universalhub.com/2016/what-does-dcr-know-about-vfw-parkway-we-dont
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on July 04, 2016, 11:19:35 AM
Post by: jbnv on July 04, 2016, 11:19:35 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 04, 2016, 09:14:03 AM
Sign just installed on VFW Parkway in Boston references US Route 1. Only problem is that US 1 Route 1 was re-routed off VFW Parkway, and other MDC/DCR roadways, in 1989 to its current routing between Dedham and Charlestown via I-95 and I-93. Photo is at http://www.universalhub.com/2016/what-does-dcr-know-about-vfw-parkway-we-dont
The thread you're looking for is Erroneous Road Signs (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.0).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on July 04, 2016, 05:57:01 PM
Post by: roadman on July 04, 2016, 05:57:01 PM
Quote from: jbnv on July 04, 2016, 11:19:35 AMQuote from: roadman on July 04, 2016, 09:14:03 AM
Sign just installed on VFW Parkway in Boston references US Route 1. Only problem is that US 1 Route 1 was re-routed off VFW Parkway, and other MDC/DCR roadways, in 1989 to its current routing between Dedham and Charlestown via I-95 and I-93. Photo is at http://www.universalhub.com/2016/what-does-dcr-know-about-vfw-parkway-we-dont
The thread you're looking for is Erroneous Road Signs (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.0).
I've cross posted this to the "Signs With Design Errors" thread. However, and with respect, I still maintain this qualifies as both a design error AND an erroneous sign, given the nature of the error.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on July 04, 2016, 06:40:15 PM
Post by: roadfro on July 04, 2016, 06:40:15 PM
In the context of this thread, a "design error" is a mistake in the physical design of the sign. So something like using a blue background for a guide sign, putting 'exit only' text in mixed case lettering, etc.
The sign in question appears to have no glaring problems with the actual design, other than the erroneous mention of US 1.
LG-D850
The sign in question appears to have no glaring problems with the actual design, other than the erroneous mention of US 1.
LG-D850
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: noelbotevera on July 05, 2016, 11:07:29 AM
Post by: noelbotevera on July 05, 2016, 11:07:29 AM
10. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milltown+Rd,+Bridgewater,+NJ+08807/@40.5836491,-74.676834,3a,31.3y,240.11h,99.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYxhmSGZSWYKbynXgWqieWQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYxhmSGZSWYKbynXgWqieWQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D258.9425%26pitch%3D0!7i3328!8i1664!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c394b282d6920b:0x632002b5e15e18b1!8m2!3d40.5769455!4d-74.6752601)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 05, 2016, 11:51:55 AM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 05, 2016, 11:51:55 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 05, 2016, 11:07:29 AM
10. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milltown+Rd,+Bridgewater,+NJ+08807/@40.5836491,-74.676834,3a,31.3y,240.11h,99.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYxhmSGZSWYKbynXgWqieWQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYxhmSGZSWYKbynXgWqieWQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D258.9425%26pitch%3D0!7i3328!8i1664!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c394b282d6920b:0x632002b5e15e18b1!8m2!3d40.5769455!4d-74.6752601)
I'd almost give that a pass given the age of that rail overpass...but where is the "one lane" sign?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 05, 2016, 01:01:53 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 05, 2016, 01:01:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 05, 2016, 11:51:55 AMQuote from: noelbotevera on July 05, 2016, 11:07:29 AM
10. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milltown+Rd,+Bridgewater,+NJ+08807/@40.5836491,-74.676834,3a,31.3y,240.11h,99.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYxhmSGZSWYKbynXgWqieWQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYxhmSGZSWYKbynXgWqieWQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D258.9425%26pitch%3D0!7i3328!8i1664!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c394b282d6920b:0x632002b5e15e18b1!8m2!3d40.5769455!4d-74.6752601)
I'd almost give that a pass given the age of that rail overpass...but where is the "one lane" sign?
That's not height. That's its sufficiency rating! :-D
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 05, 2016, 01:33:07 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 05, 2016, 01:33:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 05, 2016, 11:51:55 AM
but where is the "one lane" sign?
Looks like two narrow lanes to me.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Big John on July 05, 2016, 03:43:15 PM
Post by: Big John on July 05, 2016, 03:43:15 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 05, 2016, 01:01:53 PMLaughter as railroad bridges don't get sufficiency ratings.
That's not height. That's its sufficiency rating! :-D
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on July 05, 2016, 05:00:20 PM
Post by: roadman on July 05, 2016, 05:00:20 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 04, 2016, 06:40:15 PM
In the context of this thread, a "design error" is a mistake in the physical design of the sign. So something like using a blue background for a guide sign, putting 'exit only' text in mixed case lettering, etc.
The sign in question appears to have no glaring problems with the actual design, other than the erroneous mention of US 1.
LG-D850
So noted - appreciate the clarification.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on July 10, 2016, 01:30:59 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on July 10, 2016, 01:30:59 PM
Here's a sign that should have been mounted as an overhead assembly. But I'm guessing some pushover resident engineer let the contractor cut corners and install it off to the side for $$ cheap $$. You can even see where the yellow "exit r7 only" tab was supposed to be. And that "r7" was my poor attempt at indicating an arrow pointing diagonally up and to the right :)
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8896/27591934783_c2d7410907_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J3cSVv)
IMG_5045 (https://flic.kr/p/J3cSVv) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8896/27591934783_c2d7410907_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J3cSVv)
IMG_5045 (https://flic.kr/p/J3cSVv) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 12, 2016, 12:30:19 AM
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 12, 2016, 12:30:19 AM
I've noticed a number of state route shields on the Florida panhandle feature shrunken numbers on the 3 digit shields, such as this one in Mariana, FL:
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8599/27640449754_0cc40951fb.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7uwJw)IMG_4532 (https://flic.kr/p/J7uwJw) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Y'all can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the numbers are supposed to be larger.
Also, this is from Mariana as well. Don't ask me how or why they did this:
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8603/27640447214_0248525078.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7uvYJ)A bit off... (https://flic.kr/p/J7uvYJ) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8688/27640421043_457507fbe7.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7uocv)A bit off... (https://flic.kr/p/J7uocv) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
This guy is along US 90 somewhere between Chattahooche, FL and Gretna, FL:
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/9/8623/28178830301_48b715f7b6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JW4SvK)CR 269A (https://flic.kr/p/JW4SvK) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Sorry about it being a bit hard to see, but for those of you who can't spot it, the numbers in the county route shield are off center.
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8599/27640449754_0cc40951fb.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7uwJw)IMG_4532 (https://flic.kr/p/J7uwJw) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Y'all can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the numbers are supposed to be larger.
Also, this is from Mariana as well. Don't ask me how or why they did this:
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8603/27640447214_0248525078.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7uvYJ)A bit off... (https://flic.kr/p/J7uvYJ) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8688/27640421043_457507fbe7.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7uocv)A bit off... (https://flic.kr/p/J7uocv) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
This guy is along US 90 somewhere between Chattahooche, FL and Gretna, FL:
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/9/8623/28178830301_48b715f7b6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JW4SvK)CR 269A (https://flic.kr/p/JW4SvK) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Sorry about it being a bit hard to see, but for those of you who can't spot it, the numbers in the county route shield are off center.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Kacie Jane on July 12, 2016, 05:07:54 AM
Post by: Kacie Jane on July 12, 2016, 05:07:54 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 12, 2016, 12:30:19 AM
I've noticed a number of state route shields on the Florida panhandle feature shrunken numbers on the 3 digit shields, such as this one in Mariana, FL:
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8599/27640449754_0cc40951fb.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7uwJw)IMG_4532 (https://flic.kr/p/J7uwJw) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Y'all can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the numbers are supposed to be larger.
Funnily enough, I'm pretty sure the correct height for the numbers would be the same on both signs, and somewhere in between the two shown.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on July 14, 2016, 06:38:07 AM
Post by: formulanone on July 14, 2016, 06:38:07 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on July 12, 2016, 05:07:54 AMQuote from: freebrickproductions on July 12, 2016, 12:30:19 AM
I've noticed a number of state route shields on the Florida panhandle feature shrunken numbers on the 3 digit shields, such as this one in Mariana, FL:
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8599/27640449754_0cc40951fb.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7uwJw)IMG_4532 (https://flic.kr/p/J7uwJw) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Y'all can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the numbers are supposed to be larger.
Funnily enough, I'm pretty sure the correct height for the numbers would be the same on both signs, and somewhere in between the two shown.
Florida is rarely consistent enough where I could say that either is truly incorrect. In the case of the "166", it's usually placed a bit lower on the sign. The numerals are usually not centered, to provide adequate spacing between the state outline (minus the western coast of Florida) and the numbers. Wide shields with 1xx numbers are kind of funny-looking.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on July 14, 2016, 11:59:49 AM
Post by: tckma on July 14, 2016, 11:59:49 AM
I took my own photo of this one last year when I was in the area, but I can't find it. Not sure whether to post this in "Worst of Road Signs" or "Signs With Design Errors," so it goes in both threads.
O'Fallon, IL:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5725672,-89.9240178,3a,51.1y,166.86h,90.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s39RnGL69Ws5T_qTQBVp4BA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!6m1!1e1
O'Fallon, IL:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5725672,-89.9240178,3a,51.1y,166.86h,90.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s39RnGL69Ws5T_qTQBVp4BA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: odditude on July 14, 2016, 03:55:07 PM
Post by: odditude on July 14, 2016, 03:55:07 PM
Quote from: tckma on July 14, 2016, 11:59:49 AM
I took my own photo of this one last year when I was in the area, but I can't find it. Not sure whether to post this in "Worst of Road Signs" or "Signs With Design Errors," so it goes in both threads.
O'Fallon, IL:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5725672,-89.9240178,3a,51.1y,166.86h,90.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s39RnGL69Ws5T_qTQBVp4BA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!6m1!1e1
i actually understand the logic on that one, not that i necessarily agree with it... it's posted on the back side of a stop sign, and they felt it was more important to not alter the profile of the stop sign itself.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: lordsutch on July 14, 2016, 04:07:29 PM
Post by: lordsutch on July 14, 2016, 04:07:29 PM
Quote from: odditude on July 14, 2016, 03:55:07 PM
i actually understand the logic on that one, not that i necessarily agree with it... it's posted on the back side of a stop sign, and they felt it was more important to not alter the profile of the stop sign itself.
The MUTCD explicitly prohibits posting a sign back-to-back with a stop sign that would alter the octagon silhouette of the traffic-facing side of the stop sign. In other words, any sign posted on the back must fit fully inside the octagonal shape.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 7/8 on July 15, 2016, 10:57:24 AM
Post by: 7/8 on July 15, 2016, 10:57:24 AM
I'm told this is the better place for my post, so here it is again :)
Quote from: 7/8 on July 14, 2016, 09:44:55 PM
I believe the sign on the left on Victoria St/Hwy 7 in Kitchener is technically not correct.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgWKyOjV.jpg&hash=bc1d04f47ff3440b20ccdff1e1655b4339420e1f)
The Hwy 7 shield here is a junction shield, but I think it should instead be like this shield below.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_7_images%2Fkh_7_tch.jpg&hash=2ef5dfbb80a654d478a8679151712200442a3843)
^ Photo credit: AsphaltPlanet
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: chays on July 15, 2016, 02:32:40 PM
Post by: chays on July 15, 2016, 02:32:40 PM
Apologies for the poor photo quality. You'll need to click on the picture and zoom in.
Can you spot the design error?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDaA03ZP.jpg&hash=9f4b81050884e09a91f2fa41510e1e03770e7b23)
Can you spot the design error?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDaA03ZP.jpg&hash=9f4b81050884e09a91f2fa41510e1e03770e7b23)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ned Weasel on July 15, 2016, 02:47:15 PM
Post by: Ned Weasel on July 15, 2016, 02:47:15 PM
Quote from: chays on July 15, 2016, 02:32:40 PM
Apologies for the poor photo quality. You'll need to click on the picture and zoom in.
Can you spot the design error?
"STOP PEDESTRIAN HERE FOR THE ARROWHEAD!"
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: chays on July 15, 2016, 02:54:51 PM
Post by: chays on July 15, 2016, 02:54:51 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 15, 2016, 02:47:15 PM:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:Quote from: chays on July 15, 2016, 02:32:40 PM
Apologies for the poor photo quality. You'll need to click on the picture and zoom in.
Can you spot the design error?
"STOP PEDESTRIAN HERE FOR THE ARROWHEAD!"
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 15, 2016, 03:01:08 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 15, 2016, 03:01:08 PM
But that's the normal sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pedbikesafe.org%2FPEDSAFE%2Fcm_images%2FAdvYie2.jpg&hash=a33b18b6a52d7663987e76e636486bfe6b94e49c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pedbikesafe.org%2FPEDSAFE%2Fcm_images%2FAdvYie2.jpg&hash=a33b18b6a52d7663987e76e636486bfe6b94e49c)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: chays on July 15, 2016, 03:05:11 PM
Post by: chays on July 15, 2016, 03:05:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 15, 2016, 03:01:08 PMLook on both sides of the highway
But that's the normal sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pedbikesafe.org%2FPEDSAFE%2Fcm_images%2FAdvYie2.jpg&hash=a33b18b6a52d7663987e76e636486bfe6b94e49c)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 7/8 on July 15, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
Post by: 7/8 on July 15, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
Quote from: chays on July 15, 2016, 02:32:40 PM
Apologies for the poor photo quality. You'll need to click on the picture and zoom in.
Can you spot the design error?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDaA03ZP.jpg&hash=9f4b81050884e09a91f2fa41510e1e03770e7b23)
I'm guessing it's the yellow-green pedestrian sign on the left, which shows the person walking left instead of right :)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: chays on July 15, 2016, 03:09:31 PM
Post by: chays on July 15, 2016, 03:09:31 PM
Appears to be an off-the-shelf item that is for sale (http://www.safetysign.com/products/p87476/stop-for-pedestrians-right-arrow-sign). Still seems to be a design error to me.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.safetysign.com%2Fimages%2Fcatlog%2Fproduct%2Flarge%2FY2034.png&hash=2a3bac1abf743e26ec6605b0ef6392e87dc41f92)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.safetysign.com%2Fimages%2Fcatlog%2Fproduct%2Flarge%2FY2034.png&hash=2a3bac1abf743e26ec6605b0ef6392e87dc41f92)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 15, 2016, 03:24:06 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 15, 2016, 03:24:06 PM
Quote from: chays on July 15, 2016, 03:09:31 PM
Appears to be an off-the-shelf item that is for sale (http://www.safetysign.com/products/p87476/stop-for-pedestrians-right-arrow-sign). Still seems to be a design error to me.
I do agree with you. Requires a bit of right-to-left reading, which is odd.
That said, the sign in either configuration is a bit silly. The signs should only be installed if pedestrians consistently have a hard time crossing the street. And if that's the case, they ought to just install a signalized crosswalk.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on July 16, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
Post by: US71 on July 16, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13729140_10208535595459815_3196514676366178400_n.jpg?oh=dc57ec712b9e2c424109f7a5bf181439&oe=582B46D9)
St Robert, MO
The Business 44 shield on the left should be a regular 44 shield.
I think this is a leftover from when the exit was a cloverleaf and this sign was for Business Spur 44, but that's been at least 10 years ago, I think.
St Robert, MO
The Business 44 shield on the left should be a regular 44 shield.
I think this is a leftover from when the exit was a cloverleaf and this sign was for Business Spur 44, but that's been at least 10 years ago, I think.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on July 16, 2016, 01:49:33 PM
Post by: kphoger on July 16, 2016, 01:49:33 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 16, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13729140_10208535595459815_3196514676366178400_n.jpg?oh=dc57ec712b9e2c424109f7a5bf181439&oe=582B46D9)
St Robert, MO
The Business 44 shield on the left should be a regular 44 shield.
I think this is a leftover from when the exit was a cloverleaf and this sign was for Business Spur 44, but that's been at least 10 years ago, I think.
I can confirm from personal experience that the signage dates back at least twelve years.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on July 16, 2016, 01:52:55 PM
Post by: US71 on July 16, 2016, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2016, 01:49:33 PMIt has held up well :)
I can confirm from personal experience that the signage dates back at least twelve years.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on July 16, 2016, 02:13:58 PM
Post by: kphoger on July 16, 2016, 02:13:58 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 16, 2016, 01:52:55 PMQuote from: kphoger on July 16, 2016, 01:49:33 PMIt has held up well :)
I can confirm from personal experience that the signage dates back at least twelve years.
I haven/t driven I-44 in Missouri since 2007, so it's interesting to know that that error sign is still up. I met my wife online while I was living near Chicago and she lived in Branson (MO). At that time, I didn't own a car, so my introduction to I-44 was by Greyhound bus in 2002. I recall the Ft Leonard Wood bus stop at that time being in a strip mall next to an adult video store just south of the interchange pictured. My wife moved to the Chicago area towards the end of 2003; from that point on we made somewhat frequent trips to and from Branson along I-44. I eventually gave up on Saint Louis traffic and started using US-54 from Macks Creek (MO) to Pittsfield (IL) instead but, shortly thereafter, we got married and moved downstate. At that point, we resumed using I-44 going back and forth between Herrin (IL) and Branson, crossing the Mississippi at Chester and hitting I-44 at Eureka. We moved to Wichita early in 2008, so I've had no reason to use I-44 since then, especially since US-60 is now four lanes all the way from Springfield to Charleston.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on July 16, 2016, 04:03:03 PM
Post by: roadfro on July 16, 2016, 04:03:03 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 16, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13729140_10208535595459815_3196514676366178400_n.jpg?oh=dc57ec712b9e2c424109f7a5bf181439&oe=582B46D9)
St Robert, MO
The Business 44 shield on the left should be a regular 44 shield.
I think this is a leftover from when the exit was a cloverleaf and this sign was for Business Spur 44, but that's been at least 10 years ago, I think.
The first thing I noticed is the down arrow, located on the wrong edge of the sign and pointing in the wrong direction.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on July 16, 2016, 07:17:29 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on July 16, 2016, 07:17:29 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 16, 2016, 04:03:03 PMQuote from: US71 on July 16, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
St Robert, MO
The Business 44 shield on the left should be a regular 44 shield.
I think this is a leftover from when the exit was a cloverleaf and this sign was for Business Spur 44, but that's been at least 10 years ago, I think.
The first thing I noticed is the down arrow, located on the wrong edge of the sign and pointing in the wrong direction.
Indeed, the green shield is erroneous. The arrow is a design error. Bonus!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on July 16, 2016, 08:32:49 PM
Post by: SignBridge on July 16, 2016, 08:32:49 PM
A mistake like that arrow gets made and nobody catches it? Un-friggin' real!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on July 16, 2016, 08:44:17 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on July 16, 2016, 08:44:17 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 16, 2016, 04:03:03 PMQuote from: US71 on July 16, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13729140_10208535595459815_3196514676366178400_n.jpg?oh=dc57ec712b9e2c424109f7a5bf181439&oe=582B46D9)
St Robert, MO
The Business 44 shield on the left should be a regular 44 shield.
I think this is a leftover from when the exit was a cloverleaf and this sign was for Business Spur 44, but that's been at least 10 years ago, I think.
The first thing I noticed is the down arrow, located on the wrong edge of the sign and pointing in the wrong direction.
Is it possible the arrow was there from the beginning, and the rest of the sign was fabricated upside down?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 7/8 on July 16, 2016, 08:47:29 PM
Post by: 7/8 on July 16, 2016, 08:47:29 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on July 16, 2016, 08:44:17 PMQuote from: roadfro on July 16, 2016, 04:03:03 PMQuote from: US71 on July 16, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13729140_10208535595459815_3196514676366178400_n.jpg?oh=dc57ec712b9e2c424109f7a5bf181439&oe=582B46D9)
St Robert, MO
The Business 44 shield on the left should be a regular 44 shield.
I think this is a leftover from when the exit was a cloverleaf and this sign was for Business Spur 44, but that's been at least 10 years ago, I think.
The first thing I noticed is the down arrow, located on the wrong edge of the sign and pointing in the wrong direction.
Is it possible the arrow was there from the beginning, and the rest of the sign was fabricated upside down?
Maybe, but judging from the picture, there doesn't seem to be enough room to fit the arrow below the word "Springfield". Whatever happened, it was definitely a botched job
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on July 16, 2016, 08:49:15 PM
Post by: hbelkins on July 16, 2016, 08:49:15 PM
It should be noted that Missouri makes its own guide signs and doesn't contract them out, like Kentucky and many other states do.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on July 16, 2016, 11:26:15 PM
Post by: US71 on July 16, 2016, 11:26:15 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on July 16, 2016, 08:44:17 PM
Is it possible the arrow was there from the beginning, and the rest of the sign was fabricated upside down?
IMO, the shield may have been there before everything else. This is a former cloverleaf interchange that was converted. The green 44 was for SPUR 44 to Ft Leonard Wood. The Y/44 was originally just Y before the interchange was converted.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 7/8 on July 17, 2016, 05:59:04 PM
Post by: 7/8 on July 17, 2016, 05:59:04 PM
This sign on the 407 westbound before Woodbine Avenue has the "2.5" and "km" not lined up vertically, and they're also too close together
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fb3vGIox.jpg&hash=fbe843156a1cc5ad06922fe53baad6b09dce3733)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fb3vGIox.jpg&hash=fbe843156a1cc5ad06922fe53baad6b09dce3733)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on July 18, 2016, 10:04:42 AM
Post by: roadfro on July 18, 2016, 10:04:42 AM
^ Looks like the "2.5" is a patch (as is the "1.5"), and the patch is aligned with the bottom border of the sign. So doubly bad that they didn't properly adjust the placement of said patch before attaching.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 7/8 on July 18, 2016, 05:40:36 PM
Post by: 7/8 on July 18, 2016, 05:40:36 PM
I'm really surprised I didn't notice this earlier! According to GSV, it's been around since at least 2015. This is on Hespeler Rd (former Hwy 24) just south of Maple Grove Rd in Cambridge, ON.
The 401 Trailblazer here incorrectly uses the Regional Road flowerpot shape instead of the provincial highway shield. I've never seen anything like this before :-D Not to mention the use of an arrow instead of "TO". What a weird sign!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMCmrdkL.jpg&hash=812e64296c2d27b3468ee46abc7e1e0336f8d748)
The 401 Trailblazer here incorrectly uses the Regional Road flowerpot shape instead of the provincial highway shield. I've never seen anything like this before :-D Not to mention the use of an arrow instead of "TO". What a weird sign!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMCmrdkL.jpg&hash=812e64296c2d27b3468ee46abc7e1e0336f8d748)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 12:39:27 AM
Post by: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 12:39:27 AM
This guide sign in Burnaby, BC has a black right arrow. The turn towards Hwy 1 West used to be to the left, and the sign featured a black-on-orange "construction" temp arrow, but once the construction ended, they removed the temp arrow, only to replace it with another black arrow, albeit one lacking an orange background.
https://goo.gl/PHqtUe
I thought the 6+ HOV requirement was a design error as well, but apparently it's not. All of the other HOV signs along Willingdon Ave have "6+" on them.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJeVeWiD.png&hash=5ec6e9ed1e18ab1659edc53c5e767ece3ea213c6)
https://goo.gl/PHqtUe
I thought the 6+ HOV requirement was a design error as well, but apparently it's not. All of the other HOV signs along Willingdon Ave have "6+" on them.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJeVeWiD.png&hash=5ec6e9ed1e18ab1659edc53c5e767ece3ea213c6)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Quillz on July 21, 2016, 02:58:35 AM
Post by: Quillz on July 21, 2016, 02:58:35 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images059/cr-j59_sb_la_grange_352.jpg)
Take a look at the CA-59 spade. The "5" is Series D, the "9" is Series E.
Take a look at the CA-59 spade. The "5" is Series D, the "9" is Series E.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 7/8 on July 21, 2016, 07:09:16 AM
Post by: 7/8 on July 21, 2016, 07:09:16 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 12:39:27 AM
I thought the 6+ HOV requirement was a design error as well, but apparently it's not. All of the other HOV signs along Willingdon Ave have "6+" on them.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJeVeWiD.png&hash=5ec6e9ed1e18ab1659edc53c5e767ece3ea213c6)
Wow! A lot of cars don't even have 6 seats! The highest HOV I've personally seen in Ontario is 3+
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Rothman on July 21, 2016, 10:31:40 AM
Post by: Rothman on July 21, 2016, 10:31:40 AM
Might as well just call it a bus lane.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 11:03:49 AM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 11:03:49 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2016, 10:31:40 AM
Might as well just call it a bus lane.
It would be mildly amusing to see some older 60s whale car with front benches packed with 6 people just spit in the eye that silly HOV requirement.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 01:01:38 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 01:01:38 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on July 21, 2016, 07:09:16 AMQuote from: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 12:39:27 AM
I thought the 6+ HOV requirement was a design error as well, but apparently it's not. All of the other HOV signs along Willingdon Ave have "6+" on them.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJeVeWiD.png&hash=5ec6e9ed1e18ab1659edc53c5e767ece3ea213c6)
Wow! A lot of cars don't even have 6 seats! The highest HOV I've personally seen in Ontario is 3+
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 11:03:49 AMQuote from: Rothman on July 21, 2016, 10:31:40 AM
Might as well just call it a bus lane.
It would be mildly amusing to see some older 60s whale car with front benches packed with 6 people just spit in the eye that silly HOV requirement.
The nice thing with the 6+ requirement is that it excludes most private vehicles, but it includes large vehicles that might otherwise be excluded from bus lanes. In other words, it's more of a bus + shuttle lane.
FWIW, Hwy 1's HOV lane is 2+ (as are most other HOV facilities in the Lower Mainland).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2016, 01:10:50 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2016, 01:10:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 01:01:38 PMQuote from: 7/8 on July 21, 2016, 07:09:16 AMQuote from: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 12:39:27 AM
I thought the 6+ HOV requirement was a design error as well, but apparently it's not. All of the other HOV signs along Willingdon Ave have "6+" on them.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJeVeWiD.png&hash=5ec6e9ed1e18ab1659edc53c5e767ece3ea213c6)
Wow! A lot of cars don't even have 6 seats! The highest HOV I've personally seen in Ontario is 3+Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 11:03:49 AMQuote from: Rothman on July 21, 2016, 10:31:40 AM
Might as well just call it a bus lane.
It would be mildly amusing to see some older 60s whale car with front benches packed with 6 people just spit in the eye that silly HOV requirement.
The nice thing with the 6+ requirement is that it excludes most private vehicles, but it includes large vehicles that might otherwise be excluded from bus lanes. In other words, it's more of a bus + shuttle lane.
FWIW, Hwy 1's HOV lane is 2+ (as are most other HOV facilities in the Lower Mainland).
It is a little ridiculous to say 6+...then use an image of a small car with 2 heads in it.
Across the street, I noticed there are a few signs that say Vanpools (with a picture that looks like a van or a small bus), and Motorcyclists can use the lane as well.
BTW, which lane? The sign doesn't say! Even in the link, turn the image around and you'll see the right lane appears to be for turning vehicles only as well...which makes the sign placement not valid anyway (at least without the "And Right Turns" supplement.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on July 21, 2016, 01:18:27 PM
Post by: kphoger on July 21, 2016, 01:18:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 01:01:38 PM
FWIW, Hwy 1's HOV lane is 2+ (as are most other HOV facilities in the Lower Mainland).
I wonder... where outside North America is a car with two people considered "high occupancy"?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: lordsutch on July 21, 2016, 06:09:06 PM
Post by: lordsutch on July 21, 2016, 06:09:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 21, 2016, 01:18:27 PM
I wonder... where outside North America is a car with two people considered "high occupancy"?
Probably more places than you'd think. The commuter vehicle occupancy rate in England and Wales is 1.09 persons per vehicle (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mro/news-release/travel-to-work/census-reveals-details-of-how-we-travel-to-work-in-england-and-wales.html) - and England and Wales is (are) one of the densest, most transit-oriented jurisdictions in the world, with much better bus and rail transportation than the United States, even in rural areas. Even London - with terrible traffic, a virtually nonexistent freeway and expressway system inside its perpetually-jammed beltway, and a daily congestion charge covering the central business district - only has a 49.9% transit share.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 06:36:26 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 06:36:26 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2016, 01:10:50 PM
It is a little ridiculous to say 6+...then use an image of a small car with 2 heads in it.
That's the standard "HOV" symbol, used by both WSDOT and the BCMOT (both use nearly identical signage). Always two heads, to indicate high-occupancy (then again, how many passenger vehicles permit more than two passengers up-front? -- definitely hard to illustrate exactly six or more people).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2016, 01:10:50 PM
Across the street, I noticed there are a few signs that say Vanpools (with a picture that looks like a van or a small bus), and Motorcyclists can use the lane as well.
BTW, which lane? The sign doesn't say! Even in the link, turn the image around and you'll see the right lane appears to be for turning vehicles only as well...which makes the sign placement not valid anyway (at least without the "And Right Turns" supplement.)
The right lane becomes HOV (again) immediately after the right turn, so they put the sign up where it is warn drivers of the impending restrictions (should they choose to continue straight-on -- technically, those turning right are not driving in an HOV lane -- the HOV lane ended right before the right turn lane, and starts again immediately after). The lane does have the standard diamond markings before and after the right-turn-only lane, as well as longer, more closely-spaced white lines (used in Canada to separate lanes that are doing two different things). Could the signage be better? Sure, but it's consistent with the rest of the HOV signage in the area, so I'm not complaining.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on July 22, 2016, 11:33:56 AM
Post by: J N Winkler on July 22, 2016, 11:33:56 AM
Quote from: lordsutch on July 21, 2016, 06:09:06 PMProbably more places than you'd think. The commuter vehicle occupancy rate in England and Wales is 1.09 persons per vehicle (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mro/news-release/travel-to-work/census-reveals-details-of-how-we-travel-to-work-in-england-and-wales.html) - and England and Wales is (are) one of the densest, most transit-oriented jurisdictions in the world, with much better bus and rail transportation than the United States, even in rural areas. Even London - with terrible traffic, a virtually nonexistent freeway and expressway system inside its perpetually-jammed beltway, and a daily congestion charge covering the central business district - only has a 49.9% transit share.
Britain now has a standard (still nonprescribed, IIRC) HOV symbol similar to the one used in Washington state, although the car outline looks like a Mini viewed from behind. By default it says "2+." (There are some examples, with drawings, in the online DfT signs authorizations database.)
I am not aware of any examples of motorway HOV lanes analogous to what we have in the US, but in some places HOV signing has been used to allow high-occupancy vehicles to share bus lanes on surface roads.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 22, 2016, 12:59:07 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 22, 2016, 12:59:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 06:36:26 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2016, 01:10:50 PM
It is a little ridiculous to say 6+...then use an image of a small car with 2 heads in it.
That's the standard "HOV" symbol, used by both WSDOT and the BCMOT (both use nearly identical signage). Always two heads, to indicate high-occupancy
Need to clarify here. WSDOT, generally, does not use the vehicle shape with heads. The BCMOT does use the vehicle shape with heads, but also uses the vehicle shape with passenger restrictions inside of it. Seems to be about half and half. The symbol with the heads is used on the freeways, with supplementary signs listing the exact restriction. Urban HOV lanes generally use the shape with the restriction inside of it.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on July 24, 2016, 06:51:03 AM
Post by: formulanone on July 24, 2016, 06:51:03 AM
Inflated sense of directional tab:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8678%2F28225928680_0dede8da53.jpg&hash=077813dc386cab5c171dd0964611af3244da5e69)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc5.staticflickr.com%2F9%2F8899%2F27892944724_08a2a0b5f4.jpg&hash=c853c122e0fe1e9a703385c5a8a733343961a183) (http://flic.kr/p/JuNCG5)
Not sure if this was posted before, but...on our next episode of As The State Turns:
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8041/28376931482_14504c26ea_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Kezc6m)
(Also, green background for the arrow used under the I-95 shield, but there's dozens of that error in Florida.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8678%2F28225928680_0dede8da53.jpg&hash=077813dc386cab5c171dd0964611af3244da5e69)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc5.staticflickr.com%2F9%2F8899%2F27892944724_08a2a0b5f4.jpg&hash=c853c122e0fe1e9a703385c5a8a733343961a183) (http://flic.kr/p/JuNCG5)
Not sure if this was posted before, but...on our next episode of As The State Turns:
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8041/28376931482_14504c26ea_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Kezc6m)
(Also, green background for the arrow used under the I-95 shield, but there's dozens of that error in Florida.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: xcellntbuy on July 24, 2016, 10:00:30 AM
Post by: xcellntbuy on July 24, 2016, 10:00:30 AM
Quote from: formulanone on July 24, 2016, 06:51:03 AMThe map of Florida on the Florida's Turnpike sign is backward, too.
Inflated sense of directional tab:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8678%2F28225928680_0dede8da53.jpg&hash=077813dc386cab5c171dd0964611af3244da5e69)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc5.staticflickr.com%2F9%2F8899%2F27892944724_08a2a0b5f4.jpg&hash=c853c122e0fe1e9a703385c5a8a733343961a183) (http://flic.kr/p/JuNCG5)
Not sure if this was posted before, but...on our next episode of As The State Turns:
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8041/28376931482_14504c26ea_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Kezc6m)
(Also, green background for the arrow used under the I-95 shield, but there's dozens of that error in Florida.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on July 24, 2016, 10:05:20 AM
Post by: formulanone on July 24, 2016, 10:05:20 AM
Quote from: xcellntbuy on July 24, 2016, 10:00:30 AMQuote from: formulanone on July 24, 2016, 06:51:03 AMThe map of Florida on the Florida's Turnpike sign is backward, too.
Inflated sense of directional tab:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8678%2F28225928680_0dede8da53.jpg&hash=077813dc386cab5c171dd0964611af3244da5e69)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc5.staticflickr.com%2F9%2F8899%2F27892944724_08a2a0b5f4.jpg&hash=c853c122e0fe1e9a703385c5a8a733343961a183) (http://flic.kr/p/JuNCG5)
Not sure if this was posted before, but...on our next episode of As The State Turns:
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8041/28376931482_14504c26ea_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Kezc6m)
(Also, green background for the arrow used under the I-95 shield, but there's dozens of that error in Florida.)
I was alluding to that...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on July 24, 2016, 03:48:17 PM
Post by: hbelkins on July 24, 2016, 03:48:17 PM
I can see how it might be easy to get the Ohio outline backwards -- I've seen examples of that -- but FLORIDA????
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jwolfer on July 25, 2016, 02:26:12 AM
Post by: jwolfer on July 25, 2016, 02:26:12 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 12:39:27 AMRestricted to commuter vans or huge families
This guide sign in Burnaby, BC has a black right arrow. The turn towards Hwy 1 West used to be to the left, and the sign featured a black-on-orange "construction" temp arrow, but once the construction ended, they removed the temp arrow, only to replace it with another black arrow, albeit one lacking an orange background.
https://goo.gl/PHqtUe
I thought the 6+ HOV requirement was a design error as well, but apparently it's not. All of the other HOV signs along Willingdon Ave have "6+" on them.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJeVeWiD.png&hash=5ec6e9ed1e18ab1659edc53c5e767ece3ea213c6)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jwolfer on July 25, 2016, 02:32:44 AM
Post by: jwolfer on July 25, 2016, 02:32:44 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 24, 2016, 03:48:17 PMI have seen some horribly misshapen Floridas on shields . I have to get some pics. I liked the keys shields but that is going back 30+ years.. quite a few remain around Clay County
I can see how it might be easy to get the Ohio outline backwards -- I've seen examples of that -- but FLORIDA????
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mrsman on July 28, 2016, 09:57:45 PM
Post by: mrsman on July 28, 2016, 09:57:45 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on July 25, 2016, 02:26:12 AMQuote from: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 12:39:27 AMRestricted to commuter vans or huge families
This guide sign in Burnaby, BC has a black right arrow. The turn towards Hwy 1 West used to be to the left, and the sign featured a black-on-orange "construction" temp arrow, but once the construction ended, they removed the temp arrow, only to replace it with another black arrow, albeit one lacking an orange background.
https://goo.gl/PHqtUe
I thought the 6+ HOV requirement was a design error as well, but apparently it's not. All of the other HOV signs along Willingdon Ave have "6+" on them.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJeVeWiD.png&hash=5ec6e9ed1e18ab1659edc53c5e767ece3ea213c6)
I am grateful to see a lane like this. Essentially a bus lane that is open to private buses and shuttles.
In Chicago there is a lot of fights over private buses and shuttles between Union Station and Michigan Ave that they should not use the bus only lanes that are limited to public transit. Other cities have similar issues. IMO, private vehicles that take 6 or more people at a time do just as much to help congestion as the public transit buses and should be given similar priority.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on July 29, 2016, 12:24:19 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on July 29, 2016, 12:24:19 AM
From the 'Exit Number Challenge' thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17867.msg2161152#msg2161152 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17867.msg2161152#msg2161152)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1266/957496884_fedb62b8ab_b.jpg)
The WY 218 shield digits are in Arial/Helvetica font.
The font weight of the legend for 'Harriman Rd' looks way off. Anyone who knows what font weight it is? Could be Series F, but I'm not 100% sure.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17867.msg2161152#msg2161152 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17867.msg2161152#msg2161152)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1266/957496884_fedb62b8ab_b.jpg)
The WY 218 shield digits are in Arial/Helvetica font.
The font weight of the legend for 'Harriman Rd' looks way off. Anyone who knows what font weight it is? Could be Series F, but I'm not 100% sure.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on July 29, 2016, 09:14:44 PM
Post by: SignBridge on July 29, 2016, 09:14:44 PM
Wrong arrow too.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on July 29, 2016, 11:06:55 PM
Post by: jbnv on July 29, 2016, 11:06:55 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 29, 2016, 12:24:19 AM
The font weight of the legend for 'Harriman Rd' looks way off. Anyone who knows what font weight it is? Could be Series F, but I'm not 100% sure.
Whatever disease it has is in Baton Rouge as well.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8267/28629247875_8d12873fa0_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on July 29, 2016, 11:26:14 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on July 29, 2016, 11:26:14 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 29, 2016, 12:24:19 AM
From the 'Exit Number Challenge' thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17867.msg2161152#msg2161152 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17867.msg2161152#msg2161152)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1266/957496884_fedb62b8ab_b.jpg)
The WY 218 shield digits are in Arial/Helvetica font.
The font weight of the legend for 'Harriman Rd' looks way off. Anyone who knows what font weight it is? Could be Series F, but I'm not 100% sure.
Helvetica is the first thing that jumps out at me (the route shield I mean). So wrong arrow, and wrong fonts. Well done! :clap:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: vtk on August 02, 2016, 04:09:11 PM
Post by: vtk on August 02, 2016, 04:09:11 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 29, 2016, 12:24:19 AM
From the 'Exit Number Challenge' thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17867.msg2161152#msg2161152 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17867.msg2161152#msg2161152)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1266/957496884_fedb62b8ab_b.jpg)
The WY 218 shield digits are in Arial/Helvetica font.
The font weight of the legend for 'Harriman Rd' looks way off. Anyone who knows what font weight it is? Could be Series F, but I'm not 100% sure.
That's either Series F with condensed interletter spacing, or a wide bold species of the commercial font family Interstate.
Quote from: jbnv on July 29, 2016, 11:06:55 PMQuote from: national highway 1 on July 29, 2016, 12:24:19 AM
The font weight of the legend for 'Harriman Rd' looks way off. Anyone who knows what font weight it is? Could be Series F, but I'm not 100% sure.
Whatever disease it has is in Baton Rouge as well.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8267/28629247875_8d12873fa0_z.jpg)
My first thought was that "Main" is the PixSymbols version of Series D, but more likely it's Series C stretched out a bit horizontally. The little "St" is probably either Series C horizontally squished a bit, or Helvetica horizontally squished a lot.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ekt8750 on August 02, 2016, 04:49:02 PM
Post by: ekt8750 on August 02, 2016, 04:49:02 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 29, 2016, 12:24:19 AM
From the 'Exit Number Challenge' thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17867.msg2161152#msg2161152 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17867.msg2161152#msg2161152)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1266/957496884_fedb62b8ab_b.jpg)
The WY 218 shield digits are in Arial/Helvetica font.
The font weight of the legend for 'Harriman Rd' looks way off. Anyone who knows what font weight it is? Could be Series F, but I'm not 100% sure.
Looks like someone took E Modified, reduced the kerning and added additional stroke to the characters in Illustrator.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on August 04, 2016, 04:22:56 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on August 04, 2016, 04:22:56 PM
Found this on Facebook, it's apparently in Cumberland, MD:
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13903256_10153981545743752_7181966107636255303_n.jpg?oh=d6f3271b9ba59dccf99ea82e481b1804&oe=581528C5)
The acorn US shield strikes again!
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13903256_10153981545743752_7181966107636255303_n.jpg?oh=d6f3271b9ba59dccf99ea82e481b1804&oe=581528C5)
The acorn US shield strikes again!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on August 04, 2016, 09:32:28 PM
Post by: hbelkins on August 04, 2016, 09:32:28 PM
Maryland must have borrowed one of PA's acorns!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Quillz on August 05, 2016, 12:45:47 AM
Post by: Quillz on August 05, 2016, 12:45:47 AM
I often wonder how contractors can get so creative with their errors. And how brain-dead some of them must be.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on August 05, 2016, 08:10:32 AM
Post by: jbnv on August 05, 2016, 08:10:32 AM
Downtown New Orleans has contracted a serious case of the oversized-capitals disease. This is just one example of many.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8596/28761076705_f38f0121a6.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KPw35R)
St. Charles Street Sign (https://flic.kr/p/KPw35R) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8596/28761076705_f38f0121a6.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KPw35R)
St. Charles Street Sign (https://flic.kr/p/KPw35R) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 05, 2016, 10:35:38 AM
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 05, 2016, 10:35:38 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on August 04, 2016, 04:22:56 PM
Found this on Facebook, it's apparently in Cumberland, MD:
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13903256_10153981545743752_7181966107636255303_n.jpg?oh=d6f3271b9ba59dccf99ea82e481b1804&oe=581528C5)
The acorn US shield strikes again!
Dear God, the plague is spreading! Hopefully they don't pop up in VA or WV next...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: epzik8 on August 09, 2016, 10:17:33 PM
Post by: epzik8 on August 09, 2016, 10:17:33 PM
This one may not be an error, but it's definitely a nonstandard font for U.S. highway signs. This is I-176 approaching its northern terminus at U.S. 422 near Reading, Pennsylvania.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fe5NLLka.jpg&hash=2dedf7ebc7e34dce3cdb5e9d3e88a846a4f68bb2)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fe5NLLka.jpg&hash=2dedf7ebc7e34dce3cdb5e9d3e88a846a4f68bb2)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on August 09, 2016, 10:21:26 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on August 09, 2016, 10:21:26 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on August 09, 2016, 10:17:33 PM
This one may not be an error, but it's definitely a nonstandard font for U.S. highway signs. This is I-176 approaching its northern terminus at U.S. 422 near Reading, Pennsylvania.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fe5NLLka.jpg&hash=2dedf7ebc7e34dce3cdb5e9d3e88a846a4f68bb2)
Not nonstandard, but done so poorly that it looks hideous. Cardinal directions look like they're MUTCD spec, but maybe not. Spec says that the first letter should be 15" with the rest 12". All of those letters look almost the same size to me. Control cities are done horribly in Clearview 5W. A diagrammatic isn't really needed here I don't think, after all, it's only one lane each.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: machias on August 10, 2016, 09:04:58 PM
Post by: machias on August 10, 2016, 09:04:58 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 09, 2016, 10:21:26 PMQuote from: epzik8 on August 09, 2016, 10:17:33 PM
This one may not be an error, but it's definitely a nonstandard font for U.S. highway signs. This is I-176 approaching its northern terminus at U.S. 422 near Reading, Pennsylvania.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fe5NLLka.jpg&hash=2dedf7ebc7e34dce3cdb5e9d3e88a846a4f68bb2)
Not nonstandard, but done so poorly that it looks hideous. Cardinal directions look like they're MUTCD spec, but maybe not. Spec says that the first letter should be 15" with the rest 12". All of those letters look almost the same size to me. Control cities are done horribly in Clearview 5W. A diagrammatic isn't really needed here I don't think, after all, it's only one lane each.
Someone is treating the Clearview as a "font" and sizing the letters improperly. For example, plans may say 15" with 12" lc, which means that all the letters would be a 15" font, but the lowercase letter loop height is only 12" inches. I've seen quite a few signs in Pennsylvania, Virginia and a couple in New York State that suffer from this. It's part of the "making a sign is as easy as using Microsoft Word!" mentality.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on August 10, 2016, 09:16:03 PM
Post by: jbnv on August 10, 2016, 09:16:03 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on August 10, 2016, 09:04:58 PM
Someone is treating the Clearview as a "font" and sizing the letters improperly. For example, plans may say 15" with 12" lc, which means that all the letters would be a 15" font, but the lowercase letter loop height is only 12" inches. I've seen quite a few signs in Pennsylvania, Virginia and a couple in New York State that suffer from this. It's part of the "making a sign is as easy as using Microsoft Word!" mentality.
