Apologies if this should go to the Pacific Southwest section, but I figured it's more of a question that applies nationally.
Is California the only state that has city limits signs with the population AND elevation? Been all over, and I *think* California is the only place I've seen that consistently uses elevation on their city signs.
It's fine here - renaming topic to neutralize --SSO
I've seen Arizona use elevation signs. They were not at city limits. Instead, they said "7000 feet" and "6000 feet". (This was between Flagstaff and Sedona.)
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 19, 2015, 02:49:40 PM
and I *think* California is the only place I've seen that consistently uses elevation on their city signs.
Colorado uses elevations, but not populations on their signs.
I always thought elevations on city limit signs were a bit useless, particularly for larger cities - as an example, Los Angeles City Hall is at 300 feet or so, but the elevation within the city limits ranges from sea level to over 5,000 feet, and the city limit signs are very rarely near the city hall elevation - consider US-101 at Woodland Hills, 24 miles away from City Hall, at an actual elevation of 900 feet or so, posting an elevation of 300 feet on the sign (I actually think that particular sign lists something in the 200s - not sure where that measurement comes from).
I don't think posting populations is really necessary.
CA wanted to show travelers how "big" their cities are, CA has the most cities with over 10,000 and 100,000 people than any state. My hometown's sign for Indio shows it has 76,000 residents (as of 2010) and -14 feet (yes, below sea level) in the Salton trough (a depression extending into Mexicali on the US-Mexican border). Palm Desert's sign reads 50,000 residents and 240 feet above sea level, and Palm Springs has 50,000 as well, at 490 feet above sea level. There's two "sea level" signs on CA 111 and I-10 east on Monroe Street in Indio.
Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois put population on their signs. Iowa and Michigan don't.
Arizona has multiple ways of posting city limit signs (Not sure why but they have the really big one vs a smaller one - is one replacing the other?)
Interestingly, if an area is unicorporated in Illinois, it will occasionally get a sign. The areas of Flowerfield near Lombard and Wasco near Camton Hills come to mind, although population is not posted on signs for unincorporated areas.
Quote from: ajlynch91 on March 08, 2015, 09:26:22 PM
Interestingly, if an area is unicorporated in Illinois, it will occasionally get a sign. The areas of Flowerfield near Lombard and Wasco near Camton Hills come to mind, although population is not posted on signs for unincorporated areas.
In WI, it will say "UNINCORPORATED" instead of saying the population.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 19, 2015, 02:49:40 PM
Is California the only state that has city limits signs with the population AND elevation?
No. Wyoming does (don't know why).
Quote from: 1 on February 19, 2015, 04:16:58 PM
I've seen Arizona use elevation signs. They were not at city limits. Instead, they said "7000 feet" and "6000 feet". (This was between Flagstaff and Sedona.)
Arizona is fond of including year of founding, but not population, on its signs (not my pic):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frvtravel.com%2Fblog%2Frvnow%2Fuploaded_images%2Fquarts-sign-729723.jpg&hash=c9bbe6fc5d9882227cfad96078502cff4278d8c9)
Texas is starting to phase out population on its city limit signs. The new ones I've seen put up in the last few months just has the city and CITY LIMIT.
Putting the population on the signs seems kind of silly unless you use a round number that's obviously an estimate, simply because that sort of information changes so often (unless it's to be assumed the number reflects the last census, though I'd presume most people seeing the signs don't realize that).
Virginia used to put the population on some BGSs on Interstates but stopped in part because the information wasn't useful.
A better test for whether a place is totally insignificant might be whether the town has a McDonald's! No McDonald's means utter backwater given their ubiquity.
MA and CT always put the year the city/town was established, but never the population.
In RI it seems random if the town line gets a sign at all.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 09, 2015, 07:48:59 AM
Putting the population on the signs seems kind of silly unless you use a round number that's obviously an estimate, simply because that sort of information changes so often (unless it's to be assumed the number reflects the last census, though I'd presume most people seeing the signs don't realize that).
An old joke/cartoon would feature somebody approaching a population sign and continually crossing out and entering different population numbers while one hears a constant shooting or sees thick smoke in the background.
Quote from: Beeper1 on March 09, 2015, 09:04:55 AM
MA and CT always put the year the city/town was established, but never the population.
In RI it seems random if the town line gets a sign at all.
