AARoads Forum

What's the most common type of sign error you seem to run into? Here are a few I've come up with.
RI: Misuse of shield - directions, arrows, other text included erroneously, or sometimes omitting "R.I." from the state shield.
CT: MA shields for CT routes
NY: Promotion of random highways to US, or the wild inconsistency in how each region signs street names
NJ: Misspellings of street and town names


Go ahead, add to the list, and have fun with it! There's no right or wrong answer.

California has a ton of issues flat out not signing state routes.  Caltrans Districts vary wildly in signage quality and placement.  Signed County Routes tend to exist randomly or not at all in some counties like Tulare. 

Quote from: TBKS1 on January 30, 2018, 12:36:03 AM

Quote from: Alps on January 29, 2018, 11:36:02 PM
What's the most common type of sign error you seem to run into? Here are a few I've come up with.
RI: Misuse of shield - directions, arrows, other text included erroneously, or sometimes omitting "R.I." from the state shield.
CT: MA shields for CT routes
NY: Promotion of random highways to US, or the wild inconsistency in how each region signs street names
NJ: Misspellings of street and town names


Go ahead, add to the list, and have fun with it! There's no right or wrong answer.

Would not posting concurrent roads count? Arkansas has a problem with that.

That is one of my biggest problem with Utah road signs in general. Some of the concurrencies have recently been signed (15/6 and 15/50) but several remain unsigned, such as the I-70/US 50 and the I-80/US 189 concurrencies. UT also occasionally signs US routes with the SR beehive shield, or less commonly signs SRs with US Highway shields.

But the worst thing about UT signage, IMO, is the tremendous inconsistency in SR beehive shield design. The actual design has changed a few times in the past ten years or so. Combine that with various contractor errors and you get at least ten different varieties of beehive shields. In fact, there is a whole thread calledAdventures in Utah Signage (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4045.0), much of which is dedicated to this topic.

RI: not knowing where the fuck their routes even go.

WA: bubble shields (a fad that appears to have passed, luckily). For about a decade or longer, WSDOT seemed to only use bubble shields.

GA: Improperly signing bannered (usually state) routes as mainlines (or, occasionally, the reverse).

Just on I-75 in Cobb County alone, I believe you can find GA 120 Alt signed as regular GA 120, either 120 or 120 Alt (forget which) signed as its former designation of 120 Loop, GA 5 Spur signed as regular GA 5, and regular GA 5 signed as 5 Spur.

Quote from: Alps on January 29, 2018, 11:36:02 PM
NY: Promotion of random highways to US

MA is guilty of doing the opposite; demoting US routes to state routes.

Kentucky: Improper signing of concurrencies.

Is it a sign error when they don't replace a sign that's gone missing! NJ seems to excel in that as well.

While signing is generally clean in Kansas, KDOT and the KTA have a few recurring errors:

*  (Demountable copy era only) Mismatched letter sizes on certain large panel signs (I suspect these are knockdown repairs) (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7911529,-97.3273811,3a,16.2y,17.14h,86.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_B3iPxgoGllX0QRmeGlrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

*  Helvetica digits on knockdown replacements for independent-mount Interstate route markers (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7141773,-97.3998994,3a,18.7y,297.33h,86.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw4EIpBArdnVNCy40SoIbig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

*  20-point sunflower (correct design has 16 points) on KTA infrastructure (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6827443,-97.1870376,3a,16.5y,76.34h,90.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS6AroiKYJWe3d_NMWR1IhA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

*  Helvetica lettering on passing lane signs

*  Sunflowers with hooked petals pointing counterclockwise instead of clockwise (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0170533,-98.4889258,3a,15y,300.51h,88.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skct6BTVcpBTggYOFRaRAHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

*  Bubble three-digit US independent-mount markers (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1946965,-99.3273524,3a,25.1y,368.3h,85.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgTCyHW_VXBvKnZJmMqBmFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

*  Too-tall Series C for three-digit US routes where one of the digits is 1 (often in combination with the previously listed error) (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2874426,-98.5867246,3a,15.1y,43.82h,85.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHlQIIus0LOBSf04RaiiJGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

*  Fluorescent yellow instead of plain yellow for the sunflower (sounds like a minor difference, but is glaringly obvious when the two are mixed in "sign salad" assemblies) (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0170533,-98.4889258,3a,15y,300.51h,88.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skct6BTVcpBTggYOFRaRAHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

*  (Older KDOT TE series standard plan sheets for inclusion with signing plans only) Use of "Burrough" as an example destination along with "Town," "City," "Village," etc.

