The Best of Road Signs

[Michael]

Deathtopumpkins posted a horrible BGS assembly from the Osceola Parkway in the Worst of Road Signs thread, and I decided to look around the area a bit.  I ended up finding this modern sign with a tapered arrow.

[NE2]

Best my arse.

[Alps]

Deathtopumpkins posted a horrible BGS assembly from the Osceola Parkway in the Worst of Road Signs thread, and I decided to look around the area a bit.  I ended up finding this modern sign with a tapered arrow.

That's a Type B arrow. It's not best of anything.

[Michael]

Darn it!  I thought it looked different for some reason.  I even looked at the MUTCD arrow types before I posted it.

[Kacie Jane]

It's more than the silly arrow though.  Why is "Resort Area" where it is to the side of the shield, when there's a line's worth of useless greenspace on the bottom of the sign where that text should be?

[AsphaltPlanet]

Some may disagree:

[amroad17]

Some may disagree:

No, I agree!

[Alps]

Some may disagree:

Disagree? I'll do whatever that sign tells me. I can't turn away.

[empirestate]

Interestingly, I was just discussing the "N.Y. City" verbiage moments ago when we passed a similarly-worded sign on CT 15. I just think it's amusing that of the three words in "New York City", the only one not abbreviated is the one that isn't in the city's name. (Formally, that is. If you take "New York City" as being an informal name, it's still weird to me that only the one generic word, "city", isn't abbreviated.)

[Scott5114]

That's because there's not really a way to abbreviate "city" in English (In Spanish, "Ciudad" collapses to "Cd."), but there is for "New York".

You see the same thing with signs for "Okla. City".

[empirestate]

That's because there's not really a way to abbreviate "city" in English (In Spanish, "Ciudad" collapses to "Cd."), but there is for "New York".

You see the same thing with signs for "Okla. City".

Sure there is: "C". As in, "NYC" or "OKC".

[Scott5114]

A three-letter initialism on a road sign is incredibly lame, though.

[empirestate]

A three-letter initialism on a road sign is incredibly lame, though.

Well that's true. I would have gone with just "New York", or spelled it all out, "New York City". Or heck, maybe I'd have just left it the way it is, since that's the version that led to interesting conversation!

[vtk]

Some may disagree:

Quite a few like that on I-270 on the northwest, south, and east sides of Columbus, except with standard black-on-white state and US route markers.

[Brandon]

A three-letter initialism on a road sign is incredibly lame, though.

Well that's true. I would have gone with just "New York", or spelled it all out, "New York City". Or heck, maybe I'd have just left it the way it is, since that's the version that led to interesting conversation!

The problem with "New York" is that it can apply equally to the state as it can to the city.

[empirestate]

The problem with "New York" is that it can apply equally to the state as it can to the city.

Which is fine, because it goes to the state as well. And besides, since few people realize there is much difference in territory between the state and the city, that sign should get everyone where they think they need to go, "city" or not.

[kkt]

The problem with "New York" is that it can apply equally to the state as it can to the city.

Which is fine, because it goes to the state as well. And besides, since few people realize there is much difference in territory between the state and the city, that sign should get everyone where they think they need to go, "city" or not.

I-91 south goes to New York City and southern parts of N.Y.  People going to upstate N.Y. would be better off taking the exit for US-5 north, to I-84 west, to I-91 north, to I-90 west, wouldn't they?

I think the N.Y. City is a good choice for that sign.  It fits in the space available, and shouldn't confuse most people.

[empirestate]

I-91 south goes to New York City and southern parts of N.Y.  People going to upstate N.Y. would be better off taking the exit for US-5 north, to I-84 west, to I-91 north, to I-90 west, wouldn't they?

They certainly would. To sign I-91 south for "New York" (meaning the state) wouldn't be wrong, but would be decidedly incomplete information.

I think the N.Y. City is a good choice for that sign.  It fits in the space available, and shouldn't confuse most people.

Agreed, but its peculiarity strikes me nonetheless. There are plenty of perfectly appropriate things that still make me think; for example,a "No Trespassing" sign is exactly the right choice for what it's meant to convey, but at the same time it gets me thinking about when trespassing could ever be permitted, since it's by definition a prohibited activity.

[Alps]

Trespassing sign discussion has been moved to Off-Topic.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9387.0

[yakra]

Logs may swing into your lane. Do not pass.
http://maps.google.com/?cbp=11,321.91,,2,-2.84&cbll=55.461799,-117.135239&layer=c&ie=UTF8&ll=55.458419,-117.135887&spn=0.033385,0.154324&t=m&z=13&vpsrc=6&panoid=Y-CIIVlrGie9nVkfTIuzWQ

[spmkam]

What is interesting that the road signed, CT-15 (Wilbur Cross/Merritt Parkways) actually go to New York City and are signed as such.

[empirestate]

What is interesting that the road signed, CT-15 (Wilbur Cross/Merritt Parkways) actually go to New York City and are signed as such.

Unless you're a truck, that is.

[spmkam]

you shouldn't be on the Merritt in that case

[Duke87]

So I found this over the weekend:

[empirestate]

What is interesting that the road signed, CT-15 (Wilbur Cross/Merritt Parkways) actually go to New York City and are signed as such.

Unless you're a truck, that is.

you shouldn't be on the Merritt in that case

Correct. Which might explain why, as you've pointed out, "N.Y. City" bound traffic is directed to use I-91 rather than CT 15 on the signs in question.

(Actually, on this particular sign, it probably has more to do with the long stretch of surface highway that CT 15 traverses before reaching its parkway sections.)