Most communities in MA have both an established date (EST) and an incorporation date (INC). Current MassDOT practice is to use the incorporation date on town line signs on secondary highways unless a community requests the established date be used for historical reasons. However, there a number of older signs that still use the EST date.
Here in Alabama, I haven't seen the population nor the elevation posted on the city/town limits signs. I do believe I have seen "unincorporated" on the town limits signs for unincorporated towns.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 09, 2015, 07:48:59 AM
Putting the population on the signs seems kind of silly unless you use a round number that's obviously an estimate, simply because that sort of information changes so often (unless it's to be assumed the number reflects the last census, though I'd presume most people seeing the signs don't realize that).
Virginia used to put the population on some BGSs on Interstates but stopped in part because the information wasn't useful.
A better test for whether a place is totally insignificant might be whether the town has a McDonald's! No McDonald's means utter backwater given their ubiquity.
That part about Virginia putting population on BGS is interesting. I've never seen that. Do you happen to have pictures of any, 1995hoo?
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 09, 2015, 11:26:44 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 09, 2015, 07:48:59 AM
Putting the population on the signs seems kind of silly unless you use a round number that's obviously an estimate, simply because that sort of information changes so often (unless it's to be assumed the number reflects the last census, though I'd presume most people seeing the signs don't realize that).
Virginia used to put the population on some BGSs on Interstates but stopped in part because the information wasn't useful.
A better test for whether a place is totally insignificant might be whether the town has a McDonald's! No McDonald's means utter backwater given their ubiquity.
That part about Virginia putting population on BGS is interesting. I've never seen that. Do you happen to have pictures of any, 1995hoo?
I do not but I can get one later today or tomorrow.
Edited to add: Here is one that was posted in another thread on this forum. Since it's already been posted on this site, I don't see any reason not to embed it again here. The picture is from the Capital Beltway (I-495) near Tysons Corner sometime in the 1960s. (If you want to see roughly the same location today, click here: https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia495/i-495_il_exit_047_06.jpg )
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs4.postimg.org%2Fka8jsje25%2Fold_sign.jpg&hash=6e39a796f03de8d0a6e1276c67d4ae8691df2c22)
You can find that photo, and a massive treasure trove of other old road sign photos from the 1960s (including other Virginia BGSs showing population), at the following link. It's a transcript of Congressional hearings from 1968 regarding how to improve road signs. Funny thing is, a lot of the same driver misbehavior goes on around here today.
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000017394611;view=1up;seq=3
Interesting! I was unaware population ever made it to BGS. Thanks for posting.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 09, 2015, 04:19:32 PM
Interesting! I was unaware population ever made it to BGS. Thanks for posting.
If you click the link at the end of my post and go to page 446, you'll find the congressmen very briefly discussing whether population information belongs on a BGS. They were discussing a different BGS located on the Beltway at what was then Exit 1 for US-1 to Alexandria (now Exit 177). They felt the information was unnecessary.
Quote from: roadman on March 09, 2015, 10:25:37 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on March 09, 2015, 09:04:55 AM
MA and CT always put the year the city/town was established, but never the population.
In RI it seems random if the town line gets a sign at all.
Most communities in MA have both an established date (EST) and an incorporation date (INC). Current MassDOT practice is to use the incorporation date on town line signs on secondary highways unless a community requests the established date be used for historical reasons. However, there a number of older signs that still use the EST date.
MA uses the white paddle sign, and even reciprocates for border towns in surrounding states. CT uses lgs's. On secondary roads it has 'town, year of incorporation, and town/city line". On expressways, it will just have "town, next xx exits, town/city line" I saw my first Clearview town line sign today on CT 64 on the Waterbury line :-/
Arkansas only shows population. Louisiana has CORP LIMIT or COMMUNITY underneath the town name.
In the eastern US, you might get a "date founded", as already mentioned.
Ontario uses population signs for cities, at least along 400-series highways. Some of them have quite large populations, especially in the Golden Horseshoe.
Wyoming!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fwy%2F16%2F31to20%2F2.jpg&hash=230f880a7b4d9e6c7352dc7693de669ea022ed40)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fwy%2F25buffalo%2F90to90buffalo%2F3.jpg&hash=17f35a3c19e1057f3f7fe6d65617fba8a29a203d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fwy%2F24%2Fsdto111%2F4.jpg&hash=eb843443f107943d2d632f73595d88e01bf5a9c1)
and so forth. Unincorporated communities only show the elevation:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fwy%2F220%2F287to487%2F4.jpg&hash=7e59f7610546a4d17cc2dc56550268c407b19597)
Quote from: corco on March 09, 2015, 07:40:01 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fwy%2F24%2Fsdto111%2F4.jpg&hash=eb843443f107943d2d632f73595d88e01bf5a9c1)
Forgive me but why even list a population for a number that small (or exact)? Such is too
subject to change.