Edit:  Field examples have been added.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 30, 2018, 10:44:46 AM
Is it a sign error when they don't replace a sign that's gone missing! NJ seems to excel in that as well.

Or never put one in in the first place i.e. missing one way/wrong way signs per this story (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Wrong-Way-Road-Crash-Drive-Accident-Danger-New-Jersey-Sign-Missing-Investigation-Police-423827894.html) and my personal observation of someone turning onto the wrong side of US 130 here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2919245,-74.520845,3a,17y,165.34h,85.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_Aslxs7Y7opMlmlmYQdpvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (which still hasn't been fixed even though I've written to my Assemblyman who is now the chair of the transportation committee).

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 30, 2018, 09:17:18 AM

Quote from: Alps on January 29, 2018, 11:36:02 PM
NY: Promotion of random highways to US

MA is guilty of doing the opposite; demoting US routes to state routes.

NY is famous for it.  It's right up there with state routes signed as US routes.

Oklahoma: Is Oklahoma.

Wait, I'll try that again.

Oklahoma: Fails to apply consistent interline spacing or margins, often resulting in mis-centered text, fails to make sizes and font series consistent from panel to panel.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 30, 2018, 11:38:40 AM
*  20-point sunflower (correct design has 16 points) on KTA infrastructure

Curious to see what this looks like and how an error like that even happens.

Not so much an error per se, but NC is famous for not adding/removing signage after a route change in a timely manner. They do  get around to it eventually, but not soon enough to keep confusion from happening.
There were US-17 signs all the way down Broad St in New Bern for several years after the new Neuse River Bridge replaced the draw bridge back in 1999, for example.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2018, 02:16:10 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 30, 2018, 11:38:40 AM
*  20-point sunflower (correct design has 16 points) on KTA infrastructure

Curious to see what this looks like and how an error like that even happens.

I've edited my post to supply StreetView examples for some of the typical errors, including this one.  Richie Kennedy also has a high-resolution photo that I believe he took during the 2013 Wichita road meet.  As for how it happens, my understanding is that KTA uses FlexiSign (which, unlike SignCAD and GuidSIGN, is not dedicated to traffic signs specifically) for in-house signing work, and I suspect they copy and paste the sawblade element of the design from the Turnpike route marker, which does have 20 points (though I fake it with 16 when I create sign mockups).  Signing work done on the Turnpike under contract is generally done to plans HNTB (KTA's engineering consultant) develops using SignCAD, which has the correct 16-point sawblade available.

Quote from: Alps on January 29, 2018, 11:36:02 PM
NY: Promotion of random highways to US, or the wild inconsistency in how each region signs street names

NC has that too. (Not the stuff with the US routes) The NCSMUTCD (NC supplementary MUTCD) leaves all street name signs up to the municipality or county in which they are in. It also specifically states they are not the responsibility of NCDOT. As a result, street name signs are often signed with the wrong shade of green, arrangement, font, etc. Sometimes even residential developments sign them, my development has them signed in the Impact font in a shade of lime green...

Maybe NYS has this too? I can't check right now if they have a supplementary MUTCD or other thing that says that street name signs are not the responsibility of NYSDOT.

DC (DDOT): They never sign US routes, hardly any routes at that. A lot of Interstate signage there is horrible. One example I found on GSV was Helvetica text on an improperly sized interstate shield, (usually bubble) all on a small object marker sized sign with the wrong shade of green.

MA: Poor signage in cities for state routes, demotion of US routes to state routes (and I-190 to US 190 in Leominster), piss-poor thought in much of the little green signs especially in cities

NH: (Only starting in very recent times) getting US and state routes confused (NH 3 in Manchester, US 3A in Hudson), and the weird quirk of the hyphen/no hyphen variability in all suffixed routes

In Florida is mileage signs consistency.  For example the interstates use usually two point city mileage signs post interchange, except I-75 (the part that opened in 1885 from Tampa to Naples) which uses typically 3 per sign.  Its usually the city or route of the next exit followed by the main control city.  However, when a new interchange is added they forget to update the signs, hence on I-95 in Daytona Beach when the LPGA Blvd. interchange was added.  The sign north of US 92 would use Ormond Beach, as previously the next exit was at SR 40 in Ormond, followed by Jacksonville.  Instead of changing it to include LGPGA Blvd. it got left and copied over to still use both Ormond and Jax.