It's not just a Clearview problem.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8596/28761076705_f38f0121a6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KPw35R)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on August 11, 2016, 01:15:06 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on August 11, 2016, 01:15:06 AM
The middle sign for the I-110/CA 110 exit is ridiculously cramped. Also, the whole layout for the sign on the right for 'Convention Center, Los Angeles St' leaves a lot to be desired..
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1237/4594482932_1001a8177e_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1237/4594482932_1001a8177e_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on August 11, 2016, 01:18:54 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on August 11, 2016, 01:18:54 AM
Also, the placement of this CA 82 shield seems a little bit odd. One would think it would've been better center-aligned vertically along with the text 'El Camino Real', which is correctly aligned.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5100/5580054391_6dfb9e53b2_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5100/5580054391_6dfb9e53b2_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: machias on August 11, 2016, 08:11:59 AM
Post by: machias on August 11, 2016, 08:11:59 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 11, 2016, 01:15:06 AM
The middle sign for the I-110/CA 110 exit is ridiculously cramped. Also, the whole layout for the sign on the right for 'Convention Center, Los Angeles St' leaves a lot to be desired..
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1237/4594482932_1001a8177e_b.jpg)
I have always loved Caltrans for doing their own thing. While the design of the two signs you mentioned is a bit odd and not 100% of what it could be, in the California context, the signs work just fine. To someone not familiar with the way Caltrans signs things it might be confusion but the typical California motorist it's fine. I'm not saying it's right, but they're doable.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on August 11, 2016, 12:59:00 PM
Post by: kphoger on August 11, 2016, 12:59:00 PM
My best friend just texted this picture to me.
101TH ???
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fimage000000_2_zpsgkvo2rw7.jpg&hash=46adc3a8fb5f233862f61baa1c7b82936da2bbe4)
101TH ???
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fimage000000_2_zpsgkvo2rw7.jpg&hash=46adc3a8fb5f233862f61baa1c7b82936da2bbe4)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Bluenoser on August 11, 2016, 02:03:15 PM
Post by: Bluenoser on August 11, 2016, 02:03:15 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 11, 2016, 12:59:00 PM
My best friend just texted this picture to me.
101TH ???
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fimage000000_2_zpsgkvo2rw7.jpg&hash=46adc3a8fb5f233862f61baa1c7b82936da2bbe4)
"32th Ave" in Edmundston, New Brunswick, from GSV:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@47.3703247,-68.3196075,3a,15y,134.06h,91.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMJ9gDc99nSy-hbIIQAOz9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.ca/maps/@47.3703247,-68.3196075,3a,15y,134.06h,91.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMJ9gDc99nSy-hbIIQAOz9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ekt8750 on August 11, 2016, 02:29:15 PM
Post by: ekt8750 on August 11, 2016, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on August 10, 2016, 09:04:58 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on August 09, 2016, 10:21:26 PMQuote from: epzik8 on August 09, 2016, 10:17:33 PM
This one may not be an error, but it's definitely a nonstandard font for U.S. highway signs. This is I-176 approaching its northern terminus at U.S. 422 near Reading, Pennsylvania.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fe5NLLka.jpg&hash=2dedf7ebc7e34dce3cdb5e9d3e88a846a4f68bb2)
Not nonstandard, but done so poorly that it looks hideous. Cardinal directions look like they're MUTCD spec, but maybe not. Spec says that the first letter should be 15" with the rest 12". All of those letters look almost the same size to me. Control cities are done horribly in Clearview 5W. A diagrammatic isn't really needed here I don't think, after all, it's only one lane each.
Someone is treating the Clearview as a "font" and sizing the letters improperly. For example, plans may say 15" with 12" lc, which means that all the letters would be a 15" font, but the lowercase letter loop height is only 12" inches. I've seen quite a few signs in Pennsylvania, Virginia and a couple in New York State that suffer from this. It's part of the "making a sign is as easy as using Microsoft Word!" mentality.
There's a bunch in New Jersey too. I've some townships whose sign blades are formatted that way as well (looking at you Gloucester Twp.).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 3web on August 11, 2016, 02:50:18 PM
Post by: 3web on August 11, 2016, 02:50:18 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1248.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh483%2F3web3%2FNevada%2520state%2520drive_zpspec7onwn.png&hash=4be94d5b403cb253a944ed9e11d55ad92e6524f1)
Found this on a road trip to AZ on the I-515.
Found this on a road trip to AZ on the I-515.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kkt on August 11, 2016, 06:36:45 PM
Post by: kkt on August 11, 2016, 06:36:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 21, 2016, 12:39:27 AM
This guide sign in Burnaby, BC has a black right arrow.
It looks like a stealth bomber seen from the underside, silhouetted against the sky.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jay8g on August 14, 2016, 01:59:02 AM
Post by: jay8g on August 14, 2016, 01:59:02 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 11, 2016, 12:59:00 PMAlso, why does it seem like both blades have the same text? It can't possibly be 101st St and 101st St, can it?
My best friend just texted this picture to me.
101TH ???
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fimage000000_2_zpsgkvo2rw7.jpg&hash=46adc3a8fb5f233862f61baa1c7b82936da2bbe4)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on August 14, 2016, 02:46:50 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on August 14, 2016, 02:46:50 PM
Quote from: jay8g on August 14, 2016, 01:59:02 AMIf the road bends at the intersection it's possible.Quote from: kphoger on August 11, 2016, 12:59:00 PMAlso, why does it seem like both blades have the same text? It can't possibly be 101st St and 101st St, can it?
My best friend just texted this picture to me.
101TH ???
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fimage000000_2_zpsgkvo2rw7.jpg&hash=46adc3a8fb5f233862f61baa1c7b82936da2bbe4)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 14, 2016, 03:31:14 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 14, 2016, 03:31:14 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 11, 2016, 01:15:06 AM
The middle sign for the I-110/CA 110 exit is ridiculously cramped. Also, the whole layout for the sign on the right for 'Convention Center, Los Angeles St' leaves a lot to be desired..
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1237/4594482932_1001a8177e_b.jpg)
For the sign on the right, I wish they'd just do the "EXIT r7 ONLY" tabs like you see in Illinois at the bottom... A picture I uploaded as an example:
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8692/28366528623_5da9207cf3_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KdDSFH)
IMG_4273 (https://flic.kr/p/KdDSFH) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on August 14, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Post by: roadfro on August 14, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 14, 2016, 03:31:14 PMQuote from: national highway 1 on August 11, 2016, 01:15:06 AM
The middle sign for the I-110/CA 110 exit is ridiculously cramped. Also, the whole layout for the sign on the right for 'Convention Center, Los Angeles St' leaves a lot to be desired..
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1237/4594482932_1001a8177e_b.jpg)
For the sign on the right, I wish they'd just do the "EXIT r7 ONLY" tabs like you see in Illinois at the bottom... A picture I uploaded as an example:
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8692/28366528623_5da9207cf3_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KdDSFH)
IMG_4273 (https://flic.kr/p/KdDSFH) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Caltrans typical standard is to use a yellow "Exit Only" plaque and put the arrow next to the plaque on the same line.
This sign is unusual in two ways: (1) the arrow and plaque are on different lines, even though they clearly could have been on one line; and (2) simple "Only" plaques, as seen here, are typically only used on freeway-to-freeway exits, which this is not.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on August 14, 2016, 04:04:14 PM
Post by: kphoger on August 14, 2016, 04:04:14 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on August 14, 2016, 02:46:50 PMQuote from: jay8g on August 14, 2016, 01:59:02 AMIf the road bends at the intersection it's possible.Quote from: kphoger on August 11, 2016, 12:59:00 PMAlso, why does it seem like both blades have the same text? It can't possibly be 101st St and 101st St, can it?
My best friend just texted this picture to me.
101TH ???
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Fimage000000_2_zpsgkvo2rw7.jpg&hash=46adc3a8fb5f233862f61baa1c7b82936da2bbe4)
I don't know the exact location of the photo, but 101st Street is a major section-line road that doesn't bend anywhere.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on August 14, 2016, 09:00:49 PM
Post by: SignBridge on August 14, 2016, 09:00:49 PM
So paulthemapguy let me get this straight........in Illinois the first advance sign for an exit might be 5 miles or even 11 miles before the exit?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on August 14, 2016, 09:54:54 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on August 14, 2016, 09:54:54 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on August 14, 2016, 09:00:49 PMSo paulthemapguy let me get this straight........in Illinois the first advance sign for an exit might be 5 miles or even 11 miles before the exit?
What he showed is actually a Tollway heirloom--advance signs for the next one or two exits mounted next to an exit direction sign. Another heirloom is extra-large digits and name "ILLINOIS" in the state route shields. Neither is representative of signing on the untolled freeway network in Illinois.
(There are isolated examples elsewhere of exits signed well in advance, e.g. Nebraska I-80 Exit 432 at Exit 439 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1504233,-96.1557549,3a,75y,208.8h,99.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH79lPm0ORZSaAnfsnc9B2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 15, 2016, 10:49:58 AM
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 15, 2016, 10:49:58 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on August 14, 2016, 09:00:49 PM
So paulthemapguy let me get this straight........in Illinois the first advance sign for an exit might be 5 miles or even 11 miles before the exit?
At each exit off of an Illinois tollway, you will see sign(s) telling motorists what the next exit or two exits are, no matter how distant. Even if that exit isn't for another 16 miles... https://goo.gl/maps/1eAaSpFUFvz
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on August 15, 2016, 09:39:28 PM
Post by: SignBridge on August 15, 2016, 09:39:28 PM
Well I guess all the toll-road authorities have their signing quirks. I see the Tollway also doesn't use exit numbers on the advance signs either. That's not MUTCD compliant. I seem to remember reading somewhere years ago that the Tollway didn't use exit numbers at all years ago. Is that true?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on August 16, 2016, 05:07:56 PM
Post by: tckma on August 16, 2016, 05:07:56 PM
Posted by an instagram friend of mine:
(https://i.imgur.com/UYfFKOg.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/UYfFKOg.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: chays on August 16, 2016, 05:15:10 PM
Post by: chays on August 16, 2016, 05:15:10 PM
Quote from: tckma on August 16, 2016, 05:07:56 PMWe've seen some bad error's, but this one take's the cake.
Posted by an instagram friend of mine:
(https://i.imgur.com/UYfFKOg.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cbeach40 on August 17, 2016, 09:23:45 AM
Post by: cbeach40 on August 17, 2016, 09:23:45 AM
Quote from: jay8g on August 14, 2016, 01:59:02 AM
Also, why does it seem like both blades have the same text? It can't possibly be 101st St and 101st St, can it?
No, it's 101th and 101th. :-D
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 17, 2016, 01:11:28 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 17, 2016, 01:11:28 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on August 15, 2016, 09:39:28 PM
Well I guess all the toll-road authorities have their signing quirks. I see the Tollway also doesn't use exit numbers on the advance signs either. That's not MUTCD compliant. I seem to remember reading somewhere years ago that the Tollway didn't use exit numbers at all years ago. Is that true?
The Illinois Tollways didn't use ANY exit numbers until within the last couple years. There were no exit tabs or exit numbers on gore signs at all just a few years ago in 2012 or 13. Now, ISTHA has added exit numbers to everything.
Here's an interstate sign with a misshapen facing/stencil
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/2/1584/25924620632_74039eeb0e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FuSsvN)
IMG_1940 (https://flic.kr/p/FuSsvN) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on August 17, 2016, 01:22:51 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on August 17, 2016, 01:22:51 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 17, 2016, 01:11:28 PMLooks like someone placed a bubble-shield onto a standard 3di shield-blank.
Here's an interstate sign with a misshapen facing/stencil
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/2/1584/25924620632_74039eeb0e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FuSsvN)
IMG_1940 (https://flic.kr/p/FuSsvN) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on August 17, 2016, 02:50:34 PM
Post by: jbnv on August 17, 2016, 02:50:34 PM
Cross-post from the Exit Number Challenge thread:
Quote from: okroads on August 17, 2016, 02:35:38 PM
Exit 393 on I-25 in New Mexico:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4075/4763054760_96bd11136b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/8fTUeN)
DSC09614 (https://flic.kr/p/8fTUeN) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: chays on August 17, 2016, 02:59:26 PM
Post by: chays on August 17, 2016, 02:59:26 PM
Quote from: jbnv on August 17, 2016, 02:50:34 PMWHat WEre THey THinking?
Cross-post from the Exit Number Challenge thread:Quote from: okroads on August 17, 2016, 02:35:38 PM
Exit 393 on I-25 in New Mexico:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4075/4763054760_96bd11136b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/8fTUeN)
DSC09614 (https://flic.kr/p/8fTUeN) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: amroad17 on August 18, 2016, 06:12:10 AM
Post by: amroad17 on August 18, 2016, 06:12:10 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on August 17, 2016, 01:22:51 PMAt least it's a state named shield.Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 17, 2016, 01:11:28 PMLooks like someone placed a bubble-shield onto a standard 3di shield-blank.
Here's an interstate sign with a misshapen facing/stencil
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/2/1584/25924620632_74039eeb0e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FuSsvN)
IMG_1940 (https://flic.kr/p/FuSsvN) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on August 18, 2016, 07:49:08 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on August 18, 2016, 07:49:08 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 18, 2016, 06:12:10 AMBut a feral state-named shield.Quote from: freebrickproductions on August 17, 2016, 01:22:51 PMAt least it's a state named shield.Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 17, 2016, 01:11:28 PMLooks like someone placed a bubble-shield onto a standard 3di shield-blank.
Here's an interstate sign with a misshapen facing/stencil
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/2/1584/25924620632_74039eeb0e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FuSsvN)
IMG_1940 (https://flic.kr/p/FuSsvN) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SidS1045 on August 18, 2016, 01:43:03 PM
Post by: SidS1045 on August 18, 2016, 01:43:03 PM
Quote from: jbnv on August 17, 2016, 02:50:34 PM
Cross-post from the Exit Number Challenge thread:Quote from: okroads on August 17, 2016, 02:35:38 PM
Exit 393 on I-25 in New Mexico:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4075/4763054760_96bd11136b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/8fTUeN)
DSC09614 (https://flic.kr/p/8fTUeN) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
(shamelessly stealing from Chico Marx:)
That's the Jewish neighborhood.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ekt8750 on August 18, 2016, 04:59:52 PM
Post by: ekt8750 on August 18, 2016, 04:59:52 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 18, 2016, 07:49:08 AMQuote from: amroad17 on August 18, 2016, 06:12:10 AMBut a feral state-named shield.Quote from: freebrickproductions on August 17, 2016, 01:22:51 PMAt least it's a state named shield.Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 17, 2016, 01:11:28 PMLooks like someone placed a bubble-shield onto a standard 3di shield-blank.
Here's an interstate sign with a misshapen facing/stencil
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/2/1584/25924620632_74039eeb0e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FuSsvN)
IMG_1940 (https://flic.kr/p/FuSsvN) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
More mongrel than feral.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on August 28, 2016, 01:13:52 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on August 28, 2016, 01:13:52 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/CA154w_20150917.jpg/1197px-CA154w_20150917.jpg)
Looks like someone from Caltrans accidentally manufactured a CA 154 shield with the wrong font for the '154' digits, mistakenly using Helvetica instead of using the FHWA alphabets.
The rest of the signs - the text in the banner and the 'California' in the miners spade - use the correct font though.
Found on the Wikipedia page of San Marcos Pass:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marcos_Pass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marcos_Pass)
Looks like someone from Caltrans accidentally manufactured a CA 154 shield with the wrong font for the '154' digits, mistakenly using Helvetica instead of using the FHWA alphabets.
The rest of the signs - the text in the banner and the 'California' in the miners spade - use the correct font though.
Found on the Wikipedia page of San Marcos Pass:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marcos_Pass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marcos_Pass)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 6a on August 29, 2016, 12:43:22 PM
Post by: 6a on August 29, 2016, 12:43:22 PM
Pretty sure this is privately done...at least I hope it is.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160829%2F3a820a93215cbf7057c2ef1e641830be.jpg&hash=52b272027c84ec117a2f1d467d8fa97ca738e8eb)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160829%2F3a820a93215cbf7057c2ef1e641830be.jpg&hash=52b272027c84ec117a2f1d467d8fa97ca738e8eb)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on August 29, 2016, 12:59:41 PM
Post by: jakeroot on August 29, 2016, 12:59:41 PM
Quote from: 6a on August 29, 2016, 12:43:22 PM
Pretty sure this is privately done...at least I hope it is.
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160829/3a820a93215cbf7057c2ef1e641830be.jpg
There's enough errors here that this is better off in the "Unique, Odd, or Interesting (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11045.0)" thread. Certainly your sign is none of those things, but the thread does include the bad and ugly; your sign is a qualifier in those categories, without a doubt.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 7/8 on August 29, 2016, 04:20:39 PM
Post by: 7/8 on August 29, 2016, 04:20:39 PM
I took this photo on the 407 EB today. The RR 7 shield for Airport Rd is oddly done with a white number and border, whereas the standard in Ontario is black number on white shield. In fact, in the background of the photo, you can see a standard sign for the same exit (though I'll admit it's small and blurry):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVyKxGIF.jpg&hash=c50677f1877c1fcd9704e22cd1c5768956794255)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVyKxGIF.jpg&hash=c50677f1877c1fcd9704e22cd1c5768956794255)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on August 29, 2016, 06:32:45 PM
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on August 29, 2016, 06:32:45 PM
Pearson Airport :ded:.
Okay, I know it is named after this Pearson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_B._Pearson), not that Pearson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_syndrome).
Okay, I know it is named after this Pearson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_B._Pearson), not that Pearson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_syndrome).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on August 29, 2016, 09:42:02 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on August 29, 2016, 09:42:02 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on August 29, 2016, 04:20:39 PM
I took this photo on the 407 EB today. The RR 7 shield for Airport Rd is oddly done with a white number and border, whereas the standard in Ontario is black number on white shield. In fact, in the background of the photo, you can see a standard sign for the same exit (though I'll admit it's small and blurry):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVyKxGIF.jpg&hash=c50677f1877c1fcd9704e22cd1c5768956794255)
The right arrow looks off too but it could be my imagination. There's a few weird things like that on the 407 (I recall seeing a MUTCD down arrow on one sign instead of a Ontario one for example). I'm too lazy to look for it right now.
Either way, that sign is older (an original probably).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 7/8 on August 30, 2016, 09:07:54 AM
Post by: 7/8 on August 30, 2016, 09:07:54 AM
I also noticed this sign on the 407 EB ramp to 400. Either the 400 numerals are too tall, or the shield is too small, but either way it looks weird!
Unfortunately I didn't get a picture, but here's the Google Maps location:
https://goo.gl/maps/b4pEdmyftxy (https://goo.gl/maps/b4pEdmyftxy)
Unfortunately I didn't get a picture, but here's the Google Maps location:
https://goo.gl/maps/b4pEdmyftxy (https://goo.gl/maps/b4pEdmyftxy)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: MisterSG1 on August 30, 2016, 10:08:31 AM
Post by: MisterSG1 on August 30, 2016, 10:08:31 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on August 29, 2016, 04:20:39 PM
I took this photo on the 407 EB today. The RR 7 shield for Airport Rd is oddly done with a white number and border, whereas the standard in Ontario is black number on white shield. In fact, in the background of the photo, you can see a standard sign for the same exit (though I'll admit it's small and blurry):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVyKxGIF.jpg&hash=c50677f1877c1fcd9704e22cd1c5768956794255)
That RR-7 Airport Road sign has been there on the 407 as long as I can remember.
Quote from: 7/8 on August 30, 2016, 09:07:54 AM
I also noticed this sign on the 407 EB ramp to 400. Either the 400 numerals are too tall, or the shield is too small, but either way it looks weird!
Unfortunately I didn't get a picture, but here's the Google Maps location:
https://goo.gl/maps/b4pEdmyftxy (https://goo.gl/maps/b4pEdmyftxy)
Ever seen the hideous 401 shields on the Allen with GREEN numbers and a bizarro crown?....Painful to look at it when I use the subway from Wilson Station that's for sure.
And signgeek, where is this MUTCD arrow? I know 407 signage has been rather "interesting" to say the least and it has changed a lot (remember that 427 pre-advance sign on 407WB with the GIANT 1km) The only MUTCD arrows that come to mind in the GTA is at the Bayview/Bloor exit on the DVP, and the 401 exit on NB Allen (again with those hideous green numbers).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 7/8 on August 30, 2016, 10:22:16 AM
Post by: 7/8 on August 30, 2016, 10:22:16 AM
^ I've never been on Allen Rd (one day I'll have to do it just to say I have). I'm guessing you're referring to the sign on Allen Rd NB:
https://goo.gl/maps/XHKnH7PyUoQ2 (https://goo.gl/maps/XHKnH7PyUoQ2)
I find these ones just as bad on Allen Rd SB:
https://maps.google.com/?q=43.734887,-79.450502&hl=en-CA&gl=ca (https://maps.google.com/?q=43.734887,-79.450502&hl=en-CA&gl=ca)
https://goo.gl/maps/XHKnH7PyUoQ2 (https://goo.gl/maps/XHKnH7PyUoQ2)
I find these ones just as bad on Allen Rd SB:
https://maps.google.com/?q=43.734887,-79.450502&hl=en-CA&gl=ca (https://maps.google.com/?q=43.734887,-79.450502&hl=en-CA&gl=ca)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: MisterSG1 on August 30, 2016, 10:28:16 AM
Post by: MisterSG1 on August 30, 2016, 10:28:16 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on August 30, 2016, 10:22:16 AM
^ I've never been on Allen Rd (one day I'll have to do it just to say I have). I'm guessing you're referring to the sign on Allen Rd NB:
https://goo.gl/maps/XHKnH7PyUoQ2 (https://goo.gl/maps/XHKnH7PyUoQ2)
I find these ones just as bad on Allen Rd SB:
https://maps.google.com/?q=43.734965,-79.450484&hl=en-CA&gl=ca (https://maps.google.com/?q=43.734965,-79.450484&hl=en-CA&gl=ca)
I wouldn't EVER recommend going on Allen Road SB :D, unless you want to get stuck with no escape for a good 15 minutes nearly all times of the day. The intersection of Allen/Eglinton is nasty, and it is very time consuming to exit at Lawrence as well, I see it all the time when I ride the subway, and I take note of cars that pass me on the train at Wilson Station, and for sure, we always catch up to them before Eglinton.
Getting to Allen Road NB is very difficult on Eglinton.....with the LRT construction, it takes you 5 minutes at times just to move a couple of feet....yes, it really is that bad. I wouldn't recommend it.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on August 30, 2016, 11:14:45 AM
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on August 30, 2016, 11:14:45 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on August 29, 2016, 04:20:39 PM
I took this photo on the 407 EB today. The RR 7 shield for Airport Rd is oddly done with a white number and border, whereas the standard in Ontario is black number on white shield. In fact, in the background of the photo, you can see a standard sign for the same exit (though I'll admit it's small and blurry):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVyKxGIF.jpg&hash=c50677f1877c1fcd9704e22cd1c5768956794255)
The first generation of signs that the 407 consortium put up themselves after becoming the leaseholders of the highway were pretty terrible. They were manufactured by a company called Owl-Lite located in the extreme northwestern part of Etobicoke. As far as I know they still manufacture new signs for the ETR, but have gotten progressively better at it as they have made more signs.
Some of the 407 ETR's atrocities:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_407-409_images%2F407_dv_85_west.jpg&hash=a2a99992d094b3854d21f69ffd69f89f3d982b20)
The sign on the right is fine, but the pre-advanced for the 404 is quite something.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_407-409_images%2F407_dv_59-5_west_Jul13_lg.jpg&hash=28276624dad22ee66df65d82e0c349e1f171aaf9)
Again, the pre-advanced signage leaves something to be desired.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_407-409_images%2F407_dv_80-5_east_Jun11_lg.jpg&hash=8af28d9f2d3cd0ae52dfb710aed678493f1c0d0e)
The sign on the left was made by Owl-Lite, while the sign on the right is original to the highway's construction.
Some other sign irregularities:
It's hard to tell from this photo, but the 68 flowerpot has a black outline, which is atypical:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_407-409_images%2F407_dv_90_east_lg.jpg&hash=c174fbc7171515e1ccf07f2c6e0ed87007db760e)
http://goo.gl/4EAMfx
The box that surrounds the 'exit' or 'exit sortie' was sometimes a little bit different as well:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_410-427_images%2F410_dv_4-5_north_Aug13_lg.jpg&hash=4af033f04b8e6656bc5571885cfe34304c7db369)
Compared to normal:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_410-427_images%2F410_dv_9-5_north_Aug13_lg.jpg&hash=d841cde235ac3f5ee1e43c7f4337727a5663869e)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on August 30, 2016, 11:06:20 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on August 30, 2016, 11:06:20 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on August 30, 2016, 10:08:31 AM
And signgeek, where is this MUTCD arrow? I know 407 signage has been rather "interesting" to say the least and it has changed a lot (remember that 427 pre-advance sign on 407WB with the GIANT 1km) The only MUTCD arrows that come to mind in the GTA is at the Bayview/Bloor exit on the DVP, and the 401 exit on NB Allen (again with those hideous green numbers).
There's a few, all original signs if memory serves. Here's one placed on a 407 offramp with a badly spaced out 'TORONTO' text. I'm not a fan of Ontario's down arrow, though that is a very minor smudge I have. Ontario's signs overall are done pretty well.
https://goo.gl/maps/nXW6zYNEEUn
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on August 31, 2016, 10:41:18 AM
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on August 31, 2016, 10:41:18 AM
^ Yeah, that's definitely another ugly sign. That was another one made by Owl-Lite, in their first generation of replacement signage. For whatever reason, the initial signage that was erected when the 407 first opened omitted the control city of 'Toronto' from the 427 signage. Toronto was however (and still is, for the rest of this year, until the signage is replaced) signed at the Highway 27 interchange.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 04, 2016, 12:53:41 AM
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 04, 2016, 12:53:41 AM
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/9/8524/28812955053_bb1c04543c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KU6VH8)
20160903_114618 (https://flic.kr/p/KU6VH8) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Heh
20160903_114618 (https://flic.kr/p/KU6VH8) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Heh
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on September 04, 2016, 10:20:37 AM
Post by: hotdogPi on September 04, 2016, 10:20:37 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 04, 2016, 12:53:41 AM
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/9/8524/28812955053_bb1c04543c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KU6VH8)
20160903_114618 (https://flic.kr/p/KU6VH8) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Heh
What's wrong with this one? Are there fewer than 4 lanes?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on September 04, 2016, 01:19:46 PM
Post by: roadfro on September 04, 2016, 01:19:46 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 04, 2016, 10:20:37 AM
What's wrong with this one? Are there fewer than 4 lanes?
In this type of lane assignment sign, only one arrow should be paired with an "ONLY" between the vertical lane lines. This one puts two through arrows in one lane segment.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 7/8 on September 04, 2016, 09:30:09 PM
Post by: 7/8 on September 04, 2016, 09:30:09 PM
I'll add another interesting sign on the 407, this time on the new extension. This Hwy 7 trailblazer is black-on-white, instead of white-on-green and is found before the exit for Hwy 12:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrnpWNdU.jpg&hash=5f0c5f9610271d802d699fd6a73234ae7b0cdd02)
I also noticed that some of the exit signs at the gores say "Exit ##" instead of only having the number. Somehow, I managed to miss the chance to get a photo of one, even though there were at least 2 or 3.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrnpWNdU.jpg&hash=5f0c5f9610271d802d699fd6a73234ae7b0cdd02)
I also noticed that some of the exit signs at the gores say "Exit ##" instead of only having the number. Somehow, I managed to miss the chance to get a photo of one, even though there were at least 2 or 3.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on September 07, 2016, 10:01:03 AM
Post by: J N Winkler on September 07, 2016, 10:01:03 AM
Isn't it also rather unusual for the crown graphic to show the ermine lining?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 07, 2016, 10:36:47 AM
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 07, 2016, 10:36:47 AM
Quote from: roadfro on September 04, 2016, 01:19:46 PMQuote from: 1 on September 04, 2016, 10:20:37 AM
What's wrong with this one? Are there fewer than 4 lanes?
In this type of lane assignment sign, only one arrow should be paired with an "ONLY" between the vertical lane lines. This one puts two through arrows in one lane segment.
I was hoping someone would notice what I noticed :biggrin:
I just wanted to let people figure it out rather than give it away.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on September 07, 2016, 10:55:25 AM
Post by: SignGeek101 on September 07, 2016, 10:55:25 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 07, 2016, 10:01:03 AM
Isn't it also rather unusual for the crown graphic to show the ermine lining?
On shields yes, on BGS's no.
Quote from: 7/8 on September 04, 2016, 09:30:09 PM
I'll add another interesting sign on the 407, this time on the new extension. This Hwy 7 trailblazer is black-on-white, instead of white-on-green and is found before the exit for Hwy 12:
(snipped)
Looks like the sign guys got the colours mixed up here too.
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8195/29511958215_99273bbd53_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LXSuZM)
Ontario 17 (Trans Canada Highway) Eastbound approaching Ontario Secondary 594, Trailblazer for Ontario Secondary 502 (https://flic.kr/p/LXSuZM) by Sign Geek (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135438121@N07/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 7/8 on September 07, 2016, 04:17:23 PM
Post by: 7/8 on September 07, 2016, 04:17:23 PM
An upside-down traffic signal sign on King St at Hwy 85 in Woolwich, ON:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FosqAFeg.jpg&hash=cf82f5b6f1f9b6e165238d7384b0a749e0a4c859) (http://i.imgur.com/osqAFeg.jpg)
A more minor error, but the 6 on this speed limit sign is clearly crooked (Clyde Rd and N. Dumfries TR 17 in Cambridge, ON):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F233PJbb.jpg&hash=36dca123c8c8b6255399ab237be15ffe979ec7a2) (http://i.imgur.com/233PJbb.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FosqAFeg.jpg&hash=cf82f5b6f1f9b6e165238d7384b0a749e0a4c859) (http://i.imgur.com/osqAFeg.jpg)
A more minor error, but the 6 on this speed limit sign is clearly crooked (Clyde Rd and N. Dumfries TR 17 in Cambridge, ON):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F233PJbb.jpg&hash=36dca123c8c8b6255399ab237be15ffe979ec7a2) (http://i.imgur.com/233PJbb.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on September 08, 2016, 01:10:48 AM
Post by: roadfro on September 08, 2016, 01:10:48 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on September 07, 2016, 04:17:23 PM
An upside-down traffic signal sign on King St at Hwy 85 in Woolwich, ON:
...
A more minor error, but the 6 on this speed limit sign is clearly crooked (Clyde Rd and N. Dumfries TR 17 in Cambridge, ON
The first is not a design error, as the sign is designed to specifications . It's an installation error, as it was just put up upside down.
The second I wouldn't call a design error. It's more of a fabrication error, as the "6" was applied slightly crookedly.
Design errors would be something that is completely different off from specs.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 14, 2016, 02:11:03 AM
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 14, 2016, 02:11:03 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 11, 2016, 01:15:06 AMThis is classic Caltrans: they copy the old sign layout without critical thinking.
The middle sign for the I-110/CA 110 exit is ridiculously cramped. Also, the whole layout for the sign on the right for 'Convention Center, Los Angeles St' leaves a lot to be desired..
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1237/4594482932_1001a8177e_b.jpg)
In this instance, the prior button copy sign had originally been designed with just Los Angeles St listed on it. Then Caltrans later added the Convention Ctr above it as shoehorned-in greenout. When Caltrans replaced the old sign with a new retroreflective sign, they copied the exact layout of the prior sign with the added greenout text.
I've seen this a lot on Caltrans retroreflective replacements. For example, I would not be surprised if the strange offset of the CA-82 shield in the picture in the subsequent post (and below) is due to a city being listed above El Camino Real on the prior button copy version of that sign. That city was likely greened out on the old sign, and when the new retroreflective sign was generated, they didn't bother to account for the now missing text on it by realigning the shield.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5100/5580054391_6dfb9e53b2_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on September 14, 2016, 08:10:09 PM
Post by: SignBridge on September 14, 2016, 08:10:09 PM
I continue to be amazed at California's awkward freeway signing. Caltrans actually makes my native New York State DOT look good by comparison.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 15, 2016, 05:59:48 PM
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 15, 2016, 05:59:48 PM
Also the sign in the background is incorrect as well. Only the left lane turns south on El Camino Real. The right two lanes turn north. There is no option lane as the sign suggests.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on September 15, 2016, 09:06:13 PM
Post by: SignBridge on September 15, 2016, 09:06:13 PM
Maybe the center lane originally was an option lane, but was changed to a right-turn only lane after the sign was spec'd and the sign was never changed. That would be typical........
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on September 16, 2016, 07:38:57 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on September 16, 2016, 07:38:57 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 14, 2016, 02:11:03 AMYou're right, the original sign had the control city of San Bruno listed above El Camino Real.
I've seen this a lot on Caltrans retroreflective replacements. For example, I would not be surprised if the strange offset of the CA-82 shield in the picture in the subsequent post (and below) is due to a city being listed above El Camino Real on the prior button copy version of that sign. That city was likely greened out on the old sign, and when the new retroreflective sign was generated, they didn't bother to account for the now missing text on it by realigning the shield.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5100/5580054391_6dfb9e53b2_b.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images380/i-380_wb_exit_005c_01.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on September 28, 2016, 09:16:16 PM
Post by: jbnv on September 28, 2016, 09:16:16 PM
Check out this LA 1 shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5183898,-91.3639851,3a,37.5y,120.47h,81.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJzoDjTFy_w2W7nvEgPnpeg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Compare it to the one directly across the roadway from it. Perhaps someone wanted to get on the "the outline of Louisiana on the signs is wrong because erosion" (https://medium.com/matter/louisiana-loses-its-boot-b55b3bd52d1e#.s0vk3pk55) bandwagon?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on September 28, 2016, 11:34:47 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on September 28, 2016, 11:34:47 PM
Look at the shield. The '7' is in E, the '4' in D and also slightly taller.
https://goo.gl/maps/bVNyxFsdWRM2
https://goo.gl/maps/bVNyxFsdWRM2
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: GenExpwy on November 24, 2016, 03:57:57 AM
Post by: GenExpwy on November 24, 2016, 03:57:57 AM
From another thread:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8342104,-73.8742316,3a,22.3y,221.32h,93.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srrSxdz_sajJH60lF8rIFiw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DrrSxdz_sajJH60lF8rIFiw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D338.48892%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8342104,-73.8742316,3a,22.3y,221.32h,93.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srrSxdz_sajJH60lF8rIFiw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DrrSxdz_sajJH60lF8rIFiw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D338.48892%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
↑
LOW BRIDGE
↓
LOW BRIDGE
↓
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: TravelingBethelite on November 27, 2016, 08:51:46 PM
Post by: TravelingBethelite on November 27, 2016, 08:51:46 PM
Pretty sure this is a goof:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTlN9Ey2.jpg&hash=c0baa9041031d9d679bcdaf458213240d68d965c)
Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTlN9Ey2.jpg&hash=c0baa9041031d9d679bcdaf458213240d68d965c)
Exit 174, I-35 South, Oklahoma
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2016, 12:34:54 AM
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on December 04, 2016, 12:34:54 AM
Found this on Google Maps. Located at TN 385 and Interstate 269 interchange heading south:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0336704,-89.6402844,3a,15y,206.68h,98.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKldFfNO3_-doDHHwBeNEPQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
What's wrong with this sign?
1. The "L" is tilted DOWN
2. APL is too squished on one side
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0336704,-89.6402844,3a,15y,206.68h,98.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKldFfNO3_-doDHHwBeNEPQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
What's wrong with this sign?
1. The "L" is tilted DOWN
2. APL is too squished on one side
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Michael on January 15, 2017, 05:28:40 PM
Post by: Michael on January 15, 2017, 05:28:40 PM
There was a post about NH 101 (https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/posts/10155007710737948) on the AARoads Facebook page, so I decided to look at the route in Street View. When looking at this diagrammatic sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9983153,-71.412946,3a,35.4y,214.33h,93.2t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s0H_r4S2JVyZxzMn5McgGGA!2e0), something looked off to me. When I looked closer, I saw that there's two middle lanes that appear out of nowhere at the gore on the sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on January 31, 2017, 06:17:35 PM
Post by: national highway 1 on January 31, 2017, 06:17:35 PM
Use of a three digit blank for this I-10 shield and also the use of large digits.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19790103i1.jpg)
Original post here. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19557.msg2202812#msg2202812)
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19790103i1.jpg)
Original post here. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19557.msg2202812#msg2202812)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Quillz on February 01, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Post by: Quillz on February 01, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on January 31, 2017, 06:17:35 PMIn California, the usage of 21x18 shields is not terribly uncommon, although the digits are larger than they should be. It's more another one of those quirky California signage standards rather than a true error.
Use of a three digit blank for this I-10 shield and also the use of large digits.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19790103i1.jpg)
Original post here. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19557.msg2202812#msg2202812)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2017, 10:10:23 PM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2017, 10:10:23 PM
Quote from: Quillz on February 01, 2017, 09:39:27 PMQuote from: national highway 1 on January 31, 2017, 06:17:35 PMIn California, the usage of 21x18 shields is not terribly uncommon, although the digits are larger than they should be. It's more another one of those quirky California signage standards rather than a true error.
Use of a three digit blank for this I-10 shield and also the use of large digits.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19790103i1.jpg)
Original post here. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19557.msg2202812#msg2202812)
I'm surprised nobody pointed out the wooden post, another Caltrans favorite.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Kniwt on March 27, 2017, 05:17:26 PM
Post by: Kniwt on March 27, 2017, 05:17:26 PM
Spotted in an I-40 construction zone in California:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZklveMz.jpg&hash=b49085f1ffd430b61608373a699eced39dfac837)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZklveMz.jpg&hash=b49085f1ffd430b61608373a699eced39dfac837)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 27, 2017, 09:55:14 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on March 27, 2017, 09:55:14 PM
ban this sick filth
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2906/33561665501_834d07f31e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T8JiTc)
20170327_091406 (https://flic.kr/p/T8JiTc) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2906/33561665501_834d07f31e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T8JiTc)
20170327_091406 (https://flic.kr/p/T8JiTc) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 27, 2017, 10:44:43 PM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 27, 2017, 10:44:43 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on March 27, 2017, 05:17:26 PM
Spotted in an I-40 construction zone in California:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZklveMz.jpg&hash=b49085f1ffd430b61608373a699eced39dfac837)
Where on I-40 is that one? There are some strange construction shields up in the Mojave, I got a good one for CA 18 last year. I'd love to see that error spade come up on auction someday....
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3782/33197259210_fd927597af_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SzwCA7)18CAc (https://flic.kr/p/SzwCA7) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Kniwt on March 27, 2017, 11:46:08 PM
Post by: Kniwt on March 27, 2017, 11:46:08 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 27, 2017, 10:44:43 PM
Where on I-40 is that one?
Approximately mile 107, just west of the Goffs Road exit. There are several of them!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 27, 2017, 11:49:43 PM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 27, 2017, 11:49:43 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on March 27, 2017, 11:46:08 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 27, 2017, 10:44:43 PM
Where on I-40 is that one?
Approximately mile 107, just west of the Goffs Road exit. There are several of them!
Nice, I can't remember the last time I actually used I-40 between Amboy Road and U.S. 95. Maybe that will be a good enough excuse to stick to the Interstate.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Kniwt on March 28, 2017, 12:04:13 AM
Post by: Kniwt on March 28, 2017, 12:04:13 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 27, 2017, 11:49:43 PM
Nice, I can't remember the last time I actually used I-40 between Amboy Road and U.S. 95. Maybe that will be a good enough excuse to stick to the Interstate.
66 is closed (again) east of Kelbaker Road:
http://www.highlandnews.net/news/public_safety/road-closure-on-national-trails-highway-route---amboy/article_a822ece2-fe0b-11e6-adbf-e71e19c1d8e8.html
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2017, 12:19:25 AM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2017, 12:19:25 AM
Quote from: Kniwt on March 28, 2017, 12:04:13 AMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 27, 2017, 11:49:43 PM
Nice, I can't remember the last time I actually used I-40 between Amboy Road and U.S. 95. Maybe that will be a good enough excuse to stick to the Interstate.
66 is closed (again) east of Kelbaker Road:
http://www.highlandnews.net/news/public_safety/road-closure-on-national-trails-highway-route---amboy/article_a822ece2-fe0b-11e6-adbf-e71e19c1d8e8.html
Really its about time, there are some of those bridges that had very nominal ratings. At least some money is going into fixing things, last year the Goffs bypass was shut down east out of Essex and I never could find out why.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 01, 2017, 10:15:55 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 01, 2017, 10:15:55 PM
Kerning, ALDOT! It ain't that hard! Or at least use a thinner Highway Gothic series...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2932/33654689021_71943aa9c2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5wZ)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5wZ) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2873/33654688961_c222b162c2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5vX)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5vX) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3871/33654688851_aac7f4950c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5u4)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5u4) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
I spotted it along US 72 in Scottsboro, AL. The signage appeared to be rather new as well.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2932/33654689021_71943aa9c2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5wZ)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5wZ) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2873/33654688961_c222b162c2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5vX)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5vX) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3871/33654688851_aac7f4950c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5u4)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5u4) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
I spotted it along US 72 in Scottsboro, AL. The signage appeared to be rather new as well.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kendancy66 on April 02, 2017, 12:02:06 AM
Post by: kendancy66 on April 02, 2017, 12:02:06 AM
Quote from: Kniwt on March 27, 2017, 05:17:26 PMThere is one like that near where I live for I-5
Spotted in an I-40 construction zone in California:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZklveMz.jpg&hash=b49085f1ffd430b61608373a699eced39dfac837)
SAMSUNG-SGH-I747
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on April 03, 2017, 09:21:21 AM
Post by: formulanone on April 03, 2017, 09:21:21 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on April 01, 2017, 10:15:55 PM
Kerning, ALDOT! It ain't that hard! Or at least use a thinner Highway Gothic series...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2932/33654689021_71943aa9c2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5wZ)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5wZ) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2873/33654688961_c222b162c2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5vX)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5vX) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3871/33654688851_aac7f4950c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5u4)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5u4) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
I spotted it along US 72 in Scottsboro, AL. The signage appeared to be rather new as well.
It's been there at least since 2014. At least they didn't use Clearview numerals.
There's a similar kerning issue for an overhead AL 255 shield just south of AL 53 (southbound frontage Road for Research Park Boulevard).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on April 03, 2017, 11:32:52 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on April 03, 2017, 11:32:52 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on April 01, 2017, 10:15:55 PMI would've used Series C for that AL 279 shield.
Kerning, ALDOT! It ain't that hard! Or at least use a thinner Highway Gothic series...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2932/33654689021_71943aa9c2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5wZ)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5wZ) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2873/33654688961_c222b162c2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5vX)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5vX) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3871/33654688851_aac7f4950c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5u4)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5u4) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
I spotted it along US 72 in Scottsboro, AL. The signage appeared to be rather new as well.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Eth on April 03, 2017, 11:58:24 AM
Post by: Eth on April 03, 2017, 11:58:24 AM
The only time I've ever seen Alabama use anything other than Series D on a route marker was on a newly-opened segment of four-lane US 431 south of Phenix City back in the '90s, and I suspect that was contractor signage (especially since they also briefly put up AL 1 markers too).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on April 05, 2017, 06:24:30 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on April 05, 2017, 06:24:30 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 03, 2017, 09:21:21 AMQuote from: freebrickproductions on April 01, 2017, 10:15:55 PM
Kerning, ALDOT! It ain't that hard! Or at least use a thinner Highway Gothic series...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2932/33654689021_71943aa9c2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5wZ)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5wZ) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2873/33654688961_c222b162c2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5vX)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5vX) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3871/33654688851_aac7f4950c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5u4)Kerning, ALDOT! (https://flic.kr/p/TgX5u4) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
I spotted it along US 72 in Scottsboro, AL. The signage appeared to be rather new as well.
It's been there at least since 2014. At least they didn't use Clearview numerals.
There's a similar kerning issue for an overhead AL 255 shield just south of AL 53 (southbound frontage Road for Research Park Boulevard).
The kerning is perfectly fine. What's wrong is that they didn't bother to make sure the numbers fit in the damn shield!
