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

[SignGeek101]

Found this today: https://goo.gl/maps/5V74cKr4K8E2
The tab is relatively new too (installed sometime 2012-2014). FHWA font as a bonus. This intersection is going to be upgraded to interchange though, so it won't be there for long.

What was unusual about my original post was the fact that the signs were diamond-shaped as opposed to square.  There's actually a few signs identical to that (though without the tab) on Hwy 1 southbound just over the Second Narrows in Vancouver.  I always thought that was weird, considering lane control signs rarely if ever get used on freeways:

https://goo.gl/maps/gmKMssJWCbB2
https://goo.gl/maps/ECLLxeQnHkP2

I would have thought the MOT would have got rid of them when they upgraded the bridge's sidewalks last year and installed new APL signs.  Especially because of the APL signs, even.  My only guess is that they're trying to indicate the McGill St exit peels off from the Hastings St exit.  But again, that's what the APL signs are for, right?

I know your post was for the diamond sign, I was referring to the use of ONLY on the pavement next to the diamond sign. In my post, I wasn't referring to the white on black standard sign, but the ONLY tab beneath it.

A different take on the Quebec and francophone New Brunswick "Watch Out for Our Kids-One of Them May Be Yours" from Preissac, Quebec (just off R-395):

https://www.google.ca/maps/@48.4079963,-78.3657484,3a,90y,202.56h,83.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAC5yRbBZ20fvtHomLkw6XA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

The tab translates as "Be Vigilant".

I like it, but there's no way anyone from a distance can make out the details of that sign.

[MarkF]

In downtown Los Angeles, this sign on CA 110 appears to be aimed at just one person:


Actually it is for James M. Wood Blvd.

[Kniwt]

Just outside Panguitch UT, taken today:



Makes me wonder ... how many other signs tell you where you aren't? (Mildly tempted to start a thread on that topic.)

ETA: Interestingly, this is at least the third version of this sign to be posted at this location, dating back to at least 2001:
http://www.roadtripamerica.com/signs/not89.htm
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/devotions/lundell-not-89.aspx

[vtk]

That's the only one I've heard of.

[Revive 755]

This one is probably on the internet already, but in Maquoketa, Iowa, there is a circular "City Route 61" sign on the former alignment of US 61:  Streetview

[tckma]

Makes me wonder ... how many other signs tell you where you aren't? (Mildly tempted to start a thread on that topic.)

MD-68 is NOT I-68 (from Wikipedia):

[bzakharin]

Telling you where you're not is not very helpful. At the very least it should tell you how to get back to US 89. The MD sign is a different story because it's at a point where you can make a decision *and* it tells you what to do (although the real solution there is to not duplicate route numbers in a way that will cause confusion). Although, I'm half tempted to put up "This is NOT I-95" signs on the NJ Turnpike (south of where it's I-95 of course), just to confuse the hell out of everyone.

[hbelkins]

Somewhere in Virginia...



Context: http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2008_VA_NC/Pages/349.html

[kphoger]

Somewhere in Virginia...



Context: http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2008_VA_NC/Pages/349.html

If I squint my eyes to blur the difference in shades of white, then all I end up seeing is a route marker with vampire teeth.

[Kacie Jane]

Telling you where you're not is not very helpful. At the very least it should tell you how to get back to US 89.

The sign is just outside of town, not long after you've made a wrong turn.  (Well, wrong "non-turn".)  I would hope most people are smart enough to assume that the way back to 89 is a U-turn back into town.... but then again, if most people were close to that smart, this sign wouldn't be necessary.

[mwb1848]

Makes me wonder ... how many other signs tell you where you aren't? (Mildly tempted to start a thread on that topic.)

MD-68 is NOT I-68 (from Wikipedia):

That's a threat I'd like to see.

Meanwhile, here's a GSV of a similiar situation on I-12 in Louisiana:

https://goo.gl/maps/nbWe6xHneBS2

[hotdogPi]

That's a threat I'd like to see.

Read that again.

[KEVIN_224]

Arguably the best single reason Connecticut doesn't duplicate state routes with US routes and Interstates. You won't find state routes 1, 5, 6, 7, 44, 84, 91, 95, 202 or 291 here. We did have state route 291 in the past. That went away once the Bissell Bridge over the Connecticut River became a part of I-291 in 1994.

[HTM Duke]

A not-too-standard way of posting T-routes (town) in Clintwood, VA: (note the stenciled numbers and the 'T' added as an afterthought)
https://goo.gl/maps/dngDZV8vka32

[hotdogPi]

Arguably the best single reason Connecticut doesn't duplicate state routes with US routes and Interstates. You won't find state routes 1, 5, 6, 7, 44, 84, 91, 95, 202 or 291 here. We did have state route 291 in the past. That went away once the Bissell Bridge over the Connecticut River became a part of I-291 in 1994.

CT 20 is still too close to the Massachusetts border.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I think there's a FM 121 outside of the Dallas/Fort Worth area separate from the 121 that goes to the airport with a sign at the exit saying "DFW TRAFFIC DO NOT EXIT".