I-4 has plenty of them, mainly in Lakeland using SR 559 post SR 33 going EB when now SR 570 is the next exit.  Plus when SR 570 opened, no mileage sign was ever installed post interchange at the SR 570 trumpet with I-4 either.

Also in Lakeland west of Exit 31 (Kathleen Road) the sign that was there for years denoting County Line Road as 5 miles as that was the first westbound exit until FL 570 and the WB Exit 28 ramps were added, the sign was not only not updated, but last year when Plant City was added to it giving it a third control city it was never noticed by the engineer who thought of adding Plant City to the mix that the first exit criteria is not anymore met as well.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 30, 2018, 02:42:49 PM
[...]I suspect they copy and paste the sawblade element of the design from the Turnpike route marker, which does have 20 points (though I fake it with 16 when I create sign mockups).

That makes a lot of sense. I would have expected the KTA shield and the K-shield to have the same sunflower too, and probably wouldn't have even thought about counting the points to see if they differed...but I also spend much less time looking at Kansas sign sheets than you. :nod:

Then again, the 16/20-point difference is small potatoes compared to the total loss that is the meat cleaver, of which four varieties were extant within the first year of being posted, so...

Older KTA signage, like Wyoming consistently does, also made the error of using the Type D instead of Type A arrow. It seems like newer installs have corrected this practice, though.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2018, 02:16:10 PM
Oklahoma: Is Oklahoma.

Or rather:

Oklahoma: Is 0^k|a_ho_M^a.

Idaho: Inconsistent signing on urban freeways, particularly in exit only situations. Also there has been a very slow proliferation of incorrect inverted state highway shields in random locations in the last decade.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 31, 2018, 01:11:38 AMThat makes a lot of sense. I would have expected the KTA shield and the K-shield to have the same sunflower too, and probably wouldn't have even thought about counting the points to see if they differed...but I also spend much less time looking at Kansas sign sheets than you. :nod:

As it happens, I didn't pick up on the difference through studying signing sheets--I was taking out-of-the-car high-resolution photos long before plans became available online through KDOT.  And actually the SignCAD version of the Turnpike marker (or whatever it is that HNTB is using to fake it for Turnpike work) has 16 points.  From photos I had known for a long time that the Turnpike marker (or at least one version of it--see below) has 20 points, but it was Richie who spotted the 20 points on the K-96 guide sign shield.  This was a major find.

I've been roaming the Turnpike in StreetView and have reached the tentative conclusion that there are two separate versions of the Turnpike marker:  a 16-point marker that is used in contract work (e.g., the northbound pull-through sign at the Emporia interchange, which was installed under contract about ten years ago) and a 20-point marker that is used for in-house work.  Moreover, it appears that on the 16-point markers (both Turnpike and state route) the top petal points straight out, while on the 20-point markers (again, both Turnpike and state route) it hooks clockwise.

As regards the Kansas state route marker, the Turnpike 20-point version appears to exist in both two- and three-digit widths.  Besides K-96, K-177 (Cassoday) and K-10 (Lecompton/Lawrence) have 20-pointers.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 31, 2018, 01:11:38 AMOlder KTA signage, like Wyoming consistently does, also made the error of using the Type D instead of Type A arrow. It seems like newer installs have corrected this practice, though.

Type A arrow is progress.  I don't think the MUTCD technically requires that they do it, but I really wish KTA would use 30 in rather than 24 in exit tabs and use a border thinner than the main sign border if they choose not to omit the bottom border and square out the appropriate corners of both tab and main sign panel.  Their "Next Exit X Miles" strip panels also have insufficient vertical space padding, and could benefit from the mileage value being at a taller size.

Quote from: Alps on January 29, 2018, 11:36:02 PM
CT: MA shields for CT routes

I've seen about 10 variations of the CT state route shield.  You have the correct white shield with the black outline, the MA shield with the thin black outline, and the ones on the BGS's either white with no outline or button copy with a green background.  There's quite a few in my town that are MA bases with BOLD numbers.  Then you have the CONN 138 shield left, and maybe a couple of state outline early 70's style shields in Fairfield County.  CT's also has a problem of demoting US routes to state routes.  The CT 6 signs along the I-84 duplex in Farmington/West Hartford, the new CT 202 exit sign in Torrington, and I'd imagine there has to be a few CT 1 shields somewhere.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 30, 2018, 02:42:49 PM
Richie Kennedy also has a high-resolution photo [of a guide sign with a 20-point K-96 shield -RPK] that I believe he took during the 2013 Wichita road meet.