I'm gonna kick this one over to the Worst of Road Signs thread, because come on. :P
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on April 19, 2017, 05:36:23 AM
Post by: formulanone on April 19, 2017, 05:36:23 AM
I-20 eastbound, approaching I-285...featuring upward arrows:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2906/33318716153_fa08a7489d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SLg8vk)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2906/33318716153_fa08a7489d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SLg8vk)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on April 19, 2017, 09:53:35 PM
Post by: SignBridge on April 19, 2017, 09:53:35 PM
How the heck does that escape anyone's notice in the design, approval, manufacturing and hopefully a final inspection process? Or does no one care?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 20, 2017, 12:20:59 AM
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 20, 2017, 12:20:59 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 19, 2017, 09:53:35 PMIt's Georgia. It's gonna be the latter, most likely.
How the heck does that escape anyone's notice in the design, approval, manufacturing and hopefully a final inspection process? Or does no one care?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on April 20, 2017, 07:00:33 PM
Post by: formulanone on April 20, 2017, 07:00:33 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on April 20, 2017, 12:20:59 AMQuote from: SignBridge on April 19, 2017, 09:53:35 PMIt's Georgia. It's gonna be the latter, most likely.
How the heck does that escape anyone's notice in the design, approval, manufacturing and hopefully a final inspection process? Or does no one care?
Well, at least it's the needlessly extra-puffy Series E(M) and less of the mutated Series C/D.
The arrows convey the right idea, but it's one of those things that just ain't right.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on April 20, 2017, 07:57:13 PM
Post by: SignBridge on April 20, 2017, 07:57:13 PM
I don't mean to imply that these kinds of mistakes don't happen elsewhere. Happens in my native New York State too. Just so surprising that nobody catches it.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on April 20, 2017, 11:15:24 PM
Post by: jakeroot on April 20, 2017, 11:15:24 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 20, 2017, 07:57:13 PM
I don't mean to imply that these kinds of mistakes don't happen elsewhere. Happens in my native New York State too. Just so surprising that nobody catches it.
Is it really a glaring error? I know you aren't too keen on them, but up arrows have been popping up rather quickly since their introduction. This isn't the type of sign that would use it, but it's not like up arrows are all that strange.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on April 21, 2017, 05:11:12 PM
Post by: 1995hoo on April 21, 2017, 05:11:12 PM
Huh? Passed this about 20 minutes ago walking to my car after work. This is outside the Renaissance hotel at 9th St and Mount Vernon Square NW in DC. It's not an exception to the sign above it, which prohibits parking to the viewer's right at all times.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FF2D14E16-0376-4F46-9562-445E7169E76E_zpsy8fdhcml.jpg&hash=1803be2d5c202f56c4e248571eff7f866c189131)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FF2D14E16-0376-4F46-9562-445E7169E76E_zpsy8fdhcml.jpg&hash=1803be2d5c202f56c4e248571eff7f866c189131)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on April 21, 2017, 09:39:42 PM
Post by: SignBridge on April 21, 2017, 09:39:42 PM
Jakeroot, you should check out the German Autobahn signing. They use a lot of long-stem up arrows and APL on their (blue) signs. It's pretty interesting how they do it. Try this link: www.gettingaroundgermany.info
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on April 21, 2017, 11:37:51 PM
Post by: jakeroot on April 21, 2017, 11:37:51 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 21, 2017, 09:39:42 PM
Jakeroot, you should check out the German Autobahn signing. They use a lot of long-stem up arrows and APL on their (blue) signs. It's pretty interesting how they do it. Try this link: www.gettingaroundgermany.info
The Autobahn has some really great signage. Beyond the sign I posted in the "Redesign This" thread, my other inspiration has been Riiga and his APL variations, which in turn was heavily based on both Swedish and German signage.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on April 22, 2017, 03:06:51 PM
Post by: hbelkins on April 22, 2017, 03:06:51 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 19, 2017, 09:53:35 PM
How the heck does that escape anyone's notice in the design, approval, manufacturing and hopefully a final inspection process? Or does no one care?
What, the Georgia sign? What's wrong with it? Nothing that I can see.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on April 22, 2017, 08:44:24 PM
Post by: SignBridge on April 22, 2017, 08:44:24 PM
hbelkins, have you not noticed that standard practice in the US is for the exit only arrow to point down at the lane as per the Federal Manual standard? This one points upward.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on April 22, 2017, 10:38:06 PM
Post by: hbelkins on April 22, 2017, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 22, 2017, 08:44:24 PM
hbelkins, have you not noticed that standard practice in the US is for the exit only arrow to point down at the lane as per the Federal Manual standard? This one points upward.
Well, of course I have. But I think it's funny that this oh-so-offensive sign that doesn't conform to some MUTCD purists' visions functions just as well and conveys the same information in the same manner, yet things like this seem to bug so many people.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on April 22, 2017, 10:50:44 PM
Post by: SignBridge on April 22, 2017, 10:50:44 PM
Well (LOL) if I'm an MUTCD purist, then so be it..........whatever. But seriously, there have been many times on these boards where I've disagreed with some standards in the Manual particularly when it comes to destinations on signs. But I do think that the standards re: arrows are reasonable.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 24, 2017, 08:36:00 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 24, 2017, 08:36:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 21, 2017, 05:11:12 PMMaybe they should've gone with "No Parking Anytime - Except Tour Buses"?
Huh? Passed this about 20 minutes ago walking to my car after work. This is outside the Renaissance hotel at 9th St and Mount Vernon Square NW in DC. It's not an exception to the sign above it, which prohibits parking to the viewer's right at all times.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FF2D14E16-0376-4F46-9562-445E7169E76E_zpsy8fdhcml.jpg&hash=1803be2d5c202f56c4e248571eff7f866c189131)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on April 25, 2017, 09:36:43 AM
Post by: formulanone on April 25, 2017, 09:36:43 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 22, 2017, 10:38:06 PMQuote from: SignBridge on April 22, 2017, 08:44:24 PM
hbelkins, have you not noticed that standard practice in the US is for the exit only arrow to point down at the lane as per the Federal Manual standard? This one points upward.
Well, of course I have. But I think it's funny that this oh-so-offensive sign that doesn't conform to some MUTCD purists' visions functions just as well and conveys the same information in the same manner, yet things like this seem to bug so many people.
It's just one of those silly little things I wouldn't think twice about until you've seen thousands with downward-pointing arrows.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on April 26, 2017, 04:39:18 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on April 26, 2017, 04:39:18 AM
I'm pretty sure H.B. wants states to have the right to post signs done in MS Word 97, complete with WordArt text and system-default clip art, because he feels the state's rights are more important than either form or function.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfyPUdfj.png&hash=18568bd7969172562e0ce7cc38e384b0b9b35302)
Fig. 1: This sign would be perfectly OK with H.B., as long as the Feds had nothing to do with it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfyPUdfj.png&hash=18568bd7969172562e0ce7cc38e384b0b9b35302)
Fig. 1: This sign would be perfectly OK with H.B., as long as the Feds had nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 26, 2017, 05:53:16 AM
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 26, 2017, 05:53:16 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2017, 04:39:18 AM
I'm pretty sure H.B. wants states to have the right to post signs done in MS Word 97, complete with WordArt text and system-default clip art, because he feels the state's rights are more important than either form or function.
img snipped
:rofl:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on April 26, 2017, 12:11:39 PM
Post by: jakeroot on April 26, 2017, 12:11:39 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2017, 04:39:18 AM
I'm pretty sure H.B. wants states to have the right to post signs done in MS Word 97, complete with WordArt text and system-default clip art, because he feels the state's rights are more important than either form or function.
Just because they have the right to, doesn't mean they will.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on April 26, 2017, 12:28:26 PM
Post by: roadman on April 26, 2017, 12:28:26 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2017, 06:24:30 PM
The kerning is perfectly fine. What's wrong is that they didn't bother to make sure the numbers fit in the damn shield!
I'm gonna kick this one over to the Worst of Road Signs thread, because come on. :P
Looks to me like a classic case of using a SignCAD design verbatim instead of correcting the letter height of the route number.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on April 26, 2017, 08:48:20 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on April 26, 2017, 08:48:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 26, 2017, 12:11:39 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2017, 04:39:18 AM
I'm pretty sure H.B. wants states to have the right to post signs done in MS Word 97, complete with WordArt text and system-default clip art, because he feels the state's rights are more important than either form or function.
Just because they have the right to, doesn't mean they will.
Every right you grant to state DOTs gets granted to OkDOT.
Yes, yes they will.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on April 26, 2017, 09:09:39 PM
Post by: jakeroot on April 26, 2017, 09:09:39 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2017, 08:48:20 PMQuote from: jakeroot on April 26, 2017, 12:11:39 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2017, 04:39:18 AM
I'm pretty sure H.B. wants states to have the right to post signs done in MS Word 97, complete with WordArt text and system-default clip art, because he feels the state's rights are more important than either form or function.
Just because they have the right to, doesn't mean they will.
Every right you grant to state DOTs gets granted to OkDOT.
Yes, yes they will.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freplygif.net%2Fi%2F101.gif&hash=e9e23756d713a25223ba00fce0687d963d85e9be)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on April 26, 2017, 10:13:30 PM
Post by: hbelkins on April 26, 2017, 10:13:30 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2017, 04:39:18 AM
I'm pretty sure H.B. wants states to have the right to post signs done in MS Word 97, complete with WordArt text and system-default clip art, because he feels the state's rights are more important than either form or function.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfyPUdfj.png&hash=18568bd7969172562e0ce7cc38e384b0b9b35302)
Fig. 1: This sign would be perfectly OK with H.B., as long as the Feds had nothing to do with it.
If you're going to pick at me, at least do it using a city in Kentucky, not southern Indiana. :bigass:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on April 27, 2017, 12:06:24 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on April 27, 2017, 12:06:24 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2017, 10:13:30 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2017, 04:39:18 AM
I'm pretty sure H.B. wants states to have the right to post signs done in MS Word 97, complete with WordArt text and system-default clip art, because he feels the state's rights are more important than either form or function.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfyPUdfj.png&hash=18568bd7969172562e0ce7cc38e384b0b9b35302)
Fig. 1: This sign would be perfectly OK with H.B., as long as the Feds had nothing to do with it.
If you're going to pick at me, at least do it using a city in Kentucky, not southern Indiana. :bigass:
I'm pretty sure I picked the right city. ;)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on April 27, 2017, 11:26:38 AM
Post by: J N Winkler on April 27, 2017, 11:26:38 AM
Quote from: roadman on April 26, 2017, 12:28:26 PMLooks to me like a classic case of using a SignCAD design verbatim instead of correcting the letter height of the route number.
I had the same reaction (I have probably hundreds of sheets with the same error), but I also wondered how they could get the number to "bleed" out of the shield without creating a lot of extra work for themselves in fabrication. My rather naïve idea of how signs are manufactured (I just collect the plans and make my own designs for fun, and don't actually make real signs) is that the numbers are put on a cut-out shield using process ink, and the shield is then direct-applied to the sign background. Numbers bleeding out of the shield would seem to require at least one additional step to apply the bled-out parts to the green background, taking care to ensure they are aligned with the parts inside the shield.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 27, 2017, 11:31:17 AM
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 27, 2017, 11:31:17 AM
All my experience with signs (just collecting and observing them) suggests that black digits are usually cut out from vinyl that has adhesive on the back. These would then be applied over the top of whatever else was printed beneath–in this case, shields that were printed too small for the intended digits.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on May 10, 2017, 05:32:57 PM
Post by: formulanone on May 10, 2017, 05:32:57 PM
Crazy Eight(s) on LA 182 in Sunset, Louisiana:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4179/34159403200_f3e9b8e655_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/U3xStA)
(There was a second one ahead of this for the JCT sign.)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4179/34159403200_f3e9b8e655_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/U3xStA)
(There was a second one ahead of this for the JCT sign.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 17, 2017, 09:52:12 AM
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 17, 2017, 09:52:12 AM
It's not even a diagonal intersection...why did they slant the symbology
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4160/34553685022_0ff3a83c8a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UDoEJ3)
20160412_082013 (https://flic.kr/p/UDoEJ3) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4160/34553685022_0ff3a83c8a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UDoEJ3)
20160412_082013 (https://flic.kr/p/UDoEJ3) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on May 17, 2017, 02:51:39 PM
Post by: tckma on May 17, 2017, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 17, 2017, 09:52:12 AM
It's not even a diagonal intersection...why did they slant the symbology
My guess is they printed it wrong, as if it were a rectangle sign, and didn't want to mount it as a rectangle sign since it should be a diamond sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on May 17, 2017, 07:09:44 PM
Post by: tckma on May 17, 2017, 07:09:44 PM
What's up with the mixed fonts on this sign?
(https://i.imgur.com/RRrHNM2.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/RRrHNM2.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 19, 2017, 10:45:42 AM
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 19, 2017, 10:45:42 AM
New Lenox, IL doesn't understand how signs work. HOW CAN YOU HAVE 'BETWEEN SIGNS' IF THIS SIGN IS IN THE MIDDLE :-D :-D :-D :pan: :pan: :pan:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3810/33394350171_f82f2833cf_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SSWLS8)
2017-03-18_10-27-39 (https://flic.kr/p/SSWLS8) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3810/33394350171_f82f2833cf_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SSWLS8)
2017-03-18_10-27-39 (https://flic.kr/p/SSWLS8) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadman on May 19, 2017, 11:40:22 AM
Post by: roadman on May 19, 2017, 11:40:22 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 27, 2017, 11:26:38 AMLater versions of SignCAD include a function that allows the panel design to be sent directly to the sign shop's cutter. So it is conceivable that the numerals were cut and applied exactly according to the SignCAD drawing, because that's the information that the sign shop used. Another example of GIGO (garbage in-garbage out).Quote from: roadman on April 26, 2017, 12:28:26 PMLooks to me like a classic case of using a SignCAD design verbatim instead of correcting the letter height of the route number.
I had the same reaction (I have probably hundreds of sheets with the same error), but I also wondered how they could get the number to "bleed" out of the shield without creating a lot of extra work for themselves in fabrication. My rather naïve idea of how signs are manufactured (I just collect the plans and make my own designs for fun, and don't actually make real signs) is that the numbers are put on a cut-out shield using process ink, and the shield is then direct-applied to the sign background. Numbers bleeding out of the shield would seem to require at least one additional step to apply the bled-out parts to the green background, taking care to ensure they are aligned with the parts inside the shield.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on June 03, 2017, 02:25:10 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 03, 2017, 02:25:10 AM
Good news, fans of this thread! Oklahoma is attempting APLs now!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBIxVhLW.jpg&hash=8142de89bdd755eaf179fb2a324769e339741e2c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBIxVhLW.jpg&hash=8142de89bdd755eaf179fb2a324769e339741e2c)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on June 03, 2017, 03:20:10 AM
Post by: jakeroot on June 03, 2017, 03:20:10 AM
"EXIT ONLY" really should be white-on-black. It's regulatory, not warning.
That said, not bad for a first attempt. I was expecting perhaps one too many arrows, maybe some wonky letters. :clap:
That said, not bad for a first attempt. I was expecting perhaps one too many arrows, maybe some wonky letters. :clap:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on June 03, 2017, 04:19:46 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 03, 2017, 04:19:46 AM
Well, there are some wonky letters. Note the kerning in 'City'. And the right half of the sign isn't horizontally centered. Maybe it's a metaphor for the relationship between Oklahoma City and Dallas.
Unfortunately, the picture makes it difficult to tell that the sign is bolted on the gantry at an angle (one end of the sign is higher than the other).
Cleaned up, easier to see version:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDLzz1KL.jpg&hash=1479e4f133ccfd90736553b5e487766dd16aa1f1)
Also of note: another recently-posted sign in this project, which I didn't take a picture of since I first saw it at night, features a diagonally compressed arrow. Ah, OkDOT.
Unfortunately, the picture makes it difficult to tell that the sign is bolted on the gantry at an angle (one end of the sign is higher than the other).
Cleaned up, easier to see version:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDLzz1KL.jpg&hash=1479e4f133ccfd90736553b5e487766dd16aa1f1)
Also of note: another recently-posted sign in this project, which I didn't take a picture of since I first saw it at night, features a diagonally compressed arrow. Ah, OkDOT.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 14, 2017, 08:55:26 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 14, 2017, 08:55:26 PM
Spotted these in Hartselle, AL...
Apparently this section of Kimbough Street was annexed by Australia:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4239/35757429052_b434d741d6_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WtLaTs)Australian Two-Way Traffic? (https://flic.kr/p/WtLaTs) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4301/35795662431_3e932c8888_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Wx98kD)Australian Two-Way Traffic? (https://flic.kr/p/Wx98kD) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
And then this one sign for this Recreational Center has "center" spelled as "CENTR", don't know why they didn't bother correcting it since all of the other signs have "CENTER" spelled correctly...
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4298/35087711754_35abb0e446_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VszGgu)CENTR (https://flic.kr/p/VszGgu) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Apparently this section of Kimbough Street was annexed by Australia:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4239/35757429052_b434d741d6_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WtLaTs)Australian Two-Way Traffic? (https://flic.kr/p/WtLaTs) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4301/35795662431_3e932c8888_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Wx98kD)Australian Two-Way Traffic? (https://flic.kr/p/Wx98kD) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
And then this one sign for this Recreational Center has "center" spelled as "CENTR", don't know why they didn't bother correcting it since all of the other signs have "CENTER" spelled correctly...
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4298/35087711754_35abb0e446_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VszGgu)CENTR (https://flic.kr/p/VszGgu) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignGeek101 on July 14, 2017, 09:08:25 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on July 14, 2017, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 14, 2017, 08:55:26 PM
And then this one sign for this Recreational Center has "center" spelled as "CENTR", don't know why they didn't bother correcting it since all of the other signs have "CENTER" spelled correctly...
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4298/35087711754_35abb0e446_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VszGgu)CENTR (https://flic.kr/p/VszGgu) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Maybe they were trying to spell "Centre" the British/Canadian way and simply forgot the 'e' at the end :bigass:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 14, 2017, 09:13:22 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 14, 2017, 09:13:22 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on July 14, 2017, 09:08:25 PMWell, all of the others are spelled "Center", but this is Hartselle we're talking about here, so...Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 14, 2017, 08:55:26 PM
And then this one sign for this Recreational Center has "center" spelled as "CENTR", don't know why they didn't bother correcting it since all of the other signs have "CENTER" spelled correctly...
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4298/35087711754_35abb0e446_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VszGgu)CENTR (https://flic.kr/p/VszGgu) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Maybe they were trying to spell "Centre" the British/Canadian way and simply forgot the 'e' at the end :bigass:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JJBers on July 14, 2017, 09:40:19 PM
Post by: JJBers on July 14, 2017, 09:40:19 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 14, 2017, 09:13:22 PMMaybe they forgot dot at the end or Centr.Quote from: SignGeek101 on July 14, 2017, 09:08:25 PMWell, all of the others are spelled "Center", but this is Hartselle we're talking about here, so...Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 14, 2017, 08:55:26 PM
And then this one sign for this Recreational Center has "center" spelled as "CENTR", don't know why they didn't bother correcting it since all of the other signs have "CENTER" spelled correctly...
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4298/35087711754_35abb0e446_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VszGgu)CENTR (https://flic.kr/p/VszGgu) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Maybe they were trying to spell "Centre" the British/Canadian way and simply forgot the 'e' at the end :bigass:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Billy F 1988 on July 18, 2017, 08:06:15 PM
Post by: Billy F 1988 on July 18, 2017, 08:06:15 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 27, 2017, 09:55:14 PM
ban this sick filth
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2906/33561665501_834d07f31e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T8JiTc)
20170327_091406 (https://flic.kr/p/T8JiTc) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
:-D Say what, now? Okay, I can get having NPZ pennants on major highways, but this? In a residential area? Bruh! A simple Do Not Pass would suffice better.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cjk374 on July 19, 2017, 06:54:17 PM
Post by: cjk374 on July 19, 2017, 06:54:17 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on July 18, 2017, 08:06:15 PMQuote from: paulthemapguy on March 27, 2017, 09:55:14 PM
ban this sick filth
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2906/33561665501_834d07f31e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T8JiTc)
20170327_091406 (https://flic.kr/p/T8JiTc) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
:-D Say what, now? Okay, I can get having NPZ pennants on major highways, but this? In a residential area? Bruh! A simple Do Not Pass would suffice better.
Maybe there was a 2-for-1 sale on the pennants. :pan: :sombrero:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on July 21, 2017, 12:49:25 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on July 21, 2017, 12:49:25 PM
The pennant looks more like a yellow yield sign blank turned 90 degrees.
Regarding black numerals being applied later to a sign, that could explain the sign on US 30 west of Upper Sandusky a few years ago that had a totally blank Ohio shield that should have had "37" inside it. Must have left the shop without sticking the numerals on.....
Somewhere I have a photo of it.
Regarding black numerals being applied later to a sign, that could explain the sign on US 30 west of Upper Sandusky a few years ago that had a totally blank Ohio shield that should have had "37" inside it. Must have left the shop without sticking the numerals on.....
Somewhere I have a photo of it.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on July 21, 2017, 01:29:19 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on July 21, 2017, 01:29:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 03, 2017, 04:19:46 AMCleaned up, easier to see version:Use of Series E for numerals on the I-shields; something one usually doesn't see post-button-copy.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDLzz1KL.jpg&hash=1479e4f133ccfd90736553b5e487766dd16aa1f1)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 22, 2017, 05:48:45 PM
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 22, 2017, 05:48:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 03, 2017, 04:19:46 AM
Well, there are some wonky letters. Note the kerning in 'City'. And the right half of the sign isn't horizontally centered. Maybe it's a metaphor for the relationship between Oklahoma City and Dallas.
Unfortunately, the picture makes it difficult to tell that the sign is bolted on the gantry at an angle (one end of the sign is higher than the other).
Cleaned up, easier to see version:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDLzz1KL.jpg&hash=1479e4f133ccfd90736553b5e487766dd16aa1f1)
Also of note: another recently-posted sign in this project, which I didn't take a picture of since I first saw it at night, features a diagonally compressed arrow. Ah, OkDOT.
Looks like whoever created the infamous Craig County (and its companion Mayes County) sign is slowly...SLOWLY...learning how to make signs.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: national highway 1 on August 05, 2017, 02:38:21 AM
Post by: national highway 1 on August 05, 2017, 02:38:21 AM
The vertical alignment of these shields on a sign in Melbourne, Australia, seems a bit off.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressway.online%2Fgallery%2Froads%2Fvic%2Fnumbered%2Fmetropolitanroutes%2Fmr83%2Fwestbound%2Fimages%2F201601_04_fitzroy_georgest_robtilley.jpg&hash=488e4b94afc681affcb0fb01bc38ef2ddfea3ba4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressway.online%2Fgallery%2Froads%2Fvic%2Fnumbered%2Fmetropolitanroutes%2Fmr83%2Fwestbound%2Fimages%2F201601_04_fitzroy_georgest_robtilley.jpg&hash=488e4b94afc681affcb0fb01bc38ef2ddfea3ba4)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 17, 2017, 03:19:23 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 17, 2017, 03:19:23 PM
Hahaha, this is a brand-new sign, too.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4268/34144095053_11f2d523aa_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/U2cpU2)
IL-390X07ER (https://flic.kr/p/U2cpU2) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4268/34144095053_11f2d523aa_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/U2cpU2)
IL-390X07ER (https://flic.kr/p/U2cpU2) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cjk374 on August 17, 2017, 07:11:27 PM
Post by: cjk374 on August 17, 2017, 07:11:27 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 17, 2017, 03:19:23 PM
Hahaha, this is a brand-new sign, too.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4268/34144095053_11f2d523aa_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/U2cpU2)
IL-390X07ER (https://flic.kr/p/U2cpU2) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
This spelling will keep people from adding the "ess" sound where it is most unwelcome. :-D :pan: :clap:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on August 17, 2017, 08:39:53 PM
Post by: tckma on August 17, 2017, 08:39:53 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 17, 2017, 03:19:23 PM
Hahaha, this is a brand-new sign, too.
"Illinois: Please don't pronounce the 'S'."
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on August 18, 2017, 02:12:03 AM
Post by: jakeroot on August 18, 2017, 02:12:03 AM
Are the numbers normally pushed to the edge like ^that^? Seems to be another blunder (although that alone would not qualify it for "worst-of").
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on August 18, 2017, 02:17:45 AM
Post by: jakeroot on August 18, 2017, 02:17:45 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 05, 2017, 02:38:21 AM
The vertical alignment of these shields on a sign in Melbourne, Australia, seems a bit off.
http://www.expressway.online/gallery/roads/vic/numbered/metropolitanroutes/mr83/westbound/images/201601_04_fitzroy_georgest_robtilley.jpg
Is it normal to see a "City" designation on guide signs down under? (Perhaps it's an equivalent to our "Downtown" or "City Center").
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 18, 2017, 10:08:45 AM
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 18, 2017, 10:08:45 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 18, 2017, 02:12:03 AM
Are the numbers normally pushed to the edge like ^that^? Seems to be another blunder (although that alone would not qualify it for "worst-of").
This sign, unlike all other state highway shields in Illinois, was furnished by the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (a separate entity from IDOT, in case you didn't know). Every other toll highway in Illinois is an Interstate--the ISTHA has no experience with state highway shields up until the recent designation of IL-390. So this oddly-proportioned sign is the result of some improvisation at the sign shop, no doubt. :D Though, ISTHA's Interstate shields usually look pretty distinctive from IDOT's, in the first place.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on August 18, 2017, 08:26:18 PM
Post by: SignBridge on August 18, 2017, 08:26:18 PM
Ironic how some of these toll road authorities can't get signing done right, unlike state DOT's. NY Thruway Authority is famous for signing that's always a little out-of-step too, while New York State DOT gets it reasonably right. On the other hand the NJ Turnpike Authority had an excellent sign system all their own.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Quillz on August 18, 2017, 09:57:40 PM
Post by: Quillz on August 18, 2017, 09:57:40 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 05, 2017, 02:38:21 AMSeems they went for a flush bottom alignment, so it's "correct" in that sense, even though aesthetically, center aligning the elements would be better. Either way, I don't find that sign all that ugly looking. It certainly could have turned out much worse.
The vertical alignment of these shields on a sign in Melbourne, Australia, seems a bit off.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressway.online%2Fgallery%2Froads%2Fvic%2Fnumbered%2Fmetropolitanroutes%2Fmr83%2Fwestbound%2Fimages%2F201601_04_fitzroy_georgest_robtilley.jpg&hash=488e4b94afc681affcb0fb01bc38ef2ddfea3ba4)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 7/8 on August 25, 2017, 08:50:05 PM
Post by: 7/8 on August 25, 2017, 08:50:05 PM
This was taken on Formosa Gardens Blvd at US 192 in the Orlando area. The I-4 shield incorrectly uses black-on-white "to" and arrow tabs.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FziqJCqF.jpg&hash=92331324c8aff8dfa1917bd2943003ebf5930c61)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FziqJCqF.jpg&hash=92331324c8aff8dfa1917bd2943003ebf5930c61)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cjk374 on August 26, 2017, 06:49:07 AM
Post by: cjk374 on August 26, 2017, 06:49:07 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on August 25, 2017, 08:50:05 PM
This was taken on Formosa Gardens Blvd at US 192 in the Orlando area. The I-4 shield incorrectly uses black-on-white "to" and arrow tabs.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FziqJCqF.jpg&hash=92331324c8aff8dfa1917bd2943003ebf5930c61)
Back in the day, that was the norm back when interstates were first created.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/772/21241868492_4a018853b3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/yn58rW)Near downtown Grambling, LA. (https://flic.kr/p/yn58rW) by Jess Kilgore (https://www.flickr.com/photos/130771900@N08/), on Flickr
This sign, with a 1964 date on the back (hard to read), does show a blue arrow, but a white & black (& short) TO banner. I have always liked the short TO banners, especially over interstate shields.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on August 27, 2017, 01:57:20 PM
Post by: jbnv on August 27, 2017, 01:57:20 PM
The white-on-black arrows isn't a design error. The 4 may be, though.
Quote from: 7/8 on August 25, 2017, 08:50:05 PM
This was taken on Formosa Gardens Blvd at US 192 in the Orlando area. The I-4 shield incorrectly uses black-on-white "to" and arrow tabs.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FziqJCqF.jpg&hash=92331324c8aff8dfa1917bd2943003ebf5930c61)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on August 27, 2017, 02:25:35 PM
Post by: jakeroot on August 27, 2017, 02:25:35 PM
Quote from: jbnv on August 27, 2017, 01:57:20 PMQuote from: 7/8 on August 25, 2017, 08:50:05 PM
This was taken on Formosa Gardens Blvd at US 192 in the Orlando area. The I-4 shield incorrectly uses black-on-white "to" and arrow tabs.
http://i.imgur.com/ziqJCqF.jpg
The white-on-black arrows isn't a design error. The 4 may be, though.
We don't really know for sure if the design called for white-on-black banners, or if the contractor erroneously installed them. But either way, it is a mistake, and I think this is the best thread for such.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Quillz on August 27, 2017, 02:36:41 PM
Post by: Quillz on August 27, 2017, 02:36:41 PM
Not a real sign, but I was at Jalama Beach yesterday, and they've got for sale replica ("WELCOME TO") signs with US-1 shields. Even though Jalama Beach would be closer to US-101, and isn't even on CA-1, but rather via an access road that branches off CA-1.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: rlb2024 on August 27, 2017, 06:12:49 PM
Post by: rlb2024 on August 27, 2017, 06:12:49 PM
I brought this up in another thread, and I'm not sure if it's covered elsewhere, but I saw a state-named shield Friday . . . for an interstate that's not even in that state. Getting onto I-10 westbound at Exit 2 in Mississippi (from MS 607) there were a couple of "To I-12" signs -- with the Mississippi state name on the I-12 shield. The signs must be new, as the GSV image for that interchange is dated November 2016 and all of the signs were neutered then. Wish I had gotten a picture . . .
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on August 27, 2017, 07:00:46 PM
Post by: formulanone on August 27, 2017, 07:00:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2017, 02:25:35 PMQuote from: jbnv on August 27, 2017, 01:57:20 PMQuote from: 7/8 on August 25, 2017, 08:50:05 PM
This was taken on Formosa Gardens Blvd at US 192 in the Orlando area. The I-4 shield incorrectly uses black-on-white "to" and arrow tabs.
http://i.imgur.com/ziqJCqF.jpg
The white-on-black arrows isn't a design error. The 4 may be, though.
We don't really know for sure if the design called for white-on-black banners, or if the contractor erroneously installed them. But either way, it is a mistake, and I think this is the best thread for such.
Formosa Gardens wasn't constructed all that long ago, so I think it's a contracting or design error, than a holdover from a time when Florida used white directional banners/arrows on everything.
Happens all the time with CR shields in place of the state roads:
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6145/5962248551_4fbcb39351_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/a5S5LP)
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6006/5962248825_e25eb0297d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/a5S5Rx)
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8583/28524200712_a8410e1373_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KszZ71)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on August 27, 2017, 07:26:38 PM
Post by: jakeroot on August 27, 2017, 07:26:38 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 27, 2017, 07:00:46 PMQuote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2017, 02:25:35 PMQuote from: jbnv on August 27, 2017, 01:57:20 PMQuote from: 7/8 on August 25, 2017, 08:50:05 PM
This was taken on Formosa Gardens Blvd at US 192 in the Orlando area. The I-4 shield incorrectly uses black-on-white "to" and arrow tabs.
http://i.imgur.com/ziqJCqF.jpg
The white-on-black arrows isn't a design error. The 4 may be, though.
We don't really know for sure if the design called for white-on-black banners, or if the contractor erroneously installed them. But either way, it is a mistake, and I think this is the best thread for such.
Formosa Gardens wasn't constructed all that long ago, so I think it's a contracting or design error, than a holdover from a time when Florida used white directional banners/arrows on everything.
Happens all the time with CR shields in place of the state roads:
I quite like the white-on-black banners/arrows, even with interstate/CR shields. Although part of a roadgeek's natural OCD is that all colors must match their shields, part of my OCD wants everything to be same color. I'm lucky I live in the state that I do, since WSDOT almost never (if ever) posts sign salads at intersections. All intersections have guide signs with their respective shields on them, with white-on-green arrows and (sometimes) place names (since it's a guide sign). The only stand-alone shields are re-assurance assemblies. Having two or more reassurance assemblies would require concurrencies, which aren't common here, so seeing anything like what you posted above is incredibly uncommon.
Here's WSDOT's SW region's attempt at a dual-color reassurance assembly:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMJ7oNWR.jpg&hash=17f1a3b498c37cfdfde58426e6dd82f8eed7e0fa)
And here's some typical guide signs at intersections of various routes (used in place of sign salads):
https://goo.gl/9ayHyY -- & -- https://goo.gl/fta2UK -- & -- https://goo.gl/XyDbz9 -- & -- https://goo.gl/QtFrhm -- & -- https://goo.gl/kA9A1w
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Quillz on August 27, 2017, 09:16:34 PM
Post by: Quillz on August 27, 2017, 09:16:34 PM
I've seen those in a few places in Washington, and I actually don't mind them. I still much prefer two cutout shields side-by-side, but since most states don't use them, that implementation is probably one of the cleaner ones I've seen.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 23, 2017, 07:29:46 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 23, 2017, 07:29:46 PM
Sometimes these signs with diagrammatic arrows just aren't a good idea.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4175/33650819924_3a154c8ed8_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgBfoq)
IMG_8269 (https://flic.kr/p/TgBfoq) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4175/33650819924_3a154c8ed8_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TgBfoq)
IMG_8269 (https://flic.kr/p/TgBfoq) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on September 23, 2017, 07:45:26 PM
Post by: SignBridge on September 23, 2017, 07:45:26 PM
The Federal Highway Admin. thought they were so friggin' smart when they mandated this.......... and created a monster.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on September 23, 2017, 11:32:50 PM
Post by: jakeroot on September 23, 2017, 11:32:50 PM
It's an easy fix. Just replace the up arrow on the right with a right arrow.
True. But the monster is due to the MUTCD's tight grip on the design.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 23, 2017, 07:45:26 PM
The Federal Highway Admin. thought they were so friggin' smart when they mandated this.......... and created a monster.
True. But the monster is due to the MUTCD's tight grip on the design.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on September 24, 2017, 07:41:45 PM
Post by: SignBridge on September 24, 2017, 07:41:45 PM
So Jakeroot, do I correctly understand that your thinking is APL signing could work better if the FHWA loosened up the design rules to allow more flexible signing for these oddball situations?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on September 24, 2017, 09:29:15 PM
Post by: jakeroot on September 24, 2017, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 24, 2017, 07:41:45 PM
So Jakeroot, do I correctly understand that your thinking is APL signing could work better if the FHWA loosened up the design rules to allow more flexible signing for these oddball situations?
Correct. There are far too many oddball situations out there for the APL to totally replace the traditional down arrow, at least in its current incarnation. If the FHWA loosened up, and allowed different arrow angles, shields and text to be placed elsewhere, use when there is no option lane, deletion of the redundant "EXIT ONLY" panel, etc, the APL would be a very effective signing solution. Right now, in states that more closely adhere to the MUTCD, you have this mish-mash of up and down arrows. Just from an aesthetic point of view, it looks silly. From a practical standpoint, it would make the most sense to just use one type of arrow.
I think you know just from the "Redesign-this" thread, I have not yet found an interchange that I couldn't adapt to APL. Granted, I have never followed MUTCD specifications, but that's kind of the point.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on September 24, 2017, 10:27:32 PM
Post by: SignBridge on September 24, 2017, 10:27:32 PM
Interesting point-of-view. The FHWA's purpose for APL signing was only for option-lanes. It was to eliminate the practice of having down arrows from two different routes over the same lane. They didn't intend for APL to completely replace down arrows, only for option-lanes. But I understand your point, that APL could be expanded/modified to include other signing situations as well.
It could happen. It'll be interesting to see what if any changes are put into the next edition of the MUTCD. You might get some of your wishes. LOL It's something to eagerly anticipate anyway.
It could happen. It'll be interesting to see what if any changes are put into the next edition of the MUTCD. You might get some of your wishes. LOL It's something to eagerly anticipate anyway.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on September 25, 2017, 12:47:31 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on September 25, 2017, 12:47:31 PM
Maybe instead of pushing APLs in situations where their use is awkward at best, we should investigate other options, like traditional diagrammatics, or even something more Worboys-ish.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on September 25, 2017, 05:25:27 PM
Post by: jakeroot on September 25, 2017, 05:25:27 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 25, 2017, 12:47:31 PM
Maybe instead of pushing APLs in situations where their use is awkward at best, we should investigate other options, like traditional diagrammatics, or even something more Worboys-ish.
I have not yet found a situation where an APL, or a slight modification there-of, wouldn't work better than traditional arrows. If you know of any particular junction near you that you think would be awkward with an APL, please point me to it, and I'll show you how one might work.
Traditional diagrammatics are informative, if not hard to read (due to the lane lines embedded in the arrow). I've suggested in the past that we ought to split the arrow up into several closely-spaced arrows pointing in various directions, but the consensus seemed to be that they were hard to read. They would have looked something like how South Africa signs their motorway junctions: https://goo.gl/7h5Q7J --&-- https://goo.gl/qacn6q. British Columbia has also used a ground-mounted variation of it here: https://goo.gl/rpY7WB
I like the British motorway signs (with the down arrows over each lane, with the relevant guide signs placed appropriately) but the amount of information we often put on our signs could lead to some fantastically large/tall guide signs, perhaps larger than *current* APL signs (which are stupidly large due to regulations).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 25, 2017, 05:34:51 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 25, 2017, 05:34:51 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 23, 2017, 11:32:50 PM
It's an easy fix. Just replace the up arrow on the right with a right arrow.
AND move the sign gantry farther ahead, even just a few hundred feet, so as not to confuse drivers with the adjacent exit.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on September 25, 2017, 06:09:01 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on September 25, 2017, 06:09:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 25, 2017, 05:25:27 PMI-565 eastbound, exits 19A-19C. I'd recommend doing the APLs as potential replacements for this sign:
I have not yet found a situation where an APL, or a slight modification there-of, wouldn't work better than traditional arrows. If you know of any particular junction near you that you think would be awkward with an APL, please point me to it, and I'll show you how one might work.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7245603,-86.6097444,3a,75y,64.59h,88.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1aT9_aEBM1c3A0EN900Wsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
And this sign (though being located right before Exit 19A, rather than on top of it):
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7286601,-86.602161,3a,16.9y,39.07h,91.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sledcFPN_4A0WxOhOoehagg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
No need to stick strictly to the MUTCD, because I'm pretty sure that this would be impossible to do should you try to stick to the MUTCD's guidelines.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on September 25, 2017, 07:24:09 PM
Post by: SignBridge on September 25, 2017, 07:24:09 PM
Well I confess to being an old school sign guy who mostly believes in the MUTCD with some notable exceptions. Those I-565 signs work for me, though I would make a few minor changes. I think converting them to APL would be more confusing, but if Jakeroot wants to take a crack at it, I'm sure it'll be interesting to look at.
Re: the earlier photos of the South Africa signs. Interesting and clear in some cases but not others. Funny, the landscape in those photos looks a lot like Southern California.
Re: the earlier photos of the South Africa signs. Interesting and clear in some cases but not others. Funny, the landscape in those photos looks a lot like Southern California.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on September 25, 2017, 10:39:45 PM
Post by: jakeroot on September 25, 2017, 10:39:45 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 25, 2017, 05:34:51 PMQuote from: jakeroot on September 23, 2017, 11:32:50 PM
It's an easy fix. Just replace the up arrow on the right with a right arrow.
AND move the sign gantry farther ahead, even just a few hundred feet, so as not to confuse drivers with the adjacent exit.
Assuming we have to follow the MUTCD, yes that might be the best course of action. Although the APL has a distance message on it, so I think drivers understand that it's a separate exit.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on September 25, 2017, 06:09:01 PMQuote from: jakeroot on September 25, 2017, 05:25:27 PM
I have not yet found a situation where an APL, or a slight modification there-of, wouldn't work better than traditional arrows. If you know of any particular junction near you that you think would be awkward with an APL, please point me to it, and I'll show you how one might work.
I-565 eastbound, exits 19A-19C. I'd recommend doing the APLs as potential replacements for this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7245603,-86.6097444,3a,75y,64.59h,88.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1aT9_aEBM1c3A0EN900Wsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
And this sign (though being located right before Exit 19A, rather than on top of it):
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7286601,-86.602161,3a,16.9y,39.07h,91.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sledcFPN_4A0WxOhOoehagg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I will post my designs in the "Redesign This" thread.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on September 25, 2017, 11:28:12 PM
Post by: jakeroot on September 25, 2017, 11:28:12 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 25, 2017, 07:24:09 PM
Well I confess to being an old school sign guy who mostly believes in the MUTCD with some notable exceptions. Those I-565 signs work for me, though I would make a few minor changes. I think converting them to APL would be more confusing, but if Jakeroot wants to take a crack at it, I'm sure it'll be interesting to look at.
The way the MUTCD works right now is quite good. There's a way to sign just about anything. My problem with the MUTCD is a lack of consistency. Some signs have down arrows, some have up arrows. Some signs have no arrows at all. I just want a consistent message from sign to sign. I don't know if that's possible with down arrows.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 25, 2017, 07:24:09 PM
Re: the earlier photos of the South Africa signs. Interesting and clear in some cases but not others. Funny, the landscape in those photos looks a lot like Southern California.
It's a testament to how drivers can get used to almost anything given enough time to adjust. South African signs used Highway Gothic at one point (instead of the current German DIN 1451), so besides the blue, it looked even more like California at one point.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on September 26, 2017, 10:53:44 AM
Post by: J N Winkler on September 26, 2017, 10:53:44 AM
In regard to the I-565 signs, the MUTCD would not allow APLs or, for that matter, stippled-arrow diagrammatics, because no option lanes are involved. Exits 19A and 19B are simple diverges, while Exit 19C is a two-lane exit without option lane. The main thing I would change about the existing signs is to add a second downward-pointing arrow to the sign panels for Exit 19C.
I can see why Alabama DOT omits the second arrow on the right--having just one arrow marshals traffic into the left lane for Exit 19C, and so takes it out from behind traffic that is slowing to take Exits 19A and 19B--but it still amounts to not telling motorists the truth about where lanes go, and leads to unnecessary lane changes. For example, the signs can easily fool a driver in the right-hand lane wishing to go south on Jefferson Street (no lane changes required) into changing lanes twice: once to the left to avoid a possible drop at Exit 19A or 19B, and once again to the right to be in the correct lane for the turn south onto Jefferson Street.
I can see why Alabama DOT omits the second arrow on the right--having just one arrow marshals traffic into the left lane for Exit 19C, and so takes it out from behind traffic that is slowing to take Exits 19A and 19B--but it still amounts to not telling motorists the truth about where lanes go, and leads to unnecessary lane changes. For example, the signs can easily fool a driver in the right-hand lane wishing to go south on Jefferson Street (no lane changes required) into changing lanes twice: once to the left to avoid a possible drop at Exit 19A or 19B, and once again to the right to be in the correct lane for the turn south onto Jefferson Street.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 7/8 on October 02, 2017, 10:11:06 PM
Post by: 7/8 on October 02, 2017, 10:11:06 PM
This sign in the parking lot at the Hampton Inn in Dorval, QC misspelled "vehicle" as "vehicule". I didn't even notice the error until my Mom pointed it out.
(https://i.imgur.com/MlKOybi.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/MlKOybi.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on October 07, 2017, 10:08:03 AM
Post by: tckma on October 07, 2017, 10:08:03 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on October 02, 2017, 10:11:06 PM
This sign in the parking lot at the Hampton Inn in Dorval, QC misspelled "vehicle" as "vehicule". I didn't even notice the error until my Mom pointed it out.
Could be a native Canadian French speaker attempting English. Although, they use the French "voiture" which specifically means "car," not "vehicle."
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on November 27, 2017, 11:37:09 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on November 27, 2017, 11:37:09 AM
Thread bump:
Last night, while detouring the traffic-jammed I-90/Mass Pike & US 20 in the Auburn area; I came across this gem (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1515008,-71.8672207,3a,75y,291.41h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srspdTGFEvKt29smul56Ghg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664) along Old Worcester Road in Oxford.
Last night, while detouring the traffic-jammed I-90/Mass Pike & US 20 in the Auburn area; I came across this gem (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1515008,-71.8672207,3a,75y,291.41h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srspdTGFEvKt29smul56Ghg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664) along Old Worcester Road in Oxford.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on December 18, 2017, 05:25:40 PM
Post by: jakeroot on December 18, 2017, 05:25:40 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 18, 2017, 09:23:07 AMQuote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2017, 06:39:52 PM
This one is long gone, but when the McCallum Road Roundabouts were first installed in Abbotsford, BC, the southbound roundabout diagrammatic accidentally labelled both entrances to Hwy 1 as "WEST". I noticed the greenout on the current sign just a couple days ago, so I was curious to see what this relatively-new sign had wrong. Not an error I'm used to seeing. Gone since 2011.
https://goo.gl/jvJ2AZ
https://i.imgur.com/JFGTnbL.png
Unless I'm missing something; there's no design errors on the sign, only erroneous information.
This thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.4250) is better suited for that photo.
I think you're right. I get the two mixed up far too often. I viewed it as a design error initially because they used WEST twice (copy-paste error?) but, because it involves the information, you would be correct. I'll go throw it over there (and delete my post here).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Buck87 on December 28, 2017, 10:35:21 AM
Post by: Buck87 on December 28, 2017, 10:35:21 AM
The y in Sandusky is lined up wrong.
This is at OH 58 in Amherst.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171228/1c15f14a6238644c3a9d2dbb96c67eb4.jpg)
VS988
This is at OH 58 in Amherst.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171228/1c15f14a6238644c3a9d2dbb96c67eb4.jpg)
VS988
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on December 28, 2017, 11:36:57 AM
Post by: kphoger on December 28, 2017, 11:36:57 AM
Quote from: Buck87 on December 28, 2017, 10:35:21 AM
The y in Sandusky is lined up wrong.
This is at OH 58 in Amherst.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171228/1c15f14a6238644c3a9d2dbb96c67eb4.jpg)
Those drive me nuts! We have one like that near me, over in El Dorado (https://goo.gl/maps/oVM43Kbbmpu).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on December 28, 2017, 04:36:15 PM
Post by: SignBridge on December 28, 2017, 04:36:15 PM
Ya' really have to wonder how in heck that can happen. Do people build these things with their eyes closed?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on December 28, 2017, 04:50:54 PM
Post by: jakeroot on December 28, 2017, 04:50:54 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 28, 2017, 04:36:15 PM
Ya' really have to wonder how in heck that can happen. Do people build these things with their eyes closed?
I think these errors can be attributed to either the installer not knowing any better, or, in the designer's case, a misinterpretation of the design standards. That said, the improbability of either of these being the case is probably the reason such errors are relatively unusual.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on December 28, 2017, 05:28:48 PM
Post by: kphoger on December 28, 2017, 05:28:48 PM
Who could possibly think that it's OK for a lowercase y to not descend below the baseline?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on December 28, 2017, 07:18:53 PM
Post by: jakeroot on December 28, 2017, 07:18:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 28, 2017, 05:28:48 PM
Who could possibly think that it's OK for a lowercase y to not descend below the baseline?
It may very well be that they weren't thinking at all.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on December 29, 2017, 02:23:41 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on December 29, 2017, 02:23:41 PM
In the case of the El Dorado example, a lack of willingness to get a bigger sign blank is likely the problem.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kkt on December 29, 2017, 06:14:01 PM
Post by: kkt on December 29, 2017, 06:14:01 PM
Some cheap computer monitors and printers had lowercase letters with descenders up too high like that. Of course, that was in the 1970s.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tckma on December 30, 2017, 01:24:13 AM
Post by: tckma on December 30, 2017, 01:24:13 AM
Driving through Virgilina, VA on the night of 12/27, at the intersection of southbound VA-49 and VA-96, I noticed the center "VA-96" shield was installed upside-down (so that it looked like California's spade rather than Virginia's... whatever the heck shape that is). GMSV at the intersection (I'm on an iPad since I'm still traveling so I'm not sure how to get a link to share) shows the shield installed correctly, but it looks like the road was undergoing some construction the last time the Google Street View camera went through. My guess is that the sign was taken down temporarily and then reinstalled incorrectly. Since the route number (96) looks the same whether the shield is upside down or not, the error went unnoticed (though given that Virginia's state route shield points down, I'm not sure how).
If I go back home that way (which is unlikely) during the daylight hours (also unlikely), I shall try to get a photo. But if someone lives in or near that area, or is driving by that way in the near future, please feel free to take a photo for me instead.
If I go back home that way (which is unlikely) during the daylight hours (also unlikely), I shall try to get a photo. But if someone lives in or near that area, or is driving by that way in the near future, please feel free to take a photo for me instead.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on January 22, 2018, 07:18:53 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on January 22, 2018, 07:18:53 PM
As formulanone has stated, the AL 279 shield posted earlier in the thread ain't the only one that has the numbers going past the shield. Here's the other sign on AL 255 here in Huntsville, AL:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4626/38946986605_31b08be6d2_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22kBue4)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/22kBue4) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4621/25972574368_ec7edc9e1d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eum)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eum) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4757/25972574778_7c302fe9f7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eBq)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eBq) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4712/25972574618_af3146ebf6_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eyE)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eyE) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4750/38946986815_655d78d4e4_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22kBuhF)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/22kBuhF) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Also, this sign just to the north of it (on the other side of AL 53) is still here. I had previously thought that the shields were demountable and the I-565 shield was just tacked-on afterwards, but it appears that it was actually made this way, as they're all printed on there! How ALDOT ever approved this and put it up without noticing this glaring error is beyond me:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4770/38946986455_dd8819dc5a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22kBubt)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/22kBubt) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4769/25972574168_9b9b2d839d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eqU)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eqU) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4711/38946986225_a0c40cbb69_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22kBu7v)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/22kBu7v) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4626/38946986605_31b08be6d2_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22kBue4)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/22kBue4) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4621/25972574368_ec7edc9e1d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eum)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eum) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4757/25972574778_7c302fe9f7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eBq)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eBq) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4712/25972574618_af3146ebf6_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eyE)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eyE) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4750/38946986815_655d78d4e4_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22kBuhF)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/22kBuhF) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Also, this sign just to the north of it (on the other side of AL 53) is still here. I had previously thought that the shields were demountable and the I-565 shield was just tacked-on afterwards, but it appears that it was actually made this way, as they're all printed on there! How ALDOT ever approved this and put it up without noticing this glaring error is beyond me:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4770/38946986455_dd8819dc5a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22kBubt)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/22kBubt) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4769/25972574168_9b9b2d839d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eqU)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/Fz7eqU) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4711/38946986225_a0c40cbb69_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22kBu7v)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/22kBu7v) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US 89 on January 22, 2018, 07:57:18 PM
Post by: US 89 on January 22, 2018, 07:57:18 PM
Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head, all within a few miles of each other.
-First, there's this one, with series B numbers used against a 3-digit background...on a 2-digit route! (https://goo.gl/maps/CTb3giiHDTz) There are several others just like this one in the immediate area.
-The arrows on here just seem a little bit too long to me. (https://goo.gl/maps/dcXtmb85D5p)
-And finally, this sign, featuring the biggest down arrows ever. (https://goo.gl/maps/Wp9YAkyK63A2)
EDIT: fixed second link.
-First, there's this one, with series B numbers used against a 3-digit background...on a 2-digit route! (https://goo.gl/maps/CTb3giiHDTz) There are several others just like this one in the immediate area.
-The arrows on here just seem a little bit too long to me. (https://goo.gl/maps/dcXtmb85D5p)
-And finally, this sign, featuring the biggest down arrows ever. (https://goo.gl/maps/Wp9YAkyK63A2)
EDIT: fixed second link.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Big John on January 22, 2018, 08:10:11 PM
Post by: Big John on January 22, 2018, 08:10:11 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on January 22, 2018, 07:57:18 PMThe first post looks like series C numbers. And check your links as the 2nd and 3rd links are the same.
Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head, all within a few miles of each other.
First, there's this one, with series B numbers used against a 3-digit background...on a 2-digit route! (https://goo.gl/maps/CTb3giiHDTz) There are several others just like this one in the immediate area.
The arrows on here just seem a little bit too long to me. (https://goo.gl/maps/Wp9YAkyK63A2)
And finally, this sign, featuring the biggest down arrows ever. (https://goo.gl/maps/Wp9YAkyK63A2)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on January 22, 2018, 09:09:10 PM
Post by: formulanone on January 22, 2018, 09:09:10 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on January 22, 2018, 07:18:53 PM
As formulanone has stated, the AL 279 shield posted earlier in the thread ain't the only one that has the numbers going past the shield. Here's the other sign on AL 255 here in Huntsville, AL:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4626/38946986605_31b08be6d2_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22kBue4)Erroneous Signage (https://flic.kr/p/22kBue4) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(I've been meaning to post that for about forever-and-a-half, but can't seem to find it in my mess of images.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US 89 on January 22, 2018, 10:05:05 PM
Post by: US 89 on January 22, 2018, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: Big John on January 22, 2018, 08:10:11 PMQuote from: roadguy2 on January 22, 2018, 07:57:18 PMThe first post looks like series C numbers. And check your links as the 2nd and 3rd links are the same.
Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head, all within a few miles of each other.
First, there's this one, with series B numbers used against a 3-digit background...on a 2-digit route! (https://goo.gl/maps/CTb3giiHDTz) There are several others just like this one in the immediate area.
The arrows on here just seem a little bit too long to me. (https://goo.gl/maps/Wp9YAkyK63A2)
And finally, this sign, featuring the biggest down arrows ever. (https://goo.gl/maps/Wp9YAkyK63A2)
Fixed.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: HTM Duke on March 09, 2018, 06:57:07 PM
Post by: HTM Duke on March 09, 2018, 06:57:07 PM
A shame, given that it is an older white border shield, but Alexandria apparently shaved the crown of an I-shield and used it as a state shield:
https://goo.gl/maps/WXHTPdzZcmT2
This sign also has a southbound counterpart, installed last year:
https://goo.gl/maps/cwYmNVAjjLu
Another one with the same problem, but no white border this time:
https://goo.gl/maps/qW9i1jqycnr
https://goo.gl/maps/WXHTPdzZcmT2
This sign also has a southbound counterpart, installed last year:
https://goo.gl/maps/cwYmNVAjjLu
Another one with the same problem, but no white border this time:
https://goo.gl/maps/qW9i1jqycnr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: freebrickproductions on March 09, 2018, 08:48:48 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on March 09, 2018, 08:48:48 PM
Quote from: HTM Duke on March 09, 2018, 06:57:07 PMThat, or they're based on the Australian State Route shield:
A shame, given that it is an older white border shield, but Alexandria apparently shaved the crown of an I-shield and used it as a state shield:
https://goo.gl/maps/WXHTPdzZcmT2
This sign also has a southbound counterpart, installed last year:
https://goo.gl/maps/cwYmNVAjjLu
Another one with the same problem, but no white border this time:
https://goo.gl/maps/qW9i1jqycnr
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Australian_state_route_66.svg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on March 10, 2018, 12:22:00 PM
Post by: hbelkins on March 10, 2018, 12:22:00 PM
I've seen that frequently in Virginia.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on April 03, 2018, 11:57:48 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on April 03, 2018, 11:57:48 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/5DgirqM.jpg)
There's some guy at OkDOT that really likes Series B a whole lot more than he should. Series B Billy Bob was allowed to make this knockdown replacement gore point. It appears the X was put on upside down for some reason. At least he remembered where OkDOT keeps the real Type A arrow outline!
There's some guy at OkDOT that really likes Series B a whole lot more than he should. Series B Billy Bob was allowed to make this knockdown replacement gore point. It appears the X was put on upside down for some reason. At least he remembered where OkDOT keeps the real Type A arrow outline!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Life in Paradise on April 04, 2018, 09:11:35 AM
Post by: Life in Paradise on April 04, 2018, 09:11:35 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 03, 2018, 11:57:48 PMAlso would appear that they could have made the exit "107" rather than "106".
(https://i.imgur.com/5DgirqM.jpg)
There's some guy at OkDOT that really likes Series B a whole lot more than he should. Series B Billy Bob was allowed to make this knockdown replacement gore point. It appears the X was put on upside down for some reason. At least he remembered where OkDOT keeps the real Type A arrow outline!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Eth on April 04, 2018, 09:48:39 AM
Post by: Eth on April 04, 2018, 09:48:39 AM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on April 04, 2018, 09:11:35 AM
Also would appear that they could have made the exit "107" rather than "106".
It looks like this is on southbound I-35 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.184428,-97.4926607,3a,75y,222.55h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s32ierlyG1Om2OXzI69t8oQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), which would mean the center of the interchange is at mile 106-point-something. If Oklahoma just rounds down by default to assign exit numbers, 106 is perfectly fine.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on April 04, 2018, 09:52:50 AM
Post by: thenetwork on April 04, 2018, 09:52:50 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 03, 2018, 11:57:48 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/5DgirqM.jpg)
There's some guy at OkDOT that really likes Series B a whole lot more than he should. Series B Billy Bob was allowed to make this knockdown replacement gore point. It appears the X was put on upside down for some reason. At least he remembered where OkDOT keeps the real Type A arrow outline!
That "6" looks a tad smaller than it's friends, the "1" and the "0". In other words, in ODOT land, Another Masterpiece in Signage.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on April 04, 2018, 10:13:19 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on April 04, 2018, 10:13:19 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 03, 2018, 11:57:48 PMThose look more like Series C to me.
(https://i.imgur.com/5DgirqM.jpg)
There's some guy at OkDOT that really likes Series B a whole lot more than he should. Series B Billy Bob was allowed to make this knockdown replacement gore point. It appears the X was put on upside down for some reason. At least he remembered where OkDOT keeps the real Type A arrow outline!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Eth on April 04, 2018, 11:55:46 AM
Post by: Eth on April 04, 2018, 11:55:46 AM
Agreed. For illustration, Series B at the top, C at the bottom:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2F2018%2Fexit106sign.jpg&hash=f666c748288bdfe47782de14c0edad2974acf83e)
It's the 6 that throws it off and makes it look B-ish, because it's been rotated about 10 degrees clockwise.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2F2018%2Fexit106sign.jpg&hash=f666c748288bdfe47782de14c0edad2974acf83e)
It's the 6 that throws it off and makes it look B-ish, because it's been rotated about 10 degrees clockwise.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on April 04, 2018, 03:22:10 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on April 04, 2018, 03:22:10 PM
Looking at it blown-up like that, it looks like the vertical stroke of the "1" is wider than the horizontal stroke. Which means that this isn't just Series B, it's Series B horizontally stretched to C width. Because of course it is.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Eth on April 04, 2018, 03:44:22 PM
Post by: Eth on April 04, 2018, 03:44:22 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 04, 2018, 03:22:10 PM
Looking at it blown-up like that, it looks like the vertical stroke of the "1" is wider than the horizontal stroke. Which means that this isn't just Series B, it's Series B horizontally stretched to C width. Because of course it is.
You know, I really should have seen that coming. Especially with how often I see things like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2Froadphotos%2Fnumbers%2Fga360.jpg&hash=d861a945ee1d38167a4ea83973a5118c068390e8)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on April 19, 2018, 07:07:37 AM
Post by: formulanone on April 19, 2018, 07:07:37 AM
Found this US Route 49W shield in Drew, Mississippi:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/894/40845641454_bcbbc375a1_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25eoAau)
Wrong shield, wrong font, and they sub-scripted the suffix. Good candidate for Worst of Signs.
Here's a nicer example for comparison:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/915/40845639914_d6edfc2006_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25eozGW)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/894/40845641454_bcbbc375a1_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25eoAau)
Wrong shield, wrong font, and they sub-scripted the suffix. Good candidate for Worst of Signs.
Here's a nicer example for comparison:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/915/40845639914_d6edfc2006_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25eozGW)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on May 10, 2018, 05:55:43 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on May 10, 2018, 05:55:43 PM
How about "wrong angle"? This sign should be facing the road on the left, pointing to the road behind the camera.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/910/41305586924_e1b11bf4b8_c.jpg)
Same sign from farther away (obviously the focus of this photo is on a different sign):
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/944/41305580534_9b78771eca_c.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/910/41305586924_e1b11bf4b8_c.jpg)
Same sign from farther away (obviously the focus of this photo is on a different sign):
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/944/41305580534_9b78771eca_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on May 10, 2018, 09:16:33 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 10, 2018, 09:16:33 PM
Massachusetts right? No explanation needed.........
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on May 30, 2018, 06:23:23 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 30, 2018, 06:23:23 PM
Not sure this is really a "design error", but Boulder should have used "Yield on Flashing Yellow Arrow", instead of "Turning Vehicles Must Yield", since the phasing is protected/permissive, not permissive only.
https://goo.gl/kx3tuy
(https://i.imgur.com/YWsrJnE.png)
https://goo.gl/kx3tuy
(https://i.imgur.com/YWsrJnE.png)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on June 03, 2018, 12:04:06 AM
Post by: PurdueBill on June 03, 2018, 12:04:06 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 30, 2018, 06:23:23 PM
Not sure this is really a "design error", but Boulder should have used "Yield on Flashing Yellow Arrow", instead of "Turning Vehicles Must Yield", since the phasing is protected/permissive, not permissive only.
https://goo.gl/kx3tuy
(https://i.imgur.com/YWsrJnE.png)
Looking at the street view from the past, there used to be two circular RYG signals (one for each turn lane) and the sign made sense then. They probably should have replaced that with TWO four-section signals with FYA, but maybe they were leery of calling attention to the unusual double permissive turns or something.
As it is now set up, the sign is definitely wrong. On a green arrow, you are not in a "must yield" situation.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on June 03, 2018, 02:08:37 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 03, 2018, 02:08:37 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 03, 2018, 12:04:06 AMQuote from: jakeroot on May 30, 2018, 06:23:23 PM
Not sure this is really a "design error", but Boulder should have used "Yield on Flashing Yellow Arrow", instead of "Turning Vehicles Must Yield", since the phasing is protected/permissive, not permissive only.
https://goo.gl/kx3tuy
https://i.imgur.com/YWsrJnE.png
Looking at the street view from the past, there used to be two circular RYG signals (one for each turn lane) and the sign made sense then. They probably should have replaced that with TWO four-section signals with FYA, but maybe they were leery of calling attention to the unusual double permissive turns or something.
As it is now set up, the sign is definitely wrong. On a green arrow, you are not in a "must yield" situation.
Good observation. I will say that the double permissive turn is not unusual in Colorado (particularly common in Boulder) but it is pretty common to have only one overhead left turn head in Colorado (with another on the left mast).
Either way though, the sign is certainly not correct now. I didn't bother to look back into historical street view. I would have modified my original post appropriately. I thought maybe the sign was installed in error, but I see now that it's just left over.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: akotchi on June 10, 2018, 03:01:45 PM
Post by: akotchi on June 10, 2018, 03:01:45 PM
Not sure if this is a "sign with design error" or an "erroneous road sign," but here goes . . .
Located along former I-95 SB, now I-295 NB, when the exit number was changed to 69, the order of the suffixes was not changed. Originally was 7 B-A, should be 69 A-B. NB reference marker provided in foreground to confirm error based on direction on highway.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1738/40908019280_ef269cd0f5_b.jpg)
Located along former I-95 SB, now I-295 NB, when the exit number was changed to 69, the order of the suffixes was not changed. Originally was 7 B-A, should be 69 A-B. NB reference marker provided in foreground to confirm error based on direction on highway.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1738/40908019280_ef269cd0f5_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on July 19, 2018, 12:12:54 PM
Post by: US71 on July 19, 2018, 12:12:54 PM
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1826/41298267520_c45402a665_z_d.jpg)
As part of OKDOT's new exit signs on US 69, they've demoted Business 69 at McAlester to state road status.
As part of OKDOT's new exit signs on US 69, they've demoted Business 69 at McAlester to state road status.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 19, 2018, 03:13:32 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 19, 2018, 03:13:32 PM
Just noticed this; really not a fan of Oklahoma's state highway marker. I wish they'd do it Florida style, and remove the area of the state outline around the numbers. The panhandle gives away which state it is without the bottom edge of the outline.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on July 19, 2018, 05:18:19 PM
Post by: formulanone on July 19, 2018, 05:18:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2018, 03:13:32 PM
Just noticed this; really not a fan of Oklahoma's state highway marker. I wish they'd do it Florida style, and remove the area of the state outline around the numbers. The panhandle gives away which state it is without the bottom edge of the outline.
I'm not sure how much of southwestern Oklahoma you can cut away and still make it look like Oklahoma, unless the design changes to something with a state name on top, or a 50/50 design like Colorado's, but with the outline on top. The other idea would be to make the state outline a different color, but something lighter. Sometimes the state outline is thinner than the numerals, sometimes it's the same thickness.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US 89 on July 19, 2018, 05:23:14 PM
Post by: US 89 on July 19, 2018, 05:23:14 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 19, 2018, 05:18:19 PMQuote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2018, 03:13:32 PM
Just noticed this; really not a fan of Oklahoma's state highway marker. I wish they'd do it Florida style, and remove the area of the state outline around the numbers. The panhandle gives away which state it is without the bottom edge of the outline.
I'm not sure how much of southwestern Oklahoma you can cut away and still make it look like Oklahoma, unless the design changes to something with a state name on top, or a 50/50 design like Colorado's, but with the outline on top. The other idea would be to make the state outline a different color, but something lighter. Sometimes the state outline is thinner than the numerals, sometimes it's the same thickness.
I think most of the problem with the sign above is that the numbers are too thin. I see no reason why they couldn't use Series D, especially because those appear to be 3-digit shields.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on July 19, 2018, 05:25:57 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on July 19, 2018, 05:25:57 PM
I think centering the first digit under the panhandle, and then having the second digit (if there is one) just barely to the right of the due north-south border section, would help.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on July 19, 2018, 05:39:13 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on July 19, 2018, 05:39:13 PM
Quote from: akotchi on June 10, 2018, 03:01:45 PMSuch isn't the first time that's happened. The below-errors have existed since 1992. Apparently, somebody placed the opposite tabs on such.
Not sure if this is a "sign with design error" or an "erroneous road sign," but here goes . . .
Located along former I-95 SB, now I-295 NB, when the exit number was changed to 69, the order of the suffixes was not changed. Originally was 7 B-A, should be 69 A-B. NB reference marker provided in foreground to confirm error based on direction on highway.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1738/40908019280_ef269cd0f5_b.jpg)
Along I-95 southbound (the main button-copy panel is circa 1985)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fpennsylvania%2Fimages%2Fpa420bgs90812.jpg&hash=19f649b240c1af98dcb5ca2cc35256658382e69e)
Along I-95 northbound (prior to 2001, a 95 NORTH Philadelphia pull-through BGS w/3 downward arrows was where the advance Exit 13 BGS is presently)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crosscountryroads.com%2Fimages%2Fpennsylvania%2Fi95nb%2FIMG_6536.JPG&hash=fbeaa1e120852a3046b10487fb414c3c42047462)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 19, 2018, 06:50:43 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 19, 2018, 06:50:43 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 19, 2018, 05:18:19 PMQuote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2018, 03:13:32 PM
Just noticed this; really not a fan of Oklahoma's state highway marker. I wish they'd do it Florida style, and remove the area of the state outline around the numbers. The panhandle gives away which state it is without the bottom edge of the outline.
I'm not sure how much of southwestern Oklahoma you can cut away and still make it look like Oklahoma, unless the design changes to something with a state name on top, or a 50/50 design like Colorado's, but with the outline on top. The other idea would be to make the state outline a different color, but something lighter. Sometimes the state outline is thinner than the numerals, sometimes it's the same thickness.
I mean, it's the only state that looks like a meat cleaver. Even cutting away a section of SW Oklahoma would still give it away.
I'm tempted to try and cram in a state name in the panhandle, but it would be too busy. Maybe just the abbreviation? Like "OKLA".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on July 19, 2018, 10:36:19 PM
Post by: US71 on July 19, 2018, 10:36:19 PM
Quote from: US 89 on July 19, 2018, 05:23:14 PM
I think most of the problem with the sign above is that the numbers are too thin. I see no reason why they couldn't use Series D, especially because those appear to be 3-digit shields.
Is this better? :bigass:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1786/42204534835_42a6cd6a6c_z_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: plain on July 19, 2018, 11:47:13 PM
Post by: plain on July 19, 2018, 11:47:13 PM
Quote from: US71 on July 19, 2018, 10:36:19 PMQuote from: US 89 on July 19, 2018, 05:23:14 PM
I think most of the problem with the sign above is that the numbers are too thin. I see no reason why they couldn't use Series D, especially because those appear to be 3-digit shields.
Is this better? :bigass:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1786/42204534835_42a6cd6a6c_z_d.jpg)
Please tell me that's Photoshop!!! :banghead:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on July 19, 2018, 11:53:57 PM
Post by: US71 on July 19, 2018, 11:53:57 PM
Quote from: plain on July 19, 2018, 11:47:13 PMQuote from: US71 on July 19, 2018, 10:36:19 PMQuote from: US 89 on July 19, 2018, 05:23:14 PM
I think most of the problem with the sign above is that the numbers are too thin. I see no reason why they couldn't use Series D, especially because those appear to be 3-digit shields.
Is this better? :bigass:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1786/42204534835_42a6cd6a6c_z_d.jpg)
Please tell me that's Photoshop!!! :banghead:
No. It's legit. Only one to my knowledge.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: cjk374 on July 22, 2018, 10:32:08 AM
Post by: cjk374 on July 22, 2018, 10:32:08 AM
Quote from: US71 on July 19, 2018, 11:53:57 PMQuote from: plain on July 19, 2018, 11:47:13 PMQuote from: US71 on July 19, 2018, 10:36:19 PMQuote from: US 89 on July 19, 2018, 05:23:14 PM
I think most of the problem with the sign above is that the numbers are too thin. I see no reason why they couldn't use Series D, especially because those appear to be 3-digit shields.
Is this better? :bigass:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1786/42204534835_42a6cd6a6c_z_d.jpg)
Please tell me that's Photoshop!!! :banghead:
No. It's legit. Only one to my knowledge.
I like it because it solves the problem of digits fitting inside the state shield. Plus it looks kinda retro. :clap:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 22, 2018, 03:59:49 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 22, 2018, 03:59:49 PM
I really like it, though I wish the state ouline were slightly thicker.
Bigger issue is when you try to cram a two or three digit number in. Obviously the circle would have to become an oval or rounded rectangle, and then it wouldn't be as cool-looking.
Bigger issue is when you try to cram a two or three digit number in. Obviously the circle would have to become an oval or rounded rectangle, and then it wouldn't be as cool-looking.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Quillz on July 23, 2018, 11:29:44 AM
Post by: Quillz on July 23, 2018, 11:29:44 AM
Can't get a good pic of it right now, but on CA-1 just beyond the California Incline, is a sign featuring a white miner spade. Not only have these not been used since 1964, but this particular stretch of CA-1 wasn't even signed as such until after 1964/white miner spade era.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Quillz on July 23, 2018, 11:36:21 AM
Post by: Quillz on July 23, 2018, 11:36:21 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2018, 03:13:32 PMIf they're going to use the style they're using, then the state outline really shouldn't be black. It's too distracting and makes it hard to read the numbers. Maybe do what South Dakota does, where the non-numerical elements are in green, but the numbers are black.
Just noticed this; really not a fan of Oklahoma's state highway marker. I wish they'd do it Florida style, and remove the area of the state outline around the numbers. The panhandle gives away which state it is without the bottom edge of the outline.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ErmineNotyours on July 24, 2018, 09:51:47 AM
Post by: ErmineNotyours on July 24, 2018, 09:51:47 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 23, 2018, 11:29:44 AM
Can't get a good pic of it right now, but on CA-1 just beyond the California Incline, is a sign featuring a white miner spade. Not only have these not been used since 1964, but this particular stretch of CA-1 wasn't even signed as such until after 1964/white miner spade era.
You mean this (https://goo.gl/maps/G8u4B6DdnVB2)?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on July 24, 2018, 01:55:04 PM
Post by: jbnv on July 24, 2018, 01:55:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2018, 03:13:32 PM
Just noticed this; really not a fan of Oklahoma's state highway marker. I wish they'd do it Florida style, and remove the area of the state outline around the numbers. The panhandle gives away which state it is without the bottom edge of the outline.
They could do something like this (my concept):
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2915/14001176051_9a6ef28175_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nkeFR6)
Oklahoma State Highway Shield Mock (https://flic.kr/p/nkeFR6) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on July 24, 2018, 02:08:58 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on July 24, 2018, 02:08:58 PM
Quote from: jbnv on July 24, 2018, 01:55:04 PM
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2915/14001176051_9a6ef28175_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nkeFR6)
Oklahoma State Highway Shield Mock (https://flic.kr/p/nkeFR6) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr
This is a 30×30 resize. Notice how it's almost impossible to see the state name.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2018, 02:49:20 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2018, 02:49:20 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 24, 2018, 02:08:58 PMQuote from: jbnv on July 24, 2018, 01:55:04 PM
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2915/14001176051_9a6ef28175_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nkeFR6)
Oklahoma State Highway Shield Mock (https://flic.kr/p/nkeFR6) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr
This is a 30×30 resize. Notice how it's almost impossible to see the state name.
And the most important part of the sign - the numbers - is smaller than the space devoted to the state outline.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on July 24, 2018, 04:15:12 PM
Post by: jbnv on July 24, 2018, 04:15:12 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2018, 02:49:20 PMQuote from: 1 on July 24, 2018, 02:08:58 PMQuote from: jbnv on July 24, 2018, 01:55:04 PM
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2915/14001176051_9a6ef28175_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nkeFR6)
Oklahoma State Highway Shield Mock (https://flic.kr/p/nkeFR6) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr
This is a 30×30 resize. Notice how it's almost impossible to see the state name.
And the most important part of the sign - the numbers - is smaller than the space devoted to the state outline.
And the most important part of the sign - the numbers - is the only thing that's clearly legible at that size. :rolleyes: Geez, it's impossible to please some of you people.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SectorZ on July 24, 2018, 04:20:26 PM
Post by: SectorZ on July 24, 2018, 04:20:26 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2018, 02:49:20 PMQuote from: 1 on July 24, 2018, 02:08:58 PMQuote from: jbnv on July 24, 2018, 01:55:04 PM
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2915/14001176051_9a6ef28175_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nkeFR6)
Oklahoma State Highway Shield Mock (https://flic.kr/p/nkeFR6) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr
This is a 30×30 resize. Notice how it's almost impossible to see the state name.
And the most important part of the sign - the numbers - is smaller than the space devoted to the state outline.
I take back everything I say about Massachusetts, Maine, and others with their boring shields. Convey the necessary info. That's the job.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on July 24, 2018, 05:00:12 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on July 24, 2018, 05:00:12 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 24, 2018, 04:20:26 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2018, 02:49:20 PMQuote from: 1 on July 24, 2018, 02:08:58 PMQuote from: jbnv on July 24, 2018, 01:55:04 PM
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2915/14001176051_9a6ef28175_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nkeFR6)
Oklahoma State Highway Shield Mock (https://flic.kr/p/nkeFR6) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr
This is a 30×30 resize. Notice how it's almost impossible to see the state name.
And the most important part of the sign - the numbers - is smaller than the space devoted to the state outline.
I take back everything I say about Massachusetts, Maine, and others with their boring shields. Convey the necessary info. That's the job.
I like Minnesota's highway marker the best--The state shape is there, but small and in the corner because it's not important. The colors are interesting, the state name is there, and the route number is clear as it takes up most of the space. Aesthetically pleasing AND it gets the job done.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Eth on July 24, 2018, 05:42:14 PM
Post by: Eth on July 24, 2018, 05:42:14 PM
Quote from: jbnv on July 24, 2018, 04:15:12 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2018, 02:49:20 PMQuote from: 1 on July 24, 2018, 02:08:58 PMQuote from: jbnv on July 24, 2018, 01:55:04 PM
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2915/14001176051_9a6ef28175_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nkeFR6)
Oklahoma State Highway Shield Mock (https://flic.kr/p/nkeFR6) by Jay Bienvenu (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bienvenunet/), on Flickr
This is a 30×30 resize. Notice how it's almost impossible to see the state name.
And the most important part of the sign - the numbers - is smaller than the space devoted to the state outline.
And the most important part of the sign - the numbers - is the only thing that's clearly legible at that size. :rolleyes: Geez, it's impossible to please some of you people.
Proportion-wise, this really doesn't look that different from the current Colorado marker.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: MNHighwayMan on July 24, 2018, 07:00:39 PM
Post by: MNHighwayMan on July 24, 2018, 07:00:39 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 24, 2018, 05:00:12 PM
I like Minnesota's highway marker the best--The state shape is there, but small and in the corner because it's not important. The colors are interesting, the state name is there, and the route number is clear as it takes up most of the space. Aesthetically pleasing AND it gets the job done.
This is why I use them as wall décor. ;-) :biggrin:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jbnv on July 24, 2018, 07:10:27 PM
Post by: jbnv on July 24, 2018, 07:10:27 PM
Quote from: Eth on July 24, 2018, 05:42:14 PMQuote from: jbnv on July 24, 2018, 04:15:12 PM
And the most important part of the sign - the numbers - is the only thing that's clearly legible at that size. :rolleyes: Geez, it's impossible to please some of you people.
Proportion-wise, this really doesn't look that different from the current Colorado marker.
Thank you. I was thinking of the Colorado marker as I was posting that. (Consider also the current Idaho marker, which inspired my design.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 04:30:59 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 04:30:59 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 24, 2018, 07:00:39 PMQuote from: paulthemapguy on July 24, 2018, 05:00:12 PM
I like Minnesota's highway marker the best--The state shape is there, but small and in the corner because it's not important. The colors are interesting, the state name is there, and the route number is clear as it takes up most of the space. Aesthetically pleasing AND it gets the job done.
This is why I use them as wall décor. ;-) :biggrin:
I also really like them, but I really wish they'd change the colors of them. From a distance, I couldn't tell the Interstate and State Highway markers apart from one another. Obviously up close it was a no-brainer, but from a distance...not so much.
Maybe a white-on-black design if snow contrast is an issue?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: MNHighwayMan on July 26, 2018, 01:59:47 AM
Post by: MNHighwayMan on July 26, 2018, 01:59:47 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 04:30:59 PMQuote from: MNHighwayMan on July 24, 2018, 07:00:39 PMI also really like them, but I really wish they'd change the colors of them. From a distance, I couldn't tell the Interstate and State Highway markers apart from one another. Obviously up close it was a no-brainer, but from a distance...not so much.Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 24, 2018, 05:00:12 PMThis is why I use them as wall décor. ;-) :biggrin:
I like Minnesota's highway marker the best--The state shape is there, but small and in the corner because it's not important. The colors are interesting, the state name is there, and the route number is clear as it takes up most of the space. Aesthetically pleasing AND it gets the job done.
Maybe a white-on-black design if snow contrast is an issue?
Eww. Nothing other than blue and gold is acceptable to me.
I also don't get how so many people confuse them for Interstate shields. The colors aren't even that close, never mind the shape. (https://i.imgur.com/oLg9o1U.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2018, 02:11:10 AM
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2018, 02:11:10 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 26, 2018, 01:59:47 AMQuote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 04:30:59 PMQuote from: MNHighwayMan on July 24, 2018, 07:00:39 PMI also really like them, but I really wish they'd change the colors of them. From a distance, I couldn't tell the Interstate and State Highway markers apart from one another. Obviously up close it was a no-brainer, but from a distance...not so much.Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 24, 2018, 05:00:12 PMThis is why I use them as wall décor. ;-) :biggrin:
I like Minnesota's highway marker the best--The state shape is there, but small and in the corner because it's not important. The colors are interesting, the state name is there, and the route number is clear as it takes up most of the space. Aesthetically pleasing AND it gets the job done.
Maybe a white-on-black design if snow contrast is an issue?
Eww. Nothing other than blue and gold is acceptable to me.
I also don't get how so many people confuse them for Interstate shields. They're not even close to the same shape, never mind the colors. (https://i.imgur.com/oLg9o1U.jpg)
If you blur your eyes, it's just two blue shapes. From a distance, they're not easily distinguishable: https://goo.gl/sw1dcM
This is something that I noticed in person. I was in Minneapolis in December 2016. Normally my opinions are based on my observations from afar, but this is one of the few that I formulated in-person.
The design? Top notch. Just not a giant fan of the colors. You probably like them because you like Minnesota. Which is fair (though I hate WA's bust as our highway shield), but perhaps a bit biased. Aren't there any other colors that could be used?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: MNHighwayMan on July 26, 2018, 02:26:05 AM
Post by: MNHighwayMan on July 26, 2018, 02:26:05 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 26, 2018, 02:11:10 AM
The design? Top notch. Just not a giant fan of the colors. You probably like them because you like Minnesota. Which is fair (though I hate WA's bust as our highway shield), but perhaps a bit biased. Aren't there any other colors that could be used?
I'm sure there are, and MnDOT's been rumored to consider switching to purely blue and white because the gold color has a terrible habit of fading. (I'll be the first to tell anyone that I'd hate any change to the design, fading be damned.)
I'm guessing that the colors originally came from the state flag, which is a blue background with the state seal, which has a gold circle outline (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Flag_of_Minnesota.svg/800px-Flag_of_Minnesota.svg.png).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2018, 02:54:33 AM
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2018, 02:54:33 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 26, 2018, 02:26:05 AMQuote from: jakeroot on July 26, 2018, 02:11:10 AM
The design? Top notch. Just not a giant fan of the colors. You probably like them because you like Minnesota. Which is fair (though I hate WA's bust as our highway shield), but perhaps a bit biased. Aren't there any other colors that could be used?
I'm sure there are, and MnDOT's been rumored to consider switching to purely blue and white because the gold color has a terrible habit of fading. (I'll be the first to tell anyone that I'd hate any change to the design, fading be damned.)
I'm guessing that the colors originally came from the state flag, which is a blue background with the state seal, which has a gold circle outline (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Flag_of_Minnesota.svg/800px-Flag_of_Minnesota.svg.png).
I think that might be it. Gotta draw inspiration from somewhere.
Not sure white-on-blue is the best option. That's kind of already taken by a certain other shield. How about, blue on white? Reminiscent of South Carolina, a bit (which undoubtedly drew inspiration from MN's current design).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: MNHighwayMan on July 26, 2018, 03:01:30 AM
Post by: MNHighwayMan on July 26, 2018, 03:01:30 AM
Personally I've been of the opinion that, if they absolutely have to change the color, MnDOT should just switch from using a custom gold color to using the regular yellow warning/advisory sign color. I'm actually fairly certain I've seen some contractor-made shields using that color and while they certainly looked off to my eye (by comparison to the normal color), they didn't look horrible, and they shouldn't have the same fading problem.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on July 26, 2018, 02:18:25 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on July 26, 2018, 02:18:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 04:30:59 PM
I also really like them, but I really wish they'd change the colors of them. From a distance, I couldn't tell the Interstate and State Highway markers apart from one another. Obviously up close it was a no-brainer, but from a distance...not so much.
Maybe a white-on-black design if snow contrast is an issue?
WAT. I am filled to the brim with WAT. About to burst at the seams with WAT.
If you want to contrast with snow, don't use white even as a color for the legend.
And how can you confuse Interstate and state markers? They don't look remotely similar. And that should only be an issue when a state highway and Interstate cross that both have the same number, which hopefully doesn't happen in the state of Minnesota. I like the MN state highway markers because they use color, they prioritize information correctly, they communicate the route number clearly, and they communicate a uniqueness to the state of Minnesota.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2018, 02:26:01 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2018, 02:26:01 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 26, 2018, 02:18:25 PMQuote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 04:30:59 PM
I also really like them, but I really wish they'd change the colors of them. From a distance, I couldn't tell the Interstate and State Highway markers apart from one another. Obviously up close it was a no-brainer, but from a distance...not so much.
Maybe a white-on-black design if snow contrast is an issue?
WAT. I am filled to the brim with WAT. About to burst at the seams with WAT.
If you want to contrast with snow, don't use white even as a color for the legend.
Fair enough. Though minimal white wouldn't be as big of an issue than if the entire background were white, with black letters. At least in my opinion
How does Illinois' shield stick out in snow? The last shields I designed for snow resembled the color scheme of the fluorescent yellow-green warning signs.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 26, 2018, 02:18:25 PM
And how can you confuse Interstate and state markers? They don't look remotely similar. And that should only be an issue when a state highway and Interstate cross that both have the same number, which hopefully doesn't happen in the state of Minnesota. I like the MN state highway markers because they use color, they prioritize information correctly, they communicate the route number clearly, and they communicate a uniqueness to the state of Minnesota.
Oh for God's sake. I said I like the design. I think it's brilliant. I just don't see why the colors they've chosen are necessary (even if they resemble the flag). There are a multitude of other color combinations they could have chosen, but instead they chose one that resembles an interstate.
I don't disagree that the number is ultimately more important, but my understanding has always been that the Interstate shield was to be uniquely-recognisable. I don't think the MN highway shield is different enough from the Interstate shield to meet this goal.
FWIW, I'm not the only one to consider this as an issue. Someone else has raised it before; of course I can't remember exactly who at this point.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on July 26, 2018, 11:17:38 PM
Post by: thenetwork on July 26, 2018, 11:17:38 PM
I am one who was also briefly fooled by the Minnesota state route shield being an interstate shield from a distance when I made my first trek along I-94 into Minnesota back in 1992.
Yes, the top part of the shield is yellow, but there are many interstate shields in the wild where the red crown has faded to a white, or yellowish-white color, so IMHO, the MN shields could be mistaken for interstate shields -- or Autoroute shields in Quebec, if you want to really be anal. :bigass:
Yes, the top part of the shield is yellow, but there are many interstate shields in the wild where the red crown has faded to a white, or yellowish-white color, so IMHO, the MN shields could be mistaken for interstate shields -- or Autoroute shields in Quebec, if you want to really be anal. :bigass:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Quillz on July 27, 2018, 11:29:01 AM
Post by: Quillz on July 27, 2018, 11:29:01 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on July 24, 2018, 09:51:47 AMThat's it.Quote from: Quillz on July 23, 2018, 11:29:44 AM
Can't get a good pic of it right now, but on CA-1 just beyond the California Incline, is a sign featuring a white miner spade. Not only have these not been used since 1964, but this particular stretch of CA-1 wasn't even signed as such until after 1964/white miner spade era.
You mean this (https://goo.gl/maps/G8u4B6DdnVB2)?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mrsman on August 21, 2018, 11:09:14 AM
Post by: mrsman on August 21, 2018, 11:09:14 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 27, 2018, 11:29:01 AMQuote from: ErmineNotyours on July 24, 2018, 09:51:47 AMThat's it.Quote from: Quillz on July 23, 2018, 11:29:44 AM
Can't get a good pic of it right now, but on CA-1 just beyond the California Incline, is a sign featuring a white miner spade. Not only have these not been used since 1964, but this particular stretch of CA-1 wasn't even signed as such until after 1964/white miner spade era.
You mean this (https://goo.gl/maps/G8u4B6DdnVB2)?
Not meant to be reminiscent of the miner spade era. It is reflective of the laziness of the sign department in not putting in the green coloring as they are supposed to.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on August 22, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
Post by: jakeroot on August 22, 2018, 04:30:48 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 21, 2018, 11:09:14 AMQuote from: Quillz on July 27, 2018, 11:29:01 AMQuote from: ErmineNotyours on July 24, 2018, 09:51:47 AMThat's it.Quote from: Quillz on July 23, 2018, 11:29:44 AM
Can't get a good pic of it right now, but on CA-1 just beyond the California Incline, is a sign featuring a white miner spade. Not only have these not been used since 1964, but this particular stretch of CA-1 wasn't even signed as such until after 1964/white miner spade era.
You mean this (https://goo.gl/maps/G8u4B6DdnVB2)?
Not meant to be reminiscent of the miner spade era. It is reflective of the laziness of the sign department in not putting in the green coloring as they are supposed to.
I didn't realize the CA miner spade was supposed to have a green background. I thought it was supposed to be variable, depending on the context.
Here in WA, while there is no border with background in the CA sense (it's just a shape), the numbers change in color. Almost always black-on-white, but sometimes white-on-black, sometimes orange-on-black, sometimes green-on-white. Depends on the sign in which the shield is on.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 23, 2018, 10:14:25 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 23, 2018, 10:14:25 PM
Lol. This Sioux chief is falling backwards down a hill.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1797/44025125921_d952b78071_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2a5mh8c)
IMG_4498 (https://flic.kr/p/2a5mh8c) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1797/44025125921_d952b78071_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2a5mh8c)
IMG_4498 (https://flic.kr/p/2a5mh8c) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: plain on August 25, 2018, 11:32:51 AM
Post by: plain on August 25, 2018, 11:32:51 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 23, 2018, 10:14:25 PMLooks almost like the ghosts from the Ducktales game on NES
Lol. This Sioux chief is falling backwards down a hill.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1797/44025125921_d952b78071_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2a5mh8c)
IMG_4498 (https://flic.kr/p/2a5mh8c) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180825/34a95b3da735933b173438fa5f4859c6.jpg)
SM-S820L
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2018, 12:48:34 PM
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2018, 12:48:34 PM
Quote from: plain on August 25, 2018, 11:32:51 AMQuote from: paulthemapguy on August 23, 2018, 10:14:25 PMLooks almost like the ghosts from the Ducktales game on NES
Lol. This Sioux chief is falling backwards down a hill.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1797/44025125921_d952b78071_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2a5mh8c)
IMG_4498 (https://flic.kr/p/2a5mh8c) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180825/34a95b3da735933b173438fa5f4859c6.jpg)
SM-S820L
Good game, I still haven't completed a $0 dollar run.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mrsman on August 26, 2018, 10:58:18 AM
Post by: mrsman on August 26, 2018, 10:58:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 22, 2018, 04:30:48 PMQuote from: mrsman on August 21, 2018, 11:09:14 AMQuote from: Quillz on July 27, 2018, 11:29:01 AMQuote from: ErmineNotyours on July 24, 2018, 09:51:47 AMThat’s it.Quote from: Quillz on July 23, 2018, 11:29:44 AM
Can't get a good pic of it right now, but on CA-1 just beyond the California Incline, is a sign featuring a white miner spade. Not only have these not been used since 1964, but this particular stretch of CA-1 wasn't even signed as such until after 1964/white miner spade era.
