Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs aka The good, the bad, and the ugly

Started by mass_citizen, December 04, 2013, 10:46:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

interstatefan990

Quote from: mrsman on August 08, 2021, 04:54:32 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 08, 2021, 03:34:56 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 08, 2021, 01:45:15 PM
Not exactly a road sign, but this is a good way to recycle a old railroad crossing signal into a trail crossing signal.
https://goo.gl/maps/QZGjahqPtgAep7eJ8

Quote from: interstatefan990 on August 08, 2021, 03:09:28 PM
"TrailTrail Crossing"

How funny.  But, in some states, the presence of flashing light signals (FLS) on the former railroad crossing may still require school buses and hazmat trucks to stop and look both ways.  The presence of the "Trail Crossing" sign certainly creates a legal justification to avoid stopping there (except in states where pedestrians have the right-of-way at marked crosswalks).

This is certainly unique, but I don't find it amusing.  Drivers react differently to a trail crossing than to a rail crossing.  This could actually be dangerous to the pedestrians and bicyclists crossing.

The R/R shuck should be removed.  The R/R lights should be replaced either with nothing, a flahsing yellow beacon, or some type of ped crossing signal if warranted.  The RXR should also be fully removed from the pavement.  To the extent they can make this more conventional, yet still recycle the existing equipment for the RR crossing, kudos.

I would also like to note that the pedestrian warning sign is misplaced. The arrow points to a location on the roadway that is a few feet behind the marked crosswalk, where pedestrians will be crossing. I'm guessing that this may confuse a few drivers as to where the actual crossing is.
Multi-lane roundabouts are an abomination to mankind.


roadfro

Quote from: interstatefan990 on August 08, 2021, 07:41:01 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 08, 2021, 04:54:32 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 08, 2021, 03:34:56 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 08, 2021, 01:45:15 PM
Not exactly a road sign, but this is a good way to recycle a old railroad crossing signal into a trail crossing signal.
https://goo.gl/maps/QZGjahqPtgAep7eJ8

Quote from: interstatefan990 on August 08, 2021, 03:09:28 PM
"TrailTrail Crossing"

How funny.  But, in some states, the presence of flashing light signals (FLS) on the former railroad crossing may still require school buses and hazmat trucks to stop and look both ways.  The presence of the "Trail Crossing" sign certainly creates a legal justification to avoid stopping there (except in states where pedestrians have the right-of-way at marked crosswalks).

This is certainly unique, but I don't find it amusing.  Drivers react differently to a trail crossing than to a rail crossing.  This could actually be dangerous to the pedestrians and bicyclists crossing.

The R/R shuck should be removed.  The R/R lights should be replaced either with nothing, a flahsing yellow beacon, or some type of ped crossing signal if warranted.  The RXR should also be fully removed from the pavement.  To the extent they can make this more conventional, yet still recycle the existing equipment for the RR crossing, kudos.

I would also like to note that the pedestrian warning sign is misplaced. The arrow points to a location on the roadway that is a few feet behind the marked crosswalk, where pedestrians will be crossing. I'm guessing that this may confuse a few drivers as to where the actual crossing is.

It's a diagonal crossing... The arrow is a few feet behind the upstream end of the crosswalk on the opposite side of the street, while it's probably roughly 20 feet in front of the upstream end of the crosswalk on the same side of the street. In the grand scheme, with upstream warning signs and lines on the pavement, I don't really think anyone is going to be confused by where the crossing is. I think they'd be more confused by whether it's a pedestrian crossing or a train crossing, and thus they need to rethink the "trail trail crossing" signage and remove the railroad lighting.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: roadfro on August 09, 2021, 11:12:03 AM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on August 08, 2021, 07:41:01 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 08, 2021, 04:54:32 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 08, 2021, 03:34:56 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 08, 2021, 01:45:15 PM
Not exactly a road sign, but this is a good way to recycle a old railroad crossing signal into a trail crossing signal.
https://goo.gl/maps/QZGjahqPtgAep7eJ8

Quote from: interstatefan990 on August 08, 2021, 03:09:28 PM
"TrailTrail Crossing"

How funny.  But, in some states, the presence of flashing light signals (FLS) on the former railroad crossing may still require school buses and hazmat trucks to stop and look both ways.  The presence of the "Trail Crossing" sign certainly creates a legal justification to avoid stopping there (except in states where pedestrians have the right-of-way at marked crosswalks).

