News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Erroneous road signs

Started by FLRoads, January 20, 2009, 04:01:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Scott5114

Because that means the region of the sign that the control cities are found in is not consistent from sign to sign. In nearly all the states I have driven extensively in, the signs place the shields on top and the control cities immediately beneath (with any distance information immediately below that).

It is also a less than optimal solution when one panel carries multiple route shields (two is iffy, three is definitely unbalanced-looking). Also, the placement of the distance ends up being awkward then, since it's not centered with the rest of the text on the sign.

In essence, having all sign panels the same size either ends up being wasteful (like in the above IL example) or breaches consistency. The end result is for a scant increase in the aesthetics. Signs with varying panel sizes on one gantry don't look terrible, especially if their lower edges match up with the lower edge of the gantry instead of being centered on the gantry as in your illustration.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef


myosh_tino

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 06, 2011, 02:44:01 AM
Because that means the region of the sign that the control cities are found in is not consistent from sign to sign. In nearly all the states I have driven extensively in, the signs place the shields on top and the control cities immediately beneath (with any distance information immediately below that).
Then I guess you haven't done much driving in California then because there are a fair number of overhead guide signs that place the control cities (especially if there are two of them) next to the route shield.  There are cases where the route shield is placed above the control city but in almost all of these cases, there is only a single control city on the sign.  The reasons for the two different layouts is because California follows the all-signs-must-be-the-same-height rule and the maximum height of a guide sign is 120 inches.  In California, overhead guide sign heights are dependent on the type and size of truss the sign is being installed on.

I do agree that in cases where there are multiple route shields, laying out the sign using the method I showed would be troublesome.  Believe me, I've tried to "California-tize" some signs in other states where there are multiple shields and it is a royal pain in the butt especially when the max height of a sign is only 120 inches.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

Brandon

Michigan also places the controls to the side of the shield maybe about 50% of the time.  However, unlike California, they're not wedded to making the signs all the same height.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Scott5114

Though I've never been there, I am aware of California's practice of moving around the control cities to enforce the height restriction. However, the point I was making is, since most states tend to put the shields on top and the locations below, this is the expected way of doing things, and doing it different could cause a couple seconds of unnecessary delay in mentally processing the sign.

Things get even more hairy when you get cardinal directions involved, because either you have to violate the MUTCD's margin guidelines to cram the direction in the margin between the shield and the top of the sign, hang it out to the left of the shields (which looks unbalanced), or put it to the right of the shields, where it gets mixed in with the other text elements.

It's a recipe for ugly signage, in any event.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Scott5114

Back on the topic of erroneous road signs:


US-288?  :banghead: This isn't even supposed to be OK-288, which is as fictional as US-288. They mean US-281.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

WillWeaverRVA

I was going to say, this would have semi-validated the erroneous US 288 shield that briefly existed in Chesterfield County, Virginia. (never mind that there's no US 88 :P)
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

Icodec

Quote from: flaroads on January 20, 2009, 04:01:44 PM
Okay, we've all seen them and did a double-take when we did.  Yup, I'm talking about sign goofs.  We know they're out there, now let's see how many sign errors the DOT's and sign companies have put up across the country.  Here's one to get it started (which I have already posted on another thread)



A US 37 in Virginia??  No, don't get your hopes up, it's actually suppose to be VA 37.  This is located along southbound I-81 in Virginia.  The other signs at this interchange show the correct VA 37 but whoever crafted this particular sign didn't read the full instructions and decided to make all the numbers with US highway shields...


Why do they always have trouble with the state route 37s? In Delaware, OH, there are two (previously three) erroneous road shields for OH-37. They fixed one. Another case is in ALSO in Delaware, where a sign says "E US-36, N US-42, E OH-37 (right shield this time). The problem with this is US-36 doesn't concur with 37 until about a mile east. The US-42 signage is correct. But why is this so? Delaware has an ODOT office right where 36 and 37 split!

corco


agentsteel53

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 06, 2011, 09:51:10 PM
I was going to say, this would have semi-validated the erroneous US 288 shield that briefly existed in Chesterfield County, Virginia. (never mind that there's no US 88 :P)



Texas also likes US-288.  the real mystery about that gantry is ... how did they manage to get one out of two of the signs wrong!
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Roadgeek Adam

I'm not sure if this qualifies as erroneous more than FLDOT just saying "FL 880 barely exists period, let's just sign its 18.5 mile CR extension instead." This is on FL 15 / 80 at the intersection with Dr. ML King Blvd (FL 880) in Belle Glade.


Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University 2015-17
B.A. History, Montclair State University 2013-15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex (County) College 2009-13

Mark D

#1110
I don't have any pictures, but I know of an incorrect mileage sign on I-95 SB in Florida. It is following exit 298 (US-1 to Bunnell) crossing the Pellicer Creek at the St. Johns/Flagler County border, where the sign reads 289 to Miami and should say 298. This is a careless switch that I find amusing hasn't been fixed after years. Because unlike shields and fonts, even non-roadgeeks read mileage signs critically for reference.

9 miles later in Palm Coast, the sign again reports 289 miles to Miami.... :spin:

agentsteel53

Quote from: Mark D on July 07, 2011, 06:02:34 PMthe sign reads 289 to Miami and should say 298.

that's bad, but not fatally awful.  It's unlikely you'd miss an exit based on that sign.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

iowahighways

Quote from: Brandon on July 05, 2011, 09:06:13 PM
What went here?



