I was thinking about this today. CA-52 has Mission Trails Summit, at a whopping 821 feet. any summit out there lower in elevation which is given its own sign?
IIRC, Telegraph Pass on I-8 (around 450 feet) is not signed, even though it features quite a steep climb for an interstate, and even the carriageways crossing over each other.
Jerimoth Hill, the highest point in Rhode Island (812 feet), has a sign on Route 101, although it's not at the actual "summit" because no road goes there.
Edited to add: Here's the Street View. Had to wait until I was at a PC to get the link. http://goo.gl/maps/tP9FM
I like this one (https://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=m&vpsrc=0&layer=c&cbll=53.629912,-2.018908&panoid=VyVnz9wHgwrRkN1HAohylg&cbp=12,38.95,,2,-1.46&ll=53.62988,-2.01921&spn=0.022726,0.066047&z=15). A bit sad really when our highest freeway is just 1221 feet.
Isn't there a ridiculously low signed summit on I-75 north of Tampa, FL?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on August 23, 2013, 11:36:52 AM
Isn't there a ridiculously low signed summit on I-75 north of Tampa, FL?
Doubtful.
I don't remember anything on any segment of I-75 offhand... maybe through the Appalachians, where the summit is 'as expected' so I didn't commit it to memory.
There is a low summit sign on 126 as it passes through the Coast Range in Oregon. I believe the altitude is in the 800's. While that seems "silly low", when winter comes, snow levels of 500 feet get plenty of mention in weather reports so knowing the high spots, even if they are not that high, is important.
Rick
In Massachusetts, there is a sign for the highest elevation on the Mass Pike, at 1724 feet. It's not as low as the others mentioned, but it's still relatively low, especially since it covers I-90 in several states.
I've been on I-75 in Florida many, many times and have never noticed an elevation sign.
This one from I-84 in New York is not especially high:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20080608%2Felev970.jpg&hash=21c0f2599a39c3c5ee2bf93a2b6be0b6fcab58b0)
My vote's for Rock Reef Pass on FL 9336 in the Everglades. Three feet! http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000ztOBUQXY7PE/s/650/650/everglades-rock-reef-pass-20110924-IMG-6239.jpg
Quote from: citrus on August 23, 2013, 12:53:33 PM
My vote's for Rock Reef Pass on FL 9336 in the Everglades. Three feet! http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000ztOBUQXY7PE/s/650/650/everglades-rock-reef-pass-20110924-IMG-6239.jpg
Oh crap. That wins. (Technically it's not on SR 9336 - that ends at the park boundary.)
Quote from: citrus on August 23, 2013, 12:53:33 PM
My vote's for Rock Reef Pass on FL 9336 in the Everglades. Three feet! http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000ztOBUQXY7PE/s/650/650/everglades-rock-reef-pass-20110924-IMG-6239.jpg
Is there a chain up area before the climb?
Are there any negative elevation signs in Death Valley or around the Dead Sea? (Yeah, I know, those aren't "summits," but they'd still be interesting to see.)
Sea level is signed along Interstate 8 in Imperial County:
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images008/i-008_eb_exit_107_03.jpg)
While not quite as low as the Mission Trails Summit on CA-52, the Altamont Pass, elevation 1009 ft (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=37.719078,-121.660927&spn=0.000585,0.000862&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=37.719078,-121.660927&panoid=1Uc5vPXdKmXdXIQWKvzY_g&cbp=12,86.43,,3,1.64), is signed on I-580 east of Livermore.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 23, 2013, 01:14:43 PM
Are there any negative elevation signs in Death Valley or around the Dead Sea? (Yeah, I know, those aren't "summits," but they'd still be interesting to see.)
There are these two from the AARoads Gallery...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images190/ca-190_wb_at_badwater_cutoff_at_sea_level.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images190/ca-190_wb_app_furnace_creek_close-up.jpg)
The first one looks like it was put up by Caltrans. The second sign was put up by the National Park Service.
I believe there is a sign somewhere for "elevation -100". I don't think it's I-8... maybe one of the Death Valley roads? it looks just like the Sea Level sign Alex showed.
