Connecticut's signs at town and city lines are boring.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fconnecticut%2Fimages%2Fplainvillect0910.jpg&hash=d23e22eccce0f45a24ba65e563c1ed5103908caf)
But there are cool interpretive signs in the centers of cities & towns.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/WestonCT_Sign_Front.JPG)
Still, I've liked the Mass. signs ever since I can remember. They even have the same design for the town line when you leave Massachusetts.
I think this is because they are two sided and on this particular sign the other side is for Seekonk, Mass.
(https://u.realgeeks.media/realtyne/IMG_1834.JPG)
Massachusetts town line signs normally have the year the city/town was established.
Quote from: 1 on June 30, 2018, 08:08:26 AM
Massachusetts town line signs normally have the year the city/town was established.
It was too hard for someone to Google (or whatever before Google) the year E Providence was established on that sign.
The Mass ones are actually nice and pretty unique. Worst are the Vermont ones that you can barely see most of the time, second worst are the NH beanpole ones that frequently blends in with surrounding brush.
They don't have the year because E Providence is in RI.
Quote from: jon daly on June 30, 2018, 09:49:32 AM
They don't have the year because E Providence is in RI.
Well aware of that. They can still not be dicks about it and put it on there. It's easy enough to find out. It looks half-assed.
Quote from: jon daly on June 29, 2018, 10:45:46 PM
Connecticut's signs at town and city lines are boring.
Not all of CT's border signs are boring IMHO.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fconnecticut%2Fimages%2Fandoverct0812a.jpg&hash=e05d36fa4bde1bd055db7b5a999522c5b1703dda)
Is that one from the town line or is it in the town center? Those are more interesting and often have a red square on them which indicates the approximate location of the sign within Connecticut. I think most non-town named places also have a sign (E.g. Old Mystic.)
Quote from: SectorZ on June 30, 2018, 06:45:22 PM
Quote from: jon daly on June 30, 2018, 09:49:32 AM
They don't have the year because E Providence is in RI.
Well aware of that. They can still not be d*cks about it and put it on there.
Do other states provide similar info. on signs for adjacent towns/cities in neighboring states?
Quote from: SectorZ on June 30, 2018, 06:45:22 PMIt's easy enough to find out.
Yes & no. For many years, MA used to place the year that the town was settled on their
bookleaf style signs. Newer installs now use the year that the town was actually incorporated.
Example: the
ENTERING MARBLEHEAD sign along MA 114 (Lafayette St.) at the Salem border (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4963137,-70.8860452,3a,75y,140.53h,90.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3Hgi8V9qkC2Vz7Hfwb6hSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) lists an establishment date of 1629 for Marblehead (the year it was settled) whereas the similar-type sign along MA 129 (Atlantic Ave.) at the Swampscott border (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4789138,-70.8800867,3a,75y,38.15h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svxeLITOh56pa3E1XcfVutw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) lists an incorporated date of 1649 for Marblehead.
So if a state can't get the establishment dates of
their own towns correct/consistent; how does one expect them to do such for towns in neighboring states?
Quote from: jon daly on July 03, 2018, 10:27:43 AM
Is that one from the town line or is it in the town center? Those are more interesting and often have a red square on them which indicates the approximate location of the sign within Connecticut. I think most non-town named places also have a sign (E.g. Old Mystic.)
The site that has that photo didn't specify (& I couldn't find it via GSV). I do know (but couldn't find an image of one) that similar signs at the town borders used to have the word
Entering (some even had
Leaving where applicable) on the top of those outline border signs.
Current MassDOT practice is to normally use the incorporation date (INC) for cities and towns for new or replacement 'bookleaf' signs, unless a city or town requests the established date (EST) be used on these signs instead.
Interesting, roadman.
I forgot to mention this earlier, but I grew up near Ellington Ave on the Ellington/Vernon town line in Connecticut. There was a really old wooden sign indicating that you were entering Ellington. I'm assuming it didn't get replaced for years because it was a town maintained road instead of a state road. (Usually, those border crossings are unsigned, IIRC.) I'm going home tomorrow and I'll keep an eye out for that sign.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 03, 2018, 10:31:19 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 30, 2018, 06:45:22 PM
Quote from: jon daly on June 30, 2018, 09:49:32 AM
They don't have the year because E Providence is in RI.
Well aware of that. They can still not be d*cks about it and put it on there.
Do other states provide similar info. on signs for adjacent towns/cities in neighboring states?
Quote from: SectorZ on June 30, 2018, 06:45:22 PMIt's easy enough to find out.
Yes & no. For many years, MA used to place the year that the town was settled on their bookleaf style signs. Newer installs now use the year that the town was actually incorporated.