I don't think it just blew off into the Iowa cornfields either.  The other signs for this exit were like that.

That used to be IA 363, which connected I-380 and IA 150 in Urbana, but it was decommissioned in 2003.
The Iowa Highways Page: Now exclusively at www.iowahighways.org
The Iowa Highways Photo Gallery: www.flickr.com/photos/iowahighways/

Mark D

Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 07, 2011, 07:10:59 PM
that's bad, but not fatally awful.  It's unlikely you'd miss an exit based on that sign.

Right, I just always thought it was bizarre because the mileage follows the exits exactly, as I-95 comes to an end in the heart of downtown Miami.

vtk

Quote from: Icodec on July 07, 2011, 02:18:00 PM
Why do they always have trouble with the state route 37s? In Delaware, OH, there are two (previously three) erroneous road shields for OH-37. They fixed one. Another case is in ALSO in Delaware, where a sign says "E US-36, N US-42, E OH-37 (right shield this time). The problem with this is US-36 doesn't concur with 37 until about a mile east. The US-42 signage is correct. But why is this so? Delaware has an ODOT office right where 36 and 37 split!

You're probably referring to the exit signage from the short freeway section of US-23.  That signage is for a split diamond interchange which attempts to serve two or three cross-streets.  US 36 and US 42 are on one of those streets, and SR 37 is on another.  There's also a SR 521 or something on one of those streets, but signage for that one is rather incomplete.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

formulanone

#1115
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 07, 2011, 04:42:49 PM
I'm not sure if this qualifies as erroneous more than FLDOT just saying "FL 880 barely exists period, let's just sign its 18.5 mile CR extension instead." This is on FL 15 / 80 at the intersection with Dr. ML King Blvd (FL 880) in Belle Glade.




Noticed that on the road recently, it used to say SR880 along the entire route, then just the little section from SR15, but it may have actually fallen out of state-maintenance for that tiny little stretch, like the tiny part of SR717,  versus the longer stretch of CR717 (Muck City Road).

Alex

Quote from: formulanone on July 08, 2011, 02:53:37 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 07, 2011, 04:42:49 PM
I'm not sure if this qualifies as erroneous more than FLDOT just saying "FL 880 barely exists period, let's just sign its 18.5 mile CR extension instead." This is on FL 15 / 80 at the intersection with Dr. ML King Blvd (FL 880) in Belle Glade.

Noticed that on the road recently, it used to say SR880 along the entire route, then just the little section from SR15, but it may have actually fallen out of state-maintenance for that tiny little stretch, like the tiny part of SR717,  versus the longer stretch of CR717 (Muck City Road).

I don't know the status of SR 880 offhand, but I do know that if you drive along CR-880, you'll find a Palm Beach County US-shield cutout error along westbound and this goofy SR-98 shield for CR-700 (former US 98) at the east end:



Photographed three days ago.

Hot Rod Hootenanny

Quote from: vtk on July 08, 2011, 02:20:05 PM
Quote from: Icodec on July 07, 2011, 02:18:00 PM
Why do they always have trouble with the state route 37s? In Delaware, OH, there are two (previously three) erroneous road shields for OH-37. They fixed one. Another case is in ALSO in Delaware, where a sign says "E US-36, N US-42, E OH-37 (right shield this time). The problem with this is US-36 doesn't concur with 37 until about a mile east. The US-42 signage is correct. But why is this so? Delaware has an ODOT office right where 36 and 37 split!

You're probably referring to the exit signage from the short freeway section of US-23.  That signage is for a split diamond interchange which attempts to serve two or three cross-streets.  US 36 and US 42 are on one of those streets, and SR 37 is on another.  There's also a SR 521 or something on one of those streets, but signage for that one is rather incomplete.

Ohio Straight line diagram shows Oh 521 following US 36 (Williams St) into DT Delaware. However, 521 has not been signed, west from it's junction with US 36/Oh 37 since the US 23 "bypass" has been opened (mid 60s).
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

US71

#1118


This is wrong on a technicality: it's Alternate US 69



This should be US 75
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Kniwt

Spotted today on US 89 northbound headed into Page, Ariz.:



I suppose you could eventually get to US 60 that way, but the destination should be US 160.

xonhulu

Quote from: Kniwt on July 12, 2011, 04:19:45 PM
I suppose you could eventually get to US 60 that way, but the destination should be US 160.

Does that indirectly make Springfield, MO one of the control cities for AZ 98?

Duke87

ODOT (or is it the city of Cincinnati?) flatters OH 3:


and ConnDOT insults US 5:


(of coincidence, both of these assembles contain a 22, and both of those are correct!)
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

sandwalk



The sign should say "Cleveland Road" (US 6)  :)

apeman33

Quote from: US71 on July 08, 2011, 05:58:54 PM


This is wrong on a technicality: it's Alternate US 69


Oklahoma hasn't been able to figure out how to handle Alt. 69 for decades. When I first moved to southeast Kansas, I was thrown off by the change from U.S. 69 to OK-69A shields at the state line. Then one day, the shields were changed to U.S. 69 cutouts with "ALTERNATE" in small letters along the top and 69A was made a different route that bypassed Miami on the east side.

So while signing Alt. U.S. 69 as OK-69A isn't right, it isn't surprising, either.

hobsini2

Quote from: sandwalk on July 19, 2011, 12:28:18 PM


The sign should say "Cleveland Road" (US 6)  :)
I like the idea of the city of Cleveland being closed for 65 days.  Apparently they are having their own "lockout".
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)



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.