Poor Sign Placement

[JoePCool14]

Something about this strikes me as a little off.

The chevron on the bottom should be flipped the other way, so the lines point down to the right.

[paulthemapguy]

Something about this strikes me as a little off.

The chevron on the bottom should be flipped the other way, so the lines point down to the right.

You're right!  Good catch! This is an OM3-R which should be on the right side of the road.

[rte66man]

Needs some judicious pruning.

But that's not the fault of the sign placement–just the tree trimming.

While trimming would help, I think its bad placement as they should have put it in a different place as those trees aren't going anywhere and they will be pruning 2-3 times a year.

[kphoger]

those trees aren't going anywhere and they will be pruning 2-3 times a year.

Are they not within the highway's r/o/w?  Why not just clear that spot?

[rte66man]

It's a very steep slope that is a relic of the original 1950's construction. To cut the slope back to a more reasonable slope would be expensive and you 'know' how much OTA likes to spend money. If they just stripped the vegetation, they would have serious erosion issues.

[jakeroot]

Something about this strikes me as a little off.

The chevron on the bottom should be flipped the other way, so the lines point down to the right.

You're right!  Good catch! This is an OM3-R which should be on the right side of the road.

Well, it's on the right for traffic turning left, which would be 100% of vehicles coming off the freeway.

I think it should be the OM3-C, since traffic passes on either side of that column.

As to any perception that the Freeway Entrance sign unusually-placed: it's not unusual in Washington for two freeway entrance signs to be used. WSDOT's Northwest region is typically more comprehensive with markings and signage; their standard appears to be at least two signs for an entrance (new example here)

[roadfro]

Something about this strikes me as a little off.

The chevron on the bottom should be flipped the other way, so the lines point down to the right.

You're right!  Good catch! This is an OM3-R which should be on the right side of the road.

Well, it's on the right for traffic turning left, which would be 100% of vehicles coming off the freeway.

I think it should be the OM3-C, since traffic passes on either side of that column.

As to any perception that the Freeway Entrance sign unusually-placed: it's not unusual in Washington for two freeway entrance signs to be used. WSDOT's Northwest region is typically more comprehensive with markings and signage; their standard appears to be at least two signs for an entrance (new example here)

The orientation of the object marker is what's key here, because they are meant to be installed facing traffic and to direct that traffic around or away from the obstruction accordingly as one passes the sign longitudinally.

Given the current orientation of the object marker, OM3-L would be most accurate–an OM3-R or an OM3-C here would imply one could drive right through the bridge columns. An OM3-R would be appropriate if it were facing traffic coming from the right (if any existed at this intersection). Although I would probably have just used an OM2 marker here to avoid ambiguity.

[jakeroot]

Something about this strikes me as a little off.

The chevron on the bottom should be flipped the other way, so the lines point down to the right.

You're right!  Good catch! This is an OM3-R which should be on the right side of the road.

Well, it's on the right for traffic turning left, which would be 100% of vehicles coming off the freeway.

I think it should be the OM3-C, since traffic passes on either side of that column.

As to any perception that the Freeway Entrance sign unusually-placed: it's not unusual in Washington for two freeway entrance signs to be used. WSDOT's Northwest region is typically more comprehensive with markings and signage; their standard appears to be at least two signs for an entrance (new example here)

The orientation of the object marker is what's key here, because they are meant to be installed facing traffic and to direct that traffic around or away from the obstruction accordingly as one passes the sign longitudinally.

Given the current orientation of the object marker, OM3-L would be most accurate–an OM3-R or an OM3-C here would imply one could drive right through the bridge columns. An OM3-R would be appropriate if it were facing traffic coming from the right (if any existed at this intersection). Although I would probably have just used an OM2 marker here to avoid ambiguity.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment.

OM3-L would imply that drivers should keep to the left of the bridge columns...good.
OM3-R would imply that drivers should keep to the right of the bridge columns...also good (because there is an on-ramp to the right of the columns).

