AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Signs With Design Errors  (Read 392166 times)

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 17525
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 60
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 08:24:38 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1300 on: July 08, 2021, 07:53:01 PM »

"Cyn" as an abbreviation for "Canyon." That's a new one for me.
Logged


I identify as vaccinated.

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1826
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 09:57:34 PM
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1301 on: July 08, 2021, 08:14:17 PM »

"Cyn" as an abbreviation for "Canyon." That's a new one for me.

Very common in California.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14692
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 06:24:12 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1302 on: July 08, 2021, 08:24:48 PM »

So common in fact that I've always assumed it was the standard abbreviation. I know USPS also uses it.
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4889
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:35:56 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1303 on: July 08, 2021, 11:10:13 PM »

"Cyn" as an abbreviation for "Canyon." That's a new one for me.
Very common in California.

And in a whole bunch of other western states that have lots of them. I would not have thought anything of that.

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9914
  • Last Login: Today at 03:23:16 PM
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1304 on: July 08, 2021, 11:31:07 PM »

"Cyn" as an abbreviation for "Canyon." That's a new one for me.
I know.  KY uses "Hlr." :D
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

SkyPesos

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4418
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Cincinnati, OH/Lafayette, IN
  • Last Login: Today at 05:27:16 PM
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1305 on: July 09, 2021, 12:26:40 AM »

Posted this in the "Enhanced Mile Markers" thread first:
"West (76) 240 Mile .4"
Logged
My Fictional Highways

Fundamental Theorem of AARoads - Let "y" represent the elevation above sea level in a certain area. If "Δy" between the highest and lowest values of y equals to 0, it's Illinois.

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 17525
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 60
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 08:24:38 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1306 on: July 09, 2021, 02:06:27 PM »

"Cyn" as an abbreviation for "Canyon." That's a new one for me.
I know.  KY uses "Hlr." :D

LOL. I have seen "Holw." used on blade-type signs, though.
Logged


I identify as vaccinated.

formulanone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10763
  • Age: 48
  • Location: HSV
  • Last Login: Today at 05:30:17 PM
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1307 on: July 13, 2021, 09:43:01 PM »

I'm just here to post that this still exists (as of last week), at Hiatus Road underneath I-595. 

This similar example was at the nearby Nob Hill exit, but it was removed about 6-7 years ago:

« Last Edit: July 13, 2021, 09:45:06 PM by formulanone »
Logged
Photos | Don't feed the trolls

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1308 on: October 23, 2021, 08:26:02 PM »

Should my thread be merged to this one?
Logged

SkyPesos

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4418
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Cincinnati, OH/Lafayette, IN
  • Last Login: Today at 05:27:16 PM
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1309 on: October 23, 2021, 08:28:35 PM »

Should my thread be merged to this one?
No, because these are actual design errors. While your thread is for nitpicking on minor details on BGS signage from arguably one of the best DOTs in the nation.
Logged
My Fictional Highways

Fundamental Theorem of AARoads - Let "y" represent the elevation above sea level in a certain area. If "Δy" between the highest and lowest values of y equals to 0, it's Illinois.

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14926
  • Nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:12 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1310 on: December 26, 2021, 02:42:52 AM »

Just in case anyone's been wondering how ODOT's doing.
Logged

wanderer2575

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1534
  • Location: Farmington Hills, MI
  • Last Login: Today at 07:03:00 PM
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1311 on: January 01, 2022, 11:50:18 PM »

I drove up to Flint yesterday to get get photos of fairly new signs, and I saw a couple with minor design issues.

First advance APL for I-75 on westbound I-69.  The EXIT and ONLY tabs for the exit lane were omitted.  They are on the other APLs.  (Maybe this one was deliberate so as not to be confused with the EXIT ONLY for exit 135?)


Eastbound I-69 at I-475.  Cardinal direction is to the left of the route shield at a right-hand ramp split.

Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4462
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: May 18, 2022, 03:54:13 PM
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1312 on: January 02, 2022, 02:31:16 PM »

I drove up to Flint yesterday to get get photos of fairly new signs, and I saw a couple with minor design issues.
<...>
Eastbound I-69 at I-475.  Cardinal direction is to the left of the route shield at a right-hand ramp split.


While it might be a fairly standard convention, nothing in the MUTCD dictates the placement of the cardinal direction in relation to the shield when signing opposing directions at a split.
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14926
  • Nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 06:59:12 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1313 on: January 02, 2022, 03:56:28 PM »

And indeed some states entirely ignore it (Kansas, for instance, seems to always put the direction after the shield).
Logged

wanderer2575

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1534
  • Location: Farmington Hills, MI
  • Last Login: Today at 07:03:00 PM
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1314 on: January 02, 2022, 04:32:17 PM »

I drove up to Flint yesterday to get get photos of fairly new signs, and I saw a couple with minor design issues.
<...>
Eastbound I-69 at I-475.  Cardinal direction is to the left of the route shield at a right-hand ramp split.


While it might be a fairly standard convention, nothing in the MUTCD dictates the placement of the cardinal direction in relation to the shield when signing opposing directions at a split.

True, but I've never seen this in Michigan so I'm guessing it's an error with respect to the state's design standards.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1315 on: January 02, 2022, 04:34:54 PM »

I drove up to Flint yesterday to get get photos of fairly new signs, and I saw a couple with minor design issues.
<...>
Eastbound I-69 at I-475.  Cardinal direction is to the left of the route shield at a right-hand ramp split.


