I couldn't find a general thread for signs that make you do a double-take and say whoa, too much information!
So I thought I'd start one off with this masterpiece (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1206638,-75.9087716,3a,28y,220.82h,88.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shR2931b7cUlVYTS28EYfXg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)... complete with not only six destinations accessible via two different routes, but each of those routes also being represented by two different route shields!
(On the left side, they should have axed Windsor (seriously?) and used NYC instead, but that's for a different topic...)
Shield overload (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8809025,-78.8386597,3a,43.1y,154.28h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOKOqbRmuWKXg7Ma0QiyIOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1/) in Raleigh.
Also a bit aggressive with the shields here in Greensboro (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0763773,-79.946574,3a,23.2y,110.87h,103.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sie2aywK0o5IcOpnlQgMLVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1/), and more control cities.
Lots to comprehend in East St Louis (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6165263,-90.1775471,3a,23.1y,103h,95.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAHPgj8GnrIar7fkxc_RDbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/), though it's better than a few years ago.
KC alphabet loop (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0962389,-94.5668267,3a,58.9y,287.02h,94.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ5wVrxYMZ1ttZAM2ObnEpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/).
Express lanes can result in a lot of additional signage, as on the LBJ expressway in Dallas (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9259381,-96.8344431,3a,34.1y,277.44h,103.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szK-GncPS5EVuZyIYaq7_Lw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/).
Completely unnecessary second tier (600 series) county shield overload on this BGS:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8428722,-75.1879041,3a,75y,69.61h,103.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI_O8A3-DAeInygCB3y48Iw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8428722,-75.1879041,3a,75y,69.61h,103.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI_O8A3-DAeInygCB3y48Iw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Quote from: STLmapboy on July 12, 2020, 09:23:09 PM
Lots to comprehend in East St Louis (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6165263,-90.1775471,3a,23.1y,103h,95.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAHPgj8GnrIar7fkxc_RDbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/), though it's better than a few years ago.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6407899,-90.1337093,3a,75y,221.85h,101.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sprdnauhONtB4QegRBZoRBg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Another in E St Louis that I think is a bit overloaded. 6 Shields for the Thru Route, including I-44 which doesn't exist until traffic reaches Missouri, and also the use of the Great River Road Shield. IL 3 would be just fine. And if the need to include the Great River Road Shield is really necessary, at least use the Green Text on White Background version. Green Shield with White Text on a BGS is pretty worthless, imho
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 13, 2020, 01:10:05 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on July 12, 2020, 09:23:09 PM
Lots to comprehend in East St Louis (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6165263,-90.1775471,3a,23.1y,103h,95.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAHPgj8GnrIar7fkxc_RDbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/), though it's better than a few years ago.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6407899,-90.1337093,3a,75y,221.85h,101.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sprdnauhONtB4QegRBZoRBg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Another in E St Louis that I think is a bit overloaded. 6 Shields for the Thru Route, including I-44 which doesn't exist until traffic reaches Missouri, and also the use of the Great River Road Shield. IL 3 would be just fine. And if the need to include the Great River Road Shield is really necessary, at least use the Green Text on White Background version. Green Shield with White Text on a BGS is pretty worthless, imho
What is that construction?! That looks dangerous.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 12, 2020, 09:43:14 PM
Completely unnecessary second tier (600 series) county shield overload on this BGS:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8428722,-75.1879041,3a,75y,69.61h,103.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI_O8A3-DAeInygCB3y48Iw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8428722,-75.1879041,3a,75y,69.61h,103.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI_O8A3-DAeInygCB3y48Iw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Jeez - at least they could put the county route numbers in numerical order! :rolleyes: :pan:
Quote from: MCRoads on July 23, 2020, 09:14:37 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 13, 2020, 01:10:05 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on July 12, 2020, 09:23:09 PM
Lots to comprehend in East St Louis (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6165263,-90.1775471,3a,23.1y,103h,95.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAHPgj8GnrIar7fkxc_RDbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/), though it's better than a few years ago.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6407899,-90.1337093,3a,75y,221.85h,101.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sprdnauhONtB4QegRBZoRBg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Another in E St Louis that I think is a bit overloaded. 6 Shields for the Thru Route, including I-44 which doesn't exist until traffic reaches Missouri, and also the use of the Great River Road Shield. IL 3 would be just fine. And if the need to include the Great River Road Shield is really necessary, at least use the Green Text on White Background version. Green Shield with White Text on a BGS is pretty worthless, imho
What is that construction?! That looks dangerous.