You mean this (https://goo.gl/maps/G8u4B6DdnVB2)?
Not meant to be reminiscent of the miner spade era. It is reflective of the laziness of the sign department in not putting in the green coloring as they are supposed to.
I didn't realize the CA miner spade was supposed to have a green background. I thought it was supposed to be variable, depending on the context.
Here in WA, while there is no border with background in the CA sense (it's just a shape), the numbers change in color. Almost always black-on-white, but sometimes white-on-black, sometimes orange-on-black, sometimes green-on-white. Depends on the sign in which the shield is on.
1964 was a seminal year in CA. Not only did many highways get renumbered (the great renumbering) in order to accommodate the new interstate highways and to ensure that there was only one highway of any type having the same number, but there were also many truncations of US routes and a reorganization of the look of the different shields.
So pre-1964 the state highway was a white miner spade with a bear on top and the words state highway on the bottom, the post-1964 highway spade was entirely in green. This is the rule for posting of the shields on the side of the road.
For shields on BGSes, for a long time, CA practice was to produce the outline of the US shield and the miner shield on the BGS without filling in the rest. This practice continued for a longer period for the state shields with the notion of saying, well the sign is green anyway, why should we fill it in.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1000271,-118.2478375,3a,75y,309.56h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqIh-WhetigeVqZZv1n6rxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
But that has nothing to do with the sign that was posted in this thread. The segment of CA-1 between Oxnard and Dana Point was known as ALT US 101 during the entire pre-1964 period. It was never signed with a white CA-1 shield. When it became CA-1 it was signed with a green shield. In fact, a relatively famous cover of Caltrans' magazine (California Highways and Public Works) highlighting the great renumbering shows Caltrans workers replacing the ALT US 101 shield with a green CA-1 shield.
Here is a good article about CA's state highway shield, with a picture of that cover:
https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/what-does-californias-state-highway-shield-symbolize
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 30, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 30, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Oops. Those arrows are pointing the wrong way.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1795/43345543604_2231d1bf8d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/293ieYG)
WA-I-205X09NAZ (https://flic.kr/p/293ieYG) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1795/43345543604_2231d1bf8d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/293ieYG)
WA-I-205X09NAZ (https://flic.kr/p/293ieYG) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on August 30, 2018, 11:25:42 PM
Post by: thenetwork on August 30, 2018, 11:25:42 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 30, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Oops. Those arrows are pointing the wrong way.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1795/43345543604_2231d1bf8d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/293ieYG)
WA-I-205X09NAZ (https://flic.kr/p/293ieYG) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Not to mention from that angle, the arrows look to be pointing to the #2 and #3 lanes.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on August 31, 2018, 09:39:39 AM
Post by: jakeroot on August 31, 2018, 09:39:39 AM
Weird to see dancing arrows in Washington. There are very few that I know of. Only a couple.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: UCFKnights on September 02, 2018, 11:32:06 AM
Post by: UCFKnights on September 02, 2018, 11:32:06 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 30, 2018, 11:25:42 PMTo me it looks like the sign wasn't cantilevered out enough. If they were straight down (likely how it was originally printed), it'd be pointing to the shoulder and lane 1. Instead of fixing the sign placement it looks like they angled the arrows, which looks terrible.Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 30, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Oops. Those arrows are pointing the wrong way.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1795/43345543604_2231d1bf8d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/293ieYG)
WA-I-205X09NAZ (https://flic.kr/p/293ieYG) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Not to mention from that angle, the arrows look to be pointing to the #2 and #3 lanes.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mrcmc888 on September 03, 2018, 01:37:13 AM
Post by: mrcmc888 on September 03, 2018, 01:37:13 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 23, 2018, 10:14:25 PMLooks like a Rorshach test to me
Lol. This Sioux chief is falling backwards down a hill.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1797/44025125921_d952b78071_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2a5mh8c)
IMG_4498 (https://flic.kr/p/2a5mh8c) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SSR_317 on September 03, 2018, 12:51:45 PM
Post by: SSR_317 on September 03, 2018, 12:51:45 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on September 02, 2018, 11:32:06 AMHate to to have point out the obvious, but if the arrow was truly pointing to Lane 1 the entire sign would likely have to be located on the LEFT side of the road. I believe you meant to say, "If the arrows were straight down... they would be pointing to lane 4 and the outside shoulder."Quote from: thenetwork on August 30, 2018, 11:25:42 PMTo me it looks like the sign wasn't cantilevered out enough. If they were straight down (likely how it was originally printed), it'd be pointing to the shoulder and lane 1. Instead of fixing the sign placement it looks like they angled the arrows, which looks terrible.Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 30, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Oops. Those arrows are pointing the wrong way.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1795/43345543604_2231d1bf8d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/293ieYG)
WA-I-205X09NAZ (https://flic.kr/p/293ieYG) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Not to mention from that angle, the arrows look to be pointing to the #2 and #3 lanes.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Eth on September 03, 2018, 01:31:37 PM
Post by: Eth on September 03, 2018, 01:31:37 PM
Leave it to Hollywood* to overdo it with the special effects and break out the italics on this speed limit sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2Froadphotos%2F20180824_094514.jpg&hash=cae6151164a477e40a40236e4f2513d0e9e9ac8b)
* Florida
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2Froadphotos%2F20180824_094514.jpg&hash=cae6151164a477e40a40236e4f2513d0e9e9ac8b)
* Florida
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on September 03, 2018, 08:19:12 PM
Post by: SignBridge on September 03, 2018, 08:19:12 PM
SSR_317, it depends how you number the lanes. Some states like California number from left-to-right, some others from right-to-left.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 03, 2018, 09:08:25 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 03, 2018, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 30, 2018, 11:25:42 PMQuote from: paulthemapguy on August 30, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Oops. Those arrows are pointing the wrong way.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1795/43345543604_2231d1bf8d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/293ieYG)
WA-I-205X09NAZ (https://flic.kr/p/293ieYG) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Not to mention from that angle, the arrows look to be pointing to the #2 and #3 lanes.
Now that I take a second look at it, I think these signs were retrofitted with a different type of arrow during a construction project, but they forgot to take the retrofit arrows off to restore the sign to its original state once the project was completed.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on September 04, 2018, 07:29:25 AM
Post by: formulanone on September 04, 2018, 07:29:25 AM
Quote from: Eth on September 03, 2018, 01:31:37 PM
Leave it to Hollywood* to overdo it with the special effects and break out the italics on this speed limit sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2Froadphotos%2F20180824_094514.jpg&hash=cae6151164a477e40a40236e4f2513d0e9e9ac8b)
* Florida
Heh, I've been meaning to post that for about four years, but couldn't remember where in Florida I'd seen it.
Somewhere on US 1 north of the Young Circle?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Eth on September 04, 2018, 08:30:25 AM
Post by: Eth on September 04, 2018, 08:30:25 AM
Quote from: formulanone on September 04, 2018, 07:29:25 AM
Heh, I've been meaning to post that for about four years, but couldn't remember where in Florida I'd seen it.
Somewhere on US 1 north of the Young Circle?
Very close – about six blocks south of Young Circle (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0045913,-80.1427837,3a,75y,354.93h,90.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srbjCOZEpMyJ5_mrM6n766Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2018, 08:36:16 AM
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2018, 08:36:16 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 03, 2018, 08:19:12 PM
SSR_317, it depends how you number the lanes. Some states like California number from left-to-right, some others from right-to-left.
And some don't number them at all.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on September 04, 2018, 11:08:30 AM
Post by: roadfro on September 04, 2018, 11:08:30 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2018, 08:36:16 AMQuote from: SignBridge on September 03, 2018, 08:19:12 PM
SSR_317, it depends how you number the lanes. Some states like California number from left-to-right, some others from right-to-left.
And some don't number them at all.
Lane numbers advertised to the public are rare, so it's hard to say how a state would number the lanes. But I'm fairly certain the common practice among traffic engineers when referencing lanes on a roadway is to refer to the left lane as #1 and increase numbers to the right.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 23, 2019, 04:58:10 PM
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 23, 2019, 04:58:10 PM
Well, I don't know what to say. (Fort Lauderdale, FL.) https://www.google.com/maps/@26.188459,-80.1537554,3a,15y,280.72h,102.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW0woYoMOdS6rwKGoMpX3BA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on March 23, 2019, 09:36:49 PM
Post by: formulanone on March 23, 2019, 09:36:49 PM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 23, 2019, 04:58:10 PM
Well, I don't know what to say. (Fort Lauderdale, FL.) https://www.google.com/maps/@26.188459,-80.1537554,3a,15y,280.72h,102.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW0woYoMOdS6rwKGoMpX3BA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
There's a similar one on Sunrise Boulevard (FL 838) at the Turnpike, as well.
The Florida's Turnpike shield must have at least a dozen variations.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on March 25, 2019, 01:35:20 PM
Post by: kphoger on March 25, 2019, 01:35:20 PM
Quote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 23, 2019, 04:58:10 PM
Well, I don't know what to say. (Fort Lauderdale, FL.) https://www.google.com/maps/@26.188459,-80.1537554,3a,15y,280.72h,102.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW0woYoMOdS6rwKGoMpX3BA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I think the arrow must be pointing to Apalachicola.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 25, 2019, 01:37:04 PM
Post by: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 25, 2019, 01:37:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2019, 01:35:20 PMHAH! Mabye your right lmao. :-DQuote from: ThatTenneseeRoadgeek on March 23, 2019, 04:58:10 PM
Well, I don't know what to say. (Fort Lauderdale, FL.) https://www.google.com/maps/@26.188459,-80.1537554,3a,15y,280.72h,102.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW0woYoMOdS6rwKGoMpX3BA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I think the arrow must be pointing to Apalachicola.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on March 30, 2019, 11:52:40 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on March 30, 2019, 11:52:40 PM
Not really an error, but not as straightforward and clear as it could be. This is on northbound I-75 approaching Flint, MI. The right lane becomes exit-only to I-475. The I-75 sign should be a pull-through (with or without down arrows) without the yellow banner, while the I-475 sign should have a yellow Exit Only banner.
(https://i.imgur.com/qA7xNWs.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/qA7xNWs.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on May 30, 2019, 07:26:01 AM
Post by: formulanone on May 30, 2019, 07:26:01 AM
Looking through some photos from early-2016...here's a goofy "u" and Georgia's dot-less "i" making an appearance in Trenton, NJ:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47959256048_396823f948_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g4ZHWY)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47959256048_396823f948_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g4ZHWY)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on June 28, 2019, 09:31:07 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on June 28, 2019, 09:31:07 AM
Quote from: formulanone on May 30, 2019, 07:26:01 AMThe spacing between the i and l in the Philadelphia legend is off as well.
Looking through some photos from early-2016...here's a goofy "u" and Georgia's dot-less "i" making an appearance in Trenton, NJ:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47959256048_396823f948_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g4ZHWY)
Needless to say, that center panel has since been replaced (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2813683,-74.6985049,3a,75y,36.58h,81.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syJxXg2HCSU6r8q8YV5H4vg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
From NoGoodNamesAvailable's post in the New York thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1487.4200):
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on June 27, 2019, 10:51:06 PM
Some awful new roundabout guide signage posted by NYSDOT on their twitter page. Black arrows? Seriously?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-FFJzeWwAEe_ya.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-FFLfNWsAADr5b.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: marleythedog on July 19, 2019, 08:56:54 PM
Post by: marleythedog on July 19, 2019, 08:56:54 PM
I-675, Greene County, ODOT District 8
A contractor got confused on how EXIT ONLY arrows work. The previous sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.772951,-84.0731141,3a,75y,267.77h,88.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssrb47KJkw0RFuVt23vde1g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) did not have an arrow within the EXIT ONLY line.
Ironically, the sign project just south of here on US-35 a few years back handled the EXIT ONLY arrow correctly, but incorrectly signed every deceleration lane as an EXIT ONLY.
Another gaffe in this sign project was going the other direction on I-675, where they used US-844 shields instead of OH-844.
(https://i.imgur.com/46LmFjm.jpg)
A contractor got confused on how EXIT ONLY arrows work. The previous sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.772951,-84.0731141,3a,75y,267.77h,88.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssrb47KJkw0RFuVt23vde1g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) did not have an arrow within the EXIT ONLY line.
Ironically, the sign project just south of here on US-35 a few years back handled the EXIT ONLY arrow correctly, but incorrectly signed every deceleration lane as an EXIT ONLY.
Another gaffe in this sign project was going the other direction on I-675, where they used US-844 shields instead of OH-844.
(https://i.imgur.com/46LmFjm.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Eth on July 22, 2019, 09:20:22 AM
Post by: Eth on July 22, 2019, 09:20:22 AM
These signs went up a few months ago on US 23/29/78/278 between Atlanta and Decatur. Someone got the memo to use a wide shield for 278, but didn't quite pin down the execution.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2Froadphotos%2Fus278-not-wide.jpg&hash=f45e8a63cd5620c98f7955139f113ea4e9880634)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2Froadphotos%2Fus278-not-wide.jpg&hash=f45e8a63cd5620c98f7955139f113ea4e9880634)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: frankenroad on July 22, 2019, 12:32:52 PM
Post by: frankenroad on July 22, 2019, 12:32:52 PM
Quote from: marleythedog on July 19, 2019, 08:56:54 PM
.... but incorrectly signed every deceleration lane as an EXIT ONLY.
I have seen this phenomenon many places in Ohio over the past couple of years. I have seen people swerve out of the right lane because they thought the sign applied to them. (If you are in the right-most travel lane and see an Exit Only sign ahead, it would be logical to assume that the sign applies to your lane, especially if you are on a segment of road that is not perfectly straight.)
I am not sure why ODOT is doing that.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US 89 on October 06, 2019, 03:54:26 PM
Post by: US 89 on October 06, 2019, 03:54:26 PM
From the Salt Lake City International Airport, to remind you why it's a good thing airports don't post signs on regular roads:
(https://i.imgur.com/zk7R83T.jpg)
Oh, the issues with this. Good luck reading the left panel at speed. Apparently one doesn't exit the airport to go to Reno. The I-15 and I-215 shields should have a TO if you're going to include them at all. Mixed-case directionals on I-80. Shields are way too big, text is way too small...and in Helvetica for good measure.
The sign in the background was much cleaner and provided about the same information. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it was taken down after being replaced by the front sign.
(https://i.imgur.com/zk7R83T.jpg)
Oh, the issues with this. Good luck reading the left panel at speed. Apparently one doesn't exit the airport to go to Reno. The I-15 and I-215 shields should have a TO if you're going to include them at all. Mixed-case directionals on I-80. Shields are way too big, text is way too small...and in Helvetica for good measure.
The sign in the background was much cleaner and provided about the same information. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it was taken down after being replaced by the front sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 07, 2019, 02:03:42 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 07, 2019, 02:03:42 PM
Quote from: US 89 on October 06, 2019, 03:54:26 PM
From the Salt Lake City International Airport, to remind you why it's a good thing airports don't post signs on regular roads:
(https://i.imgur.com/zk7R83T.jpg)
Oh, the issues with this. Good luck reading the left panel at speed. Apparently one doesn't exit the airport to go to Reno. The I-15 and I-215 shields should have a TO if you're going to include them at all. Mixed-case directionals on I-80. Shields are way too big, text is way too small...and in Helvetica for good measure.
The sign in the background was much cleaner and provided about the same information. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it was taken down after being replaced by the front sign.
It might just be my eyes but I feel like that I-215 shield is a bit horizontally compressed.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 1995hoo on October 18, 2019, 05:18:49 PM
Post by: 1995hoo on October 18, 2019, 05:18:49 PM
Not a road sign, but it fits the theme of this thread. ("Cardholder entrance" is correct–express entrance for Capital One cardholders.)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191018/6e6f1a48477303a96a6c9855be4757dc.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191018/6e6f1a48477303a96a6c9855be4757dc.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on October 29, 2019, 07:46:44 PM
Post by: US71 on October 29, 2019, 07:46:44 PM
Not a design error, but more like someone clueless : Interstate 127 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vtg-Interstate-127-Highway-Freeway-Road-Oil-Garage-Shop-Shield-Sign-i127-IA-Iowa/223726759972?hash=item3417277024%3Ag%3A59AAAOSwIWBduJfK) in Iowa
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on October 29, 2019, 08:35:12 PM
Post by: formulanone on October 29, 2019, 08:35:12 PM
Looking at photos from May of 2018...What's this fluorescent yellow sign here for? It's all sorts of wrong.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48967881457_24ac03c3a0_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hB8c9e)
Located at the end of Alabama Route 144 at US 431...but no longer posted (though the post is still there) (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7822987,-85.9001941,3a,17.9y,94.65h,87.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRdxVPrrsRlNwjf_WbunwFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48967881457_24ac03c3a0_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hB8c9e)
Located at the end of Alabama Route 144 at US 431...but no longer posted (though the post is still there) (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7822987,-85.9001941,3a,17.9y,94.65h,87.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRdxVPrrsRlNwjf_WbunwFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on October 31, 2019, 01:02:49 PM
Post by: hbelkins on October 31, 2019, 01:02:49 PM
Quote from: US71 on October 29, 2019, 07:46:44 PM
Not a design error, but more like someone clueless : Interstate 127 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vtg-Interstate-127-Highway-Freeway-Road-Oil-Garage-Shop-Shield-Sign-i127-IA-Iowa/223726759972?hash=item3417277024%3Ag%3A59AAAOSwIWBduJfK) in Iowa
Yeah, that looks like it's from Ohio.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on November 02, 2019, 10:36:42 AM
Post by: US71 on November 02, 2019, 10:36:42 AM
Reno, Nevada (https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2019/11/01/oops-reno-makes-unfortunate-spelling-error-new-virginia-st-signs/4134695002/) seems to have forgotten how to spell.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: renegade on November 02, 2019, 01:05:50 PM
Post by: renegade on November 02, 2019, 01:05:50 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 02, 2019, 10:36:42 AMTheir fix for that is gonna be changing the name of the street! :biggrin:
Reno, Nevada (https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2019/11/01/oops-reno-makes-unfortunate-spelling-error-new-virginia-st-signs/4134695002/) seems to have forgotten how to spell.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: MNHighwayMan on November 02, 2019, 03:25:57 PM
Post by: MNHighwayMan on November 02, 2019, 03:25:57 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 02, 2019, 10:36:42 AM
Reno, Nevada (https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2019/11/01/oops-reno-makes-unfortunate-spelling-error-new-virginia-st-signs/4134695002/) seems to have forgotten how to spell.
This is especially funny if you think about where the name "Virginia" originated in the first place. :biggrin:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on November 03, 2019, 04:08:57 PM
Post by: jakeroot on November 03, 2019, 04:08:57 PM
"Virgin" is "slightly R-rated"? Not sure I agree with that.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: MNHighwayMan on November 05, 2019, 05:21:25 PM
Post by: MNHighwayMan on November 05, 2019, 05:21:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 03, 2019, 04:08:57 PM
"Virgin" is "slightly R-rated"? Not sure I agree with that.
That's not quite the word they had in mind, I think.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on November 05, 2019, 06:41:16 PM
Post by: kphoger on November 05, 2019, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 03, 2019, 04:08:57 PM
"Virgin" is "slightly R-rated"? Not sure I agree with that.
Come on, now! The absence of sex should not be observed by children.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US 89 on November 06, 2019, 02:50:37 PM
Post by: US 89 on November 06, 2019, 02:50:37 PM
I didn't get a good photo of this when I drove by it, but the distance and street name got switched on this sign on I-84 near Ogden, Utah (https://goo.gl/maps/m4veTg9zjZjPV6nz8). Certainly one of the weirder design errors I've seen.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on November 06, 2019, 03:00:21 PM
Post by: kphoger on November 06, 2019, 03:00:21 PM
Quote from: US 89 on November 06, 2019, 02:50:37 PM
I didn't get a good photo of this when I drove by it, but the distance and street name got switched on this sign on I-84 near Ogden, Utah (https://goo.gl/maps/m4veTg9zjZjPV6nz8). Certainly one of the weirder design errors I've seen.
Boy, that's an odd duck!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on November 06, 2019, 03:22:03 PM
Post by: jakeroot on November 06, 2019, 03:22:03 PM
Quote from: US 89 on November 06, 2019, 02:50:37 PM
I didn't get a good photo of this when I drove by it, but the distance and street name got switched on this sign on I-84 near Ogden, Utah (https://goo.gl/maps/m4veTg9zjZjPV6nz8). Certainly one of the weirder design errors I've seen.
I tend to click on links before I read the post, to see if I can catch the error. Did not figure this one out until I read your post!
To be honest, the name of the road on the bottom doesn't bother me, even though it doesn't necessarily make sense.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 06, 2019, 03:55:53 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 06, 2019, 03:55:53 PM
Quote from: US 89 on November 06, 2019, 02:50:37 PM
I didn't get a good photo of this when I drove by it, but the distance and street name got switched on this sign on I-84 near Ogden, Utah (https://goo.gl/maps/m4veTg9zjZjPV6nz8). Certainly one of the weirder design errors I've seen.
I'm actually fairly surprised no one went back to correct that, considering how obvious the mistake is.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on November 06, 2019, 04:59:42 PM
Post by: jakeroot on November 06, 2019, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 06, 2019, 03:55:53 PMQuote from: US 89 on November 06, 2019, 02:50:37 PM
I didn't get a good photo of this when I drove by it, but the distance and street name got switched on this sign on I-84 near Ogden, Utah (https://goo.gl/maps/m4veTg9zjZjPV6nz8). Certainly one of the weirder design errors I've seen.
I'm actually fairly surprised no one went back to correct that, considering how obvious the mistake is.
I'm not sure it's that obvious.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: barcncpt44 on November 06, 2019, 07:51:47 PM
Post by: barcncpt44 on November 06, 2019, 07:51:47 PM
Quote from: formulanone on October 29, 2019, 08:35:12 PM
Looking at photos from May of 2018...What's this fluorescent yellow sign here for? It's all sorts of wrong.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48967881457_24ac03c3a0_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hB8c9e)
Located at the end of Alabama Route 144 at US 431...but no longer posted (though the post is still there) (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7822987,-85.9001941,3a,17.9y,94.65h,87.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRdxVPrrsRlNwjf_WbunwFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Those are signs ALDOT puts up to direct traffic coming and going from the Talladega Superspeedway. They do this twice a year.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on November 07, 2019, 12:51:04 PM
Post by: formulanone on November 07, 2019, 12:51:04 PM
Quote from: barcncpt44 on November 06, 2019, 07:51:47 PMQuote from: formulanone on October 29, 2019, 08:35:12 PM
Looking at photos from May of 2018...What's this fluorescent yellow sign here for? It's all sorts of wrong.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48967881457_24ac03c3a0_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hB8c9e)
Located at the end of Alabama Route 144 at US 431...but no longer posted (though the post is still there) (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7822987,-85.9001941,3a,17.9y,94.65h,87.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRdxVPrrsRlNwjf_WbunwFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Those are signs ALDOT puts up to direct traffic coming and going from the Talladega Superspeedway. They do this twice a year.
You know, I took the photo on the Monday after the race. I really should have known!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: TEG24601 on November 07, 2019, 01:33:45 PM
Post by: TEG24601 on November 07, 2019, 01:33:45 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 30, 2019, 11:52:40 PM
Not really an error, but not as straightforward and clear as it could be. This is on northbound I-75 approaching Flint, MI. The right lane becomes exit-only to I-475. The I-75 sign should be a pull-through (with or without down arrows) without the yellow banner, while the I-475 sign should have a yellow Exit Only banner.
(https://i.imgur.com/qA7xNWs.jpg)
They've even touched up/replaced the yellow section in the last 10 years. Prior to the Clearview Installation, I recall the right-hand saying "Exit Only 1 Mile", and the left one being two down arrows. Apparently, that was too confusing.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on February 11, 2020, 03:19:04 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on February 11, 2020, 03:19:04 PM
When there's a shortage of Ns (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.918413,-75.3054465,3a,15y,114.01h,85.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hlU3YyqWPQq6ImyjUAkfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Link replaced
Link replaced
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on February 11, 2020, 10:54:57 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 11, 2020, 10:54:57 PM
Here's a better one: https://goo.gl/maps/yB3EbDVLDH9AcR959
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PHLBOS on February 12, 2020, 08:37:06 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on February 12, 2020, 08:37:06 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 11, 2020, 10:54:57 PMNot a good link. It's not even pointing at the error.Thanks for the link & I've since edited my earlier post to include such.
Here's a better one: https://goo.gl/maps/yB3EbDVLDH9AcR959
However & in my defense; the old link did show one of the signs with the error & for some reason, I wasn't able to get a better GSV close-up of that sign yesterday.
It's worth noting that these particular street-blade signs have been there at least since 2012.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on February 13, 2020, 12:50:52 AM
Post by: jakeroot on February 13, 2020, 12:50:52 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 12, 2020, 08:37:06 AM
However & in my defense; the old link did show one of the signs with the error & for some reason, I wasn't able to get a better GSV close-up of that sign yesterday.
Yes...yes it did. I stand corrected, as I did not notice it before.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US 89 on March 17, 2020, 08:10:12 PM
Post by: US 89 on March 17, 2020, 08:10:12 PM
From SR 55 in Price, Utah:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZbLRdcM.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZbLRdcM.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 17, 2020, 08:42:05 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 17, 2020, 08:42:05 PM
The speed discrepancy might be a bit much here...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CardInLex on March 17, 2020, 09:13:35 PM
Post by: CardInLex on March 17, 2020, 09:13:35 PM
Quote from: US 89 on March 17, 2020, 08:10:12 PM
From SR 55 in Price, Utah:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZbLRdcM.jpg)
I actually think this is MUTCD compliant. Section 2C.60.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on March 19, 2020, 04:21:55 PM
Post by: roadfro on March 19, 2020, 04:21:55 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on March 17, 2020, 09:13:35 PMQuote from: US 89 on March 17, 2020, 08:10:12 PM
From SR 55 in Price, Utah:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZbLRdcM.jpg)
I actually think this is MUTCD compliant. Section 2C.60.
Compliant use of "Share the Road" plaque, per 2C.60. The wheelchair warning sign is standard sign (W11-9). So no design errors in this assembly.
What's more interesting is that the sign assembly is posted at the point at which a seemingly ADA-compliant sidewalk begins, so theoretically there would not be a reason to share the road with wheelchair-bound persons past this point. So the unnecessary sign package may be the real error here.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US 89 on March 23, 2020, 10:18:39 AM
Post by: US 89 on March 23, 2020, 10:18:39 AM
Quote from: roadfro on March 19, 2020, 04:21:55 PMQuote from: CardInLex on March 17, 2020, 09:13:35 PMQuote from: US 89 on March 17, 2020, 08:10:12 PM
From SR 55 in Price, Utah:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZbLRdcM.jpg)
I actually think this is MUTCD compliant. Section 2C.60.
Compliant use of "Share the Road" plaque, per 2C.60. The wheelchair warning sign is standard sign (W11-9). So no design errors in this assembly.
What's more interesting is that the sign assembly is posted at the point at which a seemingly ADA-compliant sidewalk begins, so theoretically there would not be a reason to share the road with wheelchair-bound persons past this point. So the unnecessary sign package may be the real error here.
Hm. I posted this because I'd never seen a wheelchair symbol oriented that way - every time I've ever seen a wheelchair symbol, it's been the mirror image. Wonder why the MUTCD chose to diverge from the international wheelchair sign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Symbol_of_Access).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on March 23, 2020, 11:40:19 AM
Post by: roadfro on March 23, 2020, 11:40:19 AM
Quote from: US 89 on March 23, 2020, 10:18:39 AM
Hm. I posted this because I'd never seen a wheelchair symbol oriented that way - every time I've ever seen a wheelchair symbol, it's been the mirror image. Wonder why the MUTCD chose to diverge from the international wheelchair sign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Symbol_of_Access).
It is a good question, as the MUTCD is the only place I've ever seen the symbol oriented this way as a standard as well.
Nothing preventing an agency from installing the reverse orientation though. There's a statement in chapter 2A of the MUTCD that allows agencies to use the mirror image of a standard symbol (and also allows rotating the orientation of a standard symbol if it fits the direction of travel).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on March 23, 2020, 04:25:21 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on March 23, 2020, 04:25:21 PM
My guess is because signs are always on the right side of the road, so mirroring the wheelchair sign makes it face toward the road. (If the wheelchair sign were facing right, it would look like the wheelchair user is going away from the road, and thus not posing a threat to a driver.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on March 24, 2020, 12:21:54 PM
Post by: roadfro on March 24, 2020, 12:21:54 PM
^ That would make sense. Which also explains why some places (such as this RRFB crosswalk in Reno (https://goo.gl/maps/oKYdCwra5mCoDBWj9)) mirror the pedestrian symbol when the warning sign is placed on the left side of the road.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on May 13, 2020, 10:27:24 AM
Post by: US71 on May 13, 2020, 10:27:24 AM
https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20200513/collage-or-college-venice-sign-misspells-scfs-name
State Collage of Florida
State Collage of Florida
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on May 13, 2020, 12:23:59 PM
Post by: thenetwork on May 13, 2020, 12:23:59 PM
Quote from: US71 on May 13, 2020, 10:27:24 AM
https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20200513/collage-or-college-venice-sign-misspells-scfs-name
State Collage of Florida
For all the retirees down there with leather as skin, it could also be where they stockpile all of Florida's Collagen supplies...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on June 16, 2020, 07:51:08 AM
Post by: formulanone on June 16, 2020, 07:51:08 AM
Minor design error in De Pere, Wisconsin. Highway 32 usually has the red arrow insignia on it, but it's missing...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50012498037_5dc1d5fd1a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jcr8fV)
...but where did it go? Well, a few blocks before that...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50011707123_18bb5a2758_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jcn59t)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50012498037_5dc1d5fd1a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jcr8fV)
...but where did it go? Well, a few blocks before that...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50011707123_18bb5a2758_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jcn59t)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: mrsman on June 16, 2020, 10:15:21 AM
Post by: mrsman on June 16, 2020, 10:15:21 AM
Why are there red arrows? Does it designate something to do with Native Americans?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on June 16, 2020, 10:30:50 AM
Post by: formulanone on June 16, 2020, 10:30:50 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 16, 2020, 10:15:21 AM
Why are there red arrows? Does it designate something to do with Native Americans?
It's a semi-obscure feature...From wiki:
Quote
It is named the 32nd Division Memorial Highway after the U.S. 32nd Infantry Division, and the highway shields have red arrows–the division's logo–on either side of the number 32. The route of WIS 32 and the Red Arrow marking is set in state statute by the Wisconsin Legislature.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on June 29, 2020, 09:47:35 PM
Post by: Takumi on June 29, 2020, 09:47:35 PM
Saw this 006 shield on US 29 southbound a couple weeks ago when I was clinching VA 6.
https://goo.gl/maps/W6X9NYfFBcj5a4qV6
https://goo.gl/maps/W6X9NYfFBcj5a4qV6
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2020, 03:49:41 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2020, 03:49:41 AM
Does that mean VA-6 got its license to kill?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Takumi on June 30, 2020, 06:38:25 AM
Post by: Takumi on June 30, 2020, 06:38:25 AM
And then faked its death for some reason. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Trevelyan)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 19, 2020, 09:40:10 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 19, 2020, 09:40:10 AM
A set of BGS on I-565 West in Huntsville, AL that I happened to find while going on GMSV adventures. The classic mistake of uppercase versus lowercase letter sizing.
https://goo.gl/maps/VMdZArSTro6dhqtU7 (https://goo.gl/maps/VMdZArSTro6dhqtU7)
https://goo.gl/maps/VMdZArSTro6dhqtU7 (https://goo.gl/maps/VMdZArSTro6dhqtU7)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on October 20, 2020, 04:39:54 PM
Post by: roadfro on October 20, 2020, 04:39:54 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 19, 2020, 09:40:10 AM
A set of BGS on I-565 West in Huntsville, AL that I happened to find while going on GMSV adventures. The classic mistake of uppercase versus lowercase letter sizing.
https://goo.gl/maps/VMdZArSTro6dhqtU7 (https://goo.gl/maps/VMdZArSTro6dhqtU7)
Weird to say this, but it doesn't look all that bad. Likely because it's Clearview, and the lower-case letter x height in Clearview is greater than in FHWA. The design error in interpreting x height and capitalization provisions looks a lot worse with regular FHWA legends. (But the legends still look a bit compressed though.)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ned Weasel on April 12, 2021, 12:55:20 PM
Post by: Ned Weasel on April 12, 2021, 12:55:20 PM
I hope this thread isn't too old to bump. I noticed these the other day:
https://goo.gl/maps/GsmfTc4JpHV1eX27A
https://goo.gl/maps/AGox25GVbjKG6oZz7
Slide the time travel device back and see what got changed. Instead of bringing these up to 2009 MUTCD compliance, KDOT made them less compliant. Not a bad-looking set of signs to the untrained eye, but a roadgeek would notice the error right away.
https://goo.gl/maps/GsmfTc4JpHV1eX27A
https://goo.gl/maps/AGox25GVbjKG6oZz7
Slide the time travel device back and see what got changed. Instead of bringing these up to 2009 MUTCD compliance, KDOT made them less compliant. Not a bad-looking set of signs to the untrained eye, but a roadgeek would notice the error right away.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: plain on April 12, 2021, 03:56:18 PM
Post by: plain on April 12, 2021, 03:56:18 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 12, 2021, 12:55:20 PM
I hope this thread isn't too old to bump. I noticed these the other day:
https://goo.gl/maps/GsmfTc4JpHV1eX27A
https://goo.gl/maps/AGox25GVbjKG6oZz7
Slide the time travel device back and see what got changed. Instead of bringing these up to 2009 MUTCD compliance, KDOT made them less compliant. Not a bad-looking set of signs to the untrained eye, but a roadgeek would notice the error right away.
An APL would definitely be better here
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2021, 06:46:01 PM
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2021, 06:46:01 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 12, 2021, 12:55:20 PM
I hope this thread isn't too old to bump. I noticed these the other day:
https://goo.gl/maps/GsmfTc4JpHV1eX27A
https://goo.gl/maps/AGox25GVbjKG6oZz7
Slide the time travel device back and see what got changed. Instead of bringing these up to 2009 MUTCD compliance, KDOT made them less compliant. Not a bad-looking set of signs to the untrained eye, but a roadgeek would notice the error right away.
I'm a bit confused. Everything looks the same before and after. I see, for example, dancing arrows on the current sign and the sign from 2007.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Ned Weasel on April 12, 2021, 08:20:48 PM
Post by: Ned Weasel on April 12, 2021, 08:20:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2021, 06:46:01 PM
I'm a bit confused. Everything looks the same before and after. I see, for example, dancing arrows on the current sign and the sign from 2007.
"SOUTH" was done correctly before, in all-uppercase with a larger "S," and it was changed to mixed-case, which is wrong.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 12, 2021, 08:40:15 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 12, 2021, 08:40:15 PM
It also looks like the arrows are more angled for some reason. When they could/should just be straight down over the lanes.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2021, 09:06:57 PM
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2021, 09:06:57 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 12, 2021, 08:20:48 PMQuote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2021, 06:46:01 PM
I'm a bit confused. Everything looks the same before and after. I see, for example, dancing arrows on the current sign and the sign from 2007.
"SOUTH" was done correctly before, in all-uppercase with a larger "S," and it was changed to mixed-case, which is wrong.
Gotcha. For whatever reason, my mind was focused on elements of the sign related to the 2009 MUTCD (aka, the arrows).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 16, 2021, 03:09:10 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 16, 2021, 03:09:10 PM
Presented without further comment:
https://goo.gl/maps/hTZqshV9gmbW3Tn28
https://goo.gl/maps/hTZqshV9gmbW3Tn28
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on June 16, 2021, 08:16:28 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 16, 2021, 08:16:28 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 16, 2021, 03:09:10 PM
Presented without further comment:
https://goo.gl/maps/hTZqshV9gmbW3Tn28
Ah, construction signage. Is there anything it can do?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on June 17, 2021, 11:33:21 AM
Post by: jakeroot on June 17, 2021, 11:33:21 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 16, 2021, 08:16:28 PMQuote from: JoePCool14 on June 16, 2021, 03:09:10 PM
Presented without further comment:
https://goo.gl/maps/hTZqshV9gmbW3Tn28
Ah, construction signage. Is there anything it can do?
"Think harder, Detroit".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SectorZ on June 17, 2021, 12:43:00 PM
Post by: SectorZ on June 17, 2021, 12:43:00 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 16, 2021, 03:09:10 PM
Presented without further comment:
https://goo.gl/maps/hTZqshV9gmbW3Tn28
"Detour", the new Atari adventure game from Activision...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 23, 2021, 01:47:49 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 23, 2021, 01:47:49 PM
This one almost has a bit of cRaiG cOuNTy DNA in it. I-69 in Evansville, IN.
https://goo.gl/maps/NYiikFLMSSD8thdV6
https://goo.gl/maps/NYiikFLMSSD8thdV6
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: LilianaUwU on June 23, 2021, 02:49:54 PM
Post by: LilianaUwU on June 23, 2021, 02:49:54 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 23, 2021, 01:47:49 PM
This one almost has a bit of cRaiG cOuNTy DNA in it. I-69 in Evansville, IN.
https://goo.gl/maps/NYiikFLMSSD8thdV6
Ah, the classic 3/4th error. It happens when the lowercase letters are set to 3/4 the size of the capital letters despite the font already being preset to 3/4.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on June 24, 2021, 03:22:10 AM
Post by: roadfro on June 24, 2021, 03:22:10 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on June 23, 2021, 02:49:54 PMQuote from: JoePCool14 on June 23, 2021, 01:47:49 PM
This one almost has a bit of cRaiG cOuNTy DNA in it. I-69 in Evansville, IN.
https://goo.gl/maps/NYiikFLMSSD8thdV6
Ah, the classic 3/4th error. It happens when the lowercase letters are set to 3/4 the size of the capital letters despite the font already being preset to 3/4.
Not only that, but some of those lower case "r" are slightly larger than the rest of the lower case letters.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: LilianaUwU on June 24, 2021, 03:28:57 AM
Post by: LilianaUwU on June 24, 2021, 03:28:57 AM
Quote from: roadfro on June 24, 2021, 03:22:10 AMQuote from: LilianaUwU on June 23, 2021, 02:49:54 PMQuote from: JoePCool14 on June 23, 2021, 01:47:49 PM
This one almost has a bit of cRaiG cOuNTy DNA in it. I-69 in Evansville, IN.
https://goo.gl/maps/NYiikFLMSSD8thdV6
Ah, the classic 3/4th error. It happens when the lowercase letters are set to 3/4 the size of the capital letters despite the font already being preset to 3/4.
Not only that, but some of those lower case "r" are slightly larger than the rest of the lower case letters.
Oh god, it really is, huh.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 24, 2021, 07:55:54 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 24, 2021, 07:55:54 AM
Hot take: The vast majority of INDOT's signs could be placed on this thread. Sloppy spacing is a feature, not a bug. It doesn't matter if the sign is new or old either.
For those of you who haven't driven in Indiana, here's a sample:
https://goo.gl/maps/fg6nUeYUWs9pfCFT9
https://goo.gl/maps/8NBhfyLZGN3qzCMK8
https://goo.gl/maps/NWxgew4CkqjXfB44A
And these are all really minor, and don't affect the legibility of any of these. It's not like we're talking about OkDOT. It's just something to note.
For those of you who haven't driven in Indiana, here's a sample:
https://goo.gl/maps/fg6nUeYUWs9pfCFT9
https://goo.gl/maps/8NBhfyLZGN3qzCMK8
https://goo.gl/maps/NWxgew4CkqjXfB44A
And these are all really minor, and don't affect the legibility of any of these. It's not like we're talking about OkDOT. It's just something to note.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on June 24, 2021, 04:01:48 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on June 24, 2021, 04:01:48 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 24, 2021, 07:55:54 AM
Hot take: The vast majority of INDOT's signs could be placed on this thread. Sloppy spacing is a feature, not a bug. It doesn't matter if the sign is new or old either.
For those of you who haven't driven in Indiana, here's a sample:
https://goo.gl/maps/fg6nUeYUWs9pfCFT9
https://goo.gl/maps/8NBhfyLZGN3qzCMK8
https://goo.gl/maps/NWxgew4CkqjXfB44A
And these are all really minor, and don't affect the legibility of any of these. It's not like we're talking about OkDOT. It's just something to note.
A lot of INDOT signage seems to get worse in layout when they "reface" older signs. Witness these BGSs on US 24, which looked normal in 2011 but if you go to more recent imagery you can see an INDOT phenomenon of no top margin which has swept the state on refacing jobs like this.
https://goo.gl/maps/dZenQmMxndZRfpWC7
It really seems like INDOT has gone downhill on this compared to many of the classic button copy signs which have become quite rare unfortunately in the past few years, which generally didn't have such problems. Did someone retire who took all the experience on sign layout with them?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on June 24, 2021, 05:13:30 PM
Post by: hbelkins on June 24, 2021, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 24, 2021, 04:01:48 PM
It really seems like INDOT has gone downhill on this compared to many of the classic button copy signs which have become quite rare unfortunately in the past few years, which generally didn't have such problems. Did someone retire who took all the experience on sign layout with them?
Does Indiana do its guide signs in-house, or contract them out? If the latter, it's possible that the design of the signs is also being contracted out.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 24, 2021, 10:29:09 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 24, 2021, 10:29:09 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 24, 2021, 04:01:48 PMQuote from: JoePCool14 on June 24, 2021, 07:55:54 AM
Hot take: The vast majority of INDOT's signs could be placed on this thread. Sloppy spacing is a feature, not a bug. It doesn't matter if the sign is new or old either.
For those of you who haven't driven in Indiana, here's a sample:
https://goo.gl/maps/fg6nUeYUWs9pfCFT9
https://goo.gl/maps/8NBhfyLZGN3qzCMK8
https://goo.gl/maps/NWxgew4CkqjXfB44A
And these are all really minor, and don't affect the legibility of any of these. It's not like we're talking about OkDOT. It's just something to note.
A lot of INDOT signage seems to get worse in layout when they "reface" older signs. Witness these BGSs on US 24, which looked normal in 2011 but if you go to more recent imagery you can see an INDOT phenomenon of no top margin which has swept the state on refacing jobs like this.
https://goo.gl/maps/dZenQmMxndZRfpWC7
It really seems like INDOT has gone downhill on this compared to many of the classic button copy signs which have become quite rare unfortunately in the past few years, which generally didn't have such problems. Did someone retire who took all the experience on sign layout with them?
Yes, the no-top-margin thing is definitely an issue. Just looking around today, I found one that takes that to the extreme.
https://goo.gl/maps/P9f3hJ3B3y5FmQdK9
Also, INDOT's "sign-refacing" is awful in general.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2021, 05:13:30 PM
Does Indiana do its guide signs in-house, or contract them out? If the latter, it's possible that the design of the signs is also being contracted out.
I'm leaning towards no on that one. It's not like Oklahoma where each sign has different issues. INDOT signs usually have similar problems, you can tell they're coming from roughly the same place.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tdindy88 on June 25, 2021, 08:51:36 AM
Post by: tdindy88 on June 25, 2021, 08:51:36 AM
Here's some more "sign-refacing" abominations from Indiana.
These two come from I-465 near I-70 on the east side. For some inexplicable reason INDOT decided to change these signs back in 2019.
https://goo.gl/maps/Jn9GuduyzXbqLT6p7
https://goo.gl/maps/tJYKdHTcz5sCyZMi9
A quick look back to earlier in 2019 shows what the signs used to look like. In short there was no problem other than the terrible, terrible fact that the cardinal direction didn't have it's first letter made larger than the others (there's a term for this but I don't remember at the moment.) I couldn't believe it when they redid these signs to make them look like that. I didn't think of it at the time but seeing this thread made me realize that this was part of a larger pattern. In short I think INDOT's highway signs are actually pretty decent, at least the first-generation version of them. But if they have to be replaced or redone for some reason then we get to problems.
