Erroneous road signs

[Central Avenue]

How exactly do the orange K-47's fit in this thread?  I've seen plenty of situations where they use an orange version of a route shield to indicate a detour or construction zone. 

I will grant you that the first two photos with the white directional banner look a little odd, but that's pretty minor, imo.  I'd be willing consider them unusual or interesting, but unless the detour they're indicating is wrong, they're hardly "erroneous."

It seems different people here have different definitions of what constitutes an "erroneous" sign. Personally, I'm with you; I only consider a sign erroneous if the information it's presenting is incorrect or misleading, but it seems others consider design errors and standards violations to be "erroneous" as well. (Though the latter have a dedicated thread now, in any event.)

Could be that these are the exact same signs being reused in different work zones.

Ah, hadn't considered that.

I'm reminded of that US 32 [sic] sign with the Helvetica "2" that ODOT seems to pull out every time they need a temporary OH 32 shield.

[formulanone]

Could be worse...found this outside of Mansfield on I-71 a few weeks ago:



...good thing that wasn't my exit.

[Scott5114]

Yes, it was. The entire state of Ohio was supposed to detour there. Didn't you get the memo?

[formulanone]

Yes, it was. The entire state of Ohio was supposed to detour there. Didn't you get the memo?

I thought the roads seemed a bit sparse near my destination...

[elsmere241]

No, it's the entire United States that was supposed to detour there.  (I know the Ohio shield is based on the shape of the state, but it looks too much like the U.S. shield for my tastes.)

[thenetwork]

Yes, it was. The entire state of Ohio was supposed to detour there. Didn't you get the memo?

Actually, its just for the inhabitants of Southern Ohio (including Columbus).  The population of Northern Ohio cant stand what's been going on at the capitol as of late.  (see: Bridge, I-90 Innerbelt Project) 

[Special K]

No, it's the entire United States that was supposed to detour there.  (I know the Ohio shield is based on the shape of the state, but it looks too much like the U.S. shield for my tastes.)

If you ignore Florida, as you should.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Could be worse...found this outside of Mansfield on I-71 a few weeks ago:

BlankOhioSign.jpg

...good thing that wasn't my exit.

Couldn't you have photoshoped in the layout for Mid-Ohio Road Course before posting that?

[apeman33]

How exactly do the orange K-47's fit in this thread?  I've seen plenty of situations where they use an orange version of a route shield to indicate a detour or construction zone. 

I will grant you that the first two photos with the white directional banner look a little odd, but that's pretty minor, imo.  I'd be willing consider them unusual or interesting, but unless the detour they're indicating is wrong, they're hardly "erroneous."

They're errors in Kansas. The orange K-47 signs are the only instance any of us who have taken the photos have ever seen. The orange directional banners aren't standard here, either. This is why I thought these were errors. Where do you see these enough that they're common?

[xonhulu]

My point is that they're not erroneous; the orange color is intentional.  Orange is the standard color for construction warning signs, including many detours, and that's what those K-47's are.

Regretably, I don't have very many photos of the various orange shields I've seen over the years; they're generally in active construction zones, where pulling over to snap photos would be difficult-to-impossible.  But here's one from Boston:



Way more common is to see shields depicted on orange signs; here are a couple involving OR 53 that actually are erroneous:

[Alps]

Route shields are always supposed to be the proper colors, even in work zones. It's only guide, warning, and a limited number of regulatory signs that are supposed to change color. The MUTCD has a separate TTC section in the book and in Standard Highway Signs for just this reason.

[deathtopumpkins]

Regretably, I don't have very many photos of the various orange shields I've seen over the years; they're generally in active construction zones, where pulling over to snap photos would be difficult-to-impossible.  But here's one from Boston:

http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Interstate%20Routes/I93BostonOrangeShield1.jpg?t=1346389257

I could stomach that orange 93 if everything about it weren't so damn ugly. And nevermind the fact that you can still find those up in multiple places (I drive by one on US 1 SB approaching the Tobin Bridge regularly), even years after the Big Dig construction has been completed. Also, I find it funny that the one in your pic is rendered completely redundant by the overhead sign.