The construction in the first GSV link in East St Louis? Right after crossing into Illinois from Missouri across the Poplar Street Bridge on 55 NB/64 EB. I-55/64 "splits" into basically an Express/Local setup for 1 mile or so, for 2 overpowered Freeway-style Y interchanges for previously cancelled Freeways. From the Mississippi River going east that picture is right before the exit for IL 3 SB, a Freeway-Y style interchange. The next exit is also that style, for E St Louis surface streets. Thru Traffic can use either carriageway, but all exiting/entering traffic must use the right lanes carriageway
https://goo.gl/maps/tVoze1NakRZmqDGF6
Since I-64 exits the Freeway at the far side of this Dual Carriage setup, I've always thought these BGSs should direct I-55 and I-70 Thru Traffic for Chicago/Indianapolis to use the "Express" /Left Carriageway and I-64 Thru Traffic for Louisville and Local Traffic to use the "Local" /Right Carriageway
That way, when traffic gets back to a single carriageway just before Exit 3, I-64's traffic is already defaulted to the right side, and I-55's traffic is already defaulted to the left side. But alas, that is not how IDOT D8 has it signed
It would also cut down on the information overload per BGS – less shields and no more than 2 Controls per BGS, hopefully limit weaving on the far side of the carriageway split
Quote from: STLmapboy on July 12, 2020, 09:23:09 PM
Shield overload (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8809025,-78.8386597,3a,43.1y,154.28h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOKOqbRmuWKXg7Ma0QiyIOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1/) in Raleigh.
I think this one takes the cake for me. NCDOT can make a good-looking sign, but this is truly overkill. My biggest question is, what is that stray NORTH on the bottom of the sign there for? There are already 2 EASTs, another NORTH, and a WEST.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 24, 2020, 10:43:52 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on July 12, 2020, 09:23:09 PM
Shield overload (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8809025,-78.8386597,3a,43.1y,154.28h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOKOqbRmuWKXg7Ma0QiyIOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1/) in Raleigh.
I think this one takes the cake for me. NCDOT can make a good-looking sign, but this is truly overkill. My biggest question is, what is that stray NORTH on the bottom of the sign there for? There is already 2 EASTs, another NORTH, and a WEST.
The northern part of Raleigh.
Lots of different routes to keep track of at this intersection in Roanoke VA (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2831193,-79.9331867,3a,75y,195.89h,84.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suL6jWdGcB6vjEgPh-gZGPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en).
(https://miro.medium.com/max/2160/1*s_XAwbew4oT8KpQKtchSvA.png)
Quote from: jmacswimmer on July 24, 2020, 12:25:43 PM
Lots of different routes to keep track of at this intersection in Roanoke VA (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2831193,-79.9331867,3a,75y,195.89h,84.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suL6jWdGcB6vjEgPh-gZGPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en).
The sign on the right is a nice older sign. The state route shield on that sign looks so much better than the more modern blobular versions that have become the norm.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 24, 2020, 12:11:01 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 24, 2020, 10:43:52 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on July 12, 2020, 09:23:09 PM
Shield overload (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8809025,-78.8386597,3a,43.1y,154.28h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOKOqbRmuWKXg7Ma0QiyIOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1/) in Raleigh.
I think this one takes the cake for me. NCDOT can make a good-looking sign, but this is truly overkill. My biggest question is, what is that stray NORTH on the bottom of the sign there for? There is already 2 EASTs, another NORTH, and a WEST.
The northern part of Raleigh.
Shouldn't that be "North (or N.) Raleigh instead?
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 24, 2020, 12:11:01 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 24, 2020, 10:43:52 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on July 12, 2020, 09:23:09 PM
Shield overload (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8809025,-78.8386597,3a,43.1y,154.28h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOKOqbRmuWKXg7Ma0QiyIOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1/) in Raleigh.
I think this one takes the cake for me. NCDOT can make a good-looking sign, but this is truly overkill. My biggest question is, what is that stray NORTH on the bottom of the sign there for? There is already 2 EASTs, another NORTH, and a WEST.
The northern part of Raleigh.
The all-caps cardinal direction makes no sense applied like that. That kind of direction belongs with a route shield or a street name.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on July 24, 2020, 12:37:15 PM
(https://miro.medium.com/max/2160/1*s_XAwbew4oT8KpQKtchSvA.png)
By the time I could read all that, there'd already be a ticket on my windshield! :crazy: :wow:
Quote from: mapman on July 24, 2020, 12:31:43 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 12, 2020, 09:43:14 PM
Completely unnecessary second tier (600 series) county shield overload on this BGS:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8428722,-75.1879041,3a,75y,69.61h,103.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI_O8A3-DAeInygCB3y48Iw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8428722,-75.1879041,3a,75y,69.61h,103.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI_O8A3-DAeInygCB3y48Iw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Jeez - at least they could put the county route numbers in numerical order! :rolleyes: :pan:
There's meaning to the order.