Actually, it was June of 2012

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7422/9223621973_143a181e6e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/f44tt4)
43963 (https://flic.kr/p/f44tt4) by Richie Kennedy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/richiekennedy56/), on Flickr

Quote
As for how it happens, my understanding is that KTA uses FlexiSign (which, unlike SignCAD and GuidSIGN, is not dedicated to traffic signs specifically) for in-house signing work, and I suspect they copy and paste the sawblade element of the design from the Turnpike route marker, which does have 20 points (though I fake it with 16 when I create sign mockups).  Signing work done on the Turnpike under contract is generally done to plans HNTB (KTA's engineering consultant) develops using SignCAD, which has the correct 16-point sawblade available.

I think this is the first time I've heard someone other than Chris "Sawblade5" Knight refer to the Kansas state highway marker in this manner  :spin:

Virginia's is getting US, state primary, and state secondary signs confused.

This thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22134.0), particularly starting around Reply #19, has some discussion of the way NY always posts route shields with no directional banner.

So, there's that, to the extent you consider that an error. I think it's an error, even if NYSDOT doesn't  :pan:

Quote from: SectorZ on January 30, 2018, 04:20:00 PM
MA: Poor signage in cities for state routes, demotion of US routes to state routes (and I-190 to US 190 in Leominster), piss-poor thought in much of the little green signs especially in cities.

True.  MA 129 was rerouted through Downtown Lynn nearly 22 years ago but the signage between MA 1A (Broad St.) and MA 129A (Lynnfield St. at Wyoma Square) is either very sparse or flat-out non-existent.

Another common signage error/issue in the Bay State: inconsistent listings of control cities.  It's almost as if the signage/sign replacement contracts are made with little regard to the existing signage beyond the limit-of-work area.

Quote from: webny99 on January 31, 2018, 01:58:55 PM
This thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22134.0), particularly starting around Reply #19, has some discussion of the way NY always posts route shields with no directional banner.

So, there's that, to the extent you consider that an error. I think it's an error, even if NYSDOT doesn't  :pan:

Route shields with no directional banner are all over Southern Illinois.

IL-1 in Hardin County:
(https://i.imgur.com/uNVoM0Q.jpg)

They don't put the banners on at intersections, either. Olney, IL:
(https://i.imgur.com/VCd8R3m.jpg)

Lack of directional banners is very common in Louisiana, especially on the 4 digit & hyphenated routes. Lack of distance & control point directional signs on state and some US routes is also a problem here.

It also seems that the black applied to black & white signs either peels or fades fast.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 30, 2018, 12:32:52 AM
California has a ton of issues flat out not signing state routes.

I'd second this, particularly the legislative requirements that cities/counties continue to sign along relinquished sections of routes.

Other than that, my biggest gripe (especially since California is doing a lot of resigning to add exit numbers/change to reflective green/remove button copy) is the lack of anything regarding layout skills. Not an error per se, but there is no consistency to font size, use of caps vs. small caps vs. mixed case, line spacing, justification, size of shields - hundreds of signs now look like they were designed by a middle-schooler. There are multiple people on this forum who could put Caltrans to shame with the simplicity and elegance of their designs - and likely do it for less money.

Florida: Incorrect color for route directional arrows or banners.

Alabama: Legions of S0UTH directional tabs (that's a zero), scattered all over the state.

Tennessee: Is it a State Primary? Or a Secondary? Where's the consistency?

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 31, 2018, 01:54:54 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 31, 2018, 01:11:38 AMThat makes a lot of sense. I would have expected the KTA shield and the K-shield to have the same sunflower too, and probably wouldn't have even thought about counting the points to see if they differed...but I also spend much less time looking at Kansas sign sheets than you. :nod:

As it happens, I didn't pick up on the difference through studying signing sheets--I was taking out-of-the-car high-resolution photos long before plans became available online through KDOT.  And actually the SignCAD version of the Turnpike marker (or whatever it is that HNTB is using to fake it for Turnpike work) has 16 points.  From photos I had known for a long time that the Turnpike marker (or at least one version of it--see below) has 20 points, but it was Richie who spotted the 20 points on the K-96 guide sign shield.  This was a major find.

I've been roaming the Turnpike in StreetView and have reached the tentative conclusion that there are two separate versions of the Turnpike marker:  a 16-point marker that is used in contract work (e.g., the northbound pull-through sign at the Emporia interchange, which was installed under contract about ten years ago) and a 20-point marker that is used for in-house work.  Moreover, it appears that on the 16-point markers (both Turnpike and state route) the top petal points straight out, while on the 20-point markers (again, both Turnpike and state route) it hooks clockwise.