Interesting there's another sign I pass by every day coming home from work, located at I-465 and US 31 on the south side.
https://goo.gl/maps/dN4B3e2yebMsy7eNA
This was part of a larger sign replacement along that stretch of highway a few years ago. Then just earlier this year, for some unknown reason, they replaced the sign bridge and put three new signs that are identical to the ones in the image EXCEPT they actually look better. The I-65 sign has better spacing and the US 31 sign looks pretty good. I need to take another look though to see if I was seeing this correctly, but maybe someone's finally getting it.
These two come from I-465 near I-70 on the east side. For some inexplicable reason INDOT decided to change these signs back in 2019.
https://goo.gl/maps/Jn9GuduyzXbqLT6p7
https://goo.gl/maps/tJYKdHTcz5sCyZMi9
A quick look back to earlier in 2019 shows what the signs used to look like. In short there was no problem other than the terrible, terrible fact that the cardinal direction didn't have it's first letter made larger than the others (there's a term for this but I don't remember at the moment.) I couldn't believe it when they redid these signs to make them look like that. I didn't think of it at the time but seeing this thread made me realize that this was part of a larger pattern. In short I think INDOT's highway signs are actually pretty decent, at least the first-generation version of them. But if they have to be replaced or redone for some reason then we get to problems.
Interesting there's another sign I pass by every day coming home from work, located at I-465 and US 31 on the south side.
https://goo.gl/maps/dN4B3e2yebMsy7eNA
This was part of a larger sign replacement along that stretch of highway a few years ago. Then just earlier this year, for some unknown reason, they replaced the sign bridge and put three new signs that are identical to the ones in the image EXCEPT they actually look better. The I-65 sign has better spacing and the US 31 sign looks pretty good. I need to take another look though to see if I was seeing this correctly, but maybe someone's finally getting it.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on June 25, 2021, 03:47:02 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 25, 2021, 03:47:02 PM
What are they doing in these "refacings"? Just applying new sheeting to existing panels?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on June 25, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
Post by: formulanone on June 25, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 24, 2021, 03:22:10 AMQuote from: LilianaUwU on June 23, 2021, 02:49:54 PMQuote from: JoePCool14 on June 23, 2021, 01:47:49 PM
This one almost has a bit of cRaiG cOuNTy DNA in it. I-69 in Evansville, IN.
https://goo.gl/maps/NYiikFLMSSD8thdV6
Ah, the classic 3/4th error. It happens when the lowercase letters are set to 3/4 the size of the capital letters despite the font already being preset to 3/4.
Not only that, but some of those lower case "r" are slightly larger than the rest of the lower case letters.
That goes into the Actually Genuine Well and Truly Worst of Signs No Joking Around This Is For Real Thread.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on June 25, 2021, 04:01:19 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on June 25, 2021, 04:01:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 25, 2021, 03:47:02 PMWhat are they doing in these "refacings"? Just applying new sheeting to existing panels?
If Indiana DOT is like Illinois DOT, they are probably washing the old sheeting off with high-pressure water, recycling the aluminum extrusions, and more or less carbon-copying the old legend. This can be done in-house or by contractors under framework contracts (I believe Illinois DOT does both).
Quote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2021, 05:13:30 PMDoes Indiana do its guide signs in-house, or contract them out? If the latter, it's possible that the design of the signs is also being contracted out.
Indiana DOT does do a pure sign replacement contract every now and then, though I suspect there is an in-house component. And yes, they do contract out sign design.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: okroads on June 26, 2021, 12:57:56 PM
Post by: okroads on June 26, 2021, 12:57:56 PM
Another sign refacing in Indiana that looks awful: IN 49 South in Valparaiso: https://goo.gl/maps/RSBRSJaW7h5FVQjQA
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 26, 2021, 01:22:35 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 26, 2021, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: okroads on June 26, 2021, 12:57:56 PM
Another sign refacing in Indiana that looks awful: IN 49 South in Valparaiso: https://goo.gl/maps/RSBRSJaW7h5FVQjQA
Wow. That's a new low for INDOT. Imagine how good they'd be if they just got their act together with BGS design.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on June 27, 2021, 12:42:11 PM
Post by: thenetwork on June 27, 2021, 12:42:11 PM
For a while there in the 80s and early 90s, ODOT in Ohio would just rivet overlays of metal squares with new green sheeting, shields and text on top of the older sign. I remember some sign panels that came off still showing the old shields/text/borders still intact on the original sign.
The end result looked like a "wrinkled" sign. Saw these most often in the Columbus area and points southwest of there.
They also for a time in the 90s just replace the shields on the signs -- sometimes right over the old shields! This was common across much of Northern Ohio.
The end result looked like a "wrinkled" sign. Saw these most often in the Columbus area and points southwest of there.
They also for a time in the 90s just replace the shields on the signs -- sometimes right over the old shields! This was common across much of Northern Ohio.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on June 30, 2021, 08:42:24 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on June 30, 2021, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on June 27, 2021, 12:42:11 PM
For a while there in the 80s and early 90s, ODOT in Ohio would just rivet overlays of metal squares with new green sheeting, shields and text on top of the older sign. I remember some sign panels that came off still showing the old shields/text/borders still intact on the original sign.
The end result looked like a "wrinkled" sign. Saw these most often in the Columbus area and points southwest of there.
They also for a time in the 90s just replace the shields on the signs -- sometimes right over the old shields! This was common across much of Northern Ohio.
I need to find the reasonably good pic I have of this sign on I-70 west of Columbus (https://goo.gl/maps/uuJwr5aRJRmgnSHPA) which for a couple years about a decade ago had part of its overlay gone and the old lettering, while gone, had left shadows on the base layer underneath that were visible of the border and letters. Impossible really to see in the 2009 street view, but fairly clear in the pic I got. Which is somewhere on a hard drive.
There used to be way more of the bubbly/wrinkled signs but they have been getting replaced over time...too bad, they had character. :P
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Occidental Tourist on July 08, 2021, 01:11:09 PM
Post by: Occidental Tourist on July 08, 2021, 01:11:09 PM
Here's how greenout was handled for the addition of one interchange and the removal of another on the 60 Freeway in Rowland Heights, CA
(https://i.imgur.com/YRT9iFW.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/hgnE2Fu.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/JqbtQr7.jpg)
The best part is that the interchange sequence signs as originally configured intentionally had space left on them for when the new Lemon Ave interchange would eventually be added. Apparently, at the time they made the signs, the removal of the original Brea Canyon Road interchange as part of adding the Lemon Ave interchange wasn't contemplated, and it was assumed both exits would still be listed.
(https://i.imgur.com/YRT9iFW.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/hgnE2Fu.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/JqbtQr7.jpg)
The best part is that the interchange sequence signs as originally configured intentionally had space left on them for when the new Lemon Ave interchange would eventually be added. Apparently, at the time they made the signs, the removal of the original Brea Canyon Road interchange as part of adding the Lemon Ave interchange wasn't contemplated, and it was assumed both exits would still be listed.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on July 08, 2021, 07:53:01 PM
Post by: hbelkins on July 08, 2021, 07:53:01 PM
"Cyn" as an abbreviation for "Canyon." That's a new one for me.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on July 08, 2021, 08:14:17 PM
Post by: SignBridge on July 08, 2021, 08:14:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2021, 07:53:01 PM
"Cyn" as an abbreviation for "Canyon." That's a new one for me.
Very common in California.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on July 08, 2021, 08:24:48 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 08, 2021, 08:24:48 PM
So common in fact that I've always assumed it was the standard abbreviation. I know USPS also uses it.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US 89 on July 08, 2021, 11:10:13 PM
Post by: US 89 on July 08, 2021, 11:10:13 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 08, 2021, 08:14:17 PMQuote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2021, 07:53:01 PMVery common in California.
"Cyn" as an abbreviation for "Canyon." That's a new one for me.
And in a whole bunch of other western states that have lots of them. I would not have thought anything of that.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 11:31:07 PM
Post by: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 11:31:07 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2021, 07:53:01 PMI know. KY uses "Hlr." :D
"Cyn" as an abbreviation for "Canyon." That's a new one for me.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SkyPesos on July 09, 2021, 12:26:40 AM
Post by: SkyPesos on July 09, 2021, 12:26:40 AM
Posted this in the "Enhanced Mile Markers" thread first:
Quote from: SkyPesos on July 08, 2021, 08:37:58 PM
"West (76) 240 Mile .4" (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.917677,-80.5324504,3a,15.5y,257.08h,88.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWUOaf6XNeTUEQSENw1Nd5Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on July 09, 2021, 02:06:27 PM
Post by: hbelkins on July 09, 2021, 02:06:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 08, 2021, 11:31:07 PMQuote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2021, 07:53:01 PMI know. KY uses "Hlr." :D
"Cyn" as an abbreviation for "Canyon." That's a new one for me.
LOL. I have seen "Holw." used on blade-type signs, though.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on July 13, 2021, 09:43:01 PM
Post by: formulanone on July 13, 2021, 09:43:01 PM
I'm just here to post that this still exists (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.1102032,-80.2975792,3a,18.4y,15.78h,89.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5YTvst-arK-CV8Towb0ARQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (as of last week), at Hiatus Road underneath I-595.
This similar example was at the nearby Nob Hill exit, but it was removed about 6-7 years ago:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/491/19738157129_8a3e00f46b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/w5cdrX)
This similar example was at the nearby Nob Hill exit, but it was removed about 6-7 years ago:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/491/19738157129_8a3e00f46b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/w5cdrX)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tolbs17 on October 23, 2021, 08:26:02 PM
Post by: tolbs17 on October 23, 2021, 08:26:02 PM
Should my thread be merged to this one?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SkyPesos on October 23, 2021, 08:28:35 PM
Post by: SkyPesos on October 23, 2021, 08:28:35 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 23, 2021, 08:26:02 PMNo, because these are actual design errors. While your thread is for nitpicking on minor details on BGS signage from arguably one of the best DOTs in the nation.
Should my thread be merged to this one?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on December 26, 2021, 02:42:52 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on December 26, 2021, 02:42:52 AM
Just in case anyone's been wondering how ODOT's doing.
(https://i.imgur.com/GpMwr4m.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GpMwr4m.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on January 01, 2022, 11:50:18 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on January 01, 2022, 11:50:18 PM
I drove up to Flint yesterday to get get photos of fairly new signs, and I saw a couple with minor design issues.
First advance APL for I-75 on westbound I-69. The EXIT and ONLY tabs for the exit lane were omitted. They are on the other APLs. (Maybe this one was deliberate so as not to be confused with the EXIT ONLY for exit 135?)
(https://i.imgur.com/SrJbNUq.jpg)
Eastbound I-69 at I-475. Cardinal direction is to the left of the route shield at a right-hand ramp split.
(https://i.imgur.com/0SNgI4a.jpg)
First advance APL for I-75 on westbound I-69. The EXIT and ONLY tabs for the exit lane were omitted. They are on the other APLs. (Maybe this one was deliberate so as not to be confused with the EXIT ONLY for exit 135?)
(https://i.imgur.com/SrJbNUq.jpg)
Eastbound I-69 at I-475. Cardinal direction is to the left of the route shield at a right-hand ramp split.
(https://i.imgur.com/0SNgI4a.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on January 02, 2022, 02:31:16 PM
Post by: roadfro on January 02, 2022, 02:31:16 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 01, 2022, 11:50:18 PM
I drove up to Flint yesterday to get get photos of fairly new signs, and I saw a couple with minor design issues.
<...>
Eastbound I-69 at I-475. Cardinal direction is to the left of the route shield at a right-hand ramp split.
(https://i.imgur.com/0SNgI4a.jpg)
While it might be a fairly standard convention, nothing in the MUTCD dictates the placement of the cardinal direction in relation to the shield when signing opposing directions at a split.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on January 02, 2022, 03:56:28 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on January 02, 2022, 03:56:28 PM
And indeed some states entirely ignore it (Kansas, for instance, seems to always put the direction after the shield).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on January 02, 2022, 04:32:17 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on January 02, 2022, 04:32:17 PM
Quote from: roadfro on January 02, 2022, 02:31:16 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on January 01, 2022, 11:50:18 PM
I drove up to Flint yesterday to get get photos of fairly new signs, and I saw a couple with minor design issues.
<...>
Eastbound I-69 at I-475. Cardinal direction is to the left of the route shield at a right-hand ramp split.
(https://i.imgur.com/0SNgI4a.jpg)
While it might be a fairly standard convention, nothing in the MUTCD dictates the placement of the cardinal direction in relation to the shield when signing opposing directions at a split.
True, but I've never seen this in Michigan so I'm guessing it's an error with respect to the state's design standards.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tolbs17 on January 02, 2022, 04:34:54 PM
Post by: tolbs17 on January 02, 2022, 04:34:54 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 02, 2022, 04:32:17 PMThose signs look fine to me....Quote from: roadfro on January 02, 2022, 02:31:16 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on January 01, 2022, 11:50:18 PM
I drove up to Flint yesterday to get get photos of fairly new signs, and I saw a couple with minor design issues.
<...>
Eastbound I-69 at I-475. Cardinal direction is to the left of the route shield at a right-hand ramp split.
(https://i.imgur.com/0SNgI4a.jpg)
While it might be a fairly standard convention, nothing in the MUTCD dictates the placement of the cardinal direction in relation to the shield when signing opposing directions at a split.
True, but I've never seen this in Michigan so I'm guessing it's an error with respect to the state's design standards.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on January 02, 2022, 07:00:46 PM
Post by: hbelkins on January 02, 2022, 07:00:46 PM
I personally prefer the direction to be to the left of, or above, the route marker, and not to the right of it.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on January 02, 2022, 08:31:07 PM
Post by: SignBridge on January 02, 2022, 08:31:07 PM
I guess it's a matter of personal viewpoint. I always preferred the direction to the right of the shield, regardless of the alignment of the road. I like consistency.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on January 04, 2022, 10:32:28 PM
Post by: roadfro on January 04, 2022, 10:32:28 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 02, 2022, 03:56:28 PMNevada is the same way. Cardinal direction is almost always to the right of the shield (s). It'll be to the left of the shield on occasion, in a few of the instances like this post. They're never on top of the shield, mainly because Nevada has had a maximum sign height (at least on structures not using APLs) that would preclude cardinal directions above the shield in most cases.
And indeed some states entirely ignore it (Kansas, for instance, seems to always put the direction after the shield).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 06, 2022, 04:44:20 PM
Post by: jakeroot on January 06, 2022, 04:44:20 PM
Definitely used to/prefer seeing the cardinal direction to the right of the shield, although that may be the result of my preferred verbiage ("405 south", "I-90 east").
There are exceptions in WA; sometimes the cardinal direction is to the left of the shield, although 95% of signs have it either above the shield, or to the right. Another exception is when there's a split: there will be a line above/below the shield, with cardinal directions on both sides of the shield (example (https://goo.gl/maps/rgSQgR7WWA8sT6ja7)).
One other oddity will be pull-through signage. In the past, signs like these (https://goo.gl/maps/FXcHkXFJoPypnNFi9) were used where there would be a single cardinal direction directly above the control city, with the shields off to the right and left edges of the sign (not anywhere near the cardinal direction). I think these are common in Minnesota too; I kind of like them, but they're pretty rare now, although that one (from the prior link) dates to 2008 and may have been the most recent install, and I cannot readily think of another example (I-5 northbound nearby at WA-167 had one, but it was removed).
There are exceptions in WA; sometimes the cardinal direction is to the left of the shield, although 95% of signs have it either above the shield, or to the right. Another exception is when there's a split: there will be a line above/below the shield, with cardinal directions on both sides of the shield (example (https://goo.gl/maps/rgSQgR7WWA8sT6ja7)).
One other oddity will be pull-through signage. In the past, signs like these (https://goo.gl/maps/FXcHkXFJoPypnNFi9) were used where there would be a single cardinal direction directly above the control city, with the shields off to the right and left edges of the sign (not anywhere near the cardinal direction). I think these are common in Minnesota too; I kind of like them, but they're pretty rare now, although that one (from the prior link) dates to 2008 and may have been the most recent install, and I cannot readily think of another example (I-5 northbound nearby at WA-167 had one, but it was removed).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on January 06, 2022, 04:49:20 PM
Post by: SignBridge on January 06, 2022, 04:49:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2022, 04:44:20 PM
Definitely used to/prefer seeing the cardinal direction to the right of the shield, although that may be the result of my preferred verbiage ("405 south", "I-90 east").
There are exceptions in WA; sometimes the cardinal direction is to the left of the shield, although 95% of signs have it either above the shield, or to the right. Another exception is when there's a split: there will be a line above/below the shield, with cardinal directions on both sides of the shield (example (https://goo.gl/maps/rgSQgR7WWA8sT6ja7)).
One other oddity will be pull-through signage. In the past, signs like these (https://goo.gl/maps/FXcHkXFJoPypnNFi9) were used where there would be a single cardinal direction directly above the control city, with the shields off to the right and left edges of the sign (not anywhere near the cardinal direction). I think these are common in Minnesota too; I kind of like them, but they're pretty rare now, although that one (from the prior link) dates to 2008 and may have been the most recent install, and I cannot readily think of another example (I-5 northbound nearby at WA-167 had one, but it was removed).
Why do they have a separate sign for the I-5 South, right-thru lane. Why not have the main sign over the four thru lanes with four arrows instead of three?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 07, 2022, 07:37:57 PM
Post by: jakeroot on January 07, 2022, 07:37:57 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 06, 2022, 04:49:20 PMQuote from: jakeroot on January 06, 2022, 04:44:20 PM
Definitely used to/prefer seeing the cardinal direction to the right of the shield, although that may be the result of my preferred verbiage ("405 south", "I-90 east").
There are exceptions in WA; sometimes the cardinal direction is to the left of the shield, although 95% of signs have it either above the shield, or to the right. Another exception is when there's a split: there will be a line above/below the shield, with cardinal directions on both sides of the shield (example (https://goo.gl/maps/rgSQgR7WWA8sT6ja7)).
One other oddity will be pull-through signage. In the past, signs like these (https://goo.gl/maps/FXcHkXFJoPypnNFi9) were used where there would be a single cardinal direction directly above the control city, with the shields off to the right and left edges of the sign (not anywhere near the cardinal direction). I think these are common in Minnesota too; I kind of like them, but they're pretty rare now, although that one (from the prior link) dates to 2008 and may have been the most recent install, and I cannot readily think of another example (I-5 northbound nearby at WA-167 had one, but it was removed).
Why do they have a separate sign for the I-5 South, right-thru lane. Why not have the main sign over the four thru lanes with four arrows instead of three?
I believe the plan is to have this be a "lane ends after exit" sign but has temporarily become an additional pull-through sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tolbs17 on January 14, 2022, 07:42:22 AM
Post by: tolbs17 on January 14, 2022, 07:42:22 AM
The far left sign is a design error because it only uses one arrow instead of two arrows pointing down at both lanes. And when looking at the signs, they went up in most likely the early to mid 2000s.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5690293,-82.4939908,3a,22y,241.29h,93.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_Cs5xfER1ND4jzO_G5OZRw!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5690293,-82.4939908,3a,22y,241.29h,93.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_Cs5xfER1ND4jzO_G5OZRw!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Bruce on January 22, 2022, 09:01:17 PM
Post by: Bruce on January 22, 2022, 09:01:17 PM
I-5 has been downgraded to a business route in Seattle:
(https://i.imgur.com/ffAckXl.png)
(Taken on SR 520 westbound approaching its terminus)
(https://i.imgur.com/ffAckXl.png)
(Taken on SR 520 westbound approaching its terminus)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 23, 2022, 10:38:55 AM
Post by: jakeroot on January 23, 2022, 10:38:55 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 22, 2022, 09:01:17 PM
I-5 has been downgraded to a business route in Seattle:
(https://i.imgur.com/ffAckXl.png)
(Taken on SR 520 westbound approaching its terminus)
Same-height capital letters, plus the periods in "BC"...this sign has more than a few problems. Of course, there is construction in the area...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 08:18:29 PM
Post by: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 08:18:29 PM
Quote from: Bruce on January 22, 2022, 09:01:17 PMThese days, seeing new business routes are rare. I wonder if Elizabeth City will get I-87 business?
I-5 has been downgraded to a business route in Seattle:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 24, 2022, 01:44:58 AM
Post by: jakeroot on January 24, 2022, 01:44:58 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 08:18:29 PMQuote from: Bruce on January 22, 2022, 09:01:17 PMThese days, seeing new business routes are rare. I wonder if Elizabeth City will get I-87 business?
I-5 has been downgraded to a business route in Seattle:
No, no, it's an error. I-5 through Seattle is very much not a business route of I-5, it's the mainline. The business route shield is a mistake, it should be a standard blue-red Interstate shield.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SkyPesos on January 24, 2022, 02:18:10 AM
Post by: SkyPesos on January 24, 2022, 02:18:10 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 08:18:29 PMI-87 (and its child route I-287 in the same metro area) both miss Elizabeth by a bit, so not sure why it would become I-87 business.Quote from: Bruce on January 22, 2022, 09:01:17 PMThese days, seeing new business routes are rare. I wonder if Elizabeth City will get I-87 business?
I-5 has been downgraded to a business route in Seattle:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Occidental Tourist on January 24, 2022, 03:38:10 AM
Post by: Occidental Tourist on January 24, 2022, 03:38:10 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 24, 2022, 01:44:58 AMQuote from: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 08:18:29 PMQuote from: Bruce on January 22, 2022, 09:01:17 PMThese days, seeing new business routes are rare. I wonder if Elizabeth City will get I-87 business?
I-5 has been downgraded to a business route in Seattle:
No, no, it's an error. I-5 through Seattle is very much not a business route of I-5, it's the mainline. The business route shield is a mistake, it should be a standard blue-red Interstate shield.
Maybe they are referring to the "business I-5" local exit lanes on I-5 (several miles south of the 520 interchange) :spin:
(https://i.imgur.com/h5kTtYq.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 24, 2022, 12:17:37 PM
Post by: jakeroot on January 24, 2022, 12:17:37 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on January 24, 2022, 03:38:10 AMQuote from: jakeroot on January 24, 2022, 01:44:58 AMQuote from: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 08:18:29 PMQuote from: Bruce on January 22, 2022, 09:01:17 PMThese days, seeing new business routes are rare. I wonder if Elizabeth City will get I-87 business?
I-5 has been downgraded to a business route in Seattle:
No, no, it's an error. I-5 through Seattle is very much not a business route of I-5, it's the mainline. The business route shield is a mistake, it should be a standard blue-red Interstate shield.
Maybe they are referring to the "business I-5" local exit lanes on I-5 (several miles south of the 520 interchange) :spin:
https://i.imgur.com/h5kTtYq.jpg
I'm not entirely convinced WSDOT is actually going through with that, despite the sign. The second lane is still coned off, and there are no other signs despite that one.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: plain on January 24, 2022, 10:41:07 PM
Post by: plain on January 24, 2022, 10:41:07 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 24, 2022, 02:18:10 AMQuote from: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 08:18:29 PMI-87 (and its child route I-287 in the same metro area) both miss Elizabeth by a bit, so not sure why it would become I-87 business.Quote from: Bruce on January 22, 2022, 09:01:17 PMThese days, seeing new business routes are rare. I wonder if Elizabeth City will get I-87 business?
I-5 has been downgraded to a business route in Seattle:
This is funny on so many levels :-D
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Declan127 on January 27, 2022, 08:23:06 PM
Post by: Declan127 on January 27, 2022, 08:23:06 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5866782,-73.8206267,3a,15y,62.08h,98.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1shvKGBTW7qHPJYnv5FSVLRg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DhvKGBTW7qHPJYnv5FSVLRg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D127.31086%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5866782,-73.8206267,3a,15y,62.08h,98.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1shvKGBTW7qHPJYnv5FSVLRg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DhvKGBTW7qHPJYnv5FSVLRg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D127.31086%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/909984868576927824/936430854639591445/unknown.png)
I have to see this every day from my school window. I'm not even sure if it's Helvetica or Arial, but it certainly isn't right.
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/909984868576927824/936430854639591445/unknown.png)
I have to see this every day from my school window. I'm not even sure if it's Helvetica or Arial, but it certainly isn't right.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Big John on January 27, 2022, 08:47:41 PM
Post by: Big John on January 27, 2022, 08:47:41 PM
^^ Looks like Helvetica.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tolbs17 on March 06, 2022, 05:14:01 PM
Post by: tolbs17 on March 06, 2022, 05:14:01 PM
I found one. The lane adds up and it says "EXIT ONLY". It should not have that. It should just have a green arrow. EXIT ONLY should be used for auxiliary lanes only.
https://goo.gl/maps/8CUM8cdwfRZbeCzd8
https://goo.gl/maps/opmL1aaZNFjPhD5X7
https://goo.gl/maps/i7SgdoZqufXrVGY4A
https://goo.gl/maps/dJepPLosKbmvvLzHA
And one here. For the second photo the gantry should be moved up so it complies with the double lane exit. It even violated that when the highway opened in 2007.
https://goo.gl/maps/Fog9PGuDqMQdEdrf6
https://goo.gl/maps/xKSNHccKcwTVYTrk8
https://goo.gl/maps/8CUM8cdwfRZbeCzd8
https://goo.gl/maps/opmL1aaZNFjPhD5X7
https://goo.gl/maps/i7SgdoZqufXrVGY4A
https://goo.gl/maps/dJepPLosKbmvvLzHA
And one here. For the second photo the gantry should be moved up so it complies with the double lane exit. It even violated that when the highway opened in 2007.
https://goo.gl/maps/Fog9PGuDqMQdEdrf6
https://goo.gl/maps/xKSNHccKcwTVYTrk8
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ran4sh on March 06, 2022, 05:19:46 PM
Post by: ran4sh on March 06, 2022, 05:19:46 PM
For whatever reason, that lane exists for more than 1 1/2 miles (per the sign). "Exit only" is definitely warranted.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tolbs17 on March 06, 2022, 05:26:28 PM
Post by: tolbs17 on March 06, 2022, 05:26:28 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on March 06, 2022, 05:19:46 PMAfter reading this, I get it now.
For whatever reason, that lane exists for more than 1 1/2 miles (per the sign). "Exit only" is definitely warranted.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#figure2E13
QuoteAdvance Guide signs for lane drops within 1 mile of the interchange should not contain the distance message.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on March 07, 2022, 01:17:03 PM
Post by: jakeroot on March 07, 2022, 01:17:03 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 06, 2022, 05:14:01 PM
And one here. For the second photo the gantry should be moved up so it complies with the double lane exit. It even violated that when the highway opened in 2007.
https://goo.gl/maps/Fog9PGuDqMQdEdrf6
https://goo.gl/maps/xKSNHccKcwTVYTrk8
It's possible the signing contracts were produced prior to the 2003 MUTCD's adoption in North Carolina, which can occur up to a year or two after it is published. Here in Washington, it took until December 2011 to adopt the 2009 MUTCD.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ran4sh on March 07, 2022, 02:05:49 PM
Post by: ran4sh on March 07, 2022, 02:05:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 07, 2022, 01:17:03 PMQuote from: tolbs17 on March 06, 2022, 05:14:01 PM
And one here. For the second photo the gantry should be moved up so it complies with the double lane exit. It even violated that when the highway opened in 2007.
https://goo.gl/maps/Fog9PGuDqMQdEdrf6
https://goo.gl/maps/xKSNHccKcwTVYTrk8
It's possible the signing contracts were produced prior to the 2003 MUTCD's adoption in North Carolina, which can occur up to a year or two after it is published. Here in Washington, it took until December 2011 to adopt the 2009 MUTCD.
This is probably correct. North Carolina is one of the states that does not directly adopt the MUTCD, but rather creates a state MUTCD that is in "substantial compliance" with the federal MUTCD.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: tolbs17 on March 07, 2022, 02:11:49 PM
Post by: tolbs17 on March 07, 2022, 02:11:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 07, 2022, 01:17:03 PMYeah. Those signs were installed in 2007-2008ish so they were prior to the 2003 MUTCD.Quote from: tolbs17 on March 06, 2022, 05:14:01 PM
And one here. For the second photo the gantry should be moved up so it complies with the double lane exit. It even violated that when the highway opened in 2007.
https://goo.gl/maps/Fog9PGuDqMQdEdrf6
https://goo.gl/maps/xKSNHccKcwTVYTrk8
It's possible the signing contracts were produced prior to the 2003 MUTCD's adoption in North Carolina, which can occur up to a year or two after it is published. Here in Washington, it took until December 2011 to adopt the 2009 MUTCD.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on April 01, 2022, 01:59:46 AM
Post by: jakeroot on April 01, 2022, 01:59:46 AM
Former one way street turned two way...best you don't take the suggestion seriously, though:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51973620182_f764f74cfa_o.jpg)
Arrows placed incorrectly / Renton, WA (https://flic.kr/p/2nbJoxG) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51973620182_f764f74cfa_o.jpg)
Arrows placed incorrectly / Renton, WA (https://flic.kr/p/2nbJoxG) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: rlb2024 on May 16, 2022, 10:00:49 AM
Post by: rlb2024 on May 16, 2022, 10:00:49 AM
On I-10 westbound just west of Mobile, AL. The exit is for US 90 westbound, to Theodore. There is no West Theodore. I was through there this past weekend and this sign is still up.
The sign on eastbound I-10 is correct.
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5819851,-88.1688198,3a,75y,233.67h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD1yxgVALGozMkl-wsx-WHQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5819851,-88.1688198,3a,75y,233.67h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD1yxgVALGozMkl-wsx-WHQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
The sign on eastbound I-10 is correct.
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5819851,-88.1688198,3a,75y,233.67h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD1yxgVALGozMkl-wsx-WHQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5819851,-88.1688198,3a,75y,233.67h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD1yxgVALGozMkl-wsx-WHQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: elsmere241 on May 16, 2022, 10:04:55 AM
Post by: elsmere241 on May 16, 2022, 10:04:55 AM
Sometimes freeways (especially turnpikes) will have the direction in front to indicate that it's an exit to say, the west side of Theodore, as opposed to downtown or the east side. I saw that a lot (with the direction in back) on the autostradas in Italy.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: rlb2024 on May 16, 2022, 10:43:15 AM
Post by: rlb2024 on May 16, 2022, 10:43:15 AM
Quote from: elsmere241 on May 16, 2022, 10:04:55 AM
Sometimes freeways (especially turnpikes) will have the direction in front to indicate that it's an exit to say, the west side of Theodore, as opposed to downtown or the east side. I saw that a lot (with the direction in back) on the autostradas in Italy.
I understand that, but this one is just blatantly wrong. Here is the sign at the start of the interchange -- the Exit 15A sign on this gantry is what the other one should look like:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5828342,-88.1671412,3a,75y,227.19h,104.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seTWqv1ym0_PvytZK5j_EbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5828342,-88.1671412,3a,75y,227.19h,104.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seTWqv1ym0_PvytZK5j_EbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
These signs were just replaced, so the contractor just screwed this one up royally and hasn't fixed it yet.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: elsmere241 on May 16, 2022, 10:45:54 AM
Post by: elsmere241 on May 16, 2022, 10:45:54 AM
Quote from: rlb2024 on May 16, 2022, 10:43:15 AMQuote from: elsmere241 on May 16, 2022, 10:04:55 AM
Sometimes freeways (especially turnpikes) will have the direction in front to indicate that it's an exit to say, the west side of Theodore, as opposed to downtown or the east side. I saw that a lot (with the direction in back) on the autostradas in Italy.
I understand that, but this one is just blatantly wrong. Here is the sign at the start of the interchange -- the Exit 15A sign on this gantry is what the other one should look like:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5828342,-88.1671412,3a,75y,227.19h,104.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seTWqv1ym0_PvytZK5j_EbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5828342,-88.1671412,3a,75y,227.19h,104.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seTWqv1ym0_PvytZK5j_EbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
These signs were just replaced, so the contractor just screwed this one up royally and hasn't fixed it yet.
Interesting.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 16, 2022, 11:25:28 AM
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 16, 2022, 11:25:28 AM
Shield arrangements like this exit sign on southbound I-75 at US-224 in Findlay OH are confusing. Does the "West" apply to both routes or only OH-15? Should I exit here if I want eastbound US-224?
The old sign had "West" above the OH-15 shield, making clear that it applied only to that route. Either that or switch the order of the shields so the sign reads OH-15 West / US-224.
(https://i.imgur.com/eAMrbGb.jpg)
The old sign had "West" above the OH-15 shield, making clear that it applied only to that route. Either that or switch the order of the shields so the sign reads OH-15 West / US-224.
(https://i.imgur.com/eAMrbGb.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on May 16, 2022, 07:42:44 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 16, 2022, 07:42:44 PM
I would assume from that sign that both routes go west from this exit. Would that assumption be wrong in this case?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on May 16, 2022, 08:51:16 PM
Post by: thenetwork on May 16, 2022, 08:51:16 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on May 16, 2022, 07:42:44 PM
I would assume from that sign that both routes go west from this exit. Would that assumption be wrong in this case?
Quote from: SignBridge on May 16, 2022, 07:42:44 PM
I would assume from that sign that both routes go west from this exit. Would that assumption be wrong in this case?
Technically, I believe you could even drop the WEST designation from the overhead, as SR-15 West is LEAVING its brief multiplex with I-75 North.
You could also add a 2nd control city to represent US-224 East: Either DOWNTOWN Findlay, or even Lodi (as Findlay is a control city for US-224 West at I-71 in Lodi).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 16, 2022, 11:35:05 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 16, 2022, 11:35:05 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on May 16, 2022, 08:51:16 PMQuote from: SignBridge on May 16, 2022, 07:42:44 PM
I would assume from that sign that both routes go west from this exit. Would that assumption be wrong in this case?
Technically, I believe you could even drop the WEST designation from the overhead, as SR-15 West is LEAVING its brief multiplex with I-75 North.
You could also add a 2nd control city to represent US-224 East: Either DOWNTOWN Findlay, or even Lodi (as Findlay is a control city for US-224 West at I-71 in Lodi).
This is on SOUTHbound I-75, so the "West" designation is needed for OH-15 as its eastbound multiplex with I-75 begins here.
I wasn't clear in my first post. At I-75, both routes go west and US-224 also goes east (no multiplex with I-75). But the way this sign is designed, one might think there is a different exit farther ahead for eastbound US-224, just as there is a different exit for OH-15.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on May 17, 2022, 12:01:04 AM
Post by: US71 on May 17, 2022, 12:01:04 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/2259/2283115720_f6dd49d17d_d.jpg)
I thought for sure I had posted this construction error for US 62 near Flippin, AR
I thought for sure I had posted this construction error for US 62 near Flippin, AR
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: snowc on May 17, 2022, 09:54:22 AM
Post by: snowc on May 17, 2022, 09:54:22 AM
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/7/28/proc/3747101_ba850d51231e1df339d3b9a7c86b49b8.jpg)
This sign included?
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/7/28/proc/3747101_b965c967f691e9192fb6e60ea53b6dec.jpg)
This one also abbreviates Bridge as Br. Really NYSDOT? :crazy:
Bryce
This sign included?
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/7/28/proc/3747101_b965c967f691e9192fb6e60ea53b6dec.jpg)
This one also abbreviates Bridge as Br. Really NYSDOT? :crazy:
Bryce
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: index on May 17, 2022, 11:28:38 AM
Post by: index on May 17, 2022, 11:28:38 AM
Quote from: snowc on May 17, 2022, 09:54:22 AMAbbreviating Bridge as Br. is pretty standard.
[snipped]
This sign included?
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/7/28/proc/3747101_b965c967f691e9192fb6e60ea53b6dec.jpg)
This one also abbreviates Bridge as Br. Really NYSDOT? :crazy:
Bryce
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Rothman on May 17, 2022, 01:18:48 PM
Post by: Rothman on May 17, 2022, 01:18:48 PM
Quote from: index on May 17, 2022, 11:28:38 AMAnother snowc special.Quote from: snowc on May 17, 2022, 09:54:22 AMAbbreviating Bridge as Br. is pretty standard.
[snipped]
This sign included?
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/7/28/proc/3747101_b965c967f691e9192fb6e60ea53b6dec.jpg)
This one also abbreviates Bridge as Br. Really NYSDOT? :crazy:
Bryce
I mean, I loathe the APL that many others have noted, but there's nothing notable about the abbreviation for bridge.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: snowc on May 17, 2022, 01:54:57 PM
Post by: snowc on May 17, 2022, 01:54:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 17, 2022, 01:18:48 PMSo NY does this to all their signs?Quote from: index on May 17, 2022, 11:28:38 AMAnother snowc special.Quote from: snowc on May 17, 2022, 09:54:22 AMAbbreviating Bridge as Br. is pretty standard.
[snipped]
This sign included?
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/7/28/proc/3747101_b965c967f691e9192fb6e60ea53b6dec.jpg)
This one also abbreviates Bridge as Br. Really NYSDOT? :crazy:
Bryce
I mean, I loathe the APL that many others have noted, but there's nothing notable about the abbreviation for bridge.
Bryce
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on May 17, 2022, 02:50:10 PM
Post by: kphoger on May 17, 2022, 02:50:10 PM
Quote from: US71 on May 17, 2022, 12:01:04 AM
I thought for sure I had posted this construction error for US 62 near Flippin, AR
You had, multiple times. Just not in this thread.
The new highway photograph game [now locked]:
Quote from: US71 on December 15, 2009, 11:17:08 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2259/2283115720_f6dd49d17d_z_d.jpg?zz=1)
Interesting, ugly or erroneous contractor-installed or temporary signage:
Quote from: US71 on September 27, 2017, 07:44:07 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2259/2283115720_f6dd49d17d_z_d.jpg?zz=1)
Erroneous road signs:
Quote from: US71 on July 30, 2009, 10:33:53 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2259%2F2283115720_f6dd49d17d.jpg&hash=ed7e4b23daac1f490e255fef35a4952e8dcf427a)
The Worst of Road Signs [now locked]:
Quote from: US71 on January 24, 2019, 03:39:06 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2259/2283115720_f6dd49d17d_z_d.jpg?zz=1)
Signs With Design Errors:
Quote from: US71 on May 17, 2022, 12:01:04 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/2259/2283115720_f6dd49d17d_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US 89 on May 17, 2022, 03:09:48 PM
Post by: US 89 on May 17, 2022, 03:09:48 PM
Quote from: snowc on May 17, 2022, 01:54:57 PMQuote from: Rothman on May 17, 2022, 01:18:48 PMSo NY does this to all their signs?Quote from: index on May 17, 2022, 11:28:38 AMAnother snowc special.Quote from: snowc on May 17, 2022, 09:54:22 AMAbbreviating Bridge as Br. is pretty standard.
[snipped]
This sign included?
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/7/28/proc/3747101_b965c967f691e9192fb6e60ea53b6dec.jpg)
This one also abbreviates Bridge as Br. Really NYSDOT? :crazy:
Bryce
I mean, I loathe the APL that many others have noted, but there's nothing notable about the abbreviation for bridge.
Bryce
I mean, there are probably some signs in NY that spell it out...but that's a really common abbreviation that you'll see plenty outside of NY, too. Like this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/HEsgGtbPXkhugZKD9) at the east end of I-80 in NJ.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on May 17, 2022, 03:26:58 PM
Post by: US71 on May 17, 2022, 03:26:58 PM
WOW!I wish I had as much time as kphoger does so I could spend all day looking for reasons to attack people. </s>
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on May 17, 2022, 03:33:23 PM
Post by: kphoger on May 17, 2022, 03:33:23 PM
Didn't mean it as an attack. Just wanted to let you know you weren't going crazy, and that you hadn't posted it yet in this thread.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US71 on May 17, 2022, 03:50:48 PM
Post by: US71 on May 17, 2022, 03:50:48 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 17, 2022, 03:33:23 PM
Didn't mean it as an attack. Just wanted to let you know you weren't going crazy, and that you hadn't posted it yet in this thread.
When you post in public it sounds like an attack to me. You can always PM me or call the mods on me but dirty laundry in public is so gauche.
Now, where was I? Oh, that's right: Barcelona. :p
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Rothman on May 17, 2022, 03:52:39 PM
Post by: Rothman on May 17, 2022, 03:52:39 PM
Quote from: US71 on May 17, 2022, 03:50:48 PMI like the idea of photos of road signs being dirty laundry.Quote from: kphoger on May 17, 2022, 03:33:23 PM
Didn't mean it as an attack. Just wanted to let you know you weren't going crazy, and that you hadn't posted it yet in this thread.
When you post in public it sounds like an attack to me. You can always PM me or call the mods on me but dirty laundry in public is so gauche.
Now, where was I? Oh, that's right: Barcelona.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on May 17, 2022, 03:56:05 PM
Post by: kphoger on May 17, 2022, 03:56:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 17, 2022, 03:52:39 PM
I like the idea of photos of road signs being dirty laundry.
I like the idea of photos of dirty laundry on road signs.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Big John on May 17, 2022, 05:13:38 PM
Post by: Big John on May 17, 2022, 05:13:38 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMa77NSCWK8
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on May 25, 2022, 04:41:33 PM
Post by: roadfro on May 25, 2022, 04:41:33 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 16, 2022, 11:35:05 PMI would also interpret this as both routes going west. This is a byproduct of most of my driving occurring in Nevada, where we always put the directional to the right of a shield on BGSs like this. But we don't have any instances of the above situation where multiplexed routes go in more than one cardinal direction off an exit. And also, except for the brief overlap of US 50 on I-580/US 395 in Carson City, all our routes with freeway overlaps are N/S, so there's no ambiguity.Quote from: thenetwork on May 16, 2022, 08:51:16 PMQuote from: SignBridge on May 16, 2022, 07:42:44 PM
I would assume from that sign that both routes go west from this exit. Would that assumption be wrong in this case?
Technically, I believe you could even drop the WEST designation from the overhead, as SR-15 West is LEAVING its brief multiplex with I-75 North.
You could also add a 2nd control city to represent US-224 East: Either DOWNTOWN Findlay, or even Lodi (as Findlay is a control city for US-224 West at I-71 in Lodi).
This is on SOUTHbound I-75, so the "West" designation is needed for OH-15 as its eastbound multiplex with I-75 begins here.
I wasn't clear in my first post. At I-75, both routes go west and US-224 also goes east (no multiplex with I-75). But the way this sign is designed, one might think there is a different exit farther ahead for eastbound US-224, just as there is a different exit for OH-15.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 25, 2022, 05:23:04 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 25, 2022, 05:23:04 PM
Quote from: roadfro on May 25, 2022, 04:41:33 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on May 16, 2022, 11:35:05 PMI would also interpret this as both routes going west. This is a byproduct of most of my driving occurring in Nevada, where we always put the directional to the right of a shield on BGSs like this. But we don't have any instances of the above situation where multiplexed routes go in more than one cardinal direction off an exit. And also, except for the brief overlap of US 50 on I-580/US 395 in Carson City, all our routes with freeway overlaps are N/S, so there's no ambiguity.Quote from: thenetwork on May 16, 2022, 08:51:16 PMQuote from: SignBridge on May 16, 2022, 07:42:44 PM
I would assume from that sign that both routes go west from this exit. Would that assumption be wrong in this case?
Technically, I believe you could even drop the WEST designation from the overhead, as SR-15 West is LEAVING its brief multiplex with I-75 North.
You could also add a 2nd control city to represent US-224 East: Either DOWNTOWN Findlay, or even Lodi (as Findlay is a control city for US-224 West at I-71 in Lodi).
This is on SOUTHbound I-75, so the "West" designation is needed for OH-15 as its eastbound multiplex with I-75 begins here.
I wasn't clear in my first post. At I-75, both routes go west and US-224 also goes east (no multiplex with I-75). But the way this sign is designed, one might think there is a different exit farther ahead for eastbound US-224, just as there is a different exit for OH-15.
You are still misunderstanding me. Yes, both routes go west. The issue is: If one wants EASTbound US-224, should one exit here, or continue on the freeway and expect a different exit for that farther along?