When you exit here, the signs match up to the first split. 631/644/642 keep left, then 640 keeps right. https://goo.gl/maps/VyupVtkXoVjhs6Sq6
When you get off at Exit 22 for the 3 routes, you are immediately on CR 631. At the first intersection, the crossroad is CR 644. At the 2nd intersection, the crossroad is CR 642.
In the past, there was only 3 county routes on this sign. They added the 4th a couple of years back. If they added the cardinal direction or "TO" to the sign, it would probably make a little more sense.
Most people probably wouldn't catch on to the placement of the signs, but there is a very subluminal order to it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 24, 2020, 12:11:01 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 24, 2020, 10:43:52 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on July 12, 2020, 09:23:09 PM
Shield overload (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8809025,-78.8386597,3a,43.1y,154.28h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOKOqbRmuWKXg7Ma0QiyIOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1/) in Raleigh.
I think this one takes the cake for me. NCDOT can make a good-looking sign, but this is truly overkill. My biggest question is, what is that stray NORTH on the bottom of the sign there for? There is already 2 EASTs, another NORTH, and a WEST.
The northern part of Raleigh.
I think all of the signs in this thread should be submitted to "Redesign This" on the Illustrations Forum so that our sign makers can have a crack at doing something better!
But specifically for the sign at 40/540 outside of Raleigh, this seems to make no sense.
First, do people take 540 to go to Raleigh from here? Perhaps a local can chime in, but it seems that the central part of town is reached by continuing on I-40. I-540 east needs a new control city. Perhaps the name of a northern suburb of Raleigh, Wake Forest, or Rocky Mount. I would strongly prefer a second control city then seeing all of those additional roads that I-540 east connects to. And it isn't clear from the sign that I-540 connects to US 70, US 1, and US 64 and NC-540 connects to TOLL NC-540.
A far simpler organization for this sign would be as follows:
EAST WEST
I-540 NC-540
Wake Forest
Feltonville
And any other information about TOLL-540, US 64, US 70, and US 1 can be on supplemental signage.
If the control is supposed to be "Raleigh NORTH", then please rename this to North Raleigh on one line. (and include signage that I-40 goes in to Raleigh). I (and many others here) view all caps as a cardinal direction for the highway, not a place name. But I prefer a real town name than just northern Raleigh.
Given that
Quote from: mrsman on July 24, 2020, 07:15:50 PM
First, do people take 540 to go to Raleigh from here? Perhaps a local can chime in, but it seems that the central part of town is reached by continuing on I-40. I-540 east needs a new control city.
Quote from: mrsman on July 24, 2020, 07:15:50 PM
If the control is supposed to be "Raleigh NORTH", then please rename this to North Raleigh on one line. (and include signage that I-40 goes in to Raleigh). I (and many others here) view all caps as a cardinal direction for the highway, not a place name. But I prefer a real town name than just northern Raleigh.
North Raleigh is an area in the city of Raleigh.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/North+Raleigh,+Raleigh,+NC/@35.8856128,-78.6191228,12.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89ac5775e81ffc29:0x9321cea9ccfa2daa!8m2!3d35.8812082!4d-78.6258319
Quote from: mrsman on July 24, 2020, 07:15:50 PM
Perhaps the name of a northern suburb of Raleigh, Wake Forest, or Rocky Mount.
See above, North Raleigh is a northern section inside the city of Raleigh.
Reasonably though, Wake Forest and Holly Springs / Apex would be appropriate control cities for either side of the loop.
Wake Forest is used at its eastern interchange with I-87, and "To US-1 South" Sanford is used at the NC-147 junction just west of the interchange in question.
Quote from: mrsman on July 24, 2020, 07:15:50 PM
I would strongly prefer a second control city then seeing all of those additional roads that I-540 east connects to. And it isn't clear from the sign that I-540 connects to US 70, US 1, and US 64 and NC-540 connects to TOLL NC-540.
I don't even see the need to distinct NC-540 from TOLL NC-540. It should just be TOLL NC-540, even if the small section between NC-54 and I-40 isn't tolled. Here in Hampton Roads, both VA-168 and US-17 carry TOLL banners at the I-64 junction even though US-17 goes a couple miles before the toll portion, and VA-168 goes several miles before the toll portion.
My personal opinion is first, I-540 / NC-540 should be signed as "Inner" and "Outer" similar to Charlotte. Currently I-540 / NC-540 is east-west from NC-54 to I-87, and then NC-540 is north-south from NC-54 to NC-55. Better to eventually eliminate those all together and make it "Inner" and "Outer".
As for control cities at the interchange in question, Wake Forest for the inner loop, and Holly Springs / Apex for the outer loop. On supplementary signage, once the southern extension to I-40 is completed in a few years, use "To I-87 North" Rocky Mount for the inner loop, and "To I-40 East" Wilmington, for the outer loop, with perhaps an additional sign for "To US-1 South" Sanford if desired. Only mention I-540 and TOLL NC-540 at the actually interchange.
