Signs With Design Errors

[hbelkins]

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

[SignBridge]

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

Very common in California.

[jakeroot]

So common in fact that I've always assumed it was the standard abbreviation. I know USPS also uses it.

[US 89]

"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]

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

I know.  KY uses "Hlr."

[SkyPesos]

Posted this in the "Enhanced Mile Markers" thread first:

"West (76) 240 Mile .4"

[hbelkins]

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

I know.  KY uses "Hlr."

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

[formulanone]

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:

[tolbs17]

Should my thread be merged to this one?

[SkyPesos]

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.

[Scott5114]

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

[wanderer2575]

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.

[roadfro]

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.

[Scott5114]

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

[wanderer2575]

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.

[tolbs17]

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....

[hbelkins]

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

[SignBridge]

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.

[roadfro]

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.

[jakeroot]

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).

[SignBridge]

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?

[jakeroot]

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.

[tolbs17]

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

[Bruce]

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



(Taken on SR 520 westbound approaching its terminus)

[jakeroot]

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...