[apeman33]

My point is that they're not erroneous; the orange color is intentional.  Orange is the standard color for construction warning signs, including many detours, and that's what those K-47's are.

The orange color may perhaps be intentional on the part of the company that made the sign, but that does not make it correct. Kansas standard is for the shield to be its regular color in a construction zone. These aren't warning signs. Therefore, by Kansas standards, these shields are errors.

Had I known about the other thread, I'd have posted the orange sunflowers there.

[roadman65]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/7913503906/in/photostream

Here is one on Northbound I-81 and Westbound NY 17 where the two route concurrency ends near Binhamton, NY.

[Brandon]

Courtesy of the DuPage County Highway Department, at the western end of 75th Street.



And I was looking at Google Maps and found this in Miami, FL:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=25.785488,-80.189507&spn=0.00251,0.002411&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=25.785472,-80.189398&panoid=cboa8ElA0KRMjgzSbH_bIQ&cbp=12,68.4,,0,-3.4

[mcdonaat]

So what's wrong with the US 395 sign?

[Scott5114]

So what's wrong with the US 395 sign?

US 395 is in California...

[mcdonaat]

Oh! Well then... Wait a second, California still has US routes?

[national highway 1]

So what's wrong with the US 395 sign?

US 395 is in California...

I am definitely sure that the US 395 shield is meant to be an I-395 shield.

Oh! Well then... Wait a second, California still has US routes?

Yes, it still has US 6, US 50, US 95, US 97, US 101, US 199 and US 395. 

[mcdonaat]

Still removed US 40, 48, 50, 60, 66, 70, 80, 91, 99, 299, 399, and 466! Louisiana has actually added US routes, so it's funny to see a state like California remove a route, then immediately sign it as a historic route.

[The High Plains Traveler]

Except for hallowed 66 and a piece of former 101 along Pacific Highway north of San Diego, I don't remember any "Historic" U.S. highway markings in California. I've driven long stretches of 99, 299, 58 (466) and 1 (Alt. 101) and seen no brown signs.

Since California decommissioned U.S. routes either because it was following AASHTO guidance about single-state routes, or because the U.S. routes were functionally replaced by interstates, there is really not much for it to post. In Louisiana, the interstates were largely constructed on right of way well off the existing U.S. routes, so there is at least an argument to retain the markings. I'd also argue about the new and extended U.S. routes in Louisiana, which seem to be a conspiracy with Arkansas to maximize U.S. route mileage. In California, the existing historic U.S. routes were mostly converted to freeway along the same right of way. There is thus no value with posting two routes instead of one along the freeway.

[NE2]

Except for hallowed 66 and a piece of former 101 along Pacific Highway north of San Diego, I don't remember any "Historic" U.S. highway markings in California. I've driven long stretches of 99, 299, 58 (466) and 1 (Alt. 101) and seen no brown signs.

99 has some at the south end at least: http://www.usends.com/90-99/099/099.html

[Alps]

Except for hallowed 66 and a piece of former 101 along Pacific Highway north of San Diego, I don't remember any "Historic" U.S. highway markings in California. I've driven long stretches of 99, 299, 58 (466) and 1 (Alt. 101) and seen no brown signs.

99 has some at the south end at least: http://www.usends.com/90-99/099/099.html

I've witnessed them for US 80 in San Diego, as well.

[NE2]

it's funny to see a state like California remove a route, then immediately sign it as a historic route.

Anyway, the correct response is that 40 years is only 'immediately' if you're a redwood.

US 40 has some ugly ass historic signs:

[ibagli]

No, it's the entire United States that was supposed to detour there.  (I know the Ohio shield is based on the shape of the state, but it looks too much like the U.S. shield for my tastes.)

You're not the only one who thinks that.