AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: SkyPesos on December 14, 2020, 08:02:18 PM

Poll
Question: Which enhanced mile marker color do you prefer?
Option 1: Green (most used color) votes: 40
Option 2: Blue (used by IN, KS, KY, OH, TN and WI) votes: 21
Option 3: White (used by CA and NV) votes: 3
Title: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on December 14, 2020, 08:02:18 PM
After driving through various states, I see that are different variations of the enhanced mile marker, which are mile markers with route number, direction and fractions of a mile. Because I'm currently bored, thought it would be fun to make a google spreadsheet with the features on enhanced mile markers in various states.
EDIT: This thread is enough and better for including detals than the google sheet.
EDIT 2: I'll use this as the general thread for enhanced mile markers discussion and news on the forum now.

If you can, list the following qualities of enhanced mile markers below of state(s) you know about:

Interstates only or all freeways:
Urban areas only or throughout the state:
Color (normally green or blue):
Interval (most common I see are 0.1 and 0.2):
.0 on whole miles (Yes or No):
Placement in median or right shoulder:
Any more info to add:

I'll start with the 2 states I lived in; Ohio and Missouri

Ohio
Interstates only or all freeways: all freeways
Urban areas only or throughout the state: urban areas only, switches to MUTCD green whole mile markers in rural areas
Color: blue
Interval: 0.2, except 0.1 in Cincinnati
.0 on whole miles: yes
Placement in median or right shoulder: median, though I found one-offs on the right shoulder
Notes: Old design; uses abbreviated direction, no "MILE" word, no decimal point (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1122005,-83.027571,3a,15y,238.95h,88.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIf3faePIKt8y86SNwCrENA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Standard new design, wider than above, with full direction name, "MILE" word and decimal point (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2065915,-84.3716462,3a,15y,346.95h,88.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssVDsXuach_2LDJKu9OHu-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
However, Ohio is inconsistent with the new design in some areas. For example, this one uses an abbreviated direction and no decimal point (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9779972,-83.1634346,3a,15y,226.63h,88.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq8FievK4FFnmAnwwZ_VhIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
This one has the full direction name, but no decimal point (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1619876,-84.5203656,3a,15y,231.09h,87.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC39hHyrssTCmHzpfD-UIUQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
This one lacks a .0 on a whole mile (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6850843,-83.5682444,3a,15y,184.74h,90.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD-Iu_zLM2izyQGw5dPz4mQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Missouri
Interstates only or all freeways: Interstates only
Urban areas only or throughout the state: throughout the state
Color: green
Interval: 0.2
.0 on whole miles: yes
Placement in median or right shoulder: mostly right shoulder, though there are median placed ones on I-64

If there's any category worth adding, let me know
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Ben114 on December 14, 2020, 08:45:34 PM
Massachusetts

Interstates only or all freeways: all freeways
Urban areas only or throughout the state: throughout the state
Color (normally green or blue): green
Interval (most common I see are 0.1 and 0.2): 0.2
.0 on whole miles (Yes or No): No
Placement in median or right shoulder: Right shoulder on all except for I-90, where they are in the median
Any more info to add: Route shield and direction only added on full miles (https://goo.gl/maps/2FREzU9oeTJY6Crc9), not other ones (https://goo.gl/maps/QiGCx5CfDx9hsjdXA)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: hotdogPi on December 14, 2020, 08:53:02 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on December 14, 2020, 08:45:34 PM
Massachusetts

Interstates only or all freeways: all freeways
Urban areas only or throughout the state: throughout the state
Color (normally green or blue): green
Interval (most common I see are 0.1 and 0.2): 0.2
.0 on whole miles (Yes or No): No
Placement in median or right shoulder: Right shoulder on all except for I-90, where they are in the median
Any more info to add: Route shield and direction only added on full miles (https://goo.gl/maps/2FREzU9oeTJY6Crc9), not other ones (https://goo.gl/maps/QiGCx5CfDx9hsjdXA)

They're also on some surface roads, although this isn't consistent.

