Received a report saying the northernmost 3 miles of US 218 have been truncated. The part that used to be co-signed with US 14 to the former terminus at I-35 is now signed as "TO US 218". So now US 218 ends at its junction with US 14 (again, this is according to signage - I don't think MNDOT hasn't formalized this with AASHTO). If anyone is able to get photos of the signs at these junctions, I'll update the page at usends.com
http://usends.com/10-19/218/218.html
I was up that way in May, and the "END US 218" assembly was not posted at I-35 or the US 14 split... but rather the interchange in between the two, at County Road 45: North end of US 218 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iowahighways/7359750634/).
For the record, the first assembly east of I-35 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iowahighways/7174523417) had a "TO" sign above the US 218 shield, but the one after it (which I don't have a photo of) had a "NORTH" banner.
I'm not sure if things have changed since then, since I was up there before the new US 14 west of I-35 opened.
I emailed Chris Kalina (I94RoadRunner) about it and he said he will get down there soon.
QuoteI was down to drive the new US 14 freeway just before Thanksgiving, but never noticed any changes to US 218 .....
there is a possibility, albeit slight, that I will be there Dec 15th. if so, I will get the relevant photos.
(I'm driving from MSP airport to Clear Lake, SD. so far I'm thinking a straight shot across on US-212 is the way to go.)
I wouldn't count the field signage as the final word on where a Minnesota trunk highway ends, as we've found it's been wrong before. All the signs in the area were replaced as part of the US 14 freeway extension to the west, and it's possible they just made them up with "to" on for some reason with nothing actually changed. I don't think US 218 ends now or ever ended where the assembly is at the county road, the official MN/Dot county map definitely shows the ending at I-35, and there's be no reason to cut it back just to the county road that hasn't been a trunk highway for many decades. I think they just put the end asssembly well in advance to avoid clutter at the cloverleaf and it just happened to fall about where the county road is.
I was the one who sent you that message. I'll be taking a trip to Tyler today, and I might be through the area. Are night pictures ok?
I just checked MnDOT's Logpoint, which was updated last month. US 218 still ends at the I-35/US 14 interchange.
Quote from: froggie on December 08, 2012, 03:52:58 PM
I just checked MnDOT's Logpoint, which was updated last month. US 218 still ends at the I-35/US 14 interchange.
Dang. Sorry for wasting everyone's time...
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 11, 2012, 07:06:34 PM
Sorry for wasting everyone's time...
Well, (tell me if I'm wrong), the fact remains that MN DOT appears to have been very intentional about changing references to US 218 when the new US 14 expressway was opened. For example, I think you said US 218 is no longer signed from I-35, correct? (other than a "218 follow 14 east" sign?)
Quote from: usends on December 12, 2012, 11:09:31 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 11, 2012, 07:06:34 PM
Sorry for wasting everyone's time...
Well, (tell me if I'm wrong), the fact remains that MN DOT appears to have been very intentional about changing references to US 218 when the new US 14 expressway was opened. For example, I think you said US 218 is no longer signed from I-35, correct? (other than a "218 follow 14 east" sign?)
Yep, the sign is in the flickr pictures posted by iowahighways. Unfortunately, the day I took the trip to Owatonna was a foggy day and I couldn't get a shot. The next opportunity I have to get better photos is a couple weeks away. :-/
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 12, 2012, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: usends on December 12, 2012, 11:09:31 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 11, 2012, 07:06:34 PM
Sorry for wasting everyone's time...
Well, (tell me if I'm wrong), the fact remains that MN DOT appears to have been very intentional about changing references to US 218 when the new US 14 expressway was opened. For example, I think you said US 218 is no longer signed from I-35, correct? (other than a "218 follow 14 east" sign?)
Yep, the sign is in the flickr pictures posted by iowahighways. Unfortunately, the day I took the trip to Owatonna was a foggy day and I couldn't get a shot. The next opportunity I have to get better photos is a couple weeks away. :-/
Dang. I was wrong. The specific sign I was talking about wasn't in the pictures, just the "To 218" sign.
QuoteWell, (tell me if I'm wrong), the fact remains that MN DOT appears to have been very intentional about changing references to US 218 when the new US 14 expressway was opened. For example, I think you said US 218 is no longer signed from I-35, correct? (other than a "218 follow 14 east" sign?)
As I recall from the project sign plans (which I got a glimpse of last time I was home), on I-35 was going to be a secondary guide sign stating something along the lines of "TO US 218 SOUTH, Austin, Exit 40A".
I believe the "END US 218" sign was posted where it was in order to reduce confusion with all the I-35 exit signage approaching that interchange.
Quote from: froggie on December 18, 2012, 08:03:02 AM
QuoteWell, (tell me if I'm wrong), the fact remains that MN DOT appears to have been very intentional about changing references to US 218 when the new US 14 expressway was opened. For example, I think you said US 218 is no longer signed from I-35, correct? (other than a "218 follow 14 east" sign?)
As I recall from the project sign plans (which I got a glimpse of last time I was home), on I-35 was going to be a secondary guide sign stating something along the lines of "TO US 218 SOUTH, Austin, Exit 40A".
I believe the "END US 218" sign was posted where it was in order to reduce confusion with all the I-35 exit signage approaching that interchange.
Correct, that's the sign I'm referring to on I-35!
Quote from: Alex on November 30, 2012, 10:08:27 PM
I emailed Chris Kalina (I94RoadRunner) about it and he said he will get down there soon.
QuoteI was down to drive the new US 14 freeway just before Thanksgiving, but never noticed any changes to US 218 .....
Last time I was in Owatonna, there was no End shield for US 218. If one ever appears, I will take a photo of it!
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 19, 2013, 08:08:42 PM
Quote from: Alex on November 30, 2012, 10:08:27 PM
I emailed Chris Kalina (I94RoadRunner) about it and he said he will get down there soon.
QuoteI was down to drive the new US 14 freeway just before Thanksgiving, but never noticed any changes to US 218 .....
Last time I was in Owatonna, there was no End shield for US 218. If one ever appears, I will take a photo of it!
That implies they removed the one that was there, which would be weird...
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 20, 2013, 11:31:45 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on November 19, 2013, 08:08:42 PM
Quote from: Alex on November 30, 2012, 10:08:27 PM
I emailed Chris Kalina (I94RoadRunner) about it and he said he will get down there soon.
QuoteI was down to drive the new US 14 freeway just before Thanksgiving, but never noticed any changes to US 218 .....
Last time I was in Owatonna, there was no End shield for US 218. If one ever appears, I will take a photo of it!
That implies they removed the one that was there, which would be weird...
It must be on westbound US 14 where US 218 was multiplexed. I typically am headed eastbound when down there .....
For whatever reason, MNDoT has been very meticulous about using County 45 as the terminus for US 218 signage, and not just along the US 14 freeway. For traffic on northbound and southbound 45, US 218 is signed only to the east: http://www.usends.com/218.html
Yet, Logpoint still shows the terminus as the I-35/US 14 interchange...
Was 218 north signed from CR 45 prior to the change? Or have signs always only marked 218 south there?
Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2017, 12:57:13 AM
Was 218 north signed from CR 45 prior to the change? Or have signs always only marked 218 south there?
Previously, the signs on 45 at the interchange did show US 218 going west on 14 toward I-35. When the new US 14 alignment opened, these signs were replaced with the current setup. So indeed this is another indicator that MnDOT really wants to suggest CR 45 is now the US 218 endpoint rather than I-35.
Or they're just de-empthasizing it. If they really were truncating it, they'd have updated Logpoint by now.
Why was US 218 co-signed with US 14 in the first place? Was it so 218 ended at an Interstate highway?
I emailed MNDoT, asking about the discrepancy between route description and route signage. Here is the relevant portion of the response I received:
Quote
Thanks for taking the time to note and explain what you saw. We appreciate it. It appears this was changed when the new US TH 14 was constructed and US 218 beginning and ending locations should not have been changed.
We will be moving the WB TH 14 sign closer to I-35 and then EB TH 14 we will remove the "TO" above the US 218 route marker with a "SOUTH" plaque. We are preparing the work orders to do this.
We try to catch most changes -- and we've got a great batting average in doing so -- but sometimes something gets past us as we try to monitor, maintain or replace nearly 50,000 in our 11-county district. We appreciate the extra set of eyes and the willingness to spend a few moments to ask the question.
One thing I have noticed is approaching US 14 southbound on I-35, there is a sign which says US 218 Austin for that particular exit. More to the point, it does not have a TO in front of it.
Quote from: usends on August 29, 2017, 08:48:53 PM
I emailed MNDoT, asking about the discrepancy between route description and route signage. Here is the relevant portion of the response I received:
Quote
Thanks for taking the time to note and explain what you saw. We appreciate it. It appears this was changed when the new US TH 14 was constructed and US 218 beginning and ending locations should not have been changed.
We will be moving the WB TH 14 sign closer to I-35 and then EB TH 14 we will remove the "TO" above the US 218 route marker with a "SOUTH" plaque. We are preparing the work orders to do this.
We try to catch most changes -- and we've got a great batting average in doing so -- but sometimes something gets past us as we try to monitor, maintain or replace nearly 50,000 in our 11-county district. We appreciate the extra set of eyes and the willingness to spend a few moments to ask the question.
Wow, they're actually going to fix it because of your email. That's pretty cool.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4343/36533520970_866b127329.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XEkQYA)IMG_7702 (https://flic.kr/p/XEkQYA) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
That 218 being taller then the 14 o.0
Quote from: Bickendan on September 07, 2017, 04:19:49 PM
That 218 being taller then the 14 o.0
Taller or skinnier?
3 digit numbers never look great on a 2 digit shield. Unless,
maybe, if two of the digits are "1".
Quote from: DandyDan on August 30, 2017, 06:52:47 AM
One thing I have noticed is approaching US 14 southbound on I-35, there is a sign which says US 218 Austin for that particular exit. More to the point, it does not have a TO in front of it.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4411/37090707265_1c7c6212a1_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/37090707265/)
I had noticed this too while going through old photos earlier this week. Unless the sign was changed since then, it refutes what I'd seen on the signage plans 5 years ago and further marks it as odd that they'd post the standalone "TO US 218" shield shown in Monte's photo.
Quote from: triplemultiplexQuote from: BickendanThat 218 being taller then the 14 o.0
Taller or skinnier?
The taller part, I'd presume. The skinniness is MnDOT standard (using a 2-digit shield for standalones and using Series C if it's 3 digits), but the height of those 218 numerals is out of standard.
Quote from: froggie on September 07, 2017, 05:21:35 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplexQuote from: BickendanThat 218 being taller then the 14 o.0
Taller or skinnier?
The taller part, I'd presume. The skinniness is MnDOT standard (using a 2-digit shield for standalones and using Series C if it's 3 digits), but the height of those 218 numerals is out of standard.
To me that particular shield looks like it uses Series B digits. Reminds me of Iowa US-218 shields:
(https://i.imgur.com/G9o13wl.jpg)
Which if that's the case, that shield is a real oddball because Minnesota otherwise never uses series B for them.
Iowa used to do signs (other than the arrows) right...
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4369/37087774335_e229e6a58d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Yvjxc6)2017 Upper Midwest Trip Day 2 - 240 (https://flic.kr/p/Yvjxc6) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr
Then crap like this started showing up...
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4353/37087773475_580deed4ea_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YvjwWg)2017 Upper Midwest Trip Day 2 - 243 (https://flic.kr/p/YvjwWg) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 07, 2017, 04:35:01 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 07, 2017, 04:19:49 PM
That 218 being taller then the 14 o.0
Taller or skinnier?
3 digit numbers never look great on a 2 digit shield. Unless, maybe, if two of the digits are "1".
See, I disagree. I prefer the narrower fonts and square blanks over the wider ones. It makes for better sign assembly symmetry. I was distressed to see Iowa going to the wider signs for three-digit US and state routes on a recent journey there.
To me, the skinny font 3dUS signs are like watching a movie in the wrong aspect ratio.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 08, 2017, 11:34:20 AM
To me, the skinny font 3dUS signs are like watching a movie in the wrong aspect ratio.
I may be a little older than you, but they were like that in Kentucky when I was growing up. About the time Kentucky switched to the Type II reflective sheeting (the honeycomb design) on its signs, most of the state went to the wide signs for three-digit US routes and three- and four-digit state routes. I hated it.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 08, 2017, 04:09:06 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 08, 2017, 11:34:20 AM
To me, the skinny font 3dUS signs are like watching a movie in the wrong aspect ratio.
I may be a little older than you, but they were like that in Kentucky when I was growing up. About the time Kentucky switched to the Type II reflective sheeting (the honeycomb design) on its signs, most of the state went to the wide signs for three-digit US routes and three- and four-digit state routes. I hated it.
Minnesota only seriously started using wide shields within the last ten years or so. The new US-212 freeway, completed in 2008, still uses the square shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8430676,-93.5420856,3a,15.9y,270.37h,89.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s152NzlueLtPhTwV3GKT-yw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (an example).
And I agree, I prefer them too.
Much newer than that. Except for MN 210 along its I-94 concurrency (where they appeared about a dozen years ago or so), the wide standalone shields have only really started showing up in the past 2-3 years.
Wisconsin still uses the square shields (you only see the wide version for the 2 3dis in Milwaukee) on its trailblazer and surface unisigns. Only recently has WisDOT given up its need to use rectangular on the guide signs - even for 151 and 141.
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2017, 12:23:45 PM
Much newer than that. Except for MN 210 along its I-94 concurrency (where they appeared about a dozen years ago or so), the wide standalone shields have only really started showing up in the past 2-3 years.
You're probably right, I was just being very conservative with my estimate. The first major installation of wide standalone shields I remember seeing was way back in 2012, when I drove MN-149. These were sprinkled all over the route. (https://i.imgur.com/bxsVg4a.jpg)
Edit: It was notable enough that I even took a picture of the back of the sign (https://i.imgur.com/QRYBKKz.jpg) showing the 2005(!) stickers.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 30, 2017, 09:16:01 AM
Quote from: usends on August 29, 2017, 08:48:53 PM
I emailed MNDoT, asking about the discrepancy between route description and route signage. Here is the relevant portion of the response I received:
Quote
Thanks for taking the time to note and explain what you saw. We appreciate it. It appears this was changed when the new US TH 14 was constructed and US 218 beginning and ending locations should not have been changed.
We will be moving the WB TH 14 sign closer to I-35 and then EB TH 14 we will remove the "TO" above the US 218 route marker with a "SOUTH" plaque. We are preparing the work orders to do this.
We try to catch most changes -- and we've got a great batting average in doing so -- but sometimes something gets past us as we try to monitor, maintain or replace nearly 50,000 in our 11-county district. We appreciate the extra set of eyes and the willingness to spend a few moments to ask the question.
Wow, they're actually going to fix it because of your email. That's pretty cool.
And it's been fixed! (Admittedly probably has been for a bit now.) Stopped by today to check.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvahCYdO.jpg&hash=15828e2ac8a9731d77563f526c0997b5cc54b974)
I'm surprised MNDOT didn't also include a Laura Ingalls Wilder Highway sign to the assembly.
Not 100 percent on this, but I think that name only applies to the western section of US-14. Something like the section west of New Ulm. Perhaps someone else can set me straight on this. (There used to be a document on the MnDOT website which defined all the named routes like that, but right now I can't seem to find it--if it's even still available.)
What I find more interesting about this display is the use of tabs without the larger first letter, and that they put up a square 218, but left room on the assembly for the potential future wide shield. If you compare my picture to Mdcastle's picture upthread you'd see that they had a chance to change both, but oddly didn't.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 25, 2018, 03:59:18 AM
Not 100 percent on this, but I think that name only applies to the western section of US-14. Something like the section west of New Ulm. Perhaps someone else can set me straight on this. (There used to be a document on the MnDOT website which defined all the named routes like that, but right now I can't seem to find it--if it's even still available.)
Historic named Auto Trails (https://www.dot.state.mn.us/library/reg-trails.html)
Scenic Byways (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/scenicbyways/index.html)
Though not specifically on MnDOT's website, prominant named highways (memorial/historic highways and some of the old auto trails) are encoded in Section 161.14 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=161.14) of the state statutes. In this case, the Black and Yellow Trail covers all of US 14 within Minnesota. Laura Ingalls Wilder Historic Highway covers all of US 14 west of Rochester (west of Olmsted CSAH 22 specifically).
QuoteWhat I find more interesting about this display is the use of tabs without the larger first letter, and that they put up a square 218, but left room on the assembly for the potential future wide shield.
Square is still the default for 3-digit standalone shields. And MnDOT typically leaves space between adjacent signs so I would not take your photo as an indication they left room for a wider shield.
Quote from: froggie on February 25, 2018, 09:34:09 AM
Square is still the default for 3-digit standalone shields. And MnDOT typically leaves space between adjacent signs so I would not take your photo as an indication they left room for a wider shield.
While that's a good point, I don't necessarily think square shields are default anymore, given the widespread appearance of wide shields in the last several years, as we discussed upthread.
In this case though I doubt they replaced the 218 shield itself, just the tab above it. But that still lends to the point about all the letters being the same size. Maybe to stay uniform with the "EAST" ?
Yes, I know which document you're thinking of. I recall seeing it but I can't find it either now
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 25, 2018, 03:59:18 AM
Not 100 percent on this, but I think that name only applies to the western section of US-14. Something like the section west of New Ulm. Perhaps someone else can set me straight on this. (There used to be a document on the MnDOT website which defined all the named routes like that, but right now I can't seem to find it--if it's even still available.)
What I find more interesting about this display is the use of tabs without the larger first letter, and that they put up a square 218, but left room on the assembly for the potential future wide shield. If you compare my picture to Mdcastle's picture upthread you'd see that they had a chance to change both, but oddly didn't.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/maps/gdma/data/maps/memorial_routes.pdf
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 25, 2018, 11:50:27 AM
In this case though I doubt they replaced the 218 shield itself, just the tab above it. But that still lends to the point about all the letters being the same size. Maybe to stay uniform with the "EAST" ?
It looks different than the one in Mdcastle's photo, though (it looks normal instead of with those tall narrow digits). I suppose it could be a sign that was replaced either before or during the plaque switch.
Quote from: Mdcastle on February 25, 2018, 05:09:22 PM
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/maps/gdma/data/maps/memorial_routes.pdf
That's the exact thing I was looking for! Thanks! (This time I'll save it so I always have it. ;-))
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on September 08, 2017, 04:32:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 08, 2017, 04:09:06 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 08, 2017, 11:34:20 AM
To me, the skinny font 3dUS signs are like watching a movie in the wrong aspect ratio.
I may be a little older than you, but they were like that in Kentucky when I was growing up. About the time Kentucky switched to the Type II reflective sheeting (the honeycomb design) on its signs, most of the state went to the wide signs for three-digit US routes and three- and four-digit state routes. I hated it.
Minnesota only seriously started using wide shields within the last ten years or so. The new US-212 freeway, completed in 2008, still uses the square shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8430676,-93.5420856,3a,15.9y,270.37h,89.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s152NzlueLtPhTwV3GKT-yw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (an example).
And I agree, I prefer them too.
I’m not sure which one I prefer. The square ones are more symmetric (especially when they’re used in combination with other signs), but the wide ones look a little cleaner to me.
Utah is the same story: it appears a switch to wide shields for 3dus routes was made around 2010 or so. But instead of using series B narrow font like the IA
and MN photos above, they used smaller series C font like the WY photo (which made for a lot of empty space in the shield above and below the numbers). It’s not like it really mattered a whole lot anyway, since every one of Utah’s 3dus route numbers has a 1 in it.
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 25, 2018, 11:29:06 PM
I'm not sure which one I prefer. The square ones are more symmetric (especially when they're used in combination with other signs), but the wide ones look a little cleaner to me.
Utah is the same story: it appears a switch to wide shields for 3dus routes was made around 2010 or so. But instead of using series B narrow font like the IA and MN photos above, they used smaller series C font like the WY photo (which made for a lot of empty space in the shield above and below the numbers). It's not like it really mattered a whole lot anyway, since every one of Utah's 3dus route numbers has a 1 in it.