While it might be a fairly standard convention, nothing in the MUTCD dictates the placement of the cardinal direction in relation to the shield when signing opposing directions at a split.

True, but I've never seen this in Michigan so I'm guessing it's an error with respect to the state's design standards.
Those signs look fine to me....
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 17525
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 60
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 08:24:38 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1316 on: January 02, 2022, 07:00:46 PM »

I personally prefer the direction to be to the left of, or above, the route marker, and not to the right of it.
Logged


I identify as vaccinated.

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1826
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 09:57:34 PM
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1317 on: January 02, 2022, 08:31:07 PM »

I guess it's a matter of personal viewpoint. I always preferred the direction to the right of the shield, regardless of the alignment of the road. I like consistency.
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4462
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: May 18, 2022, 03:54:13 PM
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1318 on: January 04, 2022, 10:32:28 PM »

And indeed some states entirely ignore it (Kansas, for instance, seems to always put the direction after the shield).
Nevada is the same way. Cardinal direction is almost always to the right of the shield (s). It'll be to the left of the shield on occasion, in a few of the instances like this post. They're never on top of the shield, mainly because Nevada has had a maximum sign height (at least on structures not using APLs) that would preclude cardinal directions above the shield in most cases.
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14692
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 06:24:12 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1319 on: January 06, 2022, 04:44:20 PM »

Definitely used to/prefer seeing the cardinal direction to the right of the shield, although that may be the result of my preferred verbiage ("405 south", "I-90 east").

There are exceptions in WA; sometimes the cardinal direction is to the left of the shield, although 95% of signs have it either above the shield, or to the right. Another exception is when there's a split: there will be a line above/below the shield, with cardinal directions on both sides of the shield (example).

One other oddity will be pull-through signage. In the past, signs like these were used where there would be a single cardinal direction directly above the control city, with the shields off to the right and left edges of the sign (not anywhere near the cardinal direction). I think these are common in Minnesota too; I kind of like them, but they're pretty rare now, although that one (from the prior link) dates to 2008 and may have been the most recent install, and I cannot readily think of another example (I-5 northbound nearby at WA-167 had one, but it was removed).
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1826
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 09:57:34 PM
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1320 on: January 06, 2022, 04:49:20 PM »

Definitely used to/prefer seeing the cardinal direction to the right of the shield, although that may be the result of my preferred verbiage ("405 south", "I-90 east").

There are exceptions in WA; sometimes the cardinal direction is to the left of the shield, although 95% of signs have it either above the shield, or to the right. Another exception is when there's a split: there will be a line above/below the shield, with cardinal directions on both sides of the shield (example).

One other oddity will be pull-through signage. In the past, signs like these were used where there would be a single cardinal direction directly above the control city, with the shields off to the right and left edges of the sign (not anywhere near the cardinal direction). I think these are common in Minnesota too; I kind of like them, but they're pretty rare now, although that one (from the prior link) dates to 2008 and may have been the most recent install, and I cannot readily think of another example (I-5 northbound nearby at WA-167 had one, but it was removed).

Why do they have a separate sign for the I-5 South, right-thru lane. Why not have the main sign over the four thru lanes with four arrows instead of three?
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14692
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 06:24:12 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1321 on: January 07, 2022, 07:37:57 PM »

Definitely used to/prefer seeing the cardinal direction to the right of the shield, although that may be the result of my preferred verbiage ("405 south", "I-90 east").

There are exceptions in WA; sometimes the cardinal direction is to the left of the shield, although 95% of signs have it either above the shield, or to the right. Another exception is when there's a split: there will be a line above/below the shield, with cardinal directions on both sides of the shield (example).

One other oddity will be pull-through signage. In the past, signs like these were used where there would be a single cardinal direction directly above the control city, with the shields off to the right and left edges of the sign (not anywhere near the cardinal direction). I think these are common in Minnesota too; I kind of like them, but they're pretty rare now, although that one (from the prior link) dates to 2008 and may have been the most recent install, and I cannot readily think of another example (I-5 northbound nearby at WA-167 had one, but it was removed).

Why do they have a separate sign for the I-5 South, right-thru lane. Why not have the main sign over the four thru lanes with four arrows instead of three?

I believe the plan is to have this be a "lane ends after exit" sign but has temporarily become an additional pull-through sign.
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4630
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: March 31, 2022, 07:24:24 PM
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1322 on: January 14, 2022, 07:42:22 AM »

The far left sign is a design error because it only uses one arrow instead of two arrows pointing down at both lanes. And when looking at the signs, they went up in most likely the early to mid 2000s.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5690293,-82.4939908,3a,22y,241.29h,93.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_Cs5xfER1ND4jzO_G5OZRw!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4247
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:58:44 PM
    • Wikipedia
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1323 on: January 22, 2022, 09:01:17 PM »

I-5 has been downgraded to a business route in Seattle:



(Taken on SR 520 westbound approaching its terminus)

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14692
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 06:24:12 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Signs With Design Errors
« Reply #1324 on: January 23, 2022, 10:38:55 AM »

I-5 has been downgraded to a business route in Seattle:



(Taken on SR 520 westbound approaching its terminus)

Same-height capital letters, plus the periods in "BC"...this sign has more than a few problems. Of course, there is construction in the area...
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

 


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.