The other thing to note is that they aren't always accurate. Τhe ones on MA 110 are about 2 miles higher than they should be, and there's an old 42.5 between new 42.2 and 42.4 northbound on I-93. Bridge markers that show milage to three decimal places are always accurate, though.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on December 14, 2020, 11:10:21 PM
Going to add Indiana and Kentucky mile markers in here as well:

Indiana
Interstates only or all freeways: All freeways, or at least US 31 north of Indianapolis (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9735663,-86.1576932,3a,15.4y,334.14h,86.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2LnAUtdSkQVhquoqQqCZfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) has them, if it's actually interstates only
Urban areas only or throughout the state: Urban areas only, rural areas use standard green MUTCD mile markers in intervals of 0.5 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4346447,-86.8340342,3a,15y,11.38h,85.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8pxiCNKbLYNUz0xPNg4LXA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Color (normally green or blue): Blue
Interval (most common I see are 0.1 and 0.2): 0.1 in Indianapolis and Northwest Indiana, 0.2 in Ft Wayne
.0 on whole miles (Yes or No): Yes
Placement in median or right shoulder: Median
Any more info to add: Typical enhanced mile marker design. (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9195852,-86.1057623,3a,15y,263.35h,86.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swkr-AVXVc6-ZcovKzECMFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) They're pretty consistent in urban areas around the state.

Kentucky
Interstates only or all freeways: Interstates only
Urban areas only or throughout the state: Urban areas only
Color (normally green or blue): Blue
Interval (most common I see are 0.1 and 0.2): 0.2 in Louisville and Lexington, 0.1 in Northern KY (Cincinnati Metro)
.0 on whole miles (Yes or No): Yes
Placement in median or right shoulder: Median, with right shoulder ones on I-64 in Louisville (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.223271,-85.554049,3a,15y,124.04h,85.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv9pzEwGZWJGxj3XoVN_mTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Any more info to add: Has an old design (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2232713,-85.5540479,3a,15y,124.04h,85.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv9pzEwGZWJGxj3XoVN_mTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and new design (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0702266,-84.4498616,3a,15y,290.24h,84.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQMg90vei8Ibqu1jW9mPXsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), with the same details as Ohio's mile markers in each.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: noelbotevera on December 15, 2020, 12:47:56 AM
Pennsylvania...whew, this one's a doozy

Interstates only or all freeways: Most freeways1
Urban areas only or throughout the state: Throughout the state1
Color (normally green or blue): Green
Interval (most common I see are 0.1 and 0.2): 0.12
.0 on whole miles (Yes or No): Yes3
Placement in median or right shoulder: Right shoulder4
Any more info to add:
1. PA is very inconsistent with milemarkers. No surface routes have milemarkers. Some freeways, like US 322, don't have milemarkers despite its freeway being 65 miles long (except for 2 miles near Harrisburg). But, PA 283 - only 28 miles, gets milemarkers for its whole length. US 22 gets milemarkers on its eastern freeway section (I-78 to NJ), though this is more justified as it's an important freeway in the area.
2. Some routes only get 0.2 milemarkers, like US 222. Interstates always have 0.1 intervals.
3. Instead of a .0 enhanced marker, sometimes you'll get an older-style MILE XX instead.
4. Depends on road. PA Turnpike (I-76) has them on the median, so does I-78 and I-476/NE Extension. But the Schuylkill Expressway (also I-76) has them on the right (using 0/10, 1/10, 2/10, etc.). Some newer milemarkers are placed on the median. Again, PennDOT is inconsistent.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 15, 2020, 02:37:34 AM
Minnesota

All freeways
Urban areas only
Green
.1
Yes
Both

Wisconsin

All freeways
Throughout the state
Blue
.2
Yes
Median
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Revive 755 on December 15, 2020, 10:39:38 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2020, 08:02:18 PM
Missouri
Interstates only or all freeways: Interstates only
Urban areas only or throughout the state: throughout the state
Color: green
Interval: 0.2
.0 on whole miles: yes
Placement in median or right shoulder: mostly right shoulder, though there are median placed ones on I-64