The fact is this exit is for BOTH directions of US-224. Turn right at the top of the ramp for westbound 224 and 15; turn left for eastbound 224. But the sign is not clear about the latter. The WEST banner should be positioned above the OH-15 shield or the shield order should be switched to read OH-15 WEST / US-224. That would make clear the WEST banner applies only to OH-15.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on May 27, 2022, 12:22:05 PM
Post by: roadfro on May 27, 2022, 12:22:05 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 25, 2022, 05:23:04 PMQuote from: roadfro on May 25, 2022, 04:41:33 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on May 16, 2022, 11:35:05 PMI would also interpret this as both routes going west. This is a byproduct of most of my driving occurring in Nevada, where we always put the directional to the right of a shield on BGSs like this. But we don't have any instances of the above situation where multiplexed routes go in more than one cardinal direction off an exit. And also, except for the brief overlap of US 50 on I-580/US 395 in Carson City, all our routes with freeway overlaps are N/S, so there's no ambiguity.Quote from: thenetwork on May 16, 2022, 08:51:16 PMQuote from: SignBridge on May 16, 2022, 07:42:44 PM
I would assume from that sign that both routes go west from this exit. Would that assumption be wrong in this case?
Technically, I believe you could even drop the WEST designation from the overhead, as SR-15 West is LEAVING its brief multiplex with I-75 North.
You could also add a 2nd control city to represent US-224 East: Either DOWNTOWN Findlay, or even Lodi (as Findlay is a control city for US-224 West at I-71 in Lodi).
This is on SOUTHbound I-75, so the "West" designation is needed for OH-15 as its eastbound multiplex with I-75 begins here.
I wasn't clear in my first post. At I-75, both routes go west and US-224 also goes east (no multiplex with I-75). But the way this sign is designed, one might think there is a different exit farther ahead for eastbound US-224, just as there is a different exit for OH-15.
You are still misunderstanding me. Yes, both routes go west. The issue is: If one wants EASTbound US-224, should one exit here, or continue on the freeway and expect a different exit for that farther along?
The fact is this exit is for BOTH directions of US-224. Turn right at the top of the ramp for westbound 224 and 15; turn left for eastbound 224. But the sign is not clear about the latter. The WEST banner should be positioned above the OH-15 shield or the shield order should be switched to read OH-15 WEST / US-224. That would make clear the WEST banner applies only to OH-15.
Oh, I wasn't misunderstanding you...perhaps I should have been more clear. My interpretation would be that this exit is just for US 224 west, because that is how things are signed in Nevada and we don't have any situations like this. Without GPS or having familiarity from a review of maps, I wouldn't be expecting to take this exit for US 224 east from the sign alone.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 27, 2022, 12:42:44 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 27, 2022, 12:42:44 PM
Another Oklahoma special on the Kickapoo Turnpike:
https://goo.gl/maps/DM9t6RRXaDzaNDTb9
Left justified text, random slash, wrong arrow.
https://goo.gl/maps/DM9t6RRXaDzaNDTb9
Left justified text, random slash, wrong arrow.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Hobart on May 28, 2022, 07:08:37 PM
Post by: Hobart on May 28, 2022, 07:08:37 PM
I have to drive on Cline Avenue North for work every day.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5850123,-87.4327034,3a,27.3y,9.02h,92.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sagX0P5IHp1T8dFuqNBRYRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
This sign omits the arrow for the exit. I'm not sure if it needs to be there, but there's definitely something missing.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5850123,-87.4327034,3a,27.3y,9.02h,92.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sagX0P5IHp1T8dFuqNBRYRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
This sign omits the arrow for the exit. I'm not sure if it needs to be there, but there's definitely something missing.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on May 28, 2022, 08:00:15 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on May 28, 2022, 08:00:15 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 27, 2022, 12:42:44 PM
Another Oklahoma special on the Kickapoo Turnpike:
https://goo.gl/maps/DM9t6RRXaDzaNDTb9
Left justified text, random slash, wrong arrow.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 15, 2021, 08:26:57 PM
A brand-new OTA Special™, from the Kickapoo Turnpike:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Kickapoo_Turnpike_exit_144_2.jpg/800px-Kickapoo_Turnpike_exit_144_2.jpg)
"Jim, I can't remember, are we supposed to use a slash or a line break to separate two different messages on the same sign?"
"I dunno, just put both"
"Is the text supposed to be left aligned, or centered?"
"no"
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on May 28, 2022, 10:56:51 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on May 28, 2022, 10:56:51 PM
Quote from: Hobart on May 28, 2022, 07:08:37 PM
I have to drive on Cline Avenue North for work every day.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5850123,-87.4327034,3a,27.3y,9.02h,92.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sagX0P5IHp1T8dFuqNBRYRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
This sign omits the arrow for the exit. I'm not sure if it needs to be there, but there's definitely something missing.
Seems to be a thing that happens sometimes but I don't get how the sign at the exit can have no arrow at all.
https://goo.gl/maps/txZuHrgF3vq63R5i6
https://goo.gl/maps/WbSvefP3HajXau9C9 (Construction patched, but others patched in the vicinity where there is a lane drop like this were properly patched with EXIT ONLY and an arrow)
A few old signs on I-77 in Akron were missing arrows where they were supposed to be (with space for them like the IN 912 one, but nothing there); it is too much of a coincidence for them to just have fallen off over time.
https://goo.gl/maps/YVQmrQS6FgJarFHc7
https://goo.gl/maps/bBZqxx43RqtBMbvV7
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 28, 2022, 10:58:10 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 28, 2022, 10:58:10 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 28, 2022, 08:00:15 PMQuote from: JoePCool14 on May 27, 2022, 12:42:44 PM
Another Oklahoma special on the Kickapoo Turnpike:
https://goo.gl/maps/DM9t6RRXaDzaNDTb9
Left justified text, random slash, wrong arrow.Quote from: Scott5114 on January 15, 2021, 08:26:57 PM
A brand-new OTA Special™, from the Kickapoo Turnpike:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Kickapoo_Turnpike_exit_144_2.jpg/800px-Kickapoo_Turnpike_exit_144_2.jpg)
"Jim, I can't remember, are we supposed to use a slash or a line break to separate two different messages on the same sign?"
"I dunno, just put both"
"Is the text supposed to be left aligned, or centered?"
"no"
Should've known...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 29, 2022, 04:02:56 AM
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 29, 2022, 04:02:56 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 15, 2021, 08:26:57 PM
A brand-new OTA Special™, from the Kickapoo Turnpike:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Kickapoo_Turnpike_exit_144_2.jpg/800px-Kickapoo_Turnpike_exit_144_2.jpg)
"Jim, I can't remember, are we supposed to use a slash or a line break to separate two different messages on the same sign?"
"I dunno, just put both"
"Is the text supposed to be left aligned, or centered?"
"no"
Maybe it's like a movie credit, where the star's name on the second line is farther to the left so it appears both stars have equal billing: http://i.ibb.co/T8P2Xbv/TISMPN.png
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on May 29, 2022, 08:27:52 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 29, 2022, 08:27:52 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 28, 2022, 10:56:51 PMQuote from: Hobart on May 28, 2022, 07:08:37 PM
I have to drive on Cline Avenue North for work every day.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5850123,-87.4327034,3a,27.3y,9.02h,92.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sagX0P5IHp1T8dFuqNBRYRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
This sign omits the arrow for the exit. I'm not sure if it needs to be there, but there's definitely something missing.
Seems to be a thing that happens sometimes but I don't get how the sign at the exit can have no arrow at all.
https://goo.gl/maps/txZuHrgF3vq63R5i6
https://goo.gl/maps/WbSvefP3HajXau9C9 (Construction patched, but others patched in the vicinity where there is a lane drop like this were properly patched with EXIT ONLY and an arrow)
A few old signs on I-77 in Akron were missing arrows where they were supposed to be (with space for them like the IN 912 one, but nothing there); it is too much of a coincidence for them to just have fallen off over time.
https://goo.gl/maps/YVQmrQS6FgJarFHc7
https://goo.gl/maps/bBZqxx43RqtBMbvV7
I'm guessing somebody screwed up in these cases of the omitted arrow. Either it was left out of the engineering specs or the builder didn't follow the specs. I've seen it happen in other states too.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kirbykart on July 29, 2022, 07:38:59 AM
Post by: kirbykart on July 29, 2022, 07:38:59 AM
Bump to showcase this beauty (https://maps.app.goo.gl/x5gkyTGTHAq2EHdZ8) in Salamanca, NY.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 12:09:00 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 12:09:00 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on July 29, 2022, 07:38:59 AM
Bump to showcase this beauty (https://maps.app.goo.gl/x5gkyTGTHAq2EHdZ8) in Salamanca, NY.
The margins are a fraction of an inch too tight, but other than that, that's 100% MUTCD compliant.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on July 29, 2022, 12:40:22 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on July 29, 2022, 12:40:22 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 12:09:00 PMQuote from: kirbykart on July 29, 2022, 07:38:59 AM
Bump to showcase this beauty (https://maps.app.goo.gl/x5gkyTGTHAq2EHdZ8) in Salamanca, NY.
The margins are a fraction of an inch too tight, but other than that, that's 100% MUTCD compliant.
The fonts are wonky somehow though. CITY OF looks bold, while the city name is so tight in narrow letters.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 12:41:32 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 12:41:32 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 29, 2022, 12:40:22 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 12:09:00 PMQuote from: kirbykart on July 29, 2022, 07:38:59 AM
Bump to showcase this beauty (https://maps.app.goo.gl/x5gkyTGTHAq2EHdZ8) in Salamanca, NY.
The margins are a fraction of an inch too tight, but other than that, that's 100% MUTCD compliant.
The fonts are wonky somehow though. CITY OF looks bold, while the city name is so tight in narrow letters.
That's just what happens when you put Series E(M) and Series B on the same sign. You rarely see them combined, but there's no actual error in doing so.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Lukeisroads on July 29, 2022, 01:35:31 PM
Post by: Lukeisroads on July 29, 2022, 01:35:31 PM
Utah Screwed up https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242315,-111.9249438,3a,27.9y,93.66h,90.85t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIbVXGsOwY4L_R_0EQUSHfQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DIbVXGsOwY4L_R_0EQUSHfQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D90.807495%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 exit lane choice and two arrows wow
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 01:41:32 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 01:41:32 PM
Believe it or not, since the sign is posted downstream of the theoretical gore, the 2009 MUTCD says that's correct.
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/images/fig2e_11.gif)
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/images/fig2e_11.gif)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Lukeisroads on July 29, 2022, 01:43:59 PM
Post by: Lukeisroads on July 29, 2022, 01:43:59 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 01:41:32 PMAccording to road guy rob he says utah did it wrong
Believe it or not, since the sign is posted downstream of the theoretical gore, the 2009 MUTCD says that's correct.
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/images/fig2e_11.gif)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 01:52:33 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 01:52:33 PM
Quote from: Lukeisroads on July 29, 2022, 01:43:59 PM
According to road guy rob he says utah did it wrong
In which video?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on July 29, 2022, 02:04:32 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on July 29, 2022, 02:04:32 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 12:41:32 PMQuote from: PurdueBill on July 29, 2022, 12:40:22 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 12:09:00 PMQuote from: kirbykart on July 29, 2022, 07:38:59 AM
Bump to showcase this beauty (https://maps.app.goo.gl/x5gkyTGTHAq2EHdZ8) in Salamanca, NY.
The margins are a fraction of an inch too tight, but other than that, that's 100% MUTCD compliant.
The fonts are wonky somehow though. CITY OF looks bold, while the city name is so tight in narrow letters.
That's just what happens when you put Series E(M) and Series B on the same sign. You rarely see them combined, but there's no actual error in doing so.
Indeed it is a design issue vs. a content error. The CITY OF could have been in D and looked a lot less thick and bold (and would have been easier to read). The sign could have been a little wider and used less squished lettering for the city name. It's awkward to the point of ugliness having the two together.
It is unfortunate that E(M) still lives on when plain E would be preferable for characters that aren't button copy, better yet EE(M) on BGSs.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: US 89 on July 29, 2022, 02:16:57 PM
Post by: US 89 on July 29, 2022, 02:16:57 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 01:41:32 PM
Believe it or not, since the sign is posted downstream of the theoretical gore, the 2009 MUTCD says that's correct.
While technically correct, this is perhaps the most confusing element of the 2009 MUTCD, as usually you're seeing these signs somewhat from afar and it is not at all obvious that the sign is over what is nominally an already-exited lane. Most people look at the arrows on the sign and count over from what they see as the right edge of the roadway at that moment.
Utah's MUTCD supplement states that this type of option-lane exit signage should be used when new signs are put up on existing sign structures, which is the case in Luke's photo:
(https://i.imgur.com/WXF1koX.png)
However, the standard installation pattern looks like this, with the final sign slightly upstream of the gore point:
(https://i.imgur.com/axNodq9.png)
I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to use the partial APLs all the way to the end.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Rothman on July 30, 2022, 12:08:58 AM
Post by: Rothman on July 30, 2022, 12:08:58 AM
Quote from: Lukeisroads on July 29, 2022, 01:35:31 PMAn unfortunately common error.
Utah Screwed up https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242315,-111.9249438,3a,27.9y,93.66h,90.85t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIbVXGsOwY4L_R_0EQUSHfQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DIbVXGsOwY4L_R_0EQUSHfQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D90.807495%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 exit lane choice and two arrows wow
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on July 30, 2022, 12:44:25 PM
Post by: thenetwork on July 30, 2022, 12:44:25 PM
From New Mexico, where sign standards are just slightly ahead of those from CRaiG CoUntY:
https://apnews.com/article/oddities-new-mexico-albuquerque-transportation-4526afac0a676f9adc4de5dd56cc2504
https://apnews.com/article/oddities-new-mexico-albuquerque-transportation-4526afac0a676f9adc4de5dd56cc2504
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kirbykart on July 31, 2022, 07:35:06 AM
Post by: kirbykart on July 31, 2022, 07:35:06 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 12:41:32 PMI don't really think it matters if the sign is MUTCD-compliant or not. It looks hideous, and I would say that constitutes a design error.Quote from: PurdueBill on July 29, 2022, 12:40:22 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 12:09:00 PMQuote from: kirbykart on July 29, 2022, 07:38:59 AM
Bump to showcase this beauty (https://maps.app.goo.gl/x5gkyTGTHAq2EHdZ8) in Salamanca, NY.
The margins are a fraction of an inch too tight, but other than that, that's 100% MUTCD compliant.
The fonts are wonky somehow though. CITY OF looks bold, while the city name is so tight in narrow letters.
That's just what happens when you put Series E(M) and Series B on the same sign. You rarely see them combined, but there's no actual error in doing so.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Lukeisroads on August 01, 2022, 09:33:38 AM
Post by: Lukeisroads on August 01, 2022, 09:33:38 AM
The MUTCD Says NO Blue Green So Is This Color Legal
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2942878,-119.0832257,3a,74.7y,111.1h,85.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk2h8d9X47tF_X0IJ38Ml0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2942878,-119.0832257,3a,74.7y,111.1h,85.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk2h8d9X47tF_X0IJ38Ml0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on August 01, 2022, 11:02:15 AM
Post by: wanderer2575 on August 01, 2022, 11:02:15 AM
Quote from: US 89 on July 29, 2022, 02:16:57 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 01:41:32 PM
Believe it or not, since the sign is posted downstream of the theoretical gore, the 2009 MUTCD says that's correct.
While technically correct, this is perhaps the most confusing element of the 2009 MUTCD, as usually you're seeing these signs somewhat from afar and it is not at all obvious that the sign is over what is nominally an already-exited lane. Most people look at the arrows on the sign and count over from what they see as the right edge of the roadway at that moment.
Utah's MUTCD supplement states that this type of option-lane exit signage should be used when new signs are put up on existing sign structures, which is the case in Luke's photo:
(https://i.imgur.com/WXF1koX.png)
However, the standard installation pattern looks like this, with the final sign slightly upstream of the gore point:
(https://i.imgur.com/axNodq9.png)
I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to use the partial APLs all the way to the end.
Here's an example of both being used correctly per MUTCD:
(https://i.imgur.com/dkJsI9b.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on August 01, 2022, 12:30:22 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on August 01, 2022, 12:30:22 PM
Quote from: Lukeisroads on August 01, 2022, 09:33:38 AM
The MUTCD Says NO Blue Green So Is This Color Legal
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2942878,-119.0832257,3a,74.7y,111.1h,85.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk2h8d9X47tF_X0IJ38Ml0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
"Realiance" Dr.?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: andarcondadont on August 01, 2022, 12:38:51 PM
Post by: andarcondadont on August 01, 2022, 12:38:51 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 01, 2022, 12:30:22 PMHa! A design error in of itself!Quote from: Lukeisroads on August 01, 2022, 09:33:38 AM
The MUTCD Says NO Blue Green So Is This Color Legal
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2942878,-119.0832257,3a,74.7y,111.1h,85.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk2h8d9X47tF_X0IJ38Ml0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
"Realiance" Dr.?
Quote from: Lukeisroads on August 01, 2022, 09:33:38 AMWhere is the blue-green in this? The only street signs I see are all green.
The MUTCD Says NO Blue Green So Is This Color Legal
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2942878,-119.0832257,3a,74.7y,111.1h,85.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk2h8d9X47tF_X0IJ38Ml0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on August 01, 2022, 12:41:35 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on August 01, 2022, 12:41:35 PM
Quote from: andarcondadont on August 01, 2022, 12:38:51 PMQuote from: Lukeisroads on August 01, 2022, 09:33:38 AMWhere is the blue-green in this? The only street signs I see are all green.
The MUTCD Says NO Blue Green So Is This Color Legal
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2942878,-119.0832257,3a,74.7y,111.1h,85.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk2h8d9X47tF_X0IJ38Ml0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
It's in the village logo.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: andarcondadont on August 01, 2022, 12:54:02 PM
Post by: andarcondadont on August 01, 2022, 12:54:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 01, 2022, 12:41:35 PMBut that's simply a logo on a neighborhood entrance sign. If it's only in the logo, I definitely don't see why not. It would be different if the entire sign were blue-green, but even then, it's still a neighborhood entrance sign.Quote from: andarcondadont on August 01, 2022, 12:38:51 PMQuote from: Lukeisroads on August 01, 2022, 09:33:38 AMWhere is the blue-green in this? The only street signs I see are all green.
The MUTCD Says NO Blue Green So Is This Color Legal
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2942878,-119.0832257,3a,74.7y,111.1h,85.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk2h8d9X47tF_X0IJ38Ml0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
It's in the village logo.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on August 01, 2022, 02:02:47 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on August 01, 2022, 02:02:47 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on July 31, 2022, 07:35:06 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 12:41:32 PMI don't really think it matters if the sign is MUTCD-compliant or not. It looks hideous, and I would say that constitutes a design error.Quote from: PurdueBill on July 29, 2022, 12:40:22 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2022, 12:09:00 PMQuote from: kirbykart on July 29, 2022, 07:38:59 AM
Bump to showcase this beauty (https://maps.app.goo.gl/x5gkyTGTHAq2EHdZ8) in Salamanca, NY.
The margins are a fraction of an inch too tight, but other than that, that's 100% MUTCD compliant.
The fonts are wonky somehow though. CITY OF looks bold, while the city name is so tight in narrow letters.
That's just what happens when you put Series E(M) and Series B on the same sign. You rarely see them combined, but there's no actual error in doing so.
If you think that's hideous, you live a pretty sheltered life. :-D
Spend an hour or so on GSV trolling around Oklahoma or New Mexico.
Quote from: andarcondadont on August 01, 2022, 12:54:02 PMQuote from: 1 on August 01, 2022, 12:41:35 PMBut that's simply a logo on a neighborhood entrance sign. If it's only in the logo, I definitely don't see why not. It would be different if the entire sign were blue-green, but even then, it's still a neighborhood entrance sign.Quote from: andarcondadont on August 01, 2022, 12:38:51 PMQuote from: Lukeisroads on August 01, 2022, 09:33:38 AMWhere is the blue-green in this? The only street signs I see are all green.
The MUTCD Says NO Blue Green So Is This Color Legal
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2942878,-119.0832257,3a,74.7y,111.1h,85.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk2h8d9X47tF_X0IJ38Ml0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
It's in the village logo.
Yeah, as much as we wish it did sometimes, the MUTCD doesn't apply to everything with text on it at the roadside.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on August 01, 2022, 08:39:36 PM
Post by: formulanone on August 01, 2022, 08:39:36 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 01, 2022, 12:30:22 PMQuote from: Lukeisroads on August 01, 2022, 09:33:38 AM
The MUTCD Says NO Blue Green So Is This Color Legal
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2942878,-119.0832257,3a,74.7y,111.1h,85.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk2h8d9X47tF_X0IJ38Ml0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
"Realiance" Dr.?
Perhaps not coincidentally, there's a real estate firm called Realiance (https://realiance.nl/) based in the Netherlands, which maintains rental properties in the US. It sure looks like a typo, though.
But Lukeisroads, any color can be used for non-MUTCD signage. Most companies or businesses strive for a "unique" color (or color scheme) to represent their brand or logo.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on August 01, 2022, 09:14:11 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on August 01, 2022, 09:14:11 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 01, 2022, 08:39:36 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on August 01, 2022, 12:30:22 PMQuote from: Lukeisroads on August 01, 2022, 09:33:38 AM
The MUTCD Says NO Blue Green So Is This Color Legal
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2942878,-119.0832257,3a,74.7y,111.1h,85.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk2h8d9X47tF_X0IJ38Ml0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
"Realiance" Dr.?
Perhaps not coincidentally, there's a real estate firm called Realiance (https://realiance.nl/) based in the Netherlands, which maintains rental properties in the US. It sure looks like a typo, though.
To test the theory that "Realiance" might be the real name owing to the Dutch firm serving as developer, I went poking through the Kern County appraiser's website to see if I could find ownership information for nearby parcels. It turns out this is not disclosed for free, but I did find a plat map (https://assessorapps.kerncounty.com/PropertySearch/DocViewPages/DocViewAssessorMaps.aspx?apn=539081110) with the "Reliance" spelling, which also appears on the mast arm sign at the Panama Lane signal up the street. So it looks like someone in the city's public-works department goofed.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on August 26, 2022, 10:20:48 AM
Post by: jakeroot on August 26, 2022, 10:20:48 AM
I think the signs should have "mile" next to the fraction?
https://twitter.com/westseattleblog/status/1562863773656154112
https://twitter.com/westseattleblog/status/1562863773656154112
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kirbykart on August 26, 2022, 10:55:48 AM
Post by: kirbykart on August 26, 2022, 10:55:48 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 26, 2022, 10:20:48 AMThat's not necessary to have mile next to the number. I almost never see MILE next to the numbers on that type of sign. In the United States, distances are virtually always given in miles. People understand.
I think the signs should have "mile" next to the fraction?
https://twitter.com/westseattleblog/status/1562863773656154112
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on August 26, 2022, 11:43:11 AM
Post by: jakeroot on August 26, 2022, 11:43:11 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on August 26, 2022, 10:55:48 AM
That's not necessary to have mile next to the number. I almost never see MILE next to the numbers on that type of sign. In the United States, distances are virtually always given in miles. People understand.
Did a bit more research and I don't know why I remember seeing "mile" on that type of sign. Disregard!
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jay8g on August 28, 2022, 02:44:08 AM
Post by: jay8g on August 28, 2022, 02:44:08 AM
All of the new West Seattle Bridge guide signs are surprisingly ugly. I suppose they aren't that bad compared to pretty much every other large guide sign in Seattle, but I would have expected the contractors to be able to follow WSDOT design standards. (Though then again, even WSDOT has installed some pretty ugly signs -- including quite a few with the 3/4 error -- over the past few years. 🤦♂️)
Of the ones in that link, the one on the left has the bigger design error -- why isn't the text center aligned??
Of the ones in that link, the one on the left has the bigger design error -- why isn't the text center aligned??
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on August 28, 2022, 02:51:43 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on August 28, 2022, 02:51:43 AM
Why is it in Series D?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: rarnold on August 28, 2022, 06:03:15 PM
Post by: rarnold on August 28, 2022, 06:03:15 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on July 30, 2022, 12:44:25 PM
From New Mexico, where sign standards are just slightly ahead of those from CRaiG CoUntY:
https://apnews.com/article/oddities-new-mexico-albuquerque-transportation-4526afac0a676f9adc4de5dd56cc2504
Interestingly, the namesake of Albuquerque, the Duke of Alburquerque, is spelled with two r's.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on August 28, 2022, 06:36:20 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on August 28, 2022, 06:36:20 PM
Quote from: rarnold on August 28, 2022, 06:03:15 PMQuote from: thenetwork on July 30, 2022, 12:44:25 PM
From New Mexico, where sign standards are just slightly ahead of those from CRaiG CoUntY:
https://apnews.com/article/oddities-new-mexico-albuquerque-transportation-4526afac0a676f9adc4de5dd56cc2504
Interestingly, the namesake of Albuquerque, the Duke of Alburquerque, is spelled with two r's.
Maybe in 100 years or so we'll get it down to "Albuque".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 28, 2022, 07:44:07 PM
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 28, 2022, 07:44:07 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 28, 2022, 06:36:20 PM
Maybe in 100 years or so we'll get it down to "Albuque".
Or up to "Alburquerquerque".
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: thenetwork on August 28, 2022, 09:06:49 PM
Post by: thenetwork on August 28, 2022, 09:06:49 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 28, 2022, 07:44:07 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on August 28, 2022, 06:36:20 PM
Maybe in 100 years or so we'll get it down to "Albuque".
Or up to "Alburquerquerque".
Or Albuque, IA...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jay8g on September 18, 2022, 02:02:01 AM
Post by: jay8g on September 18, 2022, 02:02:01 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52364614882_8f6d903c4b_o_d.jpg)
Ugh, where to even start with this one. I have low expectations for the quality of Seattle guide signs, but the West Seattle Bridge project keeps shocking me with just how awful the new signs are.
The most obvious issue is the absolute lack of any spacing in the "THISLANEONLY" line, which also looks like it was pushed a bit too far towards the bottom of the panel, despite there being random blank space in the green part. The "Delridge Wy SW" text also looks way too small (the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5716024,-122.3594585,3a,19.8y,316.3h,95.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDLTsbivG-PPbI9uWwJDwHA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) was way better in that regard), and I'm not really a fan of the whole "THIS LANE ONLY" wording at all -- surely the standard "down arrow ONLY" style would have made much more sense.
The bridge itself was supposed to open tomorrow, but looking at the traffic cameras, it seems to be open now! From what I've seen from ground level, I expect the new signs on the upper bridge are pretty terrible too.
Ugh, where to even start with this one. I have low expectations for the quality of Seattle guide signs, but the West Seattle Bridge project keeps shocking me with just how awful the new signs are.
The most obvious issue is the absolute lack of any spacing in the "THISLANEONLY" line, which also looks like it was pushed a bit too far towards the bottom of the panel, despite there being random blank space in the green part. The "Delridge Wy SW" text also looks way too small (the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5716024,-122.3594585,3a,19.8y,316.3h,95.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDLTsbivG-PPbI9uWwJDwHA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) was way better in that regard), and I'm not really a fan of the whole "THIS LANE ONLY" wording at all -- surely the standard "down arrow ONLY" style would have made much more sense.
The bridge itself was supposed to open tomorrow, but looking at the traffic cameras, it seems to be open now! From what I've seen from ground level, I expect the new signs on the upper bridge are pretty terrible too.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on September 18, 2022, 10:14:06 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on September 18, 2022, 10:14:06 AM
Those Seattle signs do look clumsy. Do you know what the third sign on the right will be? Maybe this one needs the Redesign this! treatment.
Aside from the typo, this sign actually looks really nice. It's compact but still has controls and everything you'd want for both interstate directions.
Quote from: thenetwork on July 30, 2022, 12:44:25 PM
From New Mexico, where sign standards are just slightly ahead of those from CRaiG CoUntY:
https://apnews.com/article/oddities-new-mexico-albuquerque-transportation-4526afac0a676f9adc4de5dd56cc2504
Aside from the typo, this sign actually looks really nice. It's compact but still has controls and everything you'd want for both interstate directions.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jay8g on September 18, 2022, 03:32:15 PM
Post by: jay8g on September 18, 2022, 03:32:15 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 18, 2022, 10:14:06 AM
Those Seattle signs do look clumsy. Do you know what the third sign on the right will be? Maybe this one needs the Redesign this! treatment.
That's a blank-out sign that used to activate when the railroad crossing across the intersection was blocked, but that approach is now permanently (I think) closed, so it probably doesn't do anything anymore.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 11:48:08 AM
Post by: kirbykart on November 03, 2022, 11:48:08 AM
Minor bump for a slightly-off sign in Rome: https://goo.gl/maps/G7XHh57Wgae6Kb9f7 (https://goo.gl/maps/G7XHh57Wgae6Kb9f7)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: machias on November 10, 2022, 10:46:17 PM
Post by: machias on November 10, 2022, 10:46:17 PM
I'll be curious to see if this poorly designed sign makes it to the field.
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/brooks-ave.png)
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/brooks-ave.png)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 11, 2022, 08:46:52 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 11, 2022, 08:46:52 AM
Quote from: machias on November 10, 2022, 10:46:17 PM
I'll be curious to see if this poorly designed sign makes it to the field.
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/brooks-ave.png)
I love the way you can't read some of the dimensions because they're so stacked on top of one another. I'd never send out a plan set looking like that.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 11, 2022, 11:47:33 AM
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 11, 2022, 11:47:33 AM
Quote from: machias on November 10, 2022, 10:46:17 PM
I'll be curious to see if this poorly designed sign makes it to the field.
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/brooks-ave.png)
Seems like a strange place to employ the capital ordinal rule. But it makes perfect sense to the rules-followers.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:02:05 PM
Post by: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:02:05 PM
How should it be designed?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 11, 2022, 12:05:39 PM
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 11, 2022, 12:05:39 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:02:05 PM
How should it be designed?
Looks better with the EAST below Brooks Ave.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on November 11, 2022, 12:08:13 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on November 11, 2022, 12:08:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:02:05 PMHow should it be designed?
The big problem with this design is that "EAST" is left floating above the baseline of "Brooks Ave." It might be possible to save sign panel area by putting "Brooks Ave" and "EAST" on separate lines and using an arrow with a longer shaft. Aside from this, there aren't too many issues with the space padding.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 11, 2022, 12:12:40 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 11, 2022, 12:12:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:02:05 PM
How should it be designed?
From WisDOT on WI-11 in Monroe. (https://goo.gl/maps/kXK41pVML3upE8eL6)
This is the closest example to something like this I can think of. The first time I saw the Monroe sign, it definitely seemed odd. Looking at the map, the street is labeled as 6th Street W, so this is probably not correct. Is the exit for Brooks Ave E, or eastbound on Brooks Ave?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:13:18 PM
Post by: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:13:18 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 11, 2022, 12:08:13 PMQuote from: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:02:05 PM
How should it be designed?
The big problem with this design is that "EAST" is left floating above the baseline of "Brooks Ave." It might be possible to save sign panel area by putting "Brooks Ave" and "EAST" on separate lines and using an arrow with a longer shaft. Aside from this, there aren't too many issues with the space padding.
Kind of like the 13th Street flyover?
Or this (https://goo.gl/maps/EauMqHj1PCb9QuHdA)?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:14:52 PM
Post by: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:14:52 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 11, 2022, 12:12:40 PMQuote from: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:02:05 PM
How should it be designed?
From WisDOT on WI-11 in Monroe. (https://goo.gl/maps/kXK41pVML3upE8eL6)
This is the closest example to something like this I can think of. The first time I saw the Monroe sign, it definitely seemed odd. Looking at the map, the street is labeled as 6th Street W, so this is probably not correct. Is the exit for Brooks Ave E, or eastbound on Brooks Ave?
I prefer the "wrong" one. When they're on one line, I naturally interpret the street name as a single unit because the small caps treatment isn't immediately obvious. That is to say, I don't assume that the exit is for only the direction indicated, but rather that the street name has a suffixed directional.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 11, 2022, 12:25:05 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 11, 2022, 12:25:05 PM
Here's some quick alternatives following from my last post.
If the street's name is Brooks Ave E, it should be this:
(https://i.imgur.com/i7yAMPx.png)
If the street's name is Brooks Ave but the exit is only for eastbound traffic, it should be this:
(https://i.imgur.com/wfuZZ6r.png)
Agreed. That's why the direction is separated from the street name on a different line normally. The planned sign is technically wrong, but slightly better than the Monroe example. It's actually similar to how we sign directions with route shields when you think about it. That doesn't make it correct, but I guess I can see the logic the sign designer may have taken here.
If the street's name is Brooks Ave E, it should be this:
(https://i.imgur.com/i7yAMPx.png)
If the street's name is Brooks Ave but the exit is only for eastbound traffic, it should be this:
(https://i.imgur.com/wfuZZ6r.png)
Quote from: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:14:52 PMQuote from: JoePCool14 on November 11, 2022, 12:12:40 PMQuote from: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:02:05 PM
How should it be designed?
From WisDOT on WI-11 in Monroe. (https://goo.gl/maps/kXK41pVML3upE8eL6)
This is the closest example to something like this I can think of. The first time I saw the Monroe sign, it definitely seemed odd. Looking at the map, the street is labeled as 6th Street W, so this is probably not correct. Is the exit for Brooks Ave E, or eastbound on Brooks Ave?
I prefer the "wrong" one. When they're on one line, I naturally interpret the street name as a single unit because the small caps treatment isn't immediately obvious. That is to say, I don't assume that the exit is for only the direction indicated, but rather that the street name has a suffixed directional.
Agreed. That's why the direction is separated from the street name on a different line normally. The planned sign is technically wrong, but slightly better than the Monroe example. It's actually similar to how we sign directions with route shields when you think about it. That doesn't make it correct, but I guess I can see the logic the sign designer may have taken here.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jemacedo9 on November 11, 2022, 12:28:52 PM
Post by: jemacedo9 on November 11, 2022, 12:28:52 PM
The exit is for Brooks Ave eastbound. Exit 18B is for Brooks Ave westbound, which is also the beginning of NY 204 West.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:30:30 PM
Post by: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:30:30 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 11, 2022, 12:25:05 PM
It's actually similar to how we sign directions with route shields when you think about it. That doesn't make it correct, but I guess I can see the logic the sign designer may have taken here.
It's why I don't mind it. It treats the street name the same as it would treat a route shield, which I'm fine with.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on November 11, 2022, 12:39:07 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on November 11, 2022, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 11, 2022, 12:13:18 PMKind of like the 13th Street flyover?
Or this (https://goo.gl/maps/EauMqHj1PCb9QuHdA)?
Yes. Yes.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 11, 2022, 12:25:05 PMAgreed. That's why the direction is separated from the street name on a different line normally. The planned sign is technically wrong, but slightly better than the Monroe example. It's actually similar to how we sign directions with route shields when you think about it. That doesn't make it correct, but I guess I can see the logic the sign designer may have taken here.
I could tell the designer was trying to treat "Brooks Ave" like a shield, but it doesn't work here because there is no clear reason for the cardinal direction word to be floating above the primary destination legend as if it were superscript. Shields have more depth and the eye goes readily to their top edges as an obvious alignment control.
Other approaches I've seen to emphasize that what is being signed is road name plus cardinal direction, not road name only, generally rely on treating the road name and the cardinal direction word as separate blocks, and centering one vertically on the other. The distinction becomes subtle if "Brooks Ave" is on one line, but obvious if it is on two.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on November 11, 2022, 03:41:57 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on November 11, 2022, 03:41:57 PM
My guess is they used a sign with a shield as a template, then deleted the shield and put the street name text in there. It looks silly because the "East" is top-aligned to the top of what looks like a 24" shield (shields on signs like this are supposed to be 36", but whatever), but the text is only 16" tall.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: machias on November 11, 2022, 07:24:31 PM
Post by: machias on November 11, 2022, 07:24:31 PM
Quote from: machias on November 10, 2022, 10:46:17 PM
I'll be curious to see if this poorly designed sign makes it to the field.
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/brooks-ave.png)
I honestly didn't equate this design with replacing a route marker with the street name, I just thought it was someone saying "meh" with whatever GuidSIGN threw up for the design.
I've always liked the way IDOT does it with the cardinal direction over the street name. If memory serves correctly, I've seen cardinal directions under the street name elsewhere in New York and that works too.
And this isn't a problem with the sign itself, but I really dislike the first letter in the cardinal direction being bigger than the rest of the word. It's unnecessary but I lost that battle long ago.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on November 11, 2022, 07:39:59 PM
Post by: SignBridge on November 11, 2022, 07:39:59 PM
I also disagree with the first letter of the cardinal direction being larger than the rest. It adds more visual confusion to the sign legend and in my opinion, is not necessary. Another example of the people who write the MUTCD creating a problem where there wasn't one.
Re: the Brooks Ave. sign, I would put the EAST under Brooks Ave. and have a long stem arrow to right of the legend. I never liked the idea of having the cardinal direction above the street name.
Re: the Brooks Ave. sign, I would put the EAST under Brooks Ave. and have a long stem arrow to right of the legend. I never liked the idea of having the cardinal direction above the street name.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 11, 2022, 09:55:40 PM
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 11, 2022, 09:55:40 PM
I've not done a thorough review of Section 2E of the MUTCD (and relevant portions of Section 2D), but it is my understanding that the 2009 Edition was revised such that street names and numbered route shields are treated the same way on BGS and other directional signage. Therefore, since the cardinal direction is generally placed to the right of the shield then the cardinal direction should be placed to the right of the street name. It looks strange because of the capitalized cardinal.
So this one is indeed correct:
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/brooks-ave.png)
There are two exceptions to this rule. First, when there are multiple shields the cardinal direction should be placed above each shield (or combinations of shields). The second exception allows the cardinal direction to be placed to the left of the shield when the exit (or mainline pull-through) is on the left side of the highway [if the DOT agency has a history of configuring the signs this way]. As best as I can tell, those exceptions do not apply to street names on BGS (but it could be applied).
Again, this is my interpretation based on the applications of the sample signage as shown in the MUTCD, all of which are consistent with this. As best as I can tell, there wasn't any specific written direction or guidance on this practice.
So this one is indeed correct:
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/brooks-ave.png)
There are two exceptions to this rule. First, when there are multiple shields the cardinal direction should be placed above each shield (or combinations of shields). The second exception allows the cardinal direction to be placed to the left of the shield when the exit (or mainline pull-through) is on the left side of the highway [if the DOT agency has a history of configuring the signs this way]. As best as I can tell, those exceptions do not apply to street names on BGS (but it could be applied).
Again, this is my interpretation based on the applications of the sample signage as shown in the MUTCD, all of which are consistent with this. As best as I can tell, there wasn't any specific written direction or guidance on this practice.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on November 11, 2022, 10:18:09 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on November 11, 2022, 10:18:09 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 11, 2022, 07:39:59 PM
I also disagree with the first letter of the cardinal direction being larger than the rest. It adds more visual confusion to the sign legend and in my opinion, is not necessary. Another example of the people who write the MUTCD creating a problem where there wasn't one.
This sign is an excellent object lesson in why it's necessary–Brooks Avenue East would be a street named Brooks Avenue on the east side of town, while Brooks Avenue EAST is the eastbound direction of Brooks Avenue.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on November 11, 2022, 10:26:51 PM
Post by: SignBridge on November 11, 2022, 10:26:51 PM
I agree Scott. I think we're saying the same thing. The first letter of EAST should be the same size upper case as the rest of the word.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on November 11, 2022, 10:32:36 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on November 11, 2022, 10:32:36 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 11, 2022, 10:26:51 PM
I agree Scott. I think we're saying the same thing. The first letter of EAST should be the same size upper case as the rest of the word.
We are, in fact, saying opposite things. The purpose of larger initial upper capital is to help make the distinction more noticeable than it would be if it were merely all-caps. I think it is better the way it is now.
The reason that it got added to the MUTCD is probably because there were two different states, Kansas and Michigan, that felt there was a need to make a greater distinction between the two contexts than just having one in all caps. Michigan used to do this with underlining. The MUTCD adopted Kansas's approach instead.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 08:15:33 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 08:15:33 AM
I was previously not a fan of the bigger first letter, as evident in my old signs I created from several years ago. But I've now warmed to the idea and think it was a good decision. It's also consistent with the directional plaques on standalone assemblies (unless you're IDOT, where you still don't do this). I did like Michigan's underlining practice. I think that was an equally valid, if not more valid, way of making directions stand out.
Also, I don't think Illinois is the only state that puts directions above the street name. But then again, maybe they are. Illinois is one of the only states I've been to that has this many cloverleaf interchanges after all.
Here is one example in Wisconsin of placing the direction under the street name on I-41 in Wauwatosa. (https://goo.gl/maps/zhg6q8VCEb3e5app9) Seeing this, I prefer it to be above. I also think the sign on the right is poorly designed.
Also, I don't think Illinois is the only state that puts directions above the street name. But then again, maybe they are. Illinois is one of the only states I've been to that has this many cloverleaf interchanges after all.
Here is one example in Wisconsin of placing the direction under the street name on I-41 in Wauwatosa. (https://goo.gl/maps/zhg6q8VCEb3e5app9) Seeing this, I prefer it to be above. I also think the sign on the right is poorly designed.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: machias on November 12, 2022, 10:13:50 AM
Post by: machias on November 12, 2022, 10:13:50 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 11, 2022, 10:18:09 PMQuote from: SignBridge on November 11, 2022, 07:39:59 PM
I also disagree with the first letter of the cardinal direction being larger than the rest. It adds more visual confusion to the sign legend and in my opinion, is not necessary. Another example of the people who write the MUTCD creating a problem where there wasn't one.
This sign is an excellent object lesson in why it's necessary–Brooks Avenue East would be a street named Brooks Avenue on the east side of town, while Brooks Avenue EAST is the eastbound direction of Brooks Avenue.
But then the legend should say Brooks Ave East, with East having an upper case "E" and lower case "ast". The MUTCD calls for it to have a bigger "E" with smaller "AST", which is doing the same thing as "East" but with all capital letters.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: J N Winkler on November 12, 2022, 01:26:48 PM
Post by: J N Winkler on November 12, 2022, 01:26:48 PM
Divider bar is the actual Michigan DOT phrase for the ruled line that used to be placed underneath the cardinal direction--underlining is the longstanding roadgeek term. It was used only when the cardinal direction was ranged to the side of a shield, never when it was above or below, and there was more of a gap between the word and the line than is normally the case for underlining in most typographical contexts.
MDOT used to have a standard plan sheet that gave rules for the use and composition of the divider bar. It is now long gone, though it can still be found in old as-builts. The divider bar ceased to be used around the time the agency went to Clearview and started putting construction plans online in 2005; I am not aware of any old online editions of the state sign drawings book that show guide signs with it.
MDOT used to have a standard plan sheet that gave rules for the use and composition of the divider bar. It is now long gone, though it can still be found in old as-builts. The divider bar ceased to be used around the time the agency went to Clearview and started putting construction plans online in 2005; I am not aware of any old online editions of the state sign drawings book that show guide signs with it.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on November 12, 2022, 03:13:05 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on November 12, 2022, 03:13:05 PM
Quote from: machias on November 12, 2022, 10:13:50 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on November 11, 2022, 10:18:09 PMQuote from: SignBridge on November 11, 2022, 07:39:59 PM
I also disagree with the first letter of the cardinal direction being larger than the rest. It adds more visual confusion to the sign legend and in my opinion, is not necessary. Another example of the people who write the MUTCD creating a problem where there wasn't one.
This sign is an excellent object lesson in why it's necessary–Brooks Avenue East would be a street named Brooks Avenue on the east side of town, while Brooks Avenue EAST is the eastbound direction of Brooks Avenue.
But then the legend should say Brooks Ave East, with East having an upper case "E" and lower case "ast". The MUTCD calls for it to have a bigger "E" with smaller "AST", which is doing the same thing as "East" but with all capital letters.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
There are two different meanings of "East": part of a street name (like, for example, how Norman has a 24th Avenue East on the east side of town and a 24th Avenue West on the west side of town, both of which are north-south), and to indicate a direction of travel (going east on an east-west 24th Avenue).
MUTCD says these should be typographically different: direction of travel should be in small caps, and part of a street name should be in the usual mixed case.
It sounds like you're saying they should be typographically the same. I can't imagine a universe in which treating the two different meanings the same typographically is a functional benefit.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: webny99 on November 12, 2022, 06:34:07 PM
Post by: webny99 on November 12, 2022, 06:34:07 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on November 11, 2022, 12:28:52 PM
The exit is for Brooks Ave eastbound. Exit 18B is for Brooks Ave westbound, which is also the beginning of NY 204 West.