Quote from: ajlynch91 on March 08, 2015, 09:26:22 PM
Interestingly, if an area is unicorporated in Illinois, it will occasionally get a sign. The areas of Flowerfield near Lombard and Wasco near Camton Hills come to mind, although population is not posted on signs for unincorporated areas.
Not only that, but the number on Illinois ones is just the population, no "POP:" or "POPULATION:" in front of it. Just the number. And, they may or may not be at the actual municipal boundary. Plus, did I mention that they are
never posted on freeways?
Quote from: Road Hog on March 09, 2015, 02:22:05 AM
Texas is starting to phase out population on its city limit signs. The new ones I've seen put up in the last few months just has the city and CITY LIMIT.
It means so little with suburbs and the fact that population is outdated so quickly.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 10, 2015, 01:25:05 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on March 09, 2015, 02:22:05 AM
Texas is starting to phase out population on its city limit signs. The new ones I've seen put up in the last few months just has the city and CITY LIMIT.
It means so little with suburbs and the fact that population is outdated so quickly.
In Illinois, that just means a greenout job with the new population after a special census. And when in high-growth mode, many municipalities will conduct special censuses often.
Quote from: Big John on March 08, 2015, 09:34:43 PM
Quote from: ajlynch91 on March 08, 2015, 09:26:22 PM
Interestingly, if an area is unicorporated in Illinois, it will occasionally get a sign. The areas of Flowerfield near Lombard and Wasco near Camton Hills come to mind, although population is not posted on signs for unincorporated areas.
In WI, it will say "UNINCORPORATED" instead of saying the population.
In Minnesota they'll just put up a sign with the name of the town and no population number if the place is unincorporated.
You would think in this day and age that if a state or city is going to put up a BGS with a population listed they would at least use an LED display to show it so it can be updated.
Then again, seeing how electronic warning signs get jacked by script kiddies with too much time on their hands...maybe not.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 10, 2015, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: corco on March 09, 2015, 07:40:01 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fwy%2F24%2Fsdto111%2F4.jpg&hash=eb843443f107943d2d632f73595d88e01bf5a9c1)
Forgive me but why even list a population for a number that small (or exact)? Such is too subject to change.
Because why not?
I didn't even know Aladdin was incorporated.
Quote from: SD Mapman on March 10, 2015, 09:25:43 PM
I didn't even know Aladdin was incorporated.
Perhaps it was one of the three wishes that the genie granted.
Quote from: cjk374 on March 09, 2015, 06:59:24 PM
Arkansas only shows population. Louisiana has CORP LIMIT or COMMUNITY underneath the town name.
Mississippi follows suit with Louisiana with Corp Limit
An incorporated place with only 15 residents? Why bother being incorporated?
Quote from: hbelkins on March 11, 2015, 12:13:42 PM
An incorporated place with only 15 residents? Why bother being incorporated?
NJ's smallest incorporated borough - Tavistock - has 5 residents. It's about a 1/4 square mile in size. Tying this to another recent thread, the borough was started in order to escape a blue law which prohibited golf on Sundays in its former town. Tavistock also has a school district, which doesn't have any students.
Always thought this placement of the Placentia, CA city limit sign was interesting:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Placentia,+CA&hl=en&ll=33.857676,-117.875769&spn=0.005898,0.009677&sll=40.776608,-111.920485&sspn=0.17107,0.309677&oq=plac&t=h&hnear=Placentia,+Orange+County,+California&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.857762,-117.875801&panoid=A2AAZvDW9FvUDTj4TfhSAQ&cbp=12,78.05,,0,9.12
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2015, 02:05:35 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 10, 2015, 01:25:05 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on March 09, 2015, 02:22:05 AM
Texas is starting to phase out population on its city limit signs. The new ones I've seen put up in the last few months just has the city and CITY LIMIT.
It means so little with suburbs and the fact that population is outdated so quickly.
In Illinois, that just means a greenout job with the new population after a special census. And when in high-growth mode, many municipalities will conduct special censuses often.