From 2003-2012...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2F5wide1b.JPG&hash=5e4b3ba5c0e1c557305e2a3a8339d81a83543d7c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2F5wide2a.JPG&hash=0ad4e789a3ca347dd5f145cb516c82f2990bc241)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2F5wide3.JPG&hash=98f2ba2c9f98b0eb66cead5b4bff0b2042689422)
Nowadays, they've reduced it to 4 signs across...
https://goo.gl/maps/NNgdV3cWRsNNgD2V9
Meanwhile, over on I-270, between Gahanna & the airport (for the last 10 months or so)...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50098494538_cd475156a1_z.jpg)
You would thought ODOT district 6 & Columbus would have learned their lesson...
Quote from: mrsman on July 24, 2020, 07:15:50 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 24, 2020, 12:11:01 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 24, 2020, 10:43:52 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on July 12, 2020, 09:23:09 PM
Shield overload (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8809025,-78.8386597,3a,43.1y,154.28h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOKOqbRmuWKXg7Ma0QiyIOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1/) in Raleigh.
I think this one takes the cake for me. NCDOT can make a good-looking sign, but this is truly overkill. My biggest question is, what is that stray NORTH on the bottom of the sign there for? There is already 2 EASTs, another NORTH, and a WEST.
The northern part of Raleigh.
I think all of the signs in this thread should be submitted to "Redesign This" on the Illustrations Forum so that our sign makers can have a crack at doing something better!
But specifically for the sign at 40/540 outside of Raleigh, this seems to make no sense.
First, do people take 540 to go to Raleigh from here? Perhaps a local can chime in, but it seems that the central part of town is reached by continuing on I-40. I-540 east needs a new control city. Perhaps the name of a northern suburb of Raleigh, Wake Forest, or Rocky Mount. I would strongly prefer a second control city then seeing all of those additional roads that I-540 east connects to. And it isn't clear from the sign that I-540 connects to US 70, US 1, and US 64 and NC-540 connects to TOLL NC-540.
A far simpler organization for this sign would be as follows:
EAST WEST
I-540 NC-540
Wake Forest
Feltonville
And any other information about TOLL-540, US 64, US 70, and US 1 can be on supplemental signage.
If the control is supposed to be "Raleigh NORTH", then please rename this to North Raleigh on one line. (and include signage that I-40 goes in to Raleigh). I (and many others here) view all caps as a cardinal direction for the highway, not a place name. But I prefer a real town name than just northern Raleigh.
NCDOT seems to have a thing about using the word TO with every trailblazer shield on a BGS, instead of using a single TO placed to the left of all the shields.
I suspect–I don't know this for sure–that the NCDOT use of "NORTH" there is something they're doing to be consistent with their use of "DOWNTOWN," which they do on a lot of signs all over the state (e.g., a short distance back on I-40 from the sign seen above, you can find BGSs for the Durham Freeway that say "Durham" and then underneath that they say "DOWNTOWN"). I suspect the use of "NORTH" in this respect is meant to be similar.
Quote from: STLmapboy on July 12, 2020, 09:23:09 PM
Shield overload (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8809025,-78.8386597,3a,43.1y,154.28h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOKOqbRmuWKXg7Ma0QiyIOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1/) in Raleigh.
Also a bit aggressive with the shields here in Greensboro (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0763773,-79.946574,3a,23.2y,110.87h,103.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sie2aywK0o5IcOpnlQgMLVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1/), and more control cities.
Lots to comprehend in East St Louis (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6165263,-90.1775471,3a,23.1y,103h,95.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAHPgj8GnrIar7fkxc_RDbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/), though it's better than a few years ago.
KC alphabet loop (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0962389,-94.5668267,3a,58.9y,287.02h,94.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ5wVrxYMZ1ttZAM2ObnEpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/).
Express lanes can result in a lot of additional signage, as on the LBJ expressway in Dallas (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9259381,-96.8344431,3a,34.1y,277.44h,103.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szK-GncPS5EVuZyIYaq7_Lw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/).
Too many "TO"s on that first one!
Quote from: webny99 on July 12, 2020, 08:54:35 PM
I couldn't find a general thread for signs that make you do a double-take and say whoa, too much information!
So I thought I'd start one off with this masterpiece (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1206638,-75.9087716,3a,28y,220.82h,88.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shR2931b7cUlVYTS28EYfXg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)... complete with not only six destinations accessible via two different routes, but each of those routes also being represented by two different route shields!
(On the left side, they should have axed Windsor (seriously?) and used NYC instead, but that's for a different topic...)
Windsor is used only because I-86 currently ends there. Yes, NYC (180)* should have been used. If NYSDOT really wanted to be bold, they could have listed Scranton,
Harrisburg (around 180 miles also, :hmmm:), and New York for I-81/I-86.
