Signs With Design Errors

[Billy F 1988]

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?

[bassoon1986]

I think without the Hospital sign it would look ok. 1515 would be centered that way. The Blue H was probably added on

[Takumi]

US 460 eastbound at New Bohemia.


Not sure what font these VA 141 shields have, but it's a bit odd.




The numbers in the 337 shield on the right are too low.


"Um...you forgot something."


VA 337 near its east end.


Ugly shields, but not TWORS ugly.


The banner is below the I-664 shield on the right.

[kphoger]

between the 2 of these we can't get both 35E and 35W shields together

They were correct as of June 2.

[bassoon1986]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[kphoger]

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
At the split in Minnesota, northbound:  http://goo.gl/maps/63dVH

Approaching the split in Minnesota, southbound:  http://goo.gl/maps/j0mKd
At the split in Minnesota, southbound:  http://goo.gl/maps/eqLLC

Approaching the split in Texas, northbound:  http://goo.gl/maps/V632N
At the split in Texas, northbound:  http://goo.gl/maps/lKiL6

Approaching the split in Texas, southbound:  http://goo.gl/maps/I8uY7
At the split in Texas, southbound:  http://goo.gl/maps/AtGnC

[roadfro]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[Billy F 1988]

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".

[roadfro]

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.

[Interstatefan78]

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

I'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 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.

That 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

[Billy F 1988]

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".

[Alps]

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.

It 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.

[vtk]

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.

It 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.

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.

[Kniwt]

I-8 eastbound at SR 98 west between El Centro and Yuma: There is no place called "Junction"; the road doubles back to Calexico.

[PHLBOS]

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.

[Billy F 1988]

I-8 eastbound at SR 98 west between El Centro and Yuma: There is no place called "Junction"; the road doubles back to Calexico.

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".

[Tom958]

Re


there's another one here. Its arrowless brother, anyway.

[kphoger]

I-8 eastbound at SR 98 west between El Centro and Yuma: There is no place called "Junction"; the road doubles back to Calexico.

On the other hand:  http://goo.gl/maps/sOrHK

[Central Avenue]

I-8 eastbound at SR 98 west between El Centro and Yuma: There is no place called "Junction"; the road doubles back to Calexico.

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.

[Billy F 1988]

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.

[Takumi]

This arrow just seems...off.


Why blank space? Because they forgot to put VA 31 on there.


(This is what it's supposed to look like)

[Scott5114]

Typical OK sloppiness on these new signs for Exit 110 in Norman: