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

Started by mass_citizen, December 04, 2013, 10:46:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jakeroot



Roadsguy

Quote from: jakeroot on October 14, 2018, 12:35:38 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 13, 2018, 10:59:23 PM
Keep? https://goo.gl/maps/SiUziBLW4cn

Locals decided to keep Cape May, rather than demolish it.

No, it leads to that famous medieval fort that defended Cape May during the Norman Conquest. :sombrero:

Obviously said KEEP LEFT and was probably covered up for the Exit 0 construction. Not sure why they'd need to do that since it was never not true, though at the time of that Street View, they did still have most of the right turn lane for NB 109 blocked off. I certainly hope they've removed it by now, though there's no newer Street View southbound.
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

cjk374

Dear LaDOTD,

Will you please stop making 30x24 shields??? You suck at it! My hard earned tax money is being wasted on these eyesores. Please go back to 24" square GREEN shields. They are so much more durable.

Thank you,

Broke-ass Louisiana taxpayer.

Terrible LA 146 shields by Jess Kilgore, on Flickr

Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

chays

This is somewhere in Tulsa...can someone help identify where exactly?

kphoger

Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

chays


roadman65

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/44669773454/in/dateposted-public/
A sign assembly that has a couple of interesting errors.  First the Exit 8 panel should be in the middle while the pull through for both I-244 & US 412 W Bound should be on the left.

Also US 412 is signed in front of I-244 where the interstate is supposed to be dominant over the lower designation US route.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Bobby5280



It looks like they're using the "66" numerals from the Phillips 66 logo.
:-/

US 89

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 18, 2018, 01:51:09 PM


It looks like they're using the "66" numerals from the Phillips 66 logo.
:-/

It would make sense -- historically, Phillips Petroleum was headquartered in Bartlesville, which is north of Tulsa on US 75. The recent series of mergers and splits with Conoco have ended that, though both ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 maintain significant operations in the area.

That appears to be a City of Tulsa installation. I'd guess Phillips paid for that advertisement in some way or another, but who knows.

hbelkins

Interesting that the 21'0" clearance is marked. That's unusually high and I would think a clearance that high would not need to be marked, unless Oklahoma marks all clearances.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

TBKS1

Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 10:30:18 AM
Interesting that the 21'0" clearance is marked. That's unusually high and I would think a clearance that high would not need to be marked, unless Oklahoma marks all clearances.

I'm pretty sure they mark almost if not all clearances. At least that's by me judging this photo (Taken by myself)

I take pictures of road signs, that's about it.

General rule of thumb: Just stay in the "Traffic Control" section of the forum and you'll be fine.

roadfro

Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2018, 05:52:01 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/44669773454/in/dateposted-public/
A sign assembly that has a couple of interesting errors.  First the Exit 8 panel should be in the middle while the pull through for both I-244 & US 412 W Bound should be on the left.

Also US 412 is signed in front of I-244 where the interstate is supposed to be dominant over the lower designation US route.

Also that the pull through only has two arrows, but the road is four lanes here. Assuming there are no lane drops at exit 8, the pull through either needs more arrows or (preferably) no arrows at all.

And actually, since there does not appear to be a major route decision point here (i.e. no intersecting or departing numbered routes), the pull through sign is unnecessary.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

roadfro

Quote from: TBKS1 on October 19, 2018, 11:27:24 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 10:30:18 AM
Interesting that the 21'0" clearance is marked. That's unusually high and I would think a clearance that high would not need to be marked, unless Oklahoma marks all clearances.

I'm pretty sure they mark almost if not all clearances. At least that's by me judging this photo (Taken by myself)

The MUTCD standard is to mark all clearances less than 12 inches above the statutory maximum vehicle height (Sec. 2C.27). Marking all clearances seems rather excessive...
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jakeroot

WSDOT just installed this new guide sign on I-5 in Fife, WA. That inset exit tab...reminds me of another west coast state...


Scott5114

Quote from: roadfro on October 20, 2018, 03:02:22 PM
Quote from: TBKS1 on October 19, 2018, 11:27:24 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2018, 10:30:18 AM
Interesting that the 21'0" clearance is marked. That's unusually high and I would think a clearance that high would not need to be marked, unless Oklahoma marks all clearances.

I'm pretty sure they mark almost if not all clearances. At least that's by me judging this photo (Taken by myself)

The MUTCD standard is to mark all clearances less than 12 inches above the statutory maximum vehicle height (Sec. 2C.27). Marking all clearances seems rather excessive...

The one type of sign that Oklahoma chooses to obsess about, and it's the one that doesn't matter. (Same applies for ramp speeds on the gore points.)
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

J N Winkler

I haven't checked chapter and verse, but I think TxDOT also signs all bridge clearances.  In the case of the High Five (US 75/I-635) interchange in Dallas, this results in some interesting pipework structures to mount the clearance signs on the direct connector ramps, which are almost all precast segmental concrete in the interchange core where they cross in plan.

Regardless of what the MUTCD says, I see limited value in signing any clearances above 17 ft because that is the standard height from pavement to the bottom of sign structures.  Engineers are generally reluctant to increase clearance under sign structures because this can adversely affect the amount of time the driver has to read the signs (viewing time is a function of operating speed, entrance angle, and observation angle) and also limit headlamp illumination of the sign face, which is necessary for reading at night unless external illumination is provided through fixed luminaires mounted to the structure.

I have wondered if some states have a sign-all-clearances policy for legal reasons, largely specific to court precedent in each state, that have to do with liability for poorly planned OSOW movements.  I can see courts in one state holding that it is the OSOW operator's responsibility to verify all clearances on a proposed overdimensional route (thus relieving agencies of the responsibility for signing all clearances) while courts in another state regard unsigned clearances as tantamount to an attractive nuisance and hold that an OSOW operator cannot be held liable when clearance signs are absent.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

wanderer2575

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 21, 2018, 10:40:48 AM
<snip>

I have wondered if some states have a sign-all-clearances policy for legal reasons, largely specific to court precedent in each state, that have to do with liability for poorly planned OSOW movements.  I can see courts in one state holding that it is the OSOW operator's responsibility to verify all clearances on a proposed overdimensional route (thus relieving agencies of the responsibility for signing all clearances) while courts in another state regard unsigned clearances as tantamount to an attractive nuisance and hold that an OSOW operator cannot be held liable when clearance signs are absent.

On the other hand, in general it should be necessary to sign only the lowest-clearance structure between two exits, and sign it on the first structure regardless of that structure's clearance.  Practical reality is that if you can pass beneath that lowest-clearance one, you'll pass beneath all the others.  Exceptions for arch support bridges where clearance on the shoulders is unusually low.

hotdogPi

Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 21, 2018, 11:39:12 AM
On the other hand, in general it should be necessary to sign only the lowest-clearance structure between two exits, and sign it on the first structure regardless of that structure's clearance.  Practical reality is that if you can pass beneath that lowest-clearance one, you'll pass beneath all the others.  Exceptions for arch support bridges where clearance on the shoulders is unusually low.

If a 15' bridge is signed for 11' (as an example), a trucker might think that the sign was in error (as the bridge is obviously higher than 11'), not realizing that there is an 11' bridge ahead.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

TBKS1

I take pictures of road signs, that's about it.

General rule of thumb: Just stay in the "Traffic Control" section of the forum and you'll be fine.

wanderer2575

Quote from: 1 on October 21, 2018, 11:55:45 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 21, 2018, 11:39:12 AM
On the other hand, in general it should be necessary to sign only the lowest-clearance structure between two exits, and sign it on the first structure regardless of that structure's clearance.  Practical reality is that if you can pass beneath that lowest-clearance one, you'll pass beneath all the others.  Exceptions for arch support bridges where clearance on the shoulders is unusually low.

If a 15' bridge is signed for 11' (as an example), a trucker might think that the sign was in error (as the bridge is obviously higher than 11'), not realizing that there is an 11' bridge ahead.

Fair point.  The devil's in the details, but my point was that it shouldn't be necessary to sign the clearance of every overhead structure; only the lowest such structure between two exits.

ipeters61

Quote from: TBKS1 on October 21, 2018, 02:41:25 PM
Southwestern corner of Little Rock, Arkansas.



STOP and LOOK by TheInstrumentalist, on Flickr
Closest thing we have to this is around me is in Salisbury MD at the 50/13/50 Business interchange, where you get to cross thick traffic going 65+ ("look again").

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed on my posts on the AARoads Forum are my own and do not represent official positions of my employer.
Instagram | Clinched Map

US71

Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

thefraze_1020

Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2018, 01:09:47 AM
WSDOT just installed this new guide sign on I-5 in Fife, WA. That inset exit tab...reminds me of another west coast state...



What are they doing? Can they not simply choose a sign style and stay with it?
Alright, this is how it's gonna be!

jakeroot

Quote from: thefraze_1020 on October 22, 2018, 05:15:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2018, 01:09:47 AM
WSDOT just installed this new guide sign on I-5 in Fife, WA. That inset exit tab...reminds me of another west coast state...

https://i.imgur.com/UZIhm3g.jpg

What are they doing? Can they not simply choose a sign style and stay with it?

Not these days. SW region uses legit tabs, every where else uses full-width tabs, except when they don't. And now the Olympic region feels the need to use inset partial-width exit tabs like CA.

At least the advanced signage is proper:


thefraze_1020

Quote from: jakeroot on October 22, 2018, 09:03:20 PM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on October 22, 2018, 05:15:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2018, 01:09:47 AM
WSDOT just installed this new guide sign on I-5 in Fife, WA. That inset exit tab...reminds me of another west coast state...

https://i.imgur.com/UZIhm3g.jpg

What are they doing? Can they not simply choose a sign style and stay with it?

Not these days. SW region uses legit tabs, every where else uses full-width tabs, except when they don't. And now the Olympic region feels the need to use inset partial-width exit tabs like CA.

At least the advanced signage is proper:



But even that sign is off. It's formatting just looks odd, the sign is too "squared off" for lack of a better term. It's reminiscent of some of the signs they put up circa 2003-04 when they messed with the formatting.
Alright, this is how it's gonna be!



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.