Erroneous road signs

[Alps]

Man, that 96 looks fugly!

You asked for it.

[apeman33]

I took this photo last night. I should have went back today and got a better image, but I'll explain.



This is at Buck Run Community Center in Fort Scott. The one-way arrow is directing drivers to go toward that gate. The sign on the gate says "ROAD CLOSED TO THRU TRAFFIC."

So there are two problems:
1) They should have put of a No Left Turn sign instead of a One Way sign (Even though you can't go past that gate, the road is a two-way street).
2) The other sign should probably just say "ROAD CLOSED." The city pretty much doesn't want traffic to ever go through again. When the gate is open, it's only to allow staff working softball games to use the area behind one of the fields as a parking lot.

[Big John]

^^ On point 2, yes it is supposed to just read "ROAD CLOSED".  The "ROAD CLOSED TO THRU TRAFFIC" sign is meant to warn drivers that access is closed some point ahead but can pass through where the sign is located.

[roadman65]

It is 4 miles to the junction proper so "TO" is not really the descriptor to use.  It should be "JCT" or leave out any descriptor and have an I-30 with 4 Miles.

[kurumi]

I don't have a photo, but on I-880 southbound past US 101 in San Jose is a sign panel for Exit 389, First Street. This is by far the highest exit number on 880, and is actually the exit number for First Street on 101.

Here's a street view of the former sign at this location: http://goo.gl/maps/9BCxk

[Roadsguy]

*pic*
It is 4 miles to the junction proper so "TO" is not really the descriptor to use.  It should be "JCT" or leave out any descriptor and have an I-30 with 4 Miles.

Isn't it also technically an error that I-30 is in a wide shield?

[bassoon1986]

*pic*
It is 4 miles to the junction proper so "TO" is not really the descriptor to use.  It should be "JCT" or leave out any descriptor and have an I-30 with 4 Miles.

Isn't it also technically an error that I-30 is in a wide shield?

Welcome to Texas...

[Revive 755]

Here's an assembly on Russell Road at IL 131/WI 31 that should be using separate left and right arrows under the shields, but instead implies a multiplex exists between the two routes:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Pleasant+Prairie,+WI&hl=en&ll=42.493773,-87.887439&spn=0.00335,0.008256&sll=42.032432,-88.091192&sspn=0.215992,0.528374&oq=pleas&hnear=Pleasant+Prairie,+Kenosha,+Wisconsin&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.493768,-87.887216&panoid=UlD3WmXWe6pZQSSOqBkbKQ&cbp=12,144.11,,2,-0.42

[Zeffy]

Here's an assembly on Russell Road at IL 131/WI 31 that should be using separate left and right arrows under the shields, but instead implies a multiplex exists between the two routes:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Pleasant+Prairie,+WI&hl=en&ll=42.493773,-87.887439&spn=0.00335,0.008256&sll=42.032432,-88.091192&sspn=0.215992,0.528374&oq=pleas&hnear=Pleasant+Prairie,+Kenosha,+Wisconsin&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.493768,-87.887216&panoid=UlD3WmXWe6pZQSSOqBkbKQ&cbp=12,144.11,,2,-0.42

I think they did that because there is a IL-131 reassurance shield directly after the turn, and they thought the dual-arrow could be work instead of having two separate ones. (as in WI-31 is the LEFT end of the arrow and IL-131 is the RIGHT end of it)

[vtk]

Or, they figure drivers are smart enough to know that Illinois is to the right and Wisconsin is to the left.

Of course, it would be nifty if IDOT and WisDOT actually agreed to sign a short concurrency of each other's state routes between IL 173 and WI 165.  I think that kind of cooperation would be nifty across most state borders, actually.

[NE2]

Of course, it would be nifty if IDOT and WisDOT actually agreed to sign a short concurrency of each other's state routes between IL 173 and WI 165.  I think that kind of cooperation would be nifty across most state borders, actually.

It would make more sense to say IL 131 TO WIS 31.

