OK: Spot The Error!

Scott5114 · January 26, 2009, 04:31:32 AM

Was going through some of my photos for upload to Wikipedia and I noticed this sign has a very minor error.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OK-209_from_US-70.jpg

Apart from the small arrows which are used about everywhere but Oklahoma, and the fact that the signs aren't really on the assembly straight, and the directional plates are old-style, there is one more very minor error in the fabrication of one these signs. Let's see if anybody besides me can catch it. You would probably have to have looked at the spec or be familiar with shields to catch it. To be more specific, the spec specifically says to not do something that this sign has done.

Have at it, folks

Voyager · January 26, 2009, 12:46:56 PM

I'm guessing it has to do with the 209 sign, the US sign looks right, though a little odd in color.

agentsteel53 · January 26, 2009, 01:16:51 PM

small segments of state outline between the individual digits.

Voyager · January 26, 2009, 01:20:17 PM

That's what I was thinking...it just doesn't look that good.

Bryant5493 · January 26, 2009, 11:16:07 PM

They (the sign installers) could've done a better job installing the signage. It looks very haphazard.

Be well,

Bryant

Scott5114 · January 27, 2009, 12:29:31 AM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 26, 2009, 01:16:51 PM
small segments of state outline between the individual digits.

Very close, but not quite.

catofdar · January 27, 2009, 12:47:06 AM

I give up....

agentsteel53 · January 27, 2009, 12:52:06 AM

discontinuous hand-drawn segments that do not actually reflect the correct state border?

Scott5114 · January 27, 2009, 12:57:14 AM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 27, 2009, 12:52:06 AM
discontinuous hand-drawn segments that do not actually reflect the correct state border?

No, that's actually "correct"... most signs are like that in OK even if the standard specifies that the southern border be more exact.

agentsteel53 · January 27, 2009, 01:01:22 AM

eww! why do they do that? Seems like it would be easier to overlay the number on top of the outline and then allow a 1/2 inch (or howevermuch) border extending from the number outward. As opposed to editing out the outline to fit the number then drawing it back in again, horribly.

Hmm, excess number of mounting holes?

Scott5114 · January 27, 2009, 01:17:52 AM

Well, that's what they do, really. The gap is 0.3". What I meant is that the "standard" outline without any numbers looks like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oklahoma_State_Highway_blank.svg – which is a much simpler outline than what the actual standard specifies. But, no, the shape of the outline itself is not what the error is.

All shields in Oklahoma have six mounting holes!

agentsteel53 · January 27, 2009, 01:20:06 AM

I don't suppose it has anything to do with the reflectivity of the signs, because I can't tell that from that picture - it's not a high enough resolution to discern honeycomb or diamond sheeting.

Scott5114 · January 27, 2009, 01:41:45 AM

Getting colder...

agentsteel53 · January 27, 2009, 02:15:13 AM

use of Series B numbers on a three-digit-wide shield with a three-digit number?

Scott5114 · January 27, 2009, 02:19:25 AM

Alas, the standard specifies that!

algorerhythms · January 27, 2009, 09:56:39 AM

A white sign when a standard published by a drunken ODOT official specifies turquoise signs? A common mistake.

Scott5114 · January 27, 2009, 04:36:01 PM

Lol, no!

akotchi · January 27, 2009, 10:36:49 PM

The three-digit panel is not centered horizontally between the cardinal direction and the arrow panels?

Scott5114 · January 27, 2009, 11:48:42 PM

I'm looking for something specifically wrong with the shield, not the mounting. I'll narrow it down even further and say that it is something wrong with the OK-209 shield.

agentsteel53 · January 27, 2009, 11:52:07 PM

border width incorrect?

Scott5114 · January 28, 2009, 03:18:51 AM

The border is correct.

agentsteel53 · January 28, 2009, 04:33:56 AM

cleaver border width incorrect?

Scott5114 · January 28, 2009, 09:02:33 PM

There's really no standard for the cleaver stroke width... many shields have strokes of that size, many have them twice as wide!

algorerhythms · January 28, 2009, 10:56:10 PM

ok. So just to prove I have no life, I went to the ODOT website and downloaded the sign specifications, and made note of the following text in the specifications (edit - if you want to see it for yourself, have at it):

"STATE OUTLINE IS TO BE REMOVED FROM INSIDE OF TEXT" (Right above this text is an example which conveniently shows a fully-compliant OK-209 shield.)

Thus, the error is that the state outline continues inside the zero.

I still think it should be turquoise, though.

Scott5114 · January 28, 2009, 11:30:02 PM

That's it! Here is the applicable section of the standard:

I didn't even notice the example shield was a 209 until you pointed it out!

News:

OK: Spot The Error!