I think the idea is to save money by not sending out crews to change the numbers.
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2015, 01:23:04 PM
Quote from: ajlynch91 on March 08, 2015, 09:26:22 PM
Interestingly, if an area is unicorporated in Illinois, it will occasionally get a sign. The areas of Flowerfield near Lombard and Wasco near Camton Hills come to mind, although population is not posted on signs for unincorporated areas.
Not only that, but the number on Illinois ones is just the population, no "POP:" or "POPULATION:" in front of it. Just the number. And, they may or may not be at the actual municipal boundary. Plus, did I mention that they are never posted on freeways?
or - for Chicago - ANY road?
Speaking of Chicago
Some cities have their own method of posting. NYC (each boro), Madison, WI, LA and SF come to mind.
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 11, 2015, 09:54:23 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2015, 01:23:04 PM
Quote from: ajlynch91 on March 08, 2015, 09:26:22 PM
Interestingly, if an area is unicorporated in Illinois, it will occasionally get a sign. The areas of Flowerfield near Lombard and Wasco near Camton Hills come to mind, although population is not posted on signs for unincorporated areas.
Not only that, but the number on Illinois ones is just the population, no "POP:" or "POPULATION:" in front of it. Just the number. And, they may or may not be at the actual municipal boundary. Plus, did I mention that they are never posted on freeways?
or - for Chicago - ANY road?
One exception:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2Fi90eastcloseup.jpg&hash=2d6e8706da01a04466902c27130d272e1350e724) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/i90eastcloseup.jpg.html)
The Chicago Skyway at the Indiana State Line. Granted, Chicago is mentioned, not Illinois.
Too lazy to go downstairs to the computer and link to GSV... but...
My recollection from driving in Mexico is that towns and cities list the population on the city limit sign. Unincorporated locales (properly called ejidos, but referred to as ranchos in the region I travel regularly to), however, just list the name with no population figure. Some of those signs are even green ones with a state seal on them, but only the locale's name; others are simple white signs just big enough for the words.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 10, 2015, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: corco on March 09, 2015, 07:40:01 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fwy%2F24%2Fsdto111%2F4.jpg&hash=eb843443f107943d2d632f73595d88e01bf5a9c1)
Forgive me but why even list a population for a number that small (or exact)? Such is too subject to change.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.washingtonpost.com%2Frecession-road%2FsSignSND.jpg&hash=d9ca8a0f7611eaedb86bf790497ec2bdbe5e76e4)
It's now 4 on GSV. When I was driven through there 14 years ago, it was 3.
I wonder what happens if that person moves away but doesn't sell the house for a few years...
Quote from: Brandon on March 11, 2015, 11:57:02 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 11, 2015, 09:54:23 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2015, 01:23:04 PM
Quote from: ajlynch91 on March 08, 2015, 09:26:22 PM
Interestingly, if an area is unicorporated in Illinois, it will occasionally get a sign. The areas of Flowerfield near Lombard and Wasco near Camton Hills come to mind, although population is not posted on signs for unincorporated areas.
Not only that, but the number on Illinois ones is just the population, no "POP:" or "POPULATION:" in front of it. Just the number. And, they may or may not be at the actual municipal boundary. Plus, did I mention that they are never posted on freeways?
or - for Chicago - ANY road?
One exception:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2Fi90eastcloseup.jpg&hash=2d6e8706da01a04466902c27130d272e1350e724) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/i90eastcloseup.jpg.html)
The Chicago Skyway at the Indiana State Line. Granted, Chicago is mentioned, not Illinois.
Except that one - which Might I say C-Dot put in on the Chicago Skyway (a Chicago owned road).
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 09, 2015, 09:32:14 AM
An old joke/cartoon would feature somebody approaching a population sign and continually crossing out and entering different population numbers while one hears a constant shooting or sees thick smoke in the background.
I remember one that involved the sound of a baby crying.
I thought Missouri posted the population on their signs if it wasn't an interstate, but if it was an interstate, they did not. Perhaps it's easier to not list the population if the road enters a city like Kansas City multiple times, as I-29 does.
Nebraska is another state which has unincorporated listed for population if a place is unincorporated.
Ontario along the QEW uses the population of the town or city if it has multiple exits.
Instead of using, lets say Niagara Falls for instance saying Niagara Falls next X Exits it reads Niagara Falls Population C followed by X Interchanges.