As it happens, I snagged a photo of the same shield around the same time, and blithely uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons with nary a thought as to the number of points of the sunflower! (Because the Kansas Turnpike is a featured article on Wikipedia, I ensure that it is supported by a large library of media, found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Kansas_Turnpike –as of a couple of years ago, it includes one instance of each exit direction sign.)

Quote from: route56 on January 31, 2018, 01:55:36 PM
I think this is the first time I've heard someone other than Chris "Sawblade5" Knight refer to the Kansas state highway marker in this manner  :spin:

Between the meat cleavers and the sawblades, the signage situation in the Great Plains is rather violent.

MaineDOT is generally good about installing correct signage. Occasionally, you'll find an incorrect directional banner or an upside-down signal ahead graphic sign, but that's rare. One of the most common "error's" I've come across traveling throughout the state are state-named interstate shields used on BGS's, though I'll take that small design error any day of the week...

Quote from: Ian on February 01, 2018, 12:45:44 PM
One of the most common "error's" I've come across traveling throughout the state are state-named interstate shields used on BGS's, though I'll take that small design error any day of the week...

Is that even an error? All of Utah's new interstate shields are state named, no matter where they are installed.

Virginia's big error is to let cities take care of all non freeway routes causing the lack of proper shielding on all numbered state and US highways.  Hence VA Beach with both US 58 and 60 being so poorly signed there.

Oh wait.....Got something better!  US 1 Alternate in Fredericksburg which was decommissioned over 40 years ago still signed on an overhead.  Then US 1 Business still shielded (if there are any left lol) as mainline US 1 as it was when US 1 ALT was in existence.

Quote from: formulanone on January 31, 2018, 07:58:44 PM
Florida: Incorrect color for route directional arrows or banners.

Alabama: Legions of S0UTH directional tabs (that's a zero), scattered all over the state.

Tennessee: Is it a State Primary? Or a Secondary? Where's the consistency?

Tennessee also refuses to sign US/state route concurrencies with interstates, except for occasional random instances.

The main issue with the primary/secondary routes is not the idea but that there seems to be little rhyme or reason to whether a state route is one or the other.  It's not the length or the number: TN-162 is a primary even though it only travels from Knoxville to Maryville.  Neither is it the traffic: TN-332 is a secondary for its entire existence despite being a 4-lane arterial for much of it as well.  Routes can even change status like TN-62 does, which randomly gets demoted to secondary upon entering Knoxville, despite carrying an insane amount of traffic.

Quote from: mrcmc888 on February 03, 2018, 04:23:24 PM

Tennessee also refuses to sign US/state route concurrencies with interstates, except for occasional random instances.

This is true for I-24 across Monteagle Mountain (I know it carries one of the routes, but not sure if it's 41 or 64) and for US 74, which seems to disappear once it reaches I-75, but for the most part I've found Tennessee to be pretty good about signing concurrencies with interstates.

I-75's concurrencies with US 25W and TN 63 in the Caryville area well signed, as are I-26's concurrencies with US 23 and US 19W.

Tennessee does lack in signing state route concurrencies with US routes, and with primary/secondary state concurrencies.

Quote from: hbelkins on February 03, 2018, 04:50:54 PM

Quote from: mrcmc888 on February 03, 2018, 04:23:24 PM

Tennessee also refuses to sign US/state route concurrencies with interstates, except for occasional random instances.

This is true for I-24 across Monteagle Mountain (I know it carries one of the routes, but not sure if it's 41 or 64) and for US 74, which seems to disappear once it reaches I-75, but for the most part I've found Tennessee to be pretty good about signing concurrencies with interstates.

I-75's concurrencies with US 25W and TN 63 in the Caryville area well signed, as are I-26's concurrencies with US 23 and US 19W.

Tennessee does lack in signing state route concurrencies with US routes, and with primary/secondary state concurrencies.

Maybe it's just my area?  US 25W's 6-mile concurrency with I-640 in Knoxville isn't signed at all in the eastbound direction.  SR 58 also is concurrent with I-40 near Kingston, and that is also unsigned.

I-75 for a 5 mile stretch near Chattanooga carries US-11, 64, and 74 (as you noted), and if not for noticing the exits with 11 and 64 entering then exiting the interstate, you'd never know.

It's very contrasting with North Carolina and Virginia which will always sign US/state route concurrencies with interstates.

I assume the reason the I-26/US 23 concurrency is so well signed is because US 23 was already an expressway before I-26 was routed onto it.