Signs With Design Errors

[Compulov]

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.

[PurdueBill]

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.

[national highway 1]

Also the EXIT 49 tab has severely rounded corners.

[deathtopumpkins]

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.

[vtk]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

Key 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.

[1995hoo]

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.

[PurdueBill]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

Sounds like you're describing what Massachusetts used to do w/their exit panels. 

[deathtopumpkins]

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.

[vtk]

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.

[PurdueBill]

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.

Sounds like you're describing what Massachusetts used to do w/their exit panels. 

Heck, Massachusetts took it a step beyond that until recently and had no sharing because there was no border.    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. 

[roadman]

Heck, Massachusetts took it a step beyond that until recently and had no sharing because there was no border.    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.

[roadman]

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).

[J N Winkler]

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.

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.

[Central Avenue]

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!


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.


Compressed Series E(M) on these illuminated street name signs. Typical Westerville.

[vtk]

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!


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.


Compressed Series E(M) on these illuminated street name signs. Typical Westerville.

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.

[Central Avenue]

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 and I think I recall them being there as early as 2001.

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.

True. It just grates on me more in Westerville, as they seem to want to stretch/compress type on every damn street name sign.

[vtk]

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 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.

[Central Avenue]

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.

It seems to suggest that ODOT had, for whatever reason, signed the deceleration lane as if it were a lane drop. Bizarre.

[route56]

A little difference of opinion on border style for Douglas County route 460:


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.

[Ian]

Misaligned arrows at the north end of Autoroute 15 in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, QC.

[akotchi]

^^ 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.

[Ian]

^^ 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.

[Alps]

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.

Yes, 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.