As was mentioned above, the 218 shield in Mdcastle's photo is an oddity for Minnesota. 24" square 3di US shields in Minnesota are supposed to use Series C (assuming that Series D digits don't fit width-wise) with 10" numerals, but that
thing in his picture looks like it uses taller digits. The US-218 shield in my picture from Friday afternoon is a much better (if not completely accurate) representation of what they're supposed to look like.
Quote from: froggie on February 25, 2018, 09:34:09 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 25, 2018, 03:59:18 AM
Not 100 percent on this, but I think that name only applies to the western section of US-14. Something like the section west of New Ulm. Perhaps someone else can set me straight on this. (There used to be a document on the MnDOT website which defined all the named routes like that, but right now I can't seem to find it--if it's even still available.)
Historic named Auto Trails (https://www.dot.state.mn.us/library/reg-trails.html)
Scenic Byways (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/scenicbyways/index.html)
Though not specifically on MnDOT's website, prominant named highways (memorial/historic highways and some of the old auto trails) are encoded in Section 161.14 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=161.14) of the state statutes. In this case, the Black and Yellow Trail covers all of US 14 within Minnesota. Laura Ingalls Wilder Historic Highway covers all of US 14 west of Rochester (west of Olmsted CSAH 22 specifically).
The routing gets interesting at Olmstead CSAH 22. I was under the impression that Laura Ingalls Wilder Historic Highway essentially followed US 14 and US 52 from South Dakota to Iowa through Minnesota, but reading the route description, it turns out it splits into a three-legged route at Olmstead 22, but the description is... out of date.
It says US 14 from SD to CSAH 22, then CSAH 22's southwestern leg back to US 14, US 14 to US 63, where it splits. But US 63 doesn't go through Rochester on Broadway anymore; it takes US 52 along the freeway. Leaving that aside, the northern branch goes up Broadway until US 63 rejoins the road north of Rochester, then up to US 61 in Lake City, where it turns southeast toward Wabasha, then east on MN 60 into Wisconsin, implying at least a short portion of WI 25 is part of the route.
The southern branch would then be Broadway, US 63 south of US 52 down to MN 16 in Spring Valley, then east on MN 16 to US 52, and southeast on US 52 to Iowa.
Outside the Rochester segment needing some updating and/or revision (US 14, Civic Center Dr, split at Broadway?, split at US 52/Civic Center Dr?), I'm curious if IA, SD, or WI recognize and route the highway at all, and where the termini would be.
Since we're on the subject, the signs for the "Czech Heritage Highway" actually read "Czech Memorial Highway, I don't know if this is a goof or deliberate
Quote from: Bickendan on February 26, 2018, 10:45:54 PM
...I'm curious if IA, SD, or WI recognize and route the highway at all, and where the termini would be.
FWIW, this (https://www.flickr.com/photos/usends/4661224012/in/album-72157624059121007/) was taken in SD in 2004 (possibly in DeSmet, but not certain).
^ Yes. Reassurance shield departing the US 14/SD 25 intersection. I recall it from my 2005 trip, and 2011 GMSV still shows it standing.
For those of you keeping score at home, they've moved the sign again with the recent reconstruction. It's now on the far end of the railroad overpass.
Quote from: Mdcastle on July 06, 2019, 10:53:13 PM
For those of you keeping score at home, they've moved the sign again with the recent reconstruction. It's now on the far end of the railroad overpass.
Yes, this must have happened in late 2018. Street View shows the premature End sign was still posted as of Oct. 2018, but I received a report in Jan. 2019 that it had been changed.
US 218 has an end shield now near the gore point for the ramp to northbound I-35, so has been extended to meet I-35 now.
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 31, 2022, 01:35:05 AM
US 218 has an end shield now near the gore point for the ramp to northbound I-35, so has been extended to meet I-35 now.
It always ended at I-35. MnDOT had erroneous signage up for a few years that they were slow to correct (and may have even erroneously replaced an error with another error) after the new 14 was built west of I-35.