*- the reason 180 is listed is because I remember seeing a mileage sign in the 1970's on I-81 east of Broad Ave listing Scranton (53) and New York (179).
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 24, 2020, 12:45:59 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on July 24, 2020, 12:25:43 PM
Lots of different routes to keep track of at this intersection in Roanoke VA (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2831193,-79.9331867,3a,75y,195.89h,84.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suL6jWdGcB6vjEgPh-gZGPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en).
The sign on the right is a nice older sign. The state route shield on that sign looks so much better than the more modern blobular versions that have become the norm.
There aren't too many of those older-spec overheads left (which, by the way, I think are some form of demountable copy) - the only other one I know of in Roanoke was removed recently. Photo from January.
(https://i.imgur.com/YvTjIop.jpg)
Unfortunately Streetview never captured this sign in its very short-lived original state, but I think you can imagine how insane this sign was before half the information was greened out:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.3511224,-123.2468247,3a,44.6y,340.44h,100.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHUerXyijwagTfqFbOui60g!2e0!5s20181001T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Look no further: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8562257,-73.9718771,3a,29.6y,328.73h,98.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWOzLK0AkBkF6li6lrQJ-xw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
At least it doesn't have control cities.
Quote from: STLmapboy on August 09, 2020, 09:22:28 PM
Look no further: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8562257,-73.9718771,3a,29.6y,328.73h,98.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWOzLK0AkBkF6li6lrQJ-xw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
At least it doesn't have control cities.
It's two separate roadways, each with three overhead signs. The only thing I'd nitpick is that I'd rather see "I-95 TO I-80" rather than the small I-80 shield. It's easy to forget that there is no I-95/I-80 concurrency when it's signed that way; even I made that mistake once or twice.
This is an interesting thread since the MUTCD has rules to avoid exactly this, yet states still find a way to overload signs.
There used to be a sign (there might still be but I haven't seen it in the wild in quite some years) that was black writing on a white field in Texas, mostly on state lines, but sometimes it showed up in random spots. For the life of me I never knew everything it had on it because it had that man words on it, but it was a breakdown of the speed limits of every type of vehicle on a given road. It started at the top for passenger cars, then trucks, then after that is still a mystery.
This one at Los Angeles is getting crowded...
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0533822,-118.2317282,3a,69.8y,110.51h,114.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZxq1e9hSwh1OvfRDpjaR2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Though there's no better alternative since many routes converge here.
Quote from: SeriesE on August 12, 2020, 08:43:26 PM
This one at Los Angeles is getting crowded...
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0533822,-118.2317282,3a,69.8y,110.51h,114.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZxq1e9hSwh1OvfRDpjaR2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Though there's no better alternative since many routes converge here.
Wow! I can't even think of any sign assembly in Oklahoma that comes close to being as bad as this hot mess. It's like the only thing Caltrans consistently gets right is their self-imposed same-height rule, and how many people even care about that?
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 12, 2020, 08:56:00 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 12, 2020, 08:43:26 PM
This one at Los Angeles is getting crowded...
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0533822,-118.2317282,3a,69.8y,110.51h,114.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZxq1e9hSwh1OvfRDpjaR2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Though there's no better alternative since many routes converge here.
Wow! I can't even think of any sign assembly in Oklahoma that comes close to being as bad as this hot mess. It's like the only thing Caltrans consistently gets right is their self-imposed same-height rule, and how many people even care about that?
SOUTH [101] EAST
[5] [60]
In what alternate universe is this an appropriate configuration?
I guess the alternate routings must be very important to risk that kind of confusion.
Quote from: STLmapboy on August 12, 2020, 09:06:00 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 12, 2020, 08:56:00 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 12, 2020, 08:43:26 PM
This one at Los Angeles is getting crowded...
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0533822,-118.2317282,3a,69.8y,110.51h,114.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZxq1e9hSwh1OvfRDpjaR2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Though there's no better alternative since many routes converge here.
Wow! I can't even think of any sign assembly in Oklahoma that comes close to being as bad as this hot mess. It's like the only thing Caltrans consistently gets right is their self-imposed same-height rule, and how many people even care about that?
SOUTH [101] EAST
[5] [60]
In what alternate universe is this an appropriate configuration?
Caltrans giveth - Caltrans taketh away.
The great 1964 renumbering in CA was largely done to avoid signage like this, confusion caused because there were too many route numbers on signs. Old pictures of the 4 level interchange, this interchange (SB Split) and the Colton interchange had many different highway symbols going every which direction. Simplification was achieved by getting rid of many of these designations to have one highway (and only one highway) going in each direction.