You're implying that the object marker is meant to be for off-ramp traffic only. Even if it were, traffic is not required to turn left here. That "Freeway Entrance" and object marker sign are for both traffic continuing back onto the freeway, and traffic left to enter the freeway. Because traffic passes on both sides of that bridge column, depending on the maneuver, and the accompanying "Freeway Entrance" sign is directed at all traffic, whether turning left onto the on-ramp or continuing back onto the on-ramp from the off-ramp, it would be fair to say conclude that OM3-C is most appropriate here.

[roadfro]

Something about this strikes me as a little off.

The chevron on the bottom should be flipped the other way, so the lines point down to the right.

You're right!  Good catch! This is an OM3-R which should be on the right side of the road.

Well, it's on the right for traffic turning left, which would be 100% of vehicles coming off the freeway.

I think it should be the OM3-C, since traffic passes on either side of that column.

As to any perception that the Freeway Entrance sign unusually-placed: it's not unusual in Washington for two freeway entrance signs to be used. WSDOT's Northwest region is typically more comprehensive with markings and signage; their standard appears to be at least two signs for an entrance (new example here)

The orientation of the object marker is what's key here, because they are meant to be installed facing traffic and to direct that traffic around or away from the obstruction accordingly as one passes the sign longitudinally.

Given the current orientation of the object marker, OM3-L would be most accurate–an OM3-R or an OM3-C here would imply one could drive right through the bridge columns. An OM3-R would be appropriate if it were facing traffic coming from the right (if any existed at this intersection). Although I would probably have just used an OM2 marker here to avoid ambiguity.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment.

OM3-L would imply that drivers should keep to the left of the bridge columns...good.
OM3-R would imply that drivers should keep to the right of the bridge columns...also good (because there is an on-ramp to the right of the columns).

You're implying that the object marker is meant to be for off-ramp traffic only. Even if it were, traffic is not required to turn left here. That "Freeway Entrance" and object marker sign are for both traffic continuing back onto the freeway, and traffic left to enter the freeway. Because traffic passes on both sides of that bridge column, depending on the maneuver, and the accompanying "Freeway Entrance" sign is directed at all traffic, whether turning left onto the on-ramp or continuing back onto the on-ramp from the off-ramp, it would be fair to say conclude that OM3-C is most appropriate here.

I think you've got your L & R mixed up. An OM3-L means there is an obstruction on the left hand side/edge of the roadway and traffic needs to pass to the right of the object marker.

Type 3 object markers are meant to be oriented to the approaching driver, and the stripes are meant to convey the message of "as a driver passes the plane of this sign, they need to pass on which side to avoid the obstruction and remain on the roadway."

Look at the current orientation of the object marker and think about when the driver passes the plane of the object marker--in this case, it doesn't matter whether it is side road traffic turning left or off ramp traffic continuing straight. As you pass the plane of the object marker, you need to pass it on the right side to avoid the obstruction and remain on the roadway–if you pass the plane of the object marker on the left side, you are jumping the curb and heading up the bridge abutment. Thus, OM3-L is most appropriate given the orientation of the object marker.

Another way to look at this: You're saying that traffic passes on either side of that bridge column, and that the marker and freeway entrance sign is directed at all traffic. What about the off ramp traffic turning left to the side road--is the freeway entrance sign meant for them too? No, because they never pass the plane of the freeway entrance sign. So how does the object marker also apply to this movement? From my point of view, based on the orientation of the sign, traffic facing that sign either passes to the right of or in front of the column, so the object marker only applies to the traffic passing to the right of the column.

[ErmineNotyours]

Uh, anyone have room to make this maneuver, let alone have two lanes make it?

[jay8g]

This one always bugs me. The street name sign obscures the exit sign until you get fairly close to the intersection. The stop sign used to be much further back, even without a street name sign that would block the exit sign... yet when the street name sign was added, the stop sign assembly was moved to be right in front of the exit sign.

[CoreySamson]

This is just dumb... 

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.04738,-95.4638508,3a,37.6y,102.35h,85.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqCKmV8XVEaTAnLVeNrDEZw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Why they placed it where they did instead of where you're supposed to stop is beyond me.

[amroad17]

By the time one reaches the intersection, one may have forgotten that they passed a STOP sign.  The sign looks like it is closer to the beginning of the parking lot than the main road entryway. 