[jp the roadgeek]

Arguably the best single reason Connecticut doesn't duplicate state routes with US routes and Interstates. You won't find state routes 1, 5, 6, 7, 44, 84, 91, 95, 202 or 291 here. We did have state route 291 in the past. That went away once the Bissell Bridge over the Connecticut River became a part of I-291 in 1994.

CT 20 is still too close to the Massachusetts border.

You also won't see a CT 90 (too close to the Mass Pike; ).  CT 93 existed at one time, but was renumbered as 169 because MA was forced to renumber its portion of the road due to a conflict with I-93.  CT also had a conflict with I-87 and CT 87 before I-87 became I-684.  Most New England states won't duplicate state routes with US routes and interstates.  The only exception I can think of is I-295 and MA 295, which are over a hundred miles apart and only exist because they are extensions of roads that connect to another state.  NJ and DE are the same. NY and PA will duplicate interstates and state routes (if far enough away), but generally will not allow duplicates of state routes and US routes, the only exception being US 2 and NY 2 (the US 2 section is 0.9 mi).

[Mapmikey]

Makes me wonder ... how many other signs tell you where you aren't? (Mildly tempted to start a thread on that topic.)

MD-68 is NOT I-68 (from Wikipedia):

That's a threat I'd like to see.

Meanwhile, here's a GSV of a similiar situation on I-12 in Louisiana:

https://goo.gl/maps/nbWe6xHneBS2

US 220 at VA 40 has one of these as well...

https://goo.gl/maps/pygXFPiPGjJ2

[cl94]

Does anyone have a picture of the white on black (yes, a "big black sign") button copy along US 219 south of Ridgway, PA? As of this afternoon, it was still directing trucks and cars to their separate paths. Definitely unique.

[vdeane]

NY and PA will duplicate interstates and state routes (if far enough away), but generally will not allow duplicates of state routes and US routes, the only exception being US 2 and NY 2 (the US 2 section is 0.9 mi).

Don't forget US 220 and NY 220 (though we like to pretend that US 220 doesn't enter NY).

Also I-90 and NY 90 are notable, but there's no interchange, and I-90 is maintained by the Thruway Authority for most of its length, which I think is a factor (note that all the cases where an interstate and NY route would have been maintained by the same region (for example, former NY 87 and I-87 both exist in and are maintained by Region 7; former NY 84 and I-84 both exist in and are maintained by Region 8) got renumbered and the others didn't).

[tckma]

NY and PA will duplicate interstates and state routes (if far enough away), but generally will not allow duplicates of state routes and US routes, the only exception being US 2 and NY 2 (the US 2 section is 0.9 mi).

As someone who went to college in Ithaca, I present NY-90:  Reasonably close to I-90, with both NY-90 and I-90 accessible via NY-96.  One might also argue that NY-5 is reasonably close to US-5, though the latter does not enter New York State.

NY also has a tendency to continue non-Interstate designated routes with a state route of the same number: I-787/NY-787, I-878/NY-878, I-495/NY-495 (before the extension through Manhattan was cancelled), and so forth.

PA actually has reassurance markers along interstates saying, for example, "SR81" on I-81 just like they have, for example "SR194" on PA-194.  I suppose to a state highway department, it really makes no difference apart from who supplies the money for maintenance of the road.

[hotdogPi]

As someone who went to college in Ithaca, I present NY-90:  Reasonably close to I-90, with both NY-90 and I-90 accessible via NY-96.  One might also argue that NY-5 is reasonably close to US-5, though the latter does not enter New York State.

NY 7 is closer to US 7 than NY 5 is to US 5.

[bzakharin]

Most New England states won't duplicate state routes with US routes and interstates.  The only exception I can think of is I-295 and MA 295, which are over a hundred miles apart and only exist because they are extensions of roads that connect to another state.  NJ and DE are the same.

While it is true that NJ has a zero duplication policy (except for county routes), Delaware is pretty horrible. Both DE 9 and US 9 cross DE 1. DE 202 intersects US 202 and is in fact the thru route because US 202 enters I-95 at that interchange.

[cl94]

As someone who went to college in Ithaca, I present NY-90:  Reasonably close to I-90, with both NY-90 and I-90 accessible via NY-96.  One might also argue that NY-5 is reasonably close to US-5, though the latter does not enter New York State.

NY 7 is closer to US 7 than NY 5 is to US 5.

There are even multiple trailblazer and reassurance assemblies in the Bennington area that contain BOTH.

[PHLBOS]

Most New England states won't duplicate state routes with US routes and interstates.  The only exception I can think of is I-295 and MA 295, which are over a hundred miles apart and only exist because they are extensions of roads that connect to another state.

Don't forget about US 3 & MA 3; granted MassDOT treats those as one route based on the mile markers.

PA will duplicate interstates and state routes (if far enough away), but generally will not allow duplicates of state routes and US routes

I-283 & PA 283 plus US 222 & PA 222; although the latter is likely viewed as one route.