Erroneous road signs

[CentralCAroadgeek]

I didn't know exactly where to put it and it sure is different...

[bulkyorled]

It looks way too large for what it has on it. The side with CA 1 on it needs to be smaller (not so much blank space) and the exit number tab looks huge.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Yeah, I'd classify that as a "worst of" and not an error, but it looks pretty bad. That's not what a gore point sign should look like (just the "EXIT 414B" and maybe a CA 156 shield).

[myosh_tino]

That CA-1/CA-156 sign is a carbon-copy of what used to be there.  The original sign had the same layout minus the exit "tab".  Beyond this exit, CA-1 narrows back down into a 2-lane conventional highway.

[D-Dey65]

At the US-191 North/AZ-264 west roundabout northwest of Ganado

I remember Suffolk County Department of Public Works had signs on Nicolls Road where they reversed the colors on the NY 25 shields in their MGS's.

This was before the SPUI interchange, BTW.

[agentsteel53]

there are several in Citronella, AL, for no explicable reason

[agentsteel53]

that 1/156 is a unisign take on an old Cal Division of Highways standard.

this is not gore point signage, but if it were gore point, it would look exactly like this.



there is a gore point split gantry like this one at the 5/99 split in Wheeler Ridge, but I do not have the photo offhand.

[formulanone]

Florida still does it, even though it's not US 98.

[roadman65]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/7275882520/in/photostream

Here is one on FL 408, for the EB exit for FL 436 (as seen from nearby Lake Underhill Drive in Orlando, FL) that shows Andes Avenue leading to both FL 436 and Semoran Boulevard.   The actual ramp leads you to Lake Underhill Drive, that is a frontage road that connects to both Andes Avenue and FL 436/ Semoran Boulevard. 

Maybe the "TO" should be above both named roads and it would work, or replace Andes with Lake Underhill.

[CentralCAroadgeek]

This sign is supposed to say "Mather Field Rd," but omits the "Rd."

[national highway 1]

I'm not sure about the placing of the arrow, and I think the 'EXIT ONLY' shoukl be the below the legend. Maybe the legend doesn't need to be left-aligned...

[vdeane]

That's just typical CalTrans cramming.

[myosh_tino]

This sign is supposed to say "Mather Field Rd," but omits the "Rd."

Not sure if this qualifies as a true error because it's a carbon copy.  Here's the original sign from the AARoads Gallery...


Also note the new sign makes use of the existing sign structure to save money hence the odd layout.  With that said, I think "Mather Field" would have fit on the top line with the "EXIT ONLY" and arrow below.

[architect77]

This sign is supposed to say "Mather Field Rd," but omits the "Rd."

Not sure if this qualifies as a true error because it's a carbon copy.  Here's the original sign from the AARoads Gallery...


Also note the new sign makes use of the existing sign structure to save money hence the odd layout.  With that said, I think "Mather Field" would have fit on the top line with the "EXIT ONLY" and arrow below.

Maybe there is an actual field. Do exit signs have to indicate the road or can it be an attraction or destination instead?

[Scott5114]

Well, yeah, you can have just a destination on there. Kansas does this several times on I-35 ("Andover", "Cattle Pens", "Homewood", etc.)

[Kacie Jane]

Just did the required Google Fu.  Looks like there is in fact a Mather Field that Mather Field Road goes to.

But what's baffling to me is that eastbound the exit is signed as Mather Field Road, whereas the signs above are from the westbound side.

[myosh_tino]

Just did the required Google Fu.  Looks like there is in fact a Mather Field that Mather Field Road goes to.

But what's baffling to me is that eastbound the exit is signed as Mather Field Road, whereas the signs above are from the westbound side.

I noticed that too. I suspect that because the exit ramp was widened to two lanes (an exit-only and an option lane), the existing sign structure was too small to accommodate the additional arrow and EXIT ONLY plaque so the contractor replaced the sign structure with one that can hold a larger guide sign.

[Central Avenue]

It's hard to tell from this photo, but for some reason this sign is the fluorescent yellow-green intended for pedstrian signs, instead of just straight yellow.

[Ian]

It's hard to tell from this photo, but for some reason this sign is the fluorescent yellow-green intended for pedstrian signs, instead of just straight yellow.

Not only that, but it's posted on the wrong side of the road!

[architect77]

It's hard to tell from this photo, but for some reason this sign is the fluorescent yellow-green intended for pedstrian signs, instead of just straight yellow.

I hate that ugly fluorescent green btw.

[vtk]

A lot of municipalities seem to overuse FYG, perhaps to call "extra" attention to the hazard or condition or regulation.  They probably put "extra" effort into traffic enforcement, too.  They think it makes their town "extra" safe.

[hbelkins]

Speaking of, it appears that in a lot of places, the yellow used for warning signs is brighter than it used to be.

[roadfro]

^ In addition to the FYG color required for school and optional for other pedestrian-related signs, there is an allowable "fluorescent yellow" color that can be used on standard warning signs (which is definitely brighter than what we're used to).

[Central Avenue]

Not only that, but it's posted on the wrong side of the road!

Haha, you're right! I knew something else seemed "off" about it...

[HighwayMaster]

It's hard to tell from this photo, but for some reason this sign is the fluorescent yellow-green intended for pedstrian signs, instead of just straight yellow.

Not only that, but it's posted on the wrong side of the road!

North Canton has several NO PASSING ZONE signs posted the wrong way too. They're not FYG, though. I know there's two: one on Easthill and one on Schneider.