Example: the ENTERING MARBLEHEAD sign along MA 114 (Lafayette St.) at the Salem border (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4963137,-70.8860452,3a,75y,140.53h,90.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3Hgi8V9qkC2Vz7Hfwb6hSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) lists an establishment date of 1629 for Marblehead (the year it was settled) whereas the similar-type sign along MA 129 (Atlantic Ave.) at the Swampscott border (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4789138,-70.8800867,3a,75y,38.15h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svxeLITOh56pa3E1XcfVutw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) lists an incorporated date of 1649 for Marblehead.
So if a state can't get the establishment dates of their own towns correct/consistent; how does one expect them to do such for towns in neighboring states?
NH gives me the same info coming back into Mass as they give for their own towns.
The info on getting the date right is as easy as picking up the phone and calling someone who works for that town/city. That's a very low expectation to assume someone can't do that. Google and wikipedia give you the answers without picking up the phone these days. I get the scattered standards for dates within our own state though.
And hell, https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7120811,-71.9285403,3a,36y,336.61h,91.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8W_8jv9Vayp-cMsS6_6Sbg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664, Massachusetts doesn't even have the correct NH town on this sign.
Quote from: SectorZ on July 03, 2018, 03:43:41 PMNH gives me the same info coming back into Mass as they give for their own towns.
Based on the GSV example you posted along with a few others (non-expressways) at different locations; there are very few NH-style
town border signs (green & shaped like an inverted home plate) posted along the MA border. State border signs (i.e.
Welcome to New Hampshire signs), yes for some locations; but not so much on town border signs. I guess NH figured that the MA-bookleaf signs were sufficient. Additionally, none of the NH-style town border signs that are posted include into. for motorists entering into the neighboring MA town.
Side bar: along US 1 at the Salisbury/Seabrook border, the MA bookleaf
ENTERING SEABROOK NEW HAMPSHIRE sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8737793,-70.8700616,3a,75y,28.28h,76.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh5838m8encg66SQAr6kn1w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) includes the NH State Seal.
Quote from: SectorZ on July 03, 2018, 03:43:41 PMAnd hell, https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7120811,-71.9285403,3a,36y,336.61h,91.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8W_8jv9Vayp-cMsS6_6Sbg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664, Massachusetts doesn't even have the correct NH town on this sign.
Granted the GSV you posted is old (2008) & blurred but Rindge, NH is indeed the correct town for that location along MA/NH 119.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 03, 2018, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 03, 2018, 03:43:41 PMAnd hell, https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7120811,-71.9285403,3a,36y,336.61h,91.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8W_8jv9Vayp-cMsS6_6Sbg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664, Massachusetts doesn't even have the correct NH town on this sign.
Granted the GSV you posted is old (2008) & blurred but Rindge, NH is indeed the correct town for that location along MA/NH 119.
New Ipswich for 300 feet, then into Rindge.
Quote from: SectorZ on June 30, 2018, 06:45:22 PM
Quote from: jon daly on June 30, 2018, 09:49:32 AM
They don't have the year because E Providence is in RI.
Well aware of that. They can still not be dicks about it and put it on there. It's easy enough to find out. It looks half-assed.
The practice of not putting the year or seal on the border state town signs extends well before the likes of Google, or AltaVista, for that matter.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 03, 2018, 10:07:35 AM
Quote from: jon daly on June 29, 2018, 10:45:46 PM
Connecticut's signs at town and city lines are boring.
Not all of CT's border signs are boring IMHO.
Virtually all of those are along the edges of villages, not at town lines.
Rounding out New England...
-When Rhode Island is kind enough to post town lines, they generally use plain green signs saying "Entering [town name]"
-Maine signs come in two flavors. Older signs are similar to those used in New Hampshire. New signs are like those in Connecticut, but with no incorporation date, and county names are listed along the bottom at county lines
-Vermont town lines are signed on freeways, with signs similar to Maine
-New York signs are similar to Rhode Island, except they're almost always posted. Sign says "Town of [town name]".
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 03, 2018, 10:07:35 AM
Quote from: jon daly on June 29, 2018, 10:45:46 PM
Connecticut's signs at town and city lines are boring.
Not all of CT's border signs are boring IMHO.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fconnecticut%2Fimages%2Fandoverct0812a.jpg&hash=e05d36fa4bde1bd055db7b5a999522c5b1703dda)
These are typically used when nearing the center of a town or CDP. I think they date to the 80's. CONNDOT's border signs are practical and to me that's just fine. They're better at marking borders on surface SR's than on limited-access highways. THAT is something MASSDOT/MassHighway is/was very good at.
What I find interesting about the town line signs is that they show how Connecticut doesn't have a formal distinction between towns and cities (every city in the state, except Groton, has the city and its associated town consolidated): https://goo.gl/maps/kPippjgc4sE2.
