Signs With Design Errors

[Dirt Roads]

Maybe in 100 years or so we'll get it down to "Albuque".

Or up to "Alburquerquerque".

[thenetwork]

Maybe in 100 years or so we'll get it down to "Albuque".

Or up to "Alburquerquerque".

Or Albuque, IA...

[jay8g]

Ugh, where to even start with this one. I have low expectations for the quality of Seattle guide signs, but the West Seattle Bridge project keeps shocking me with just how awful the new signs are.

The most obvious issue is the absolute lack of any spacing in the "THISLANEONLY" line, which also looks like it was pushed a bit too far towards the bottom of the panel, despite there being random blank space in the green part. The "Delridge Wy SW" text also looks way too small (the old sign was way better in that regard), and I'm not really a fan of the whole "THIS LANE ONLY" wording at all -- surely the standard "down arrow ONLY" style would have made much more sense.

The bridge itself was supposed to open tomorrow, but looking at the traffic cameras, it seems to be open now! From what I've seen from ground level, I expect the new signs on the upper bridge are pretty terrible too.

[JoePCool14]

Those Seattle signs do look clumsy. Do you know what the third sign on the right will be? Maybe this one needs the Redesign this! treatment.

From New Mexico, where sign standards are just slightly ahead of those from CRaiG CoUntY:

https://apnews.com/article/oddities-new-mexico-albuquerque-transportation-4526afac0a676f9adc4de5dd56cc2504

Aside from the typo, this sign actually looks really nice. It's compact but still has controls and everything you'd want for both interstate directions.

[jay8g]

Those Seattle signs do look clumsy. Do you know what the third sign on the right will be? Maybe this one needs the Redesign this! treatment.

That's a blank-out sign that used to activate when the railroad crossing across the intersection was blocked, but that approach is now permanently (I think) closed, so it probably doesn't do anything anymore.

[kirbykart]

Minor bump for a slightly-off sign in Rome: https://goo.gl/maps/G7XHh57Wgae6Kb9f7

[machias]

I'll be curious to see if this poorly designed sign makes it to the field.

[JoePCool14]

I'll be curious to see if this poorly designed sign makes it to the field.

I love the way you can't read some of the dimensions because they're so stacked on top of one another. I'd never send out a plan set looking like that.

[Dirt Roads]

I'll be curious to see if this poorly designed sign makes it to the field.

Seems like a strange place to employ the capital ordinal rule.  But it makes perfect sense to the rules-followers.

[kphoger]

How should it be designed?

[jp the roadgeek]

How should it be designed?

Looks better with the EAST below Brooks Ave. 

[J N Winkler]

How should it be designed?

The big problem with this design is that "EAST" is left floating above the baseline of "Brooks Ave."  It might be possible to save sign panel area by putting "Brooks Ave" and "EAST" on separate lines and using an arrow with a longer shaft.  Aside from this, there aren't too many issues with the space padding.

[JoePCool14]

How should it be designed?

From WisDOT on WI-11 in Monroe.

This is the closest example to something like this I can think of. The first time I saw the Monroe sign, it definitely seemed odd. Looking at the map, the street is labeled as 6th Street W, so this is probably not correct. Is the exit for Brooks Ave E, or eastbound on Brooks Ave?

[kphoger]

How should it be designed?

The big problem with this design is that "EAST" is left floating above the baseline of "Brooks Ave."  It might be possible to save sign panel area by putting "Brooks Ave" and "EAST" on separate lines and using an arrow with a longer shaft.  Aside from this, there aren't too many issues with the space padding.

Kind of like the 13th Street flyover?

Or this?

[kphoger]

How should it be designed?

From WisDOT on WI-11 in Monroe.

This is the closest example to something like this I can think of. The first time I saw the Monroe sign, it definitely seemed odd. Looking at the map, the street is labeled as 6th Street W, so this is probably not correct. Is the exit for Brooks Ave E, or eastbound on Brooks Ave?

I prefer the "wrong" one.  When they're on one line, I naturally interpret the street name as a single unit because the small caps treatment isn't immediately obvious.  That is to say, I don't assume that the exit is for only the direction indicated, but rather that the street name has a suffixed directional.

[JoePCool14]

Here's some quick alternatives following from my last post.

If the street's name is Brooks Ave E, it should be this:


If the street's name is Brooks Ave but the exit is only for eastbound traffic, it should be this:

How should it be designed?

From WisDOT on WI-11 in Monroe.

This is the closest example to something like this I can think of. The first time I saw the Monroe sign, it definitely seemed odd. Looking at the map, the street is labeled as 6th Street W, so this is probably not correct. Is the exit for Brooks Ave E, or eastbound on Brooks Ave?