So here, the San Bernardino Fwy (formerly Ramona Fwy) was once signed by four routes: I-10, US 60, US 70, and US 99. It is now simplified with only one route I-10. This is good.
The Santa Ana Fwy was once signed with two routes: I-5 and US 101. Then after 1964, the US 101 signage was dropped for a long time, even though the road was still US 101 for another two miles, as a form of simplification, although somewhat inaccurate. The sign read "5 SOUTH Santa Ana Fwy Santa Ana". To address the inaccuracy, somewhat recently the sign was replaced with the middle sign here. It denotes US 101, leaves off "TO" and puts in place the two highways that 101 leads to (5, 60) when 101 ends at the ELA Interchange in two miles. To my chagrin, it also leaves off the long time control city of Santa Ana (as well as CA-60's control of Pomona which was never signed here). My recommendation would be to put in place a sign that says: " (101) TO (5) (60) [no cardinal directions] / [second line] Santa Ana"
The far right side is an exit to Mission Rd. For a long time, it was only signed as an exit. The recent signage changes added the ALT routes to 10/5/60 to encourage traffic headed for the freeways to use all of the lanes and not to leave the right lane empty. If you enter the freeway at a recent on-ramp like Commercial / Garey (Alameda street), you may not be able to move over all the way left if you want I-10. That's OK. Stay in the right, exit at Mission, cross Mission at the traffic signal and then re-enter the freeways to go onto I-10 or US 101 to 5 and 60. The problem is the verbiage and the overall confusion inherent in the signage. My recommendation would be to only sign for Mission Road and to put in a ground mounted sign to the alternate routes to the 10/5/60. It's such a good idea, Caltrans did it at the next sign [albeit the ground mount is a little small and leaves off 60]:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0531552,-118.2301051,3a,75y,104.53h,108.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shkLiOXI2cuN2YL4_l2PwpQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
For those that actually follow the alternate route, when you get off at Mission and pass the traffic signal you are faced with this sign [leaving off mention of the 101 or the 60]:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0522992,-118.2258873,3a,75y,109.71h,79.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYD366MVvsQsYQQ-0_QCYkg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
As I may have stated earlier, the signs on this thread would be great recommendations for the Redesign It! thread in Illustrations. I will nominate this discussion there, but I seem to recall that this may have already been addressed there a few years ago.
Quote from: mrsman on August 13, 2020, 12:25:51 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on August 12, 2020, 09:06:00 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 12, 2020, 08:56:00 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 12, 2020, 08:43:26 PM
This one at Los Angeles is getting crowded...
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0533822,-118.2317282,3a,69.8y,110.51h,114.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZxq1e9hSwh1OvfRDpjaR2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Though there's no better alternative since many routes converge here.
Wow! I can't even think of any sign assembly in Oklahoma that comes close to being as bad as this hot mess. It's like the only thing Caltrans consistently gets right is their self-imposed same-height rule, and how many people even care about that?
SOUTH [101] EAST
[5] [60]
In what alternate universe is this an appropriate configuration?
Caltrans giveth - Caltrans taketh away.
The great 1964 renumbering in CA was largely done to avoid signage like this, confusion caused because there were too many route numbers on signs. Old pictures of the 4 level interchange, this interchange (SB Split) and the Colton interchange had many different highway symbols going every which direction. Simplification was achieved by getting rid of many of these designations to have one highway (and only one highway) going in each direction.
So here, the San Bernardino Fwy (formerly Ramona Fwy) was once signed by four routes: I-10, US 60, US 70, and US 99. It is now simplified with only one route I-10. This is good.
The Santa Ana Fwy was once signed with two routes: I-5 and US 101. Then after 1964, the US 101 signage was dropped for a long time, even though the road was still US 101 for another two miles, as a form of simplification, although somewhat inaccurate. The sign read "5 SOUTH Santa Ana Fwy Santa Ana". To address the inaccuracy, somewhat recently the sign was replaced with the middle sign here. It denotes US 101, leaves off "TO" and puts in place the two highways that 101 leads to (5, 60) when 101 ends at the ELA Interchange in two miles. To my chagrin, it also leaves off the long time control city of Santa Ana (as well as CA-60's control of Pomona which was never signed here). My recommendation would be to put in place a sign that says: " (101) TO (5) (60) [no cardinal directions] / [second line] Santa Ana"
The far right side is an exit to Mission Rd. For a long time, it was only signed as an exit. The recent signage changes added the ALT routes to 10/5/60 to encourage traffic headed for the freeways to use all of the lanes and not to leave the right lane empty. If you enter the freeway at a recent on-ramp like Commercial / Garey (Alameda street), you may not be able to move over all the way left if you want I-10. That's OK. Stay in the right, exit at Mission, cross Mission at the traffic signal and then re-enter the freeways to go onto I-10 or US 101 to 5 and 60. The problem is the verbiage and the overall confusion inherent in the signage. My recommendation would be to only sign for Mission Road and to put in a ground mounted sign to the alternate routes to the 10/5/60. It's such a good idea, Caltrans did it at the next sign [albeit the ground mount is a little small and leaves off 60]:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0531552,-118.2301051,3a,75y,104.53h,108.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shkLiOXI2cuN2YL4_l2PwpQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
For those that actually follow the alternate route, when you get off at Mission and pass the traffic signal you are faced with this sign [leaving off mention of the 101 or the 60]:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0522992,-118.2258873,3a,75y,109.71h,79.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYD366MVvsQsYQQ-0_QCYkg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
As I may have stated earlier, the signs on this thread would be great recommendations for the Redesign It! thread in Illustrations. I will nominate this discussion there, but I seem to recall that this may have already been addressed there a few years ago.
