Erroneous road signs

[Quillz]

Can you spot all the wrong things with this shield?

[agentsteel53]

it's not even on an old US-395 alignment!

[Quillz]

I've found at least six errors...

1) It shouldn't be using a California state route shield.
2) Even if it was using the right style shield, it should be the wide shield.
3) California state route shields use Series D numerals.
4) Generally, signs with a white border extend all the way out to the edge. The outer green border is unnecessary.
5) Unequal kerning between the numerals.
6) Uneven height between the numerals, notice how the 9 is lower than the 3 and 5.

[Kacie Jane]

4) Generally, signs with a white border extend all the way out to the edge. The outer green border is unnecessary.

Personally, I've never found this to be a hard and fast rule with "banners" and arrows. Neither the "TO" nor the arrow in the pic I posted here have the white to the edge, nor does the "VIA" two posts below (but the "TO" in that same assembly does, oddly enough.

IMHO, while I prefer the "border to the edge" on BGS's, for consistency's sake, I like my banners this way.

Also...

7) The shield is "printed" off-kilter.  The green looks a couple of degrees to the left.
8) The greenout on the shield looks like it matches the Business banner, but not the shield.

[Quillz]

At least in California, it's generally a standard that I've observed. Signs with a black or other dark color border are usually inset by at least half an inch, while those with a white border extend all the way out. I think the MUTCD even recommends something to that effect. That's why signs (at least regarding CA route shields) are generally in error if they have an unnecessary outer border.

[Dr Frankenstein]

8 ) The "inner" border has the same corner radii as the corner trimming, making the "outer" border uneven at corners. Radius should increase at the same rate as it extends from the centre of the said radius.

Also, http://www.failqc.com/2011/02/signalisation-routiere-fail/ .
O RLY?

[agentsteel53]

At least in California, it's generally a standard that I've observed. Signs with a black or other dark color border are usually inset by at least half an inch, while those with a white border extend all the way out. I think the MUTCD even recommends something to that effect. That's why signs (at least regarding CA route shields) are generally in error if they have an unnecessary outer border.

this is a federal standard.  It seems to go back almost to the very beginnings of things; at least as dark-background signs got popular in the 30s, California was consistently making them have a white outermost border. 

the reason for this is because a black outer border would have almost no differentiating effect against any background except snow.  Most backgrounds are darker than signs, especially when signs are made retroreflective.  The sign border, if made a dark color, would blend in and be wasted metal.

(some 1920s shields intended for snowy places did indeed have the black border outermost.  But this is quite rare, early, and experimental.)

[agentsteel53]

Personally, I've never found this to be a hard and fast rule with "banners" and arrows.

the reason for this is because the sign shop on occasion has only one screen for, say, a "TO" banner, which does have the outer border, and they use it in both positive- and negative-contrast applications.

or they do have both styles, but the worker assigned to the task isn't paying attention.

other styles of signs tend not to come in both positive- and negative-contrast forms, so you're more likely to see the consistent application of the light-colored outer border there.

the banner phenomenon is exacerbated by the changing interstate standards between 1957 and 1961: the first interstate standard of '57 specified white-background arrows and banners, while the 1961 standard switched to the blue-background style we know today.  Some sign shops simply kept the old screens and changed ink colors.  I wouldn't be surprised if that I-5 gantry in your link is old enough that they were still using the 1957 screens.

[agentsteel53]

one exception that suddenly comes to mind: California's old black-background regulatory signs.  (SPEED LIMIT, DO NOT ENTER, etc., 1929-1971)  consistently had the black outer margin and a white inner border!  don't ask me why, seeing as guide signs and whatnot had white going out to the edge.  So did red signs (STOP, for the most part, and some less-often-seen ones like Inspection Station). 

It may have had to do with the original porcelain manufacturing process.  really, I have no idea.

[Quillz]

At least in California, it's generally a standard that I've observed. Signs with a black or other dark color border are usually inset by at least half an inch, while those with a white border extend all the way out. I think the MUTCD even recommends something to that effect. That's why signs (at least regarding CA route shields) are generally in error if they have an unnecessary outer border.

this is a federal standard.  It seems to go back almost to the very beginnings of things; at least as dark-background signs got popular in the 30s, California was consistently making them have a white outermost border.  

the reason for this is because a black outer border would have almost no differentiating effect against any background except snow.  Most backgrounds are darker than signs, especially when signs are made retroreflective.  The sign border, if made a dark color, would blend in and be wasted metal.

(some 1920s shields intended for snowy places did indeed have the black border outermost.  But this is quite rare, early, and experimental.)

Why don't U.S. Route and most state route shields have a white border to offset the outer black area, then?