[roadman65]

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Secaucus,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.775074,-74.033153&spn=0.002154,0.003819&sll=39.431773,-74.579722&sspn=0.003108,0.007639&oq=seca&t=h&hnear=Secaucus,+Hudson,+New+Jersey&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.775019,-74.033271&panoid=R_znvxYJmW9UiGkM5cB-4Q&cbp=12,273.87,,0,0.1  Here is one of many erroneous I-495 shields on JFK Boulevard in Union City, NJ.  What is interesting is that these are not left over from when NJ 495 was indeed I-495, but brand new ones erected recently!  NJ 495 has been in commission since the mid 1980s.

[hbelkins]

It runs through Maryland for all of about two miles, and they still manage to screw it up:

[Billy F 1988]

I know Knwit snapped it already, but this is my take on the "MT-200-turned-US-200" assembly. Taken as of last Friday. I pass by it thinking "These Missoula drivers are apparently oblivious to someone's bluff." Obviously, some contractor's bluff.

SB US 93/EB MT 200: Similar perspective like Knwit's:


Oh, and here's it's carbon copy.
NB US 93/WB MT 200:

[amroad17]

MSR 200 might as well be US 200.  Why not?

[Alps]

MSR 200 might as well be US 200.  Why not?

It actually does connect to US 2, which was originally proposed as US 0 (the eastern one was always to be 2), so it's justifiable. Many have asked this question. I think one argument against it being a US highway is that it really doesn't serve any major areas, unless multiplexed with something else. It tends to be between major corridors (US 2, I-90, I-94).

[agentsteel53]

one argument against it being a US highway is that it really doesn't serve any major areas, unless multiplexed with something else.

lots of US highways don't serve any major areas.  US-385 comes to mind.  south of the Black Hills... Odessa, TX and that's really it.

[roadman65]

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2857/9661608489_e55e0b7c2d_c.jpg
Some of you feel that using two digit shields for three digit numbers is erroneous so here is the WB I-220 ramp  shield from NB US 71 & LA 1 near Shreveport. LA. 

[Mapmikey]

Here's a new one for Maryland...(apologies if it turns out it is new to just me)

A MD 25 shield in a circle leaving MD 2 NB
http://goo.gl/maps/K6O05

This is on MD 25 at MD 2 SB
http://goo.gl/maps/mMWYi

There is a correct MD 25 shield at Charles Ave.  (Then no MD 25 postings at all for a while through unstriped narrow roads through mill areas and an unposted turn...)

Mapmikey

[djsinco]

one argument against it being a US highway is that it really doesn't serve any major areas, unless multiplexed with something else.

lots of US highways don't serve any major areas.  US-385 comes to mind.  south of the Black Hills... Odessa, TX and that's really it.

US 160 does a pretty good job of avoiding much of anything noteworthy, but I would hazard a guess that US 350 in CO is the clear winner, with nary a town in the way of it's bleak, dust-bowl like existence.

[NE2]

I would hazard a guess that US 350 in CO is the clear winner, with nary a town in the way of it's bleak, dust-bowl like existence.

You'd be wrong: US 163.

[Scott5114]

US 160 does a pretty good job of avoiding much of anything noteworthy.

It does serve the third-largest city in Missouri, y'know...

[djsinco]

US 160 does a pretty good job of avoiding much of anything noteworthy.

It does serve the third-largest city in Missouri, y'know...

Having been to Springfield many times, I stand by my statement.

[J N Winkler]

I would hazard a guess that US 350 in CO is the clear winner, with nary a town in the way of it's bleak, dust-bowl like existence.

You'd be wrong: US 163.

Having driven both, I would go with US 350.  US 163 is a convenient access route to Monument Valley (which attracts busloads of tourists) from the south.

[Scott5114]

US 160 does a pretty good job of avoiding much of anything noteworthy.

It does serve the third-largest city in Missouri, y'know...

Having been to Springfield many times, I stand by my statement.

Having lived there . . .