This is certainly unique, but I don't find it amusing.  Drivers react differently to a trail crossing than to a rail crossing.  This could actually be dangerous to the pedestrians and bicyclists crossing.

The R/R shuck should be removed.  The R/R lights should be replaced either with nothing, a flahsing yellow beacon, or some type of ped crossing signal if warranted.  The RXR should also be fully removed from the pavement.  To the extent they can make this more conventional, yet still recycle the existing equipment for the RR crossing, kudos.

I would also like to note that the pedestrian warning sign is misplaced. The arrow points to a location on the roadway that is a few feet behind the marked crosswalk, where pedestrians will be crossing. I'm guessing that this may confuse a few drivers as to where the actual crossing is.

It's a diagonal crossing... The arrow is a few feet behind the upstream end of the crosswalk on the opposite side of the street, while it's probably roughly 20 feet in front of the upstream end of the crosswalk on the same side of the street. In the grand scheme, with upstream warning signs and lines on the pavement, I don't really think anyone is going to be confused by where the crossing is. I think they'd be more confused by whether it's a pedestrian crossing or a train crossing, and thus they need to rethink the "trail trail crossing" signage and remove the railroad lighting.

I like it.  If it causes motorists to be more cautious at this crossing because they think it's a railroad crossing, then why not.  You can do that in a sleepy town like Butte.  It's like the type of town where someone pulls over on the side of the road to paint, as seen 180 degrees from this crossing picture. 

Mr. Matté


LilianaUwU

Something I've only seen twice (as they're non-standard here in Québec) but I wouldn't mind seeing more of: DÉTOUR - FIN signs, as an equivalent to MUTCD's "END DETOUR" signs.



(Original size)

Apologies for the mediocre picture quality, as I was (and still am currently) in a city bus.
"Volcano with no fire... Not volcano... Just mountain."
—Mr. Thwomp

My pronouns are she/her. Also, I'm an admin on the AARoads Wiki.

Michael

While tracing the old route of NY 34 in Ithaca in Street View, I switched to an older date to get a better look at the reference markers, and I came across this State Law sign which I thought was white but washed out from the sun.  Something looked off so I took a closer look, and it turns out that it's actually fluorescent yellow-green!  I found another one further down the street.  Across the street from the second one, there is a normal State Law sign.  Both fluorescent yellow-green signs have now been replaced with School Crossing signs (northbound, southbound)  Even though the State Law signs should have been white, I think it's kind of neat that they were fluorescent yellow-green because they were in a school zone (at least I'm assuming that's the reason they were that color).

Keeping on the topic of school signs, I saw this sign on Reddit recently:

roadfro

Quote from: Michael on August 15, 2021, 04:27:23 PM
Keeping on the topic of school signs, I saw this sign on Reddit recently:


I'm guessing that the times are meant to address several adjacent schools (elementary, middle & high schools, for example). But how the heck is anyone supposed to read that? They should have gone with one of two options: (1) list times of 6:45-8:45am & 1:45-4:20pm, or (2) installed a flasher.

Also, 35 is a bit high for a school zone. I'm guessing this is along some sort of major highway...?
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

plain

Quote from: roadfro on August 15, 2021, 05:18:05 PM
Quote from: Michael on August 15, 2021, 04:27:23 PM
Keeping on the topic of school signs, I saw this sign on Reddit recently:


I'm guessing that the times are meant to address several adjacent schools (elementary, middle & high schools, for example). But how the heck is anyone supposed to read that? They should have gone with one of two options: (1) list times of 6:45-8:45am & 1:45-4:20pm, or (2) installed a flasher.