Yep. Here (https://goo.gl/maps/tCDDcC516WabFGtQA) is the existing sign. It's an odd situation, since EAST is specified here, yet for traffic using the loop to Brooks Ave westbound, WEST is not specified: it doesn't have to be, since west is the only direction you can go on NY 204, and the route designation takes precedence over the road name. Doubly odd is the fact that the ramp to Brooks Ave EAST actually meets at a right angle. There are signs prohibiting left turns (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1306051,-77.6594355,3a,75y,19.03h,80.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDnCtWnv1LIKvXYIxQHUdUA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) but otherwise no physical barriers to stop traffic from turning left. There's also nothing prohibiting traffic from going straight to re-enter I-390, and I have no doubt that's been done before when I-390 is congested.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: webny99 on November 12, 2022, 07:01:51 PM
Post by: webny99 on November 12, 2022, 07:01:51 PM
I think it would look a lot better with the cardinal direction on a separate line under Brooks Ave. That would essentially flip the word EAST and the arrow (since the arrow should be on the right anyways) and narrow the sign up a bit. I get that putting it underneath is not consistent with how you'd place it for a route shield, but I don't see why it has to be. You have (1) the all caps text and (2) the fact that it's on a separate line, distinguishing it from part of the street name. I also updated "NEXT RIGHT" on the other panel to "1/4 MILE" and here's how it turned out:
(https://imgur.com/F6psyIb.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/F6psyIb.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 07:16:51 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 07:16:51 PM
Quote from: webny99 on November 12, 2022, 07:01:51 PM
I think it would look a lot better with the cardinal direction on a separate line under Brooks Ave. That would essentially flip the word EAST and the arrow (since the arrow should be on the right anyways) and narrow the sign up a bit. I get that putting it underneath is not consistent with how you'd place it for a route shield, but I don't see why it has to be. You have (1) the all caps text and (2) the fact that it's on a separate line, distinguishing it from part of the street name. I also updated "NEXT RIGHT" on the other panel to "1/4 MILE" and here's how it turned out:
(https://imgur.com/F6psyIb.jpg)
Looks good, but I would also add WEST to the left sign. And also an airport logo next to the word Airport. Maybe replace Airport with the actual name of the airport.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: webny99 on November 12, 2022, 09:19:54 PM
Post by: webny99 on November 12, 2022, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 07:16:51 PM
Looks good, but I would also add WEST to the left sign. And also an airport logo next to the word Airport. Maybe replace Airport with the actual name of the airport.
See my earlier comment: WEST is technically not needed here, since this is the western terminus of NY 204, and the numbered route takes precedence over the road name.
However, I do like the airport suggestion, although I can't decided on the description to use. The full name is Greater Rochester International Airport (obviously too long), and the airport code is ROC (fine, but not very descriptive).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 11:04:27 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 11:04:27 PM
Quote from: webny99 on November 12, 2022, 09:19:54 PMQuote from: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 07:16:51 PM
Looks good, but I would also add WEST to the left sign. And also an airport logo next to the word Airport. Maybe replace Airport with the actual name of the airport.
See my earlier comment: WEST is technically not needed here, since this is the western terminus of NY 204, and the numbered route takes precedence over the road name.
However, I do like the airport suggestion, although I can't decided on the description to use. The full name is Greater Rochester International Airport (obviously too long), and the airport code is ROC (fine, but not very descriptive).
Rochester Int'l perhaps?
Also, I still think there's reason to add WEST. IDOT still does this, even at interchanges where the state route ends. See here (https://goo.gl/maps/TJgNo8qDaNTMmukS7)and here (https://goo.gl/maps/ZYyCpJtV4oST4MtG9). The Cumberland example is harder to tell because of the way the north and south exits are split.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kirbykart on November 13, 2022, 11:10:39 AM
Post by: kirbykart on November 13, 2022, 11:10:39 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 12, 2022, 08:15:33 AM
Here is one example in Wisconsin of placing the direction under the street name on I-41 in Wauwatosa. (https://goo.gl/maps/zhg6q8VCEb3e5app9) Seeing this, I prefer it to be above. I also think the sign on the right is poorly designed.
Unrelated, but that's actually a really neat interchange. Reminds me of a similar interchange in Alexandria, VA.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on November 13, 2022, 06:01:38 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on November 13, 2022, 06:01:38 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 11, 2022, 10:18:09 PMQuote from: SignBridge on November 11, 2022, 07:39:59 PM
I also disagree with the first letter of the cardinal direction being larger than the rest. It adds more visual confusion to the sign legend and in my opinion, is not necessary. Another example of the people who write the MUTCD creating a problem where there wasn't one.
This sign is an excellent object lesson in why it's necessary–Brooks Avenue East would be a street named Brooks Avenue on the east side of town, while Brooks Avenue EAST is the eastbound direction of Brooks Avenue.
Here's a perfect example on I-75 in Woodhaven MI. (I thought I had a photo of this but I can't find it, so I took this screenshot from GSV.)
(https://i.imgur.com/9bwzwHN.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on November 13, 2022, 07:57:47 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on November 13, 2022, 07:57:47 PM
West Road east... Oh...
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 14, 2022, 08:58:22 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 14, 2022, 08:58:22 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 13, 2022, 06:01:38 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on November 11, 2022, 10:18:09 PMQuote from: SignBridge on November 11, 2022, 07:39:59 PM
I also disagree with the first letter of the cardinal direction being larger than the rest. It adds more visual confusion to the sign legend and in my opinion, is not necessary. Another example of the people who write the MUTCD creating a problem where there wasn't one.
This sign is an excellent object lesson in why it's necessary—Brooks Avenue East would be a street named Brooks Avenue on the east side of town, while Brooks Avenue EAST is the eastbound direction of Brooks Avenue.
Here's a perfect example on I-75 in Woodhaven MI. (I thought I had a photo of this but I can't find it, so I took this screenshot from GSV.)
(https://i.imgur.com/9bwzwHN.jpg)
Aside from this...
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 13, 2022, 07:57:47 PM
West Road east... Oh...
I don't like it. For one, it's non-compliant with the 2009 MUTCD (you can't include a road name and control points on the same exit, nor should you have three streets/destinations listed on the same exit). I also think the direction doesn't stand out enough. It really needs to be on a separate line in my opinion. You could argue the New York example that sparked this discussion is actually better, since it emphasizes that the direction isn't just a part of the street name.
I still think the IDOT method is actually superior in this case.
Also, typical MDOT with the mixed exit tab styles on one gantry.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on November 14, 2022, 08:05:53 PM
Post by: SignBridge on November 14, 2022, 08:05:53 PM
JoePCool14: The 2009 Manual does not strictly forbid the displaying of a street name and control point on the same sign. It's a recommendation, not a standard.
Sec. 2E.10 states: A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided. And BTW this has been in every edition of the MUTCD for the last fifty years. Fortunately at least some state DOT's like New York's Region-10 on Long Island have ignored that dumb suggestion for at least that long. We have numerous locations here with signs displaying road name and city together and in my opinion it's good quality signage.
Funny thing is that on page-205 of the 2009 Manual there is actually a graphic of an exit sign with street name and city displayed. Northern Blvd. Greenvale
Sec. 2E.10 states: A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided. And BTW this has been in every edition of the MUTCD for the last fifty years. Fortunately at least some state DOT's like New York's Region-10 on Long Island have ignored that dumb suggestion for at least that long. We have numerous locations here with signs displaying road name and city together and in my opinion it's good quality signage.
Funny thing is that on page-205 of the 2009 Manual there is actually a graphic of an exit sign with street name and city displayed. Northern Blvd. Greenvale
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on November 15, 2022, 01:46:10 AM
Post by: jakeroot on November 15, 2022, 01:46:10 AM
I swear I've seen EASTBOUND, NORTHBOUND, etc on some signs in Washington State, but I could be misremembering. I remember it being more common than just the cardinal direction, but most of the examples I've checked only show the cardinal direction.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 15, 2022, 09:08:03 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 15, 2022, 09:08:03 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 14, 2022, 08:05:53 PM
JoePCool14: The 2009 Manual does not strictly forbid the displaying of a street name and control point on the same sign. It's a recommendation, not a standard.
Sec. 2E.10 states: A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided. And BTW this has been in every edition of the MUTCD for the last fifty years. Fortunately at least some state DOT's like New York's Region-10 on Long Island have ignored that dumb suggestion for at least that long. We have numerous locations here with signs displaying road name and city together and in my opinion it's good quality signage.
Funny thing is that on page-205 of the 2009 Manual there is actually a graphic of an exit sign with street name and city displayed. Northern Blvd. Greenvale
My apologies, I should've checked that. I always assumed it was a mandate.
I actually agree with the recommendation though, with exceptions to major streets that are used for long-distance travel that don't also have a route number or some kind of shield attached.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on November 15, 2022, 09:11:48 AM
Post by: kphoger on November 15, 2022, 09:11:48 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 14, 2022, 08:05:53 PM
on page-205 of the 2009 Manual there is actually a graphic of an exit sign with street name and city displayed. Northern Blvd. Greenvale
Yep. And, in real life, it should also have a NY-25A shield, shouldn't it?
(https://i.imgur.com/k4RRjSR.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on November 15, 2022, 01:15:11 PM
Post by: hbelkins on November 15, 2022, 01:15:11 PM
This is the point where I once again state that I liked the former New York practice of putting the street or road name inside a white-outlined box that made it appear to be a route number marker.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on November 15, 2022, 08:38:40 PM
Post by: SignBridge on November 15, 2022, 08:38:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 15, 2022, 09:11:48 AMQuote from: SignBridge on November 14, 2022, 08:05:53 PM
on page-205 of the 2009 Manual there is actually a graphic of an exit sign with street name and city displayed. Northern Blvd. Greenvale
Yep. And, in real life, it should also have a NY-25A shield, shouldn't it?
(https://i.imgur.com/k4RRjSR.jpg)
kphoger: Right you are, about the 25A logo if there actually was such an exit on any actual freeway, which there is not. It's a fictional exit in the Manual. LOL And NYSDOT wouldn't even display the street name. It would just be: 25A Greenvale.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on November 15, 2022, 08:44:01 PM
Post by: SignBridge on November 15, 2022, 08:44:01 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 15, 2022, 01:15:11 PM
This is the point where I once again state that I liked the former New York practice of putting the street or road name inside a white-outlined box that made it appear to be a route number marker.
As I understand it the boxed street names used by some regions of NYSDOT are actually intended to simulate the appearance of street signs found on urban corners.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: machias on November 15, 2022, 09:29:17 PM
Post by: machias on November 15, 2022, 09:29:17 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 15, 2022, 08:44:01 PMQuote from: hbelkins on November 15, 2022, 01:15:11 PM
This is the point where I once again state that I liked the former New York practice of putting the street or road name inside a white-outlined box that made it appear to be a route number marker.
As I understand it the boxed street names used by some regions of NYSDOT are actually intended to simulate the appearance of street signs found on urban corners.
They stopped the practice in 2009, thank god. When reflecting headlights the road name inside of a box was illegible. Plus, Region 2 had the habit of putting the fake street blade by itself so you had a box within a box with maybe an arrow in just the outside box. Plus, the use of all capital letters negated word recognition and went against the MUTCD recommendation of mixed case for these things. Region 2 (Utica) was notorious for using this street name convention on badly designed signs. Region 3 (Syracuse) was a little better about it but overall good riddance.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on November 15, 2022, 09:51:27 PM
Post by: SignBridge on November 15, 2022, 09:51:27 PM
Quote from: machias on November 15, 2022, 09:29:17 PMQuote from: SignBridge on November 15, 2022, 08:44:01 PMQuote from: hbelkins on November 15, 2022, 01:15:11 PM
This is the point where I once again state that I liked the former New York practice of putting the street or road name inside a white-outlined box that made it appear to be a route number marker.
As I understand it the boxed street names used by some regions of NYSDOT are actually intended to simulate the appearance of street signs found on urban corners.
They stopped the practice in 2009, thank god. When reflecting headlights the road name inside of a box was illegible. Plus, Region 2 had the habit of putting the fake street blade by itself so you had a box within a box with maybe an arrow in just the outside box. Plus, the use of all capital letters negated word recognition and went against the MUTCD recommendation of mixed case for these things. Region 2 (Utica) was notorious for using this street name convention on badly designed signs. Region 3 (Syracuse) was a little better about it but overall good riddance.
I agree! I always thought the boxed street names were a dumb idea. I grew up with and have always approved of NYSDOT Region-10's approach. They put both the road name and city/town name together on their signs, both in mixed case lettering and it looks just right. Like in that Northern Blvd, Greenvale sign shown above in kphoger's earlier post.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on November 16, 2022, 04:24:23 AM
Post by: jakeroot on November 16, 2022, 04:24:23 AM
^^^
What do you guys make of the Australian practice of using road names within an inverted box?
Image from ABC News.
(https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/afbb66fc47b257e6a0f6e4c713e374c2?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=1971&cropW=2957&xPos=0&yPos=0&width=862&height=575)
What do you guys make of the Australian practice of using road names within an inverted box?
Image from ABC News.
(https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/afbb66fc47b257e6a0f6e4c713e374c2?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=1971&cropW=2957&xPos=0&yPos=0&width=862&height=575)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 16, 2022, 07:55:36 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 16, 2022, 07:55:36 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 16, 2022, 04:24:23 AM
^^^
What do you guys make of the Australian practice of using road names within an inverted box?
Image from ABC News.
(https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/afbb66fc47b257e6a0f6e4c713e374c2?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=1971&cropW=2957&xPos=0&yPos=0&width=862&height=575)
It looks nice from an aesthetic point of view, but it feels inconsistent. Like in your image below, you have the freeway name at the exit in black on white, but then that leads to another freeway that's listed white on green.
I like Illinois' styling with the expressway names instead.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Rothman on November 16, 2022, 08:10:22 AM
Post by: Rothman on November 16, 2022, 08:10:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 16, 2022, 04:24:23 AMCluttered.
^^^
What do you guys make of the Australian practice of using road names within an inverted box?
Image from ABC News.
(https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/afbb66fc47b257e6a0f6e4c713e374c2?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=1971&cropW=2957&xPos=0&yPos=0&width=862&height=575)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on November 16, 2022, 07:13:05 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on November 16, 2022, 07:13:05 PM
I think it would be fine if you did street names in a box, but mandated that the text be the usual 16" mixed-case Series E Modified the rest of the sign uses.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on November 16, 2022, 07:47:41 PM
Post by: SignBridge on November 16, 2022, 07:47:41 PM
What purpose does it serve to put the road name in a box? Seems to me it adds more visual confusion.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on November 16, 2022, 09:06:18 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on November 16, 2022, 09:06:18 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 16, 2022, 07:47:41 PM
What purpose does it serve to put the road name in a box? Seems to me it adds more visual confusion.
The idea was to make road names visually distinct from city names, in much the same way shields make road numbers distinct. So if you had "Sunnylane Rd., Del City" on one sign, you would be able to instantly tell that Sunnylane Road was the street that would take you to Del City.
And yes, the practice was dropped because it led to visual confusion.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on December 27, 2022, 06:53:07 AM
Post by: hotdogPi on December 27, 2022, 06:53:07 AM
Very minor error: why is "1/4 MILE" singular but "3/4 MILES" plural?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52584332863_4a8cb47c76_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52584332863_4a8cb47c76_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: LilianaUwU on December 27, 2022, 07:50:36 AM
Post by: LilianaUwU on December 27, 2022, 07:50:36 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 27, 2022, 06:53:07 AM
Very minor error: why is "1/4 MILE" singular but "3/4 MILES" plural?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52584332863_4a8cb47c76_b.jpg)
Because 1 is singular and 3 is plural. :bigass:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 27, 2022, 10:25:13 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 27, 2022, 10:25:13 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 27, 2022, 07:50:36 AMQuote from: 1 on December 27, 2022, 06:53:07 AM
Very minor error: why is "1/4 MILE" singular but "3/4 MILES" plural?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52584332863_4a8cb47c76_b.jpg)
Because 1 is singular and 3 is plural. :bigass:
Definitely should be "3 quarters of a mile" (singular).
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kphoger on December 27, 2022, 03:00:30 PM
Post by: kphoger on December 27, 2022, 03:00:30 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 27, 2022, 10:25:13 AMQuote from: LilianaUwU on December 27, 2022, 07:50:36 AMQuote from: 1 on December 27, 2022, 06:53:07 AM
Very minor error: why is "1/4 MILE" singular but "3/4 MILES" plural?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52584332863_4a8cb47c76_b.jpg)
Because 1 is singular and 3 is plural. :bigass:
Definitely should be "3 quarters of a mile" (singular).
"3 quarter-miles" ;-)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on December 27, 2022, 06:32:06 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on December 27, 2022, 06:32:06 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 12, 2022, 01:26:48 PM
Divider bar is the actual Michigan DOT phrase for the ruled line that used to be placed underneath the cardinal direction--underlining is the longstanding roadgeek term. It was used only when the cardinal direction was ranged to the side of a shield, never when it was above or below, and there was more of a gap between the word and the line than is normally the case for underlining in most typographical contexts.
Never say never ...
(https://i.imgur.com/e3lkYbA.jpg)
Even better: When I-69 between Charlotte and Lansing opened in 1992, the original signs on eastbound I-96 looked like this (except the initial letters of the cardinal directions weren't enlarged, of course). I thought it was cool that the left sign was designed to match the right one.
(https://i.imgur.com/8aLyuvE.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CovalenceSTU on January 24, 2023, 04:25:07 PM
Post by: CovalenceSTU on January 24, 2023, 04:25:07 PM
Almost posted this in "worst of" but feel like it belongs here instead - these are dotted all over Portland but are slowly being phased out:
(https://i.imgur.com/9RfAC4T.png)(https://i.imgur.com/13ftusC.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/9RfAC4T.png)(https://i.imgur.com/13ftusC.png)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 25, 2023, 12:05:02 AM
Post by: jakeroot on January 25, 2023, 12:05:02 AM
I think they're just old one-way signs. Seattle has a ton that look like that too.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Amaury on January 25, 2023, 01:06:32 AM
Post by: Amaury on January 25, 2023, 01:06:32 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 15, 2022, 01:46:10 AMI swear I've seen EASTBOUND, NORTHBOUND, etc on some signs in Washington State, but I could be misremembering. I remember it being more common than just the cardinal direction, but most of the examples I've checked only show the cardinal direction.
Maybe thinking of this? https://goo.gl/maps/uDK5ZMvkNRAuBoVe7
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: jakeroot on January 25, 2023, 02:29:19 AM
Post by: jakeroot on January 25, 2023, 02:29:19 AM
Quote from: Amaury on January 25, 2023, 01:06:32 AMQuote from: jakeroot on November 15, 2022, 01:46:10 AMI swear I've seen EASTBOUND, NORTHBOUND, etc on some signs in Washington State, but I could be misremembering. I remember it being more common than just the cardinal direction, but most of the examples I've checked only show the cardinal direction.
Maybe thinking of this? https://goo.gl/maps/uDK5ZMvkNRAuBoVe7
That's definitely an example of what I'm remembering! Thank you. I hate that I couldn't remember that location off-hand.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Lukeisroads on February 03, 2023, 10:11:22 PM
Post by: Lukeisroads on February 03, 2023, 10:11:22 PM
ok this is a really bad error that needs to be fixed itself by Caltrans. Its not supposed to be side ways it has to face south not southeast https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9856906,-118.9450191,3a,24.5y,352.06h,89.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5OOM4o9XlNXEZoxaAwooUA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5OOM4o9XlNXEZoxaAwooUA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D99.562454%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
They need to take a page of what the did to the 198/41 interchange in lemoore having directly facing the road
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.286699,-119.7981428,3a,17.1y,242.51h,92.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdnEAEyn3vQjCiXVjTXpx_g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DdnEAEyn3vQjCiXVjTXpx_g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D137.39835%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
They need to take a page of what the did to the 198/41 interchange in lemoore having directly facing the road
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.286699,-119.7981428,3a,17.1y,242.51h,92.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdnEAEyn3vQjCiXVjTXpx_g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DdnEAEyn3vQjCiXVjTXpx_g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D137.39835%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on February 03, 2023, 10:30:56 PM
Post by: SignBridge on February 03, 2023, 10:30:56 PM
Quote from: Lukeisroads on February 03, 2023, 10:11:22 PM
ok this is a really bad error that needs to be fixed itself by Caltrans. Its not supposed to be side ways it has to face south not southeast https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9856906,-118.9450191,3a,24.5y,352.06h,89.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5OOM4o9XlNXEZoxaAwooUA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5OOM4o9XlNXEZoxaAwooUA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D99.562454%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
They need to take a page of what the did to the 198/41 interchange in lemoore having directly facing the road
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.286699,-119.7981428,3a,17.1y,242.51h,92.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdnEAEyn3vQjCiXVjTXpx_g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DdnEAEyn3vQjCiXVjTXpx_g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D137.39835%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Shouldn't there be a mileage to the exit or an arrow on that second photo for Ca. Rt. 41????
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on February 06, 2023, 03:49:26 AM
Post by: roadfro on February 06, 2023, 03:49:26 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 03, 2023, 10:30:56 PMQuote from: Lukeisroads on February 03, 2023, 10:11:22 PM
ok this is a really bad error that needs to be fixed itself by Caltrans. Its not supposed to be side ways it has to face south not southeast https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9856906,-118.9450191,3a,24.5y,352.06h,89.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5OOM4o9XlNXEZoxaAwooUA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5OOM4o9XlNXEZoxaAwooUA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D99.562454%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
They need to take a page of what the did to the 198/41 interchange in lemoore having directly facing the road
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.286699,-119.7981428,3a,17.1y,242.51h,92.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdnEAEyn3vQjCiXVjTXpx_g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DdnEAEyn3vQjCiXVjTXpx_g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D137.39835%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Shouldn't there be a mileage to the exit or an arrow on that second photo for Ca. Rt. 41????
I see no blatant design error in the first link. Yes, it's not ideal that the signs are installed flush with the bridge and therefore at a skewed angle, but that's not a problem with the sign design.
The sign in the second link does have a design error (or omission) because it is an advance sign so it should have a distance message. The sign could have been larger to incorporate space for the distance message, or it could've left off the control cities to make room for the distance message.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on February 06, 2023, 07:37:45 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on February 06, 2023, 07:37:45 AM
I don't usually see ugly acorn shields in Illinois, but occasionally you'll come across a contractor-designed one that just misses the mark. This one is US-30 in Montgomery.
https://goo.gl/maps/gn57BwiKvtJQgTTY7
https://goo.gl/maps/gn57BwiKvtJQgTTY7
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hotdogPi on February 15, 2023, 08:39:27 AM
Post by: hotdogPi on February 15, 2023, 08:39:27 AM
Forgot a letter? Just add it tiny! Whittier Birthplace, Haverhill, MA.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52690963083_933dc9f64f_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52690963083_933dc9f64f_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Occidental Tourist on February 24, 2023, 12:32:04 AM
Post by: Occidental Tourist on February 24, 2023, 12:32:04 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/UzBON99.jpg)
Warning: Community college students driving ahead
This sign was installed about six months ago on the 241 toll road near Orange, California. I confirmed today that it has been removed, though not replaced.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: StogieGuy7 on February 24, 2023, 11:24:41 AM
Post by: StogieGuy7 on February 24, 2023, 11:24:41 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on February 24, 2023, 12:32:04 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/UzBON99.jpg)
Warning: Community college students driving ahead
This sign was installed about six months ago on the 241 toll road near Orange, California. I confirmed today that it has been removed, though not replaced.
I'm surprised there isn't a sub-panel saying "DO NOT PICK UP HITCHHIKERS"
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: chrismarion100 on July 10, 2023, 09:44:03 PM
Post by: chrismarion100 on July 10, 2023, 09:44:03 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.893549,-91.4225678,3a,21.1y,293.68h,105.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snWCGd9YKD00A31pz8p39kQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.893549,-91.4225678,3a,21.1y,293.68h,105.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snWCGd9YKD00A31pz8p39kQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Found this bad boy on street view. Looks like someone accidentally moved the SOUTH over to the right and no one noticed.
Found this bad boy on street view. Looks like someone accidentally moved the SOUTH over to the right and no one noticed.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on July 10, 2023, 11:07:34 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on July 10, 2023, 11:07:34 PM
Quote from: chrismarion100 on July 10, 2023, 09:44:03 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.893549,-91.4225678,3a,21.1y,293.68h,105.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snWCGd9YKD00A31pz8p39kQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.893549,-91.4225678,3a,21.1y,293.68h,105.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snWCGd9YKD00A31pz8p39kQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Found this bad boy on street view. Looks like someone accidentally moved the SOUTH over to the right and no one noticed.
Someone thought the entire line of text "SOUTH TO" should be centered, when each word should be centered over its shield (which makes the top line look off-center but that's the way it is). If someone thought it would look weird with the words centered over the shields, they should see some of the signs in Indiana where one route has a direction and one doesn't and everything is left-justified with the shields vertically stacked...reads sensibly but looks wild.
(e.g., https://goo.gl/maps/Xj4ReTmPTQXfZJJG7 which has the added bonus of the pullthrough showing US 33 NB but fails to mention I-469 WB, and the shields after the interchange don't help with this either! https://goo.gl/maps/3FkxnnvWSdLrk8BU6 )
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: roadfro on July 13, 2023, 12:06:27 PM
Post by: roadfro on July 13, 2023, 12:06:27 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 10, 2023, 11:07:34 PMQuote from: chrismarion100 on July 10, 2023, 09:44:03 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.893549,-91.4225678,3a,21.1y,293.68h,105.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snWCGd9YKD00A31pz8p39kQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.893549,-91.4225678,3a,21.1y,293.68h,105.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snWCGd9YKD00A31pz8p39kQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Found this bad boy on street view. Looks like someone accidentally moved the SOUTH over to the right and no one noticed.
Someone thought the entire line of text "SOUTH TO" should be centered, when each word should be centered over its shield (which makes the top line look off-center but that's the way it is).
Which, if that was the rationale, is also odd...because when you look closely, the shields themselves are not centered horizontally on the overall sign.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 13, 2023, 03:30:28 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 13, 2023, 03:30:28 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 13, 2023, 12:06:27 PMQuote from: PurdueBill on July 10, 2023, 11:07:34 PMQuote from: chrismarion100 on July 10, 2023, 09:44:03 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.893549,-91.4225678,3a,21.1y,293.68h,105.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snWCGd9YKD00A31pz8p39kQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.893549,-91.4225678,3a,21.1y,293.68h,105.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snWCGd9YKD00A31pz8p39kQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Found this bad boy on street view. Looks like someone accidentally moved the SOUTH over to the right and no one noticed.
Someone thought the entire line of text "SOUTH TO" should be centered, when each word should be centered over its shield (which makes the top line look off-center but that's the way it is).
Which, if that was the rationale, is also odd...because when you look closely, the shields themselves are not centered horizontally on the overall sign.
PurdueBill is correct. For positioning, the shield and its cardinal direction together should be one unified object. SOUTH and TO being different lengths may seem to mess it up. But if SOUTH were correctly centered over the US-53 shield, the distance between the left border and the left side of the "S" in SOUTH would be the same as the distance between the right border and the right side of the WI-124 shield.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 15, 2023, 10:07:40 AM
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 15, 2023, 10:07:40 AM
Right now it's only a design in a new contract letting; let's see if it gets corrected before fabrication. Mixed Clearview and FHWA E-Modified on I-496/US-127 in Lansing, MI:
(https://i.imgur.com/WklnkAf.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/WklnkAf.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Big John on July 15, 2023, 10:26:36 AM
Post by: Big John on July 15, 2023, 10:26:36 AM
^^ and Clearview is not supposed to be used in exit tabs.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 15, 2023, 02:15:10 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 15, 2023, 02:15:10 PM
^^ That's Michigan standard. One can argue about the standard, but the exit tab is not a design error per that standard.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: ClassicHasClass on July 17, 2023, 08:28:34 PM
Post by: ClassicHasClass on July 17, 2023, 08:28:34 PM
Is ... the I in EXIT different too?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: LilianaUwU on July 17, 2023, 08:42:24 PM
Post by: LilianaUwU on July 17, 2023, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 15, 2023, 02:15:10 PMJust because it's a standard doesn't mean it's not a design error.
^^ That's Michigan standard. One can argue about the standard, but the exit tab is not a design error per that standard.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 23, 2023, 09:30:18 AM
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 23, 2023, 09:30:18 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on July 17, 2023, 08:28:34 PM
Is ... the I in EXIT different too?
No, that's just how it displays on the graphic. Same with the "d" in Jolly Rd. You can see in the detail spec under the sign there is no change in font specified for those letters.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 23, 2023, 03:14:20 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 23, 2023, 03:14:20 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on July 17, 2023, 08:28:34 PM
Is ... the I in EXIT different too?
Typical PDF viewer problem. There's usually a setting to disable that happening, but I forgot the name.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on August 27, 2023, 12:44:42 AM
Post by: wanderer2575 on August 27, 2023, 12:44:42 AM
A minor error in the grand scheme of things, but that's what we live for. New signs on the nbd I-275 C/D ramp to I-94 in Romulus, MI. The left sign is missing the "West" direction.
(https://i.imgur.com/sUgRF29.jpg)
The signing plan shows the previous sign included no direction, and the new sign was designed to duplicate it exactly...
(https://i.imgur.com/eW4Yq0D.jpg)
... But in fact the previous sign did include the "West" direction.
(https://i.imgur.com/YIWWYwX.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/sUgRF29.jpg)
The signing plan shows the previous sign included no direction, and the new sign was designed to duplicate it exactly...
(https://i.imgur.com/eW4Yq0D.jpg)
... But in fact the previous sign did include the "West" direction.
(https://i.imgur.com/YIWWYwX.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: PurdueBill on August 27, 2023, 08:20:18 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on August 27, 2023, 08:20:18 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on August 27, 2023, 12:44:42 AM
A minor error in the grand scheme of things, but that's what we live for. New signs on the nbd I-275 C/D ramp to I-94 in Romulus, MI. The left sign is missing the "West" direction.
The signing plan shows the previous sign included no direction, and the new sign was designed to duplicate it exactly...
... But in fact the previous sign did include the "West" direction.
It's almost like someone copied the new signs over for the old ones in the layout. Wonder if someone didn't have the layout of the old signs on hand so they just winged it with carbons of the new ones? Hmm.
The missing direction one way reminds me of this on OH 15 which now has SOUTH where it belongs but didn't used to. https://goo.gl/maps/pPATH8g9csoXqMem9
This may be evidence of some kind of law of conservation--the assembly in Ohio gained a missing direction, while the one in Michigan lost one.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: formulanone on August 28, 2023, 06:31:12 AM
Post by: formulanone on August 28, 2023, 06:31:12 AM
There's a few mistakes here but somehow, it doesn't quite pull off "terrible"...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53130554985_671653d957_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oWXYXt)
Located on Clay CR 215, near Camp Blanding.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53130554985_671653d957_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oWXYXt)
Located on Clay CR 215, near Camp Blanding.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: kirbykart on September 26, 2023, 08:31:39 AM
Post by: kirbykart on September 26, 2023, 08:31:39 AM
This has to be the strangest arrow placement (https://maps.app.goo.gl/LYxvSn69FotATnm69) ever.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: SignBridge on September 29, 2023, 07:56:08 PM
Post by: SignBridge on September 29, 2023, 07:56:08 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on September 26, 2023, 08:31:39 AM
This has to be the strangest arrow placement (https://maps.app.goo.gl/LYxvSn69FotATnm69) ever.
That really is weird. More like something you'd see in California where the legend can be all over the signs in a haphazard arrangement.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Scott5114 on September 30, 2023, 12:37:32 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on September 30, 2023, 12:37:32 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 29, 2023, 07:56:08 PMQuote from: kirbykart on September 26, 2023, 08:31:39 AM
This has to be the strangest arrow placement (https://maps.app.goo.gl/LYxvSn69FotATnm69) ever.
That really is weird. More like something you'd see in California where the legend can be all over the signs in a haphazard arrangement.
It looks like someone forgot where the sign they were drawing was going to be installed, designed a pull-thru, freaked out for a bit when they realized how they had just messed up, then just put the arrow where it would fit and pushed it, hoping their boss wouldn't notice.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: hbelkins on October 01, 2023, 07:31:50 PM
Post by: hbelkins on October 01, 2023, 07:31:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 30, 2023, 12:37:32 AMQuote from: SignBridge on September 29, 2023, 07:56:08 PMQuote from: kirbykart on September 26, 2023, 08:31:39 AM
This has to be the strangest arrow placement (https://maps.app.goo.gl/LYxvSn69FotATnm69) ever.
That really is weird. More like something you'd see in California where the legend can be all over the signs in a haphazard arrangement.
It looks like someone forgot where the sign they were drawing was going to be installed, designed a pull-thru, freaked out for a bit when they realized how they had just messed up, then just put the arrow where it would fit and pushed it, hoping their boss wouldn't notice.
Look where it's located...
I've seen signs in Missouri like that before.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: chrismarion100 on October 02, 2023, 06:40:02 PM
Post by: chrismarion100 on October 02, 2023, 06:40:02 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8935232,-91.4226061,3a,22.2y,305.7h,107.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVwB7mzlIA76GnzUMU7QaZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8935232,-91.4226061,3a,22.2y,305.7h,107.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVwB7mzlIA76GnzUMU7QaZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Somebody must of accidentally moved SOUTH right as it appears that its left side is aligned to the left side of the US 53 shield.
Somebody must of accidentally moved SOUTH right as it appears that its left side is aligned to the left side of the US 53 shield.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: CovalenceSTU on October 06, 2023, 03:11:20 PM
Post by: CovalenceSTU on October 06, 2023, 03:11:20 PM
Shield fading? Don't worry boss, I'm on it!
(https://i.imgur.com/8Uvs3qm.png)
I also posted this in the Redesign this! thread a wile back but this sign has an arrow in-between two lanes (among other things):
(https://i.imgur.com/e4ETV7l.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/8Uvs3qm.png)
I also posted this in the Redesign this! thread a wile back but this sign has an arrow in-between two lanes (among other things):
(https://i.imgur.com/e4ETV7l.png)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 10, 2023, 04:33:10 PM
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 10, 2023, 04:33:10 PM
This is the access road from PA 188 to US 19/PA 21. The biggest issue here is that PA 21 is signed east-west, but I am unsure if it is truly an error. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219551003366198&set=a.10219551118889086)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53402164850_967ee5ba06_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53402164850_967ee5ba06_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: TheCatalyst31 on October 19, 2023, 03:32:54 PM
Post by: TheCatalyst31 on October 19, 2023, 03:32:54 PM
Wisconsin tends to put END plates and JCT plates on the same sign assemblies even though its JCT plates are taller, so they visibly don't line up. It always looks off to me, but it's clearly intentional so I wouldn't call it a design error.
But when you slap a short END plate over a taller plate (https://maps.app.goo.gl/LSTKzt7Hu19fAe478), that's definitely a design error.
But when you slap a short END plate over a taller plate (https://maps.app.goo.gl/LSTKzt7Hu19fAe478), that's definitely a design error.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on October 19, 2023, 05:04:22 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on October 19, 2023, 05:04:22 PM
Quote from: TheCatalyst31 on October 19, 2023, 03:32:54 PM
Wisconsin tends to put END plates and JCT plates on the same sign assemblies even though its JCT plates are taller, so they visibly don't line up. It always looks off to me, but it's clearly intentional so I wouldn't call it a design error.
But when you slap a short END plate over a taller plate (https://maps.app.goo.gl/LSTKzt7Hu19fAe478), that's definitely a design error.
It's not a design error. It's an installation error due to "grab whatever out of the warehouse" sloppiness.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Big John on October 19, 2023, 07:28:10 PM
Post by: Big John on October 19, 2023, 07:28:10 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 19, 2023, 05:04:22 PMHard to do in Wisconsin as they usually use unisigns now.Quote from: TheCatalyst31 on October 19, 2023, 03:32:54 PM
Wisconsin tends to put END plates and JCT plates on the same sign assemblies even though its JCT plates are taller, so they visibly don't line up. It always looks off to me, but it's clearly intentional so I wouldn't call it a design error.
But when you slap a short END plate over a taller plate (https://maps.app.goo.gl/LSTKzt7Hu19fAe478), that's definitely a design error.
It's not a design error. It's an installation error due to "grab whatever out of the warehouse" sloppiness.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 27, 2023, 06:12:16 PM
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 27, 2023, 06:12:16 PM
VA 105 WB at US 60 WB in Newport News, VA. I do not think Newport News understands how to use EXIT ONLY.... (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219701198080972&set=a.10219701306443681)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53402067708_94dc1cec09_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53402067708_94dc1cec09_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: plain on November 28, 2023, 07:39:25 PM
Post by: plain on November 28, 2023, 07:39:25 PM
I was just there a couple nights ago. I think something like BASE TRAFFIC ONLY would've been much better. Also, the city should've put another US 60 WEST posting at the exit gore itself.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 07, 2023, 05:43:54 PM
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 07, 2023, 05:43:54 PM
NY 25 WB near County Courthouse Rd/Marcus Rd in Mineola, NY (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219723592320814&set=a.10219723725924154)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53402595053_85e9c380c7_c.jpg)
On the Cross Island Pkwy EAST and WEST are in the wrong spots (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219723697683448&set=a.10219723725924154)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53402840005_b8f7b132e2_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53402595053_85e9c380c7_c.jpg)
On the Cross Island Pkwy EAST and WEST are in the wrong spots (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219723697683448&set=a.10219723725924154)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53402840005_b8f7b132e2_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on December 10, 2023, 09:16:09 AM
Post by: wanderer2575 on December 10, 2023, 09:16:09 AM
I don't know whether this was a design error or a fabrication error, but the new exit gore signs on sbd US-127 at I-94 in Jackson, MI had their arrows mixed up regarding which is the right exit and which is the left exit. Crews slapped patches on the signs, resulting in arrows that not only are ugly but are on the wrong sides of the signs.
(https://i.imgur.com/n0AfrVS.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZccXRUN.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/n0AfrVS.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZccXRUN.jpg)
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: Big John on December 10, 2023, 10:33:33 AM
Post by: Big John on December 10, 2023, 10:33:33 AM
^^Are those exit signs on a DDI?
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: wanderer2575 on December 10, 2023, 05:29:46 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on December 10, 2023, 05:29:46 PM
^^ Yes, because traffic is coming off a freeway. Sbd US-127 to ebd I-94 is a freeway-to-freeway movement. Used to be a six-ramp parclo with a traffic signal in that movement; now it's a DDI with a traffic signal in that movement. :banghead:
ETA: Coming northbound (surface road), the yellow field on the left exit signs says LANE ONLY.
ETA: Coming northbound (surface road), the yellow field on the left exit signs says LANE ONLY.
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 21, 2023, 10:42:59 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 21, 2023, 10:42:59 PM
Looks like they ended up going back and replacing the signs properly. Those patches must've been temporary fixes until they got new signs in.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Q9ryjCtVndsew7Fs8
However, "LANE ONLY" remains. Why they couldn't make it "RAMP ONLY" I don't know. :banghead:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Q9ryjCtVndsew7Fs8
However, "LANE ONLY" remains. Why they couldn't make it "RAMP ONLY" I don't know. :banghead:
Title: Re: Signs With Design Errors
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 03, 2024, 07:55:33 PM
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 03, 2024, 07:55:33 PM
The main design error here is that the blue arrow for the hospital is acting also as the arrow for SR 708. This is on US 360 WB just west of US 17. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219785719313950&set=a.10219786613056293)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53441368320_0ebfa978c4_c.jpg)
On SR 950 SB near SR 668 in Midlothian, VA, but why is Midlothian hyphenated? (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219793209021188&set=a.10219794100283469)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53444754476_417797199e_c.jpg)
Odd font for the SCHOOL BUS STOP AHEAD on PA 632 WB west of PA 247 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219891903728494&set=a.10219892151334684)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53483122691_ff7a1c5b9d_c.jpg)
On US 6 BUS (Carbondale) WB at 7th Ave in Carbondale, PA (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219891956569815&set=a.10219892151334684)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53483447063_139408430f_c.jpg) (yes, the US 6 shield is missing)
On NJ 36 SB where it turns onto Joline Ave (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219946698418327&set=a.10219946769140095)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53516067239_b9c3210aff_c.jpg)
Approaching the US 6 WB/PA 191 split in Honesdale (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219981239161824&set=pcb.10219981315323728)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53529874041_f72b639fdc_c.jpg)
On I-64 WB approaching VA 247 (Norview Ave) (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220040960734826&set=a.10220041282142861)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53554814682_0f59a40a1b_c.jpg)
On I-64 WB approaching VA 168, I-564, and US 460 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220041047016983&set=a.10220041282142861)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53555770361_50ae000b92_c.jpg)
An example of a green arrow acting as the arrow for SR 638. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220048243436889&set=a.10220048367039979)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53574185724_e963dee5f1_c.jpg)
Another one for SR 707. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220048332599118&set=a.10220048367039979)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53574077883_d15557717d_c.jpg)
"West!! I thought you said, To!!!" (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220048294558167&set=a.10220048367039979)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53574338644_408401e65b_c.jpg)
Would be in the unique thread if the "NO RETURN ACCESS" was in black on yellow on I-20 EB in Atlanta. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220085797215710&set=a.10220085901258311)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53586174916_8f1ce5da5d_c.jpg)
On VA 460 EB at VA 80 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220095469097501&set=a.10220095521778818)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53602514377_e8064a6ddf_c.jpg)
At the current east end of VA 460 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220095480977798&set=a.10220095521778818)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53603982105_b21e0c6a1b_c.jpg)
On WV 83 east of WV 80 in Bradshaw (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220095500778293&set=a.10220095521778818)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53604058513_1b9f107887_c.jpg)
I think the "TOs" on I-79 here should just be removed. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220097780395282&set=a.10220097830236528)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53606983754_802e9c9208_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53605770462_aa4043f3ee_c.jpg)
On US 219 NB north of MD 42 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220135484177853&set=a.10220135586020399)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53612547477_3472ae652d_c.jpg)
Signs where PA is Pa on US 219 NB/PA 56 WB in Johnstown (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220135688142952&set=a.10220135794465610)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53613896085_3a59dda80e_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53613653518_b0ff6c53e7_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53612573307_1549717fb5_c.jpg)
I found this along WV 618 WB in Parkersburg from August 2021 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220177328903945&set=a.10216218268569911)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53632807639_f50d40d575_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53441368320_0ebfa978c4_c.jpg)
On SR 950 SB near SR 668 in Midlothian, VA, but why is Midlothian hyphenated? (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219793209021188&set=a.10219794100283469)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53444754476_417797199e_c.jpg)
Odd font for the SCHOOL BUS STOP AHEAD on PA 632 WB west of PA 247 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219891903728494&set=a.10219892151334684)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53483122691_ff7a1c5b9d_c.jpg)
On US 6 BUS (Carbondale) WB at 7th Ave in Carbondale, PA (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219891956569815&set=a.10219892151334684)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53483447063_139408430f_c.jpg) (yes, the US 6 shield is missing)
On NJ 36 SB where it turns onto Joline Ave (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219946698418327&set=a.10219946769140095)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53516067239_b9c3210aff_c.jpg)
Approaching the US 6 WB/PA 191 split in Honesdale (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219981239161824&set=pcb.10219981315323728)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53529874041_f72b639fdc_c.jpg)
On I-64 WB approaching VA 247 (Norview Ave) (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220040960734826&set=a.10220041282142861)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53554814682_0f59a40a1b_c.jpg)
On I-64 WB approaching VA 168, I-564, and US 460 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220041047016983&set=a.10220041282142861)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53555770361_50ae000b92_c.jpg)
An example of a green arrow acting as the arrow for SR 638. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220048243436889&set=a.10220048367039979)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53574185724_e963dee5f1_c.jpg)
Another one for SR 707. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220048332599118&set=a.10220048367039979)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53574077883_d15557717d_c.jpg)
"West!! I thought you said, To!!!" (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220048294558167&set=a.10220048367039979)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53574338644_408401e65b_c.jpg)
Would be in the unique thread if the "NO RETURN ACCESS" was in black on yellow on I-20 EB in Atlanta. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220085797215710&set=a.10220085901258311)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53586174916_8f1ce5da5d_c.jpg)
On VA 460 EB at VA 80 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220095469097501&set=a.10220095521778818)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53602514377_e8064a6ddf_c.jpg)
At the current east end of VA 460 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220095480977798&set=a.10220095521778818)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53603982105_b21e0c6a1b_c.jpg)
On WV 83 east of WV 80 in Bradshaw (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220095500778293&set=a.10220095521778818)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53604058513_1b9f107887_c.jpg)
I think the "TOs" on I-79 here should just be removed. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220097780395282&set=a.10220097830236528)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53606983754_802e9c9208_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53605770462_aa4043f3ee_c.jpg)
On US 219 NB north of MD 42 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220135484177853&set=a.10220135586020399)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53612547477_3472ae652d_c.jpg)
Signs where PA is Pa on US 219 NB/PA 56 WB in Johnstown (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220135688142952&set=a.10220135794465610)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53613896085_3a59dda80e_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53613653518_b0ff6c53e7_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53612573307_1549717fb5_c.jpg)
I found this along WV 618 WB in Parkersburg from August 2021 (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220177328903945&set=a.10216218268569911)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53632807639_f50d40d575_c.jpg)