I would do 101 south/Santa Ana/Pomona in this case. Typical California signage doesn't do TO [routes] on the last pull through (see I-405, I-210, CA-170 in the area, near the ends of each respective route), so it would work here standards wise.
Quote from: SeriesE on August 13, 2020, 02:55:52 AM
Quote from: mrsman on August 13, 2020, 12:25:51 AM
Quote from: STLmapboy on August 12, 2020, 09:06:00 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 12, 2020, 08:56:00 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 12, 2020, 08:43:26 PM
This one at Los Angeles is getting crowded...
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0533822,-118.2317282,3a,69.8y,110.51h,114.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZxq1e9hSwh1OvfRDpjaR2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Though there's no better alternative since many routes converge here.
Wow! I can't even think of any sign assembly in Oklahoma that comes close to being as bad as this hot mess. It's like the only thing Caltrans consistently gets right is their self-imposed same-height rule, and how many people even care about that?
SOUTH [101] EAST
[5] [60]
In what alternate universe is this an appropriate configuration?
Caltrans giveth - Caltrans taketh away.
The great 1964 renumbering in CA was largely done to avoid signage like this, confusion caused because there were too many route numbers on signs. Old pictures of the 4 level interchange, this interchange (SB Split) and the Colton interchange had many different highway symbols going every which direction. Simplification was achieved by getting rid of many of these designations to have one highway (and only one highway) going in each direction.
So here, the San Bernardino Fwy (formerly Ramona Fwy) was once signed by four routes: I-10, US 60, US 70, and US 99. It is now simplified with only one route I-10. This is good.
The Santa Ana Fwy was once signed with two routes: I-5 and US 101. Then after 1964, the US 101 signage was dropped for a long time, even though the road was still US 101 for another two miles, as a form of simplification, although somewhat inaccurate. The sign read "5 SOUTH Santa Ana Fwy Santa Ana". To address the inaccuracy, somewhat recently the sign was replaced with the middle sign here. It denotes US 101, leaves off "TO" and puts in place the two highways that 101 leads to (5, 60) when 101 ends at the ELA Interchange in two miles. To my chagrin, it also leaves off the long time control city of Santa Ana (as well as CA-60's control of Pomona which was never signed here). My recommendation would be to put in place a sign that says: " (101) TO (5) (60) [no cardinal directions] / [second line] Santa Ana"
The far right side is an exit to Mission Rd. For a long time, it was only signed as an exit. The recent signage changes added the ALT routes to 10/5/60 to encourage traffic headed for the freeways to use all of the lanes and not to leave the right lane empty. If you enter the freeway at a recent on-ramp like Commercial / Garey (Alameda street), you may not be able to move over all the way left if you want I-10. That's OK. Stay in the right, exit at Mission, cross Mission at the traffic signal and then re-enter the freeways to go onto I-10 or US 101 to 5 and 60. The problem is the verbiage and the overall confusion inherent in the signage. My recommendation would be to only sign for Mission Road and to put in a ground mounted sign to the alternate routes to the 10/5/60. It's such a good idea, Caltrans did it at the next sign [albeit the ground mount is a little small and leaves off 60]:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0531552,-118.2301051,3a,75y,104.53h,108.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shkLiOXI2cuN2YL4_l2PwpQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
For those that actually follow the alternate route, when you get off at Mission and pass the traffic signal you are faced with this sign [leaving off mention of the 101 or the 60]:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0522992,-118.2258873,3a,75y,109.71h,79.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYD366MVvsQsYQQ-0_QCYkg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
As I may have stated earlier, the signs on this thread would be great recommendations for the Redesign It! thread in Illustrations. I will nominate this discussion there, but I seem to recall that this may have already been addressed there a few years ago.
I would do 101 south/Santa Ana/Pomona in this case. Typical California signage doesn't do TO [routes] on the last pull through (see I-405, I-210, CA-170 in the area, near the ends of each respective route), so it would work here standards wise.