Also the town signs are at least better than Delaware (it took me forever to understand the whole "corporate limits" thing): https://goo.gl/maps/JfocPVCmq4K2.
-When Rhode Island is kind enough to post town lines, they generally use plain green signs saying "Entering [town name]"
RI seems fairly consistent on my commute route of I-95 from the Conn. line to Providence, but I think they're missing the Warwick sign.
Quote from: 1 on July 03, 2018, 05:28:45 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 03, 2018, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 03, 2018, 03:43:41 PMAnd hell, https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7120811,-71.9285403,3a,36y,336.61h,91.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8W_8jv9Vayp-cMsS6_6Sbg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664, Massachusetts doesn't even have the correct NH town on this sign.
Granted the GSV you posted is old (2008) & blurred but Rindge, NH is indeed the correct town for that location along MA/NH 119.
New Ipswich for 300 feet, then into Rindge.
FWIW, Google Maps shows the border New Ipswich just barely touching the eastern edge of Route 119 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/New+Ipswich,+NH+03071/@42.7142132,-71.9298862,15.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e3d973e2fd551d:0x41cdb4f419c85121!8m2!3d42.7362307!4d-71.8808499). Whether the New Ipswich border touches Route 119 for a measly 300 feet or not; such may explain why it isn't signed/marked along the road.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 05, 2018, 09:54:36 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 03, 2018, 05:28:45 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 03, 2018, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 03, 2018, 03:43:41 PMAnd hell, https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7120811,-71.9285403,3a,36y,336.61h,91.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8W_8jv9Vayp-cMsS6_6Sbg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664, Massachusetts doesn't even have the correct NH town on this sign.
Granted the GSV you posted is old (2008) & blurred but Rindge, NH is indeed the correct town for that location along MA/NH 119.
New Ipswich for 300 feet, then into Rindge.
FWIW, Google Maps shows the border New Ipswich just barely touching the eastern edge of Route 119 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/New+Ipswich,+NH+03071/@42.7142132,-71.9298862,15.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e3d973e2fd551d:0x41cdb4f419c85121!8m2!3d42.7362307!4d-71.8808499). Whether the New Ipswich border touches Route 119 for a measly 300 feet or not; such may explain why it isn't signed/marked along the road.
Still wrong though. Another example is MA 27 between 'Acton and Westford', as it goes into Carlisle for about 500'. The new rail trail next to it has town border signage and they put up the correct ones but a tad bit more of it is in Carlisle.
It's not like the state is allergic to putting multiple signs, such is MA 2 W/B out of Orange going 'Wendell-Orange-Erving' in a span of a thousand feet. I mean, it IS splitting hairs and being incredibly anal-retentive, but it is what it is.
Regarding not putting the state seal on border signs, they're inconsistent. This border sign on I-95 on Pawtucket / Attleboro border does have a seal and in this case is the RI state seal.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.894572,-71.376026,3a,15y,156.04h,93.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srwG0Npwgq5ePriOyfNhX0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.894572,-71.376026,3a,15y,156.04h,93.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srwG0Npwgq5ePriOyfNhX0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: doogie1303 on July 06, 2018, 08:33:10 AM
Regarding not putting the state seal on border signs, they're inconsistent. This border sign on I-95 on Pawtucket / Attleboro border does have a seal and in this case is the RI state seal.
I have to wonder if the decision of which bookleaf signs at state borders gets a seal of the neighboring state or not is based either on the design firm assigned to the signing project and/or whether the road/highway it's for is an Interstate or US route. Your Pawtucket, RI example and my earlier Seabrook, NH examples are along I-95 and US 1 respectively. The signs without the seals are along state routes.
Quote from: cl94 on July 04, 2018, 03:45:35 PM
Rounding out New England...
[...]
-New York signs are similar to Rhode Island, except they're almost always posted. Sign says "Town of [town name]".
Thank you for acknowledging that certain portions of our state do, indeed, belong culturally with New England. :-)
And what about New Jersey signage, seeing as that state is postally associated with New England?
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 03, 2018, 10:07:35 AM
Quote from: jon daly on June 29, 2018, 10:45:46 PM
Connecticut's signs at town and city lines are boring.
Not all of CT's border signs are boring IMHO.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fconnecticut%2Fimages%2Fandoverct0812a.jpg&hash=e05d36fa4bde1bd055db7b5a999522c5b1703dda)
Down here in Greenwich they have those town signs for Greenwich, Cos cob, Riverside and Old Greenwich I'm not too sure of.. finally I think they are replacing the really faded signs as a new sign went out a few weeks back
In Stonington, they have one for Vargas Corner. It's an intersection of UA-1 & US-1A, but I don't believe it is a CDP.