Was going through some of my photos for upload to Wikipedia and I noticed this sign has a very minor error.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OK-209_from_US-70.jpg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OK-209_from_US-70.jpg)
Apart from the small arrows which are used about everywhere but Oklahoma, and the fact that the signs aren't really on the assembly straight, and the directional plates are old-style, there is one more very minor error in the fabrication of one these signs. Let's see if anybody besides me can catch it. You would probably have to have looked at the spec or be familiar with shields to catch it. To be more specific, the spec specifically says to not do something that this sign has done.
Have at it, folks :D
I'm guessing it has to do with the 209 sign, the US sign looks right, though a little odd in color.
small segments of state outline between the individual digits.
That's what I was thinking...it just doesn't look that good.
They (the sign installers) could've done a better job installing the signage. It looks very haphazard.
Be well,
Bryant
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 26, 2009, 01:16:51 PM
small segments of state outline between the individual digits.
Very close, but not quite.
:banghead:
I give up....
discontinuous hand-drawn segments that do not actually reflect the correct state border?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 27, 2009, 12:52:06 AM
discontinuous hand-drawn segments that do not actually reflect the correct state border?
No, that's actually "correct"... most signs are like that in OK even if the standard specifies that the southern border be more exact.
eww! why do they do that? Seems like it would be easier to overlay the number on top of the outline and then allow a 1/2 inch (or howevermuch) border extending from the number outward. As opposed to editing out the outline to fit the number then drawing it back in again, horribly.
Hmm, excess number of mounting holes?
Well, that's what they do, really. The gap is 0.3". What I meant is that the "standard" outline without any numbers looks like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oklahoma_State_Highway_blank.svg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oklahoma_State_Highway_blank.svg) – which is a much simpler outline than what the actual standard specifies. But, no, the shape of the outline itself is not what the error is.
All shields in Oklahoma have six mounting holes!
I don't suppose it has anything to do with the reflectivity of the signs, because I can't tell that from that picture - it's not a high enough resolution to discern honeycomb or diamond sheeting.
Getting colder...
use of Series B numbers on a three-digit-wide shield with a three-digit number?
Alas, the standard specifies that!
A white sign when a standard published by a drunken ODOT official specifies turquoise signs? A common mistake.
Lol, no!
The three-digit panel is not centered horizontally between the cardinal direction and the arrow panels?
I'm looking for something specifically wrong with the shield, not the mounting. I'll narrow it down even further and say that it is something wrong with the OK-209 shield.
border width incorrect?
The border is correct.
cleaver border width incorrect?
There's really no standard for the cleaver stroke width... many shields have strokes of that size, many have them twice as wide!
ok. So just to prove I have no life, I went to the ODOT website and downloaded the sign specifications, and made note of the following text in the specifications (edit - if you want to see it for yourself, have at it (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/traffic/traffic99/pdfs/t035e.pdf)):
"STATE OUTLINE IS TO BE REMOVED FROM INSIDE OF TEXT" (Right above this text is an example which conveniently shows a fully-compliant OK-209 shield.)
Thus, the error is that the state outline continues inside the zero.
I still think it should be turquoise, though.
That's it! Here is the applicable section of the standard:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Fforum_img%2Ftextgap.png&hash=7d9bceff9394d90063ca00f5ec321d3f03a9cad5)
I didn't even notice the example shield was a 209 until you pointed it out!
How the hell were we supposed to know that without delving deep into the archives? SCOTT... :confused: :paranoid: :banghead:
Well, the question was mainly for the roadgeeks who are from around here/visit here frequently and see the correct signage regularly, so that it would look wrong to them. I wasn't really expecting people from Minnesota to try and guess it! :-P
Although I don't have the pictures 2 show them, I recall 1 (c.late 1960's or so) of a road sign that was suppose 2 say, "Watch For Slow Trucks," but the r + u were switched around so the word read "Turks." Another 1 in recent years said, "Traffic Must Yield To Pedestrians," the i + e switched around 2 read "Yeild." :coffee:
I've seen a "STOP AHAED" sign before (A and E transposed), as well as the same error painted on the pavement. :ded:
Speaking of pedestrians...
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ri/us_1/trains.jpg (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ri/us_1/trains.jpg) - this is in front of a TRAIN station!
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2009, 10:02:18 PM
Well, the question was mainly for the roadgeeks who are from around here/visit here frequently and see the correct signage regularly, so that it would look wrong to them. I wasn't really expecting people from Minnesota to try and guess it! :-P
I see meat cleavers almost every day but I've never even noticed the border wasn't supposed to go through the 0. Shows how closely I pay attention.