[-- US 175 --]

I've been waiting to post this till someone at TxDOT would notice this.  Looks like they haven't noticed.  Anyway, a recent project at the US 75/Bush Turnpike interchange that helped with geometry and merging/exiting issues recently wrapped up a few months ago.  One part was an extension of the off-ramp from SB 75 toward the E/W Bush Turnpike ramp split.  Originally, the ramp was quite short, but now it starts north of the Plano Pkwy. overpass.  The problem (to me, at least)?  The placement of the exit gore sign wasn't updated--it's still at the original gore point from before the reconstruction work.

New gore point:


Old gore point:


Shouldn't the exit sign have been moved when the gore point changed?

[roadfro]

I've been waiting to post this till someone at TxDOT would notice this.  Looks like they haven't noticed.  Anyway, a recent project at the US 75/Bush Turnpike interchange that helped with geometry and merging/exiting issues recently wrapped up a few months ago.  One part was an extension of the off-ramp from SB 75 toward the E/W Bush Turnpike ramp split.  Originally, the ramp was quite short, but now it starts north of the Plano Pkwy. overpass.  The problem (to me, at least)?  The placement of the exit gore sign wasn't updated--it's still at the original gore point from before the reconstruction work.
<...>
Shouldn't the exit sign have been moved when the gore point changed?

Absolutely, the exit gore sign should have been moved or replaced. Probably an oversight not specified in the sign plans.

[wanderer2575]

Yesterday in Kalamazoo, MI.  Both routes no longer exist here as of a year ago but these overhead signs have not been removed.

[formulanone]

I thought we had a thread for signage that remains after the route's alignment moved, I but can't seem to find it.

About 5 years after Madison Boulevard at County Line Road was realigned in Huntsville, the original county line sign still remains. It's largely out of sight unless you approach the intersection from the south, then head eastbound.



So it was in the right place before, but now it's about 200 feet away from the road, but was never moved to a more readable spot.

[Brian556]

I've been waiting to post this till someone at TxDOT would notice this.  Looks like they haven't noticed.  Anyway, a recent project at the US 75/Bush Turnpike interchange that helped with geometry and merging/exiting issues recently wrapped up a few months ago.  One part was an extension of the off-ramp from SB 75 toward the E/W Bush Turnpike ramp split.  Originally, the ramp was quite short, but now it starts north of the Plano Pkwy. overpass.  The problem (to me, at least)?  The placement of the exit gore sign wasn't updated--it's still at the original gore point from before the reconstruction work.

New gore point:


Old gore point:


Shouldn't the exit sign have been moved when the gore point changed?

I say they intentionally omitted the exit sign here cause there just isn't room for one. They did this when they had a similar situation on I-35E in Lake Dallas. They freeway was since reconstructed, and the situation no longer exists. As for the old one, they probably forgot to puts its removal in the plans

[CoreySamson]

Resurrecting this topic because of this stupidity on FM 1960 in NW Houston:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9209306,-95.606963,3a,64.7y,296.62h,90.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svioJ8r8WSN0kV7wNXKJX2Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Put up within the last year, and already obscured by trees. Really? By the way, this is the only advance signage for US 290 from this direction.

[Big John]

^^ Side note:  Are object markers needed for this sign?

[CoreySamson]

^^ Side note:  Are object markers needed for this sign?

Uh, no. That's just a weird habit TxDOT District 12 has. I have no idea why they do it.

Not unprecedented at all.

[LilianaUwU]

^^ Side note:  Are object markers needed for this sign?

When the sign is hidden otherwise, yes. 

[tolbs17]

I have to say, this is a very poor sign placement...

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9502879,-80.9719383,3a,69.3y,70.65h,91.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZMCI2NwsTLQ526f7MvVVDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[jakeroot]

I have to say, this is a very poor sign placement...

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9502879,-80.9719383,3a,69.3y,70.65h,91.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZMCI2NwsTLQ526f7MvVVDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That irrationally bothers me. Or perhaps rationally, depending on placement rules.

[MarkF]

I have to say, this is a very poor sign placement...

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9502879,-80.9719383,3a,69.3y,70.65h,91.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZMCI2NwsTLQ526f7MvVVDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Reminds me of northbound I-5 at CA 99
https://goo.gl/maps/qrkKzxAiUxQWD2AY9