Signs With Design Errors

[Lukeisroads]

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

[Scott5114]

Believe it or not, since the sign is posted downstream of the theoretical gore, the 2009 MUTCD says that's correct.

[Lukeisroads]

Believe it or not, since the sign is posted downstream of the theoretical gore, the 2009 MUTCD says that's correct.

According to road guy rob he says utah did it wrong

[Scott5114]

According to road guy rob he says utah did it wrong

In which video?

[PurdueBill]

Bump to showcase this beauty 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. 

[US 89]

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:



However, the standard installation pattern looks like this, with the final sign slightly upstream of the gore point:



I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to use the partial APLs all the way to the end.

[Rothman]

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

An unfortunately common error.

[thenetwork]

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

[kirbykart]

Bump to showcase this beauty 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.

I 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.

[Lukeisroads]

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

[wanderer2575]

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:



However, the standard installation pattern looks like this, with the final sign slightly upstream of the gore point:



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:

[J N Winkler]

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.?

[andarcondadont]

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.?

Ha! A design error in of itself!

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

Where is the blue-green in this? The only street signs I see are all green.

[hotdogPi]

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

Where is the blue-green in this? The only street signs I see are all green.

It's in the village logo.

[andarcondadont]

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

Where is the blue-green in this? The only street signs I see are all green.

It's in the village logo.

But 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.

[Scott5114]

Bump to showcase this beauty 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.

I 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.

If you think that's hideous, you live a pretty sheltered life.

Spend an hour or so on GSV trolling around Oklahoma or New Mexico.

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

Where is the blue-green in this? The only street signs I see are all green.

It's in the village logo.

But 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.

Yeah, as much as we wish it did sometimes, the MUTCD doesn't apply to everything with text on it at the roadside.

[formulanone]

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 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.

[J N Winkler]

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 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 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.

[jakeroot]

I think the signs should have "mile"  next to the fraction?

https://twitter.com/westseattleblog/status/1562863773656154112

[kirbykart]

I think the signs should have "mile"  next to the fraction?

https://twitter.com/westseattleblog/status/1562863773656154112

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.

[jakeroot]

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!

[jay8g]

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??

[Scott5114]

Why is it in Series D?

[rarnold]

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.

[Scott5114]

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".