Also, 35 is a bit high for a school zone. I'm guessing this is along some sort of major highway...?

No shit!! This sign is just causing confusion. I wouldn't be surprised if people slow down during the times they don't have to.
Newark born, Richmond bred

Scott5114

I suspect, given that some of the times are duplicated and run consecutively to one another, that the sign is Photoshopped. I'm a little skeptical that an engineer wouldn't condense the first three lines to "6:45-8:45 AM".
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Big John

^^ Engineers did not pick out that sign.  Mostly city politicians who set the times.

Scott5114

Quote from: Big John on August 15, 2021, 06:52:47 PM
^^ Engineers did not pick out that sign.  Mostly city politicians who set the times.

Well, yeah, but I doubt the mayor popped open SignCAD on his computer at his desk in City Hall and sent the resulting file to the sign shop without anyone else being allowed to look at it.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

roadfro

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 15, 2021, 06:48:57 PM
I suspect, given that some of the times are duplicated and run consecutively to one another, that the sign is Photoshopped. I'm a little skeptical that an engineer wouldn't condense the first three lines to "6:45-8:45 AM".

Yeah, you're probably right.

Looking at it again, it seems like a wider font like series E or F might have been used here, which is a bit more uncommon for a regulatory sign placard application (although I'm not a font expert).
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

ethanhopkin14


Scott5114

uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

ethanhopkin14


JoePCool14


:) Needs more... :sombrero: Not quite... :bigass: Perfect.
JDOT: We make the world a better place to drive.
Travel Mapping | 60+ Clinches | 260+ Traveled | 8000+ Miles Logged

SkyPesos


roadman65

Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

plain

Newark born, Richmond bred

Lukeisroads


jakeroot

Quote from: plain on August 17, 2021, 06:52:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 17, 2021, 06:28:44 PM
I never saw a sign like this before.



That... is quite a silly and unnecessary sign.

Both ends of the 205 have similar signage: https://goo.gl/maps/yS96bZx73DeJUXcG6

I suspect the point of the sign is to indicate to drivers that the movement onto 205 southbound, which is ostensibly a "left turn" maneuver (south to southeast), does require taking a right-hand exit to reach. That should seem obvious enough, since most exits are on the right, including every exit on I-5 in this area, but it certainly doesn't hurt and helps to visualize the maneuver a bit beforehand.

I would honestly be fine with more signs like this.

The north end of I-5 in WA, near Blaine, has a similar sign showing the two closest border crossings: https://goo.gl/maps/1r6ijvcpsugYmDxy7

CoreySamson

Quote from: Lukeisroads on August 17, 2021, 06:54:00 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2021, 12:22:41 PM
Kill it!!

What in the gods name is that font
Series B, Highway Gothic. I find this shield pretty strange (honestly, I find it somewhat pleasant-looking, but this shouldn't become a trend) for Houston, which I think usually uses Series D. And of course, in the typical Houston style, it's a 2di shield for a 3di.  :banghead:

For the more experienced members here, what states use (or have used) Series B the most? I don't think Texas usually does.
Buc-ee's and QuikTrip fanboy. Clincher of FM roads. Proponent of the TX U-turn.

My Route Log
My Clinches

Now on mobrule and Travel Mapping!

Scott5114

Quote from: CoreySamson on August 17, 2021, 07:16:13 PM
For the more experienced members here, what states use (or have used) Series B the most? I don't think Texas usually does.

The Oklahoma three-digit state highway shield specifies Series B in its standard.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

SkyPesos

Ohio went from Series D, to Series B sometime in the late 2000s and early 2010s, to Series C since (I think) 2015 for 3di font.

Jac_00b


This ugly Maximum 40 sign in High Level, Alberta. Someone used impact font it looks like.
First, you need to acquire funding. The only problem is that there is none, and there will be none for at least 30 years.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.