Not quite correct.  The MO 21 freeway in Jefferson County has them. (https://goo.gl/maps/7HQ4p1WE9AumVdQu7)  US 65 also has them from some point north of Springfield down to the Arkansas border, including the non-freeway segments. (https://goo.gl/maps/wi73GY5w1f1JZ4PP9)

MO 364 may still have the older style blue ones once also used on interstates around St. Louis. (https://goo.gl/maps/bWUMEYfq4rtr5AVg7)

Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on December 15, 2020, 11:04:03 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 15, 2020, 10:39:38 PM
MO 364 may still have the older style blue ones once also used on interstates around St. Louis. (https://goo.gl/maps/bWUMEYfq4rtr5AVg7)
Oh yea those quarter mile markers... Think those are St. Louis county only, because I recall them disappearing after you cross the Missouri river bridge WB. Idk how I missed that considering I used to go on 364 twice a week.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ozarkman417 on December 15, 2020, 11:08:52 PM
That "point north of Springfield" would be Buffalo, where the four lane expressway ends at MM 82.

The US 54 freeway in Osage Beach has some, but the section with mile markers is so short, it's not worth including.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Brandon on December 16, 2020, 08:03:57 AM
Illinois

The entire Tollway System (albeit at every quarter mile).
Bloomington-Normal
Metro East

Interestingly, Chicagoland does not have them except on the tollways.  There are mile markers at various intervals on light posts, but they are not enhanced.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: CoreySamson on December 16, 2020, 08:20:09 PM
Not too sure on all the details, but here's a rough guess for Texas:

Interstates only
Throughout the state
Green
I don't think Texas has intervals smaller than 1 mile, but I may be wrong.
No .0 on whole miles
Right shoulder
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on December 16, 2020, 10:50:31 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 16, 2020, 08:20:09 PM
Not too sure on all the details, but here's a rough guess for Texas:

Interstates only
Throughout the state
Green
I don't think Texas has intervals smaller than 1 mile, but I may be wrong.
No .0 on whole miles
Right shoulder
Does the mile markers have a route shield and cardinal direction in addition to the mile number, or just the world "Mile" and a number stacked vertically? If it's the latter, that's the standard MUTCD mile markers.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: CoreySamson on December 17, 2020, 12:23:53 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 16, 2020, 10:50:31 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 16, 2020, 08:20:09 PM
Not too sure on all the details, but here's a rough guess for Texas:

Interstates only
Throughout the state
Green
I don't think Texas has intervals smaller than 1 mile, but I may be wrong.
No .0 on whole miles
Right shoulder
Does the mile markers have a route shield and cardinal direction in addition to the mile number, or just the world "Mile" and a number stacked vertically? If it's the latter, that's the standard MUTCD mile markers.
Nope, it's just the MUTCD now that I think about it.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 17, 2020, 11:38:53 PM
CT usually does it with re-signing/exit renumbering projects.  Highways that I'm aware that have them:

I-84: NY border to Rochambeau Bridge (extent of Fairfield County), MP 42-MP 56
I-91: Entire length (done independently of signing projects)
I-95: NY Border to about MP 52, and from Groton - RI border
I-395: Entire length
CT 8: I-95 to 8/25 split, portions between CT 15 and Naugatuck, and north of Waterbury
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: roadfro on December 18, 2020, 01:06:58 PM
Nevada

Nevada has just started using the MUTCD Enhanced Reference Location Signs about 6 years ago. They are not widespread, but are being deployed with new construction or reconstruction/maintenance projects

Interstates only or all freeways: Interstates only (although Clark County 215 also uses them, but that's a future interstate)
Urban areas only or throughout the state: Throughout the state (to my knowledge, but thus far have seen them in primarily urban or higher-trafficked corridors)
Color (normally green or blue): Green
Interval (most common I see are 0.1 and 0.2): integer miles
.0 on whole miles (Yes or No): No
Placement in median or right shoulder: Right shoulder typically (although I-580's mile 1 is in the median for some reason)