[agentsteel53]

Why don't U.S. Route and most state route shields have a white border to offset the outer black area, then?

the shield shape tends to be a sufficient differentiator.  in the case of 1961-spec markers, the sign was supposed to appear (kinda vaguely if you squint) like the older cutout style - the black was intended to fade into the background and provide contrast for the shield shape. 

nowadays a lot of states are adding a thin white outer margin.  I think Texas may have been the first to issue '61-spec US shields with a white outer margin, possibly as early as 1969.  

[Quillz]

That's a nice sign... Classic shape and white outer border. Too bad it's not a cutout, though.

[Scott5114]

We had a discussion about this amongst the Wikipedia editors once, brought about by some Kansas shields having a gold border and some not. Our theory was that a border of uninked area around the edges was to prevent process inks from dripping off the edge of the sign while they were applied. On green process-ink signs, green ink is applied to white sheeting, so obviously having the white border abut the edge of the sign is desirable there.

[Kacie Jane]

Personally, I've never found this to be a hard and fast rule with "banners" and arrows.

the reason for this is because the sign shop on occasion has only one screen for, say, a "TO" banner, which does have the outer border, and they use it in both positive- and negative-contrast applications.

or they do have both styles, but the worker assigned to the task isn't paying attention.

other styles of signs tend not to come in both positive- and negative-contrast forms, so you're more likely to see the consistent application of the light-colored outer border there.

the banner phenomenon is exacerbated by the changing interstate standards between 1957 and 1961: the first interstate standard of '57 specified white-background arrows and banners, while the 1961 standard switched to the blue-background style we know today.  Some sign shops simply kept the old screens and changed ink colors.  I wouldn't be surprised if that I-5 gantry in your link is old enough that they were still using the 1957 screens.

After driving around in the day or two since I posted that, I kept my eyes peeled and realized that every sign here in town does follow the positive/negative contrast rule.  So I figured that the "inner" border must have just been an older standard, but the "used the wrong screen" excuse makes sense too.

One thing that still gets me though is that county-route signs (yellow on blue) should count as positive contrast, but the signs http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_524/ almost all have a blue outer border.  But I guess yellow just doesn't count quite the same as white.

[agentsteel53]

you are right about the county markers.  I wonder when that pentagon spec first came out.  I have seen a California 1958 specification, which is almost close enough to when CA was making porcelain signs with "incorrect" borders that it may very well be explanation.

[burgess87]

My turn!  This is looking southbound on US 62 (Niagara Falls BLVD), just south of IH 290.  NYSDOT has been reconfiguring the Falls BLVD / IH 290 interchange.



Sorry for the perverse angle, folks - but that there's a NY 62 shield where a US 62 shield should be.

[national highway 1]

Similar thing here in Niagara Falls, NY

(from US Ends)

[Quillz]

I don't mind that error so much because at least NYS has some nice looking state route shields.

Also, does the shield that ausinterkid posted have a thin white border outside the black, or is it just my eyes?

[Central Avenue]

Also, does the shield that ausinterkid posted have a thin white border outside the black, or is it just my eyes?

I almost see what you're talking about, but I can't tell if it's an actual white border or just an artifact from the compression of the picture.

Also, what's with the tiny "SOUTH" banner?

[Michael in Philly]

Also, does the shield that ausinterkid posted have a thin white border outside the black, or is it just my eyes?

I almost see what you're talking about, but I can't tell if it's an actual white border or just an artifact from the compression of the picture.

Also, what's with the tiny "SOUTH" banner?

Maybe they spent days struggling with the fact that what is officially 62 westbound starts out running due east for several miles, so they settled on "south" but tried to keep it as inconspicuous as possible.  :-)

[agentsteel53]

Also, does the shield that ausinterkid posted have a thin white border outside the black, or is it just my eyes?

I believe it is just the "sharpen" filter used on the photo.  I don't recall ever seeing a shield in New York with the white outer margin.

[cu2010]

I don't mind that error so much because at least NYS has some nice looking state route shields.

When they actually post nice ones, that is...there's about 25 versions of the NY route shield. Most of the newer ones are terrible.

The NY/US shield error is very common in NY, sadly...

[Dr Frankenstein]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be any detailed specs of the NY shield. Even the NY MUTCD addendum contains nothing but a crappy bit-mapped version of the shield.

[xonhulu]

I was the one who took the picture on usends for Dale, so if it helps the discussion, here's the full-sized original, along with another NY 62 shield in the same area:





It looks like a very slight white border, mostly visible at the corners.

[Quillz]

While I like the standard NYS route shield, the same cannot be said for the wide version, which I assume is being erroneously used in the second pic.