Your idea is very clean. One issue is that there is so much signage out there leading to US 101 south ramps that references 10, 5, or 60* instead. But you are right on a technical basis that if they merely sign 101 with the control cities of San Bernardino, Santa Ana, and/or Pomona* on all the signs on the freeway and leading to the freeway between the 4-level and the ELA Interchange it would be a lot simpler.
Much of the reference of the SB 101 as being to 5/10/60* without major references to 101 itself have been in place since 1964.
* Very few of the signs reference 60 Pomona, so if there is a shortage of space prioritize Santa Ana and San Bernardino.
Perhaps not surprisingly, a Connecticut button copy classic is still going strong, with 5 across (https://goo.gl/maps/KGzcRm7Kn1EEYfnQ9). Somewhere I had a photo of it and even saw it recently on a backup drive but who knows where it is when I need it. :P What a beauty with directional-suffixed exit numbers (but then one movement with no exit number).
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50536779036_e3764444e4_4k_d.jpg)All these shields. Being its Georgia with its superfluous route system it is a common thing in the Peach State.
THe superfluous route system truly seems to only encourage confusion. Why does GA do this?
Before 1964, CA typically had a legislative route number that was different from the state highway number. While most LRNs were signed with either US or CA shields (with a different number), there were definitely some cases where there were discrepancies. In 1964, there was a great renumbering of the highway system there, including purging excessive US routes and defining each route legislatively by the signed route number. So Route 2 in the legal system was equivalent to signed CA-2. Much less confusion because of this.
I'm not a fan of the over-sized APL "billboards", but this is a case for one. I-640 in Knoxville:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50611820601_1c2620805b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2k7oNYz)
Quote from: csw on August 02, 2020, 04:26:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 24, 2020, 12:45:59 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on July 24, 2020, 12:25:43 PM
Lots of different routes to keep track of at this intersection in Roanoke VA (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2831193,-79.9331867,3a,75y,195.89h,84.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suL6jWdGcB6vjEgPh-gZGPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en).
The sign on the right is a nice older sign. The state route shield on that sign looks so much better than the more modern blobular versions that have become the norm.
There aren't too many of those older-spec overheads left (which, by the way, I think are some form of demountable copy) - the only other one I know of in Roanoke was removed recently. Photo from January.
(https://i.imgur.com/YvTjIop.jpg)
Insofar as I know, the ones on Route 1 in Fredericksburg are still there. The Street View is from 2019, so they might no longer be there. Let's hope they remain.
https://goo.gl/maps/AnpiTDU7uxdiLJxA9
Quote from: formulanone on November 20, 2020, 11:15:45 AM
I'm not a fan of the over-sized APL "billboards", but this is a case for one. I-640 in Knoxville:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50611820601_1c2620805b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2k7oNYz)
You actually couldn't design a MUTCD-compliant APL here, since the APL standard doesn't allow for signing multiple exits in a row.
The actual problem here is not the type of sign, but that the panel size is actually too small for what it's trying to accomplish, meaning that each legend block is cramped, which makes the sign
seem like it's overloading you with information when it's really not. There should be at least a capital letter's height between text and the edge of the sign, and that's clearly not happening here.
A properly-designed diagrammatic is a lot less awful to look at.
(https://i.imgur.com/fmZwpX9.png)
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 20, 2020, 11:19:17 AM
Quote from: csw on August 02, 2020, 04:26:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 24, 2020, 12:45:59 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on July 24, 2020, 12:25:43 PM
Lots of different routes to keep track of at this intersection in Roanoke VA (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2831193,-79.9331867,3a,75y,195.89h,84.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suL6jWdGcB6vjEgPh-gZGPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en).
The sign on the right is a nice older sign. The state route shield on that sign looks so much better than the more modern blobular versions that have become the norm.
There aren't too many of those older-spec overheads left (which, by the way, I think are some form of demountable copy) - the only other one I know of in Roanoke was removed recently. Photo from January.
(https://i.imgur.com/YvTjIop.jpg)
Insofar as I know, the ones on Route 1 in Fredericksburg are still there. The Street View is from 2019, so they might no longer be there. Let's hope they remain.
https://goo.gl/maps/AnpiTDU7uxdiLJxA9
They were still there in July of this year.
Quote from: webny99 on July 12, 2020, 08:54:35 PM
I couldn't find a general thread for signs that make you do a double-take and say whoa, too much information!
So I thought I'd start one off with this masterpiece (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1206638,-75.9087716,3a,28y,220.82h,88.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shR2931b7cUlVYTS28EYfXg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)... complete with not only six destinations accessible via two different routes, but each of those routes also being represented by two different route shields!
(On the left side, they should have axed Windsor (seriously?) and used NYC instead, but that's for a different topic...)
I love this