Quote from: DandyDan on March 15, 2015, 05:21:30 AM
I thought Missouri posted the population on their signs if it wasn't an interstate, but if it was an interstate, they did not. Perhaps it's easier to not list the population if the road enters a city like Kansas City multiple times, as I-29 does.
Nebraska is another state which has unincorporated listed for population if a place is unincorporated.
Even that's hit or miss. The city limit sign for Kansas City on I-70 West just after the Blue Ridge Boulevard exit does have population on it. Yet the ones I've seen for KC on I-29, I-49, I-435 and I-470 don't.
Quote from: Ray_Stantz on March 11, 2015, 05:12:36 PM
Always thought this placement of the Placentia, CA city limit sign was interesting:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Placentia,+CA&hl=en&ll=33.857676,-117.875769&spn=0.005898,0.009677&sll=40.776608,-111.920485&sspn=0.17107,0.309677&oq=plac&t=h&hnear=Placentia,+Orange+County,+California&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.857762,-117.875801&panoid=A2AAZvDW9FvUDTj4TfhSAQ&cbp=12,78.05,,0,9.12
I want to say I've seen this done elsewhere, but can't exactly place where, I think there is signage like that along the 22 freeway, and the 10 out near Ontario airport. I'll try to verify next time I'm on either.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 17, 2015, 02:14:15 PM
Quote from: Ray_Stantz on March 11, 2015, 05:12:36 PM
Always thought this placement of the Placentia, CA city limit sign was interesting:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Placentia,+CA&hl=en&ll=33.857676,-117.875769&spn=0.005898,0.009677&sll=40.776608,-111.920485&sspn=0.17107,0.309677&oq=plac&t=h&hnear=Placentia,+Orange+County,+California&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.857762,-117.875801&panoid=A2AAZvDW9FvUDTj4TfhSAQ&cbp=12,78.05,,0,9.12
I want to say I've seen this done elsewhere, but can't exactly place where, I think there is signage like that along the 22 freeway, and the 10 out near Ontario airport. I'll try to verify next time I'm on either.
You may be thinking of CA91 in Cerritos:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.862303,-118.042197&spn=0.000667,0.000579&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=33.862303,-118.042197&panoid=XthSpuS6Sj-fD0c2EH633g&cbp=12,355.68,,0,14.52
Quote from: MarkF on March 21, 2015, 01:20:31 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 17, 2015, 02:14:15 PM
Quote from: Ray_Stantz on March 11, 2015, 05:12:36 PM
Always thought this placement of the Placentia, CA city limit sign was interesting:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Placentia,+CA&hl=en&ll=33.857676,-117.875769&spn=0.005898,0.009677&sll=40.776608,-111.920485&sspn=0.17107,0.309677&oq=plac&t=h&hnear=Placentia,+Orange+County,+California&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.857762,-117.875801&panoid=A2AAZvDW9FvUDTj4TfhSAQ&cbp=12,78.05,,0,9.12
I want to say I've seen this done elsewhere, but can't exactly place where, I think there is signage like that along the 22 freeway, and the 10 out near Ontario airport. I'll try to verify next time I'm on either.
You may be thinking of CA91 in Cerritos:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.862303,-118.042197&spn=0.000667,0.000579&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=33.862303,-118.042197&panoid=XthSpuS6Sj-fD0c2EH633g&cbp=12,355.68,,0,14.52
In both of those instances, it appears that if the sign is placed on the exact city limit line, there isn't sufficient room to put the sign on a post facing traffic without encroaching over the roadway. In both cases though, it seems like there is a nearby spot that would be "close enough" (like if you just stuck it on the overpass).
EDIT: Removed my reply from quoted material.
Quote from: MarkF on March 21, 2015, 01:20:31 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 17, 2015, 02:14:15 PM
Quote from: Ray_Stantz on March 11, 2015, 05:12:36 PM
Always thought this placement of the Placentia, CA city limit sign was interesting:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Placentia,+CA&hl=en&ll=33.857676,-117.875769&spn=0.005898,0.009677&sll=40.776608,-111.920485&sspn=0.17107,0.309677&oq=plac&t=h&hnear=Placentia,+Orange+County,+California&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.857762,-117.875801&panoid=A2AAZvDW9FvUDTj4TfhSAQ&cbp=12,78.05,,0,9.12
Yes! That was it. 91 in Cerritos. Thanks!
