Signs With Design Errors

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[SignBridge]

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.......

[Occidental Tourist]

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?"

[jakeroot]

I do believe single-letter cardinal directions are prohibited (though I wish I knew why):

[Alex4897]

I do believe single-letter cardinal directions are prohibited (though I wish I knew why):

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.

[SignGeek101]

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

[jakeroot]

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?

[SignGeek101]

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.

[HTM Duke]

Double error here, save for the 'M.P.H.' legend on the bottom of this speed hump warning sign:

https://goo.gl/maps/NUe14

[vtk]

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.

[SignGeek101]

Double error here, save for the 'M.P.H.' legend on the bottom of this speed hump warning sign:

https://goo.gl/maps/NUe14

Ah yes, the Arialveticverstesk. Probably a local install. 

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.

[WNYroadgeek]

http://goo.gl/maps/uzXcS

Yeah, so the arrow under the I-90 shield might want to consider going on a diet...

[jakeroot]

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.

[6a]

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!

[Mergingtraffic]

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

[SignGeek101]

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.

[SignGeek101]

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.

[vtk]

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!

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.

[6a]

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:

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:



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...

Also, your post was apparently number 614. Kudos.

Given recent news I had to look for post 380 it was lordsutch.

[TEG24601]

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.

[machias]

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.

[SignGeek101]

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.

[SignGeek101]

NOT my pic.

GMSV: http://goo.gl/maps/JAxyt

The letters here seem to be differently sized.

I made a remake:



Yes, the shield is stretched...

[JoePCool14]

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. 

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).

[SignGeek101]

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. 

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