I remember on a frontage road to I-10, one of the Indio city limit signs had elevation shown as "+/-" as opposed to a number! this was in 2006; the sign is gone I believe.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 23, 2013, 01:14:43 PM
Are there any negative elevation signs in Death Valley or around the Dead Sea? (Yeah, I know, those aren't "summits," but they'd still be interesting to see.)
There is a "sea level" sign posted on a mountainside adjacent to Badwater Basin, official lowest point in the USA - that means the sign is 282 feet above you:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dogpics/471587160/
I think this may be the lowest summit posted in Maryland, on I-70 between Frederick and Hagerstown - Braddock Mountain (part of the Catoctin Ridge) at 985 feet (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=braddock+heights+md&ll=39.446169,-77.50288&spn=0.018525,0.038581&hnear=Braddock+Heights,+Frederick,+Maryland&gl=us&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.446251,-77.502923&panoid=Lrsz__jhxMRZ0Cr7VUvDCg&cbp=12,191.53,,2,3.65).
But we go higher.
I think the highest location on Maryland's Interstate system is on 68 in Garrett County, Meadow Mountain at 2780 feet (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Grantsville,+MD&hl=en&ll=39.685442,-79.088259&spn=0.009231,0.01929&sll=39.680026,-79.218957&sspn=0.004616,0.009645&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Grantsville,+Garrett,+Maryland&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.685475,-79.088444&panoid=fzntc_-mylIg57J7tOotVQ&cbp=12,142.98,,2,2.5) (also the (for now) unsigned Eastern Continental Divide).
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on August 23, 2013, 01:54:57 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 23, 2013, 01:14:43 PM
Are there any negative elevation signs in Death Valley or around the Dead Sea? (Yeah, I know, those aren't "summits," but they'd still be interesting to see.)
There is a "sea level" sign posted on a mountainside adjacent to Badwater Basin, official lowest point in the USA - that means the sign is 282 feet above you:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dogpics/471587160/
Neat. Must be hard to get a good picture that really shows the full area whilst getting the sign clearly. Thanks for posting that.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 23, 2013, 07:22:36 PM
I think the highest location on Maryland's Interstate system is on 68 in Garrett County, Meadow Mountain at 2780 feet (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Grantsville,+MD&hl=en&ll=39.685442,-79.088259&spn=0.009231,0.01929&sll=39.680026,-79.218957&sspn=0.004616,0.009645&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Grantsville,+Garrett,+Maryland&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.685475,-79.088444&panoid=fzntc_-mylIg57J7tOotVQ&cbp=12,142.98,,2,2.5) (also the (for now) unsigned Eastern Continental Divide).
It was signed the last time I was across 68, back in the spring. I usually try to snap a picture every time I pass by there, but the weather often doesn't cooperate.
Quote from: Jim on August 23, 2013, 12:12:46 PM
I've been on I-75 in Florida many, many times and have never noticed an elevation sign.
This one from I-84 in New York is not especially high:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20080608%2Felev970.jpg&hash=21c0f2599a39c3c5ee2bf93a2b6be0b6fcab58b0)
What's hidden on that flip-down (or in this case, looks to be a flip-up) sign?
Quote from: nexus73 on August 23, 2013, 11:58:41 AM
There is a low summit sign on 126 as it passes through the Coast Range in Oregon. I believe the altitude is in the 800's. While that seems "silly low", when winter comes, snow levels of 500 feet get plenty of mention in weather reports so knowing the high spots, even if they are not that high, is important.
The lowest I know of in Oregon is also in the Coast Range. It's on OR 22 further north, and is signed as "SUMMIT COAST RANGE ELE 672" in this Street View image:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=murphy+hill+summit+oregon+18&hl=en&ll=45.095983,-123.743984&spn=0.000994,0.002642&sll=45.049926,-123.78365&sspn=0.000494,0.001321&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=45.096055,-123.743868&panoid=Pk80LM7fD9lXA3nLoPkgXw&cbp=12,214.68,,1,2.06
From Spain. This is roughly 662 feet: https://maps.google.es/maps?ll=42.417849,3.159256&spn=0.008776,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.417865,3.159375&panoid=T7TcMzT1_AugyFQoSc2JQg&cbp=12,346.99,,0,19.82
Quote from: 1 on August 23, 2013, 12:01:40 PM
In Massachusetts, there is a sign for the highest elevation on the Mass Pike, at 1724 feet. It's not as low as the others mentioned, but it's still relatively low, especially since it covers I-90 in several states.