Nevada is like California where route mileage resets at county lines on all state and US highways, although NDOT still calls them a milepost (instead of Caltrans' "postmile" nomenclature). Around the same timeframe, NDOT has begun using what they call "Enhanced Mileposts" along state/US highway projects. Info:

Interstates only or all freeways: State and US highways, from multi-lane divided to two-lane
Urban areas only or throughout the state: Rural areas only
Color (normally green or blue): white
Interval (most common I see are 0.1 and 0.2): integer miles
.0 on whole miles (Yes or No): no
Placement in median or right shoulder: Right shoulder on divided highways. Two-lane highways employ a back-to-back mounting posted on the right shoulder of the direction of increasing mileage
Any more info to add: Route shield is shown with no cardinal direction. Also the two-letter county code is listed, and the mile number is turned sideways (not unlike the standard NDOT milepost). More info and examples in this thread on the Pacific Southwest board (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13429.msg2005620).
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: DJ Particle on December 20, 2020, 02:16:34 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 15, 2020, 02:37:34 AM
Minnesota

All freeways
Urban areas only
Green
.1
Yes
Both
It's still kinda spotty though.  MN-62, US-169, US-212 for example do not yet have any enhanced MMs, despite the MMs first appearances on sections of I-35W and I-94 about 15 years ago.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: JasonOfORoads on December 22, 2020, 07:54:54 PM
Oregon

Interstates only or all freeways: Only on OR-217
Urban areas only or throughout the state: Urban/suburban
Color (normally green or blue): Green
Interval (most common I see are 0.1 and 0.2): 0.5
.0 on whole miles (Yes or No): Yes
Placement in median or right shoulder: Right shoulder
Any more info to add: These mileposts were installed along the 7-mile OR-217 in the summer of 2011, replacing standard mileposts. ODOT decided to test the new format after lobbying by groups like Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue in an attempt to cut down the amount of time they respond to emergency situations. Don Hamilton of ODOT mentioned in an August 3, 2011 OregonLive article "The faster the response to an incident, the faster the incident is cleared and traffic is moving again." The same article noted that the installation of the new mile markers cost $38,000, and that a second project to install half-mileposts (with no other enhanced route information) was being done on US-26 east of Portland, from Sandy to Government Camp.

Since the original ODOT "test" is now almost 10 years old, I imagine ODOT and TVF&R didn't see too much of a benefit to extend the enhanced mile markers along other freeways. At least in the Portland/Salem/Hood River area, there have been no other enhanced mile markers deployed on area freeways (OR-217's are still in place). New highways, like the Newberg-Dundee Bypass, Sunrise Expressway and Rogue Valley Expressway all use standard mile markers at mile intervals. However, ODOT apparently has found some benefit in adding the unenhanced half-mile markers to some of the more accident-prone highways in the state. I have seen them on recent trips along I-84 east of Troutdale, and they remain along the original test segment of US-26; they are also currently on Cornelius Pass Road, which is slated to become OR-127 in the near future.

There do appear to be similarly styled enhanced mile markers on US-20 over Santiam Pass, which isn't a freeway. I don't know a lot about these, but at first glance they placed randomly at whole miles with standard mile markers in between. Examples: MP 75 (https://goo.gl/maps/Xgk5D7rPji7196dP7), MP 80 (https://goo.gl/maps/dsUjfaQdqq7KNpwy8), MP 83 (https://goo.gl/maps/X9cXgQXGwT8bNqki9).
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: US 89 on December 22, 2020, 08:08:54 PM
Utah uses enhanced mile markers only in complex system interchanges where an interstate mainline moves to a different freeway. This only occurs on I-80 at its two interchanges with I-15 in Salt Lake City.