I want to say I've seen this done elsewhere, but can't exactly place where, I think there is signage like that along the 22 freeway, and the 10 out near Ontario airport. I'll try to verify next time I'm on either.
You may be thinking of CA91 in Cerritos:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.862303,-118.042197&spn=0.000667,0.000579&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=33.862303,-118.042197&panoid=XthSpuS6Sj-fD0c2EH633g&cbp=12,355.68,,0,14.52
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 08, 2015, 08:45:21 PM
Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois put population on their signs. Iowa and Michigan don't.
Arizona has multiple ways of posting city limit signs (Not sure why but they have the really big one vs a smaller one - is one replacing the other?)
The smaller signs are on freeways as they enter the city limits or town limits. The bigger signs that have year of founding and elevation are usually found on state and US highways approaching the city limits.
I did take a trip to Sedona last week and noticed that going northbound on AZ 89A, the sign entering Sedona was a freeway-style sign saying "Sedona City Limits" even though this section of 89A isn't a freeway.
Quote from: MarkF on March 21, 2015, 01:20:31 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 17, 2015, 02:14:15 PM
Quote from: Ray_Stantz on March 11, 2015, 05:12:36 PM
Always thought this placement of the Placentia, CA city limit sign was interesting:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Placentia,+CA&hl=en&ll=33.857676,-117.875769&spn=0.005898,0.009677&sll=40.776608,-111.920485&sspn=0.17107,0.309677&oq=plac&t=h&hnear=Placentia,+Orange+County,+California&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.857762,-117.875801&panoid=A2AAZvDW9FvUDTj4TfhSAQ&cbp=12,78.05,,0,9.12
I want to say I've seen this done elsewhere, but can't exactly place where, I think there is signage like that along the 22 freeway, and the 10 out near Ontario airport. I'll try to verify next time I'm on either.
You may be thinking of CA91 in Cerritos:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.862303,-118.042197&spn=0.000667,0.000579&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=33.862303,-118.042197&panoid=XthSpuS6Sj-fD0c2EH633g&cbp=12,355.68,,0,14.52
Nice. LA County Line sign too.
Quote from: roadfro on March 24, 2015, 10:13:13 PM
Quote from: MarkF on March 21, 2015, 01:20:31 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 17, 2015, 02:14:15 PM
Quote from: Ray_Stantz on March 11, 2015, 05:12:36 PM
Always thought this placement of the Placentia, CA city limit sign was interesting:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Placentia,+CA&hl=en&ll=33.857676,-117.875769&spn=0.005898,0.009677&sll=40.776608,-111.920485&sspn=0.17107,0.309677&oq=plac&t=h&hnear=Placentia,+Orange+County,+California&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.857762,-117.875801&panoid=A2AAZvDW9FvUDTj4TfhSAQ&cbp=12,78.05,,0,9.12
I want to say I've seen this done elsewhere, but can't exactly place where, I think there is signage like that along the 22 freeway, and the 10 out near Ontario airport. I'll try to verify next time I'm on either.
You may be thinking of CA91 in Cerritos:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.862303,-118.042197&spn=0.000667,0.000579&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=33.862303,-118.042197&panoid=XthSpuS6Sj-fD0c2EH633g&cbp=12,355.68,,0,14.52
In both of those instances, it appears that if the sign is placed on the exact city limit line, there isn't sufficient room to put the sign on a post facing traffic without encroaching over the roadway. In both cases though, it seems like there is a nearby spot that would be "close enough" (like if you just stuck it on the overpass).
EDIT: Removed my reply from quoted material.
However, the L.A. County/Cerritos city limit signs are not exactly placed; they should be even with the pedestrian overcrossing about 200 feet to the east.
The Orange County sign on the eastbound lanes is more accurately placed; interestingly, there's no sign for the La Palma city limits.
Interesting tidbit: the two pocket parks on either side of the freeway at that location are maintained by the city of Cerritos (and are only directly accessible through those neighborhoods, which are all in Cerritos), but are actually in the city of La Palma, Orange County.
So who has an example of a city limit sign that's way off from the actual city limits? This one is about 3/4 mile off:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Los+Gatos,+CA/@37.252134,-121.937192,3a,75y,283.63h,70.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjzWZhpfGcURPx6ubMRY1gA!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x808e34365377033f:0xef675301ac748ca6!6m1!1e1
On roads with no controlled access, Wisconsin puts the population on its signs. On freeways, it will just say "City of X" or "Village of X" on a bigger sign