Well, there's added significance in that it's signed as the highest point on 90 east of the Rockies. This always felt counterintuitive to me, but the Appalachians turn far east starting in Pennsylvania, and west of the Hudson 90 follows the low "water level" route across NY, so it makes sense.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 30, 2013, 10:13:49 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 23, 2013, 12:01:40 PM
In Massachusetts, there is a sign for the highest elevation on the Mass Pike, at 1724 feet. It's not as low as the others mentioned, but it's still relatively low, especially since it covers I-90 in several states.
Well, there's added significance in that it's signed as the highest point on 90 east of the Rockies. This always felt counterintuitive to me, but the Appalachians turn far east starting in Pennsylvania, and west of the Hudson 90 follows the low "water level" route across NY, so it makes sense.
At the risk of nitpicking.. Oacoma, South Dakota, where the I-90 climbs above its max elevation in the Berkshires, is very far to the east of the Rockies.
Quote from: Jim on August 30, 2013, 10:27:57 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 30, 2013, 10:13:49 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 23, 2013, 12:01:40 PM
In Massachusetts, there is a sign for the highest elevation on the Mass Pike, at 1724 feet. It's not as low as the others mentioned, but it's still relatively low, especially since it covers I-90 in several states.
Well, there's added significance in that it's signed as the highest point on 90 east of the Rockies. This always felt counterintuitive to me, but the Appalachians turn far east starting in Pennsylvania, and west of the Hudson 90 follows the low "water level" route across NY, so it makes sense.
At the risk of nitpicking.. Oacoma, South Dakota, where the I-90 climbs above its max elevation in the Berkshires, is very far to the east of the Rockies.
I am probably being loose with the details, and it sounds about right that South Dakota is the next highest point west. I'm sure someone has a picture of the sign.
Here's the westbound.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20070830%2Fmasspikehighwb-close.jpg&hash=f38809d82518bb27e5353e31fb2e9a9710e17ad6)
And here's a bit of a view of what Oacoma looks like from I-90 as it climbs west from the Missouri River.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20030719%2Fexit260.jpg&hash=a5a6aea1056207667ee4575affef4d94459e6643)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 31, 2013, 12:35:42 AM
Quote from: Jim on August 30, 2013, 10:27:57 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 30, 2013, 10:13:49 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 23, 2013, 12:01:40 PM
In Massachusetts, there is a sign for the highest elevation on the Mass Pike, at 1724 feet. It's not as low as the others mentioned, but it's still relatively low, especially since it covers I-90 in several states.
Well, there's added significance in that it's signed as the highest point on 90 east of the Rockies. This always felt counterintuitive to me, but the Appalachians turn far east starting in Pennsylvania, and west of the Hudson 90 follows the low "water level" route across NY, so it makes sense.
At the risk of nitpicking.. Oacoma, South Dakota, where the I-90 climbs above its max elevation in the Berkshires, is very far to the east of the Rockies.
I am probably being loose with the details, and it sounds about right that South Dakota is the next highest point west. I'm sure someone has a picture of the sign.
Interestingly, the higher elevation in South Dakota is achieved more through the gradual sloping of the continent from east to west than from any localized ascent. I remember the first time I saw Oacoma, SD and thinking what a letdown it was from my years of seeing the Mass Pike sign.
Quote from: empirestate on August 31, 2013, 11:10:02 AMInterestingly, the higher elevation in South Dakota is achieved more through the gradual sloping of the continent from east to west than from any localized ascent. I remember the first time I saw Oacoma, SD and thinking what a letdown it was from my years of seeing the Mass Pike sign.
Yes, the area as I remember it has grassy, rolling hills but definitely nothing approaching a mountain until you get to the Black Hills well to the west.