I prefer the "wrong" one.  When they're on one line, I naturally interpret the street name as a single unit because the small caps treatment isn't immediately obvious.  That is to say, I don't assume that the exit is for only the direction indicated, but rather that the street name has a suffixed directional.

Agreed. That's why the direction is separated from the street name on a different line normally. The planned sign is technically wrong, but slightly better than the Monroe example. It's actually similar to how we sign directions with route shields when you think about it. That doesn't make it correct, but I guess I can see the logic the sign designer may have taken here.

[jemacedo9]

The exit is for Brooks Ave eastbound.  Exit 18B is for Brooks Ave westbound, which is also the beginning of NY 204 West.

[kphoger]

It's actually similar to how we sign directions with route shields when you think about it. That doesn't make it correct, but I guess I can see the logic the sign designer may have taken here.

It's why I don't mind it.  It treats the street name the same as it would treat a route shield, which I'm fine with.

[J N Winkler]

Kind of like the 13th Street flyover?

Or this?

Yes.  Yes.

Agreed. That's why the direction is separated from the street name on a different line normally. The planned sign is technically wrong, but slightly better than the Monroe example. It's actually similar to how we sign directions with route shields when you think about it. That doesn't make it correct, but I guess I can see the logic the sign designer may have taken here.

I could tell the designer was trying to treat "Brooks Ave" like a shield, but it doesn't work here because there is no clear reason for the cardinal direction word to be floating above the primary destination legend as if it were superscript.  Shields have more depth and the eye goes readily to their top edges as an obvious alignment control.

Other approaches I've seen to emphasize that what is being signed is road name plus cardinal direction, not road name only, generally rely on treating the road name and the cardinal direction word as separate blocks, and centering one vertically on the other.  The distinction becomes subtle if "Brooks Ave" is on one line, but obvious if it is on two.

[Scott5114]

My guess is they used a sign with a shield as a template, then deleted the shield and put the street name text in there. It looks silly because the "East" is top-aligned to the top of what looks like a 24" shield (shields on signs like this are supposed to be 36", but whatever), but the text is only 16" tall.

[machias]

I'll be curious to see if this poorly designed sign makes it to the field.

I honestly didn't equate this design with replacing a route marker with the street name, I just thought it was someone saying "meh" with whatever GuidSIGN threw up for the design.

I've always liked the way IDOT does it with the cardinal direction over the street name.  If memory serves correctly, I've seen cardinal directions under the street name elsewhere in New York and that works too.

And this isn't a problem with the sign itself, but I really dislike the first letter in the cardinal direction being bigger than the rest of the word. It's unnecessary but I lost that battle long ago.

[SignBridge]

I also disagree with the first letter of the cardinal direction being larger than the rest. It adds more visual confusion to the sign legend and in my opinion, is not necessary. Another example of the people who write the MUTCD creating a problem where there wasn't one.

Re: the Brooks Ave. sign, I would put the EAST under Brooks Ave. and have a long stem arrow to right of the legend. I never liked the idea of having the cardinal direction above the street name.

[Dirt Roads]

I've not done a thorough review of Section 2E of the MUTCD (and relevant portions of Section 2D), but it is my understanding that the 2009 Edition was revised such that street names and numbered route shields are treated the same way on BGS and other directional signage.  Therefore, since the cardinal direction is generally placed to the right of the shield then the cardinal direction should be placed to the right of the street name.  It looks strange because of the capitalized cardinal. 

So this one is indeed correct:


There are two exceptions to this rule.  First, when there are multiple shields the cardinal direction should be placed above each shield (or combinations of shields).  The second exception allows the cardinal direction to be placed to the left of the shield when the exit (or mainline pull-through) is on the left side of the highway [if the DOT agency has a history of configuring the signs this way].  As best as I can tell, those exceptions do not apply to street names on BGS (but it could be applied).

Again, this is my interpretation based on the applications of the sample signage as shown in the MUTCD, all of which are consistent with this.  As best as I can tell, there wasn't any specific written direction or guidance on this practice.

[Scott5114]

I also disagree with the first letter of the cardinal direction being larger than the rest. It adds more visual confusion to the sign legend and in my opinion, is not necessary. Another example of the people who write the MUTCD creating a problem where there wasn't one.

This sign is an excellent object lesson in why it's necessary–Brooks Avenue East would be a street named Brooks Avenue on the east side of town, while Brooks Avenue EAST is the eastbound direction of Brooks Avenue.

[SignBridge]

I agree Scott. I think we're saying the same thing. The first letter of EAST should be the same size upper case as the rest of the word.