They are green and appear on the right side at intervals of 0.1 miles.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on December 22, 2020, 10:21:14 PM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on December 22, 2020, 07:54:54 PM
Oregon

Interstates only or all freeways: Only on OR-217
Urban areas only or throughout the state: Urban/suburban
Color (normally green or blue): Green
Interval (most common I see are 0.1 and 0.2): 0.5
.0 on whole miles (Yes or No): Yes
Placement in median or right shoulder: Right shoulder
Any more info to add: These mileposts were installed along the 7-mile OR-217 in the summer of 2011, replacing standard mileposts. ODOT decided to test the new format after lobbying by groups like Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue in an attempt to cut down the amount of time they respond to emergency situations. Don Hamilton of ODOT mentioned in an August 3, 2011 OregonLive article "The faster the response to an incident, the faster the incident is cleared and traffic is moving again." The same article noted that the installation of the new mile markers cost $38,000, and that a second project to install half-mileposts (with no other enhanced route information) was being done on US-26 east of Portland, from Sandy to Government Camp.

Since the original ODOT "test" is now almost 10 years old, I imagine ODOT and TVF&R didn't see too much of a benefit to extend the enhanced mile markers along other freeways. At least in the Portland/Salem/Hood River area, there have been no other enhanced mile markers deployed on area freeways (OR-217's are still in place). New highways, like the Newberg-Dundee Bypass, Sunrise Expressway and Rogue Valley Expressway all use standard mile markers at mile intervals. However, ODOT apparently has found some benefit in adding the unenhanced half-mile markers to some of the more accident-prone highways in the state. I have seen them on recent trips along I-84 east of Troutdale, and they remain along the original test segment of US-26; they are also currently on Cornelius Pass Road, which is slated to become OR-127 in the near future.

There do appear to be similarly styled enhanced mile markers on US-20 over Santiam Pass, which isn't a freeway. I don't know a lot about these, but at first glance they placed randomly at whole miles with standard mile markers in between. Examples: MP 75 (https://goo.gl/maps/Xgk5D7rPji7196dP7), MP 80 (https://goo.gl/maps/dsUjfaQdqq7KNpwy8), MP 83 (https://goo.gl/maps/X9cXgQXGwT8bNqki9).
Think this goes along with my guess that enhanced mile markers are far less common in states west of the Mississippi than the states east. I went onto GSV for a couple of minutes the other day, can't find any in large cities in Texas, California, Arizona or Washington (although I made a custom blue one of a median placed WA-520 that actually looked good). I can't even find standard mile markers subdivided into intervals less than 1 mile in those states. I've seen an enhanced mile marker used to provide location to a 911 dispatcher before, but otherwise, they're nice to haves.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Terry Shea on December 23, 2020, 07:53:53 PM
I like mile markers with boobs! :)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Scott5114 on December 23, 2020, 08:22:16 PM
Oklahoma
Interstates only or all freeways: Currently only I-35 south of Norman
Urban areas only or throughout the state: Throughout
Color (normally green or blue): Green
Interval (most common I see are 0.1 and 0.2): 0.5
.0 on whole miles (Yes or No): No
Placement in median or right shoulder: Right shoulder
Any more info to add: Pilot program; ODOT expects to roll them out to more areas later

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 23, 2020, 07:53:53 PM
I like mile markers with boobs! :)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6c0DHTXoAAcUza.jpg)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on December 23, 2020, 10:41:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 23, 2020, 08:22:16 PM
Oklahoma
Interstates only or all freeways: Currently only I-35 south of Norman
Urban areas only or throughout the state: Throughout
Color (normally green or blue): Green
Interval (most common I see are 0.1 and 0.2): 0.5
.0 on whole miles (Yes or No): No
Placement in median or right shoulder: Right shoulder
Any more info to add: Pilot program; ODOT expects to roll them out to more areas later
Interesting to see that Oklahoma uses state named interstate shields on mile markers, from the couple I saw on GSV. Thought mile markers are already tiny enough that neutered shields are pretty much necessary. At least it's not a 3di shield, because Ohio made that mistake once here (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2382252,-84.3667798,3a,15y,148.28h,85.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syig9zHfxvKPzHb9wxvkRGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Brandon on December 24, 2020, 08:06:56 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on December 23, 2020, 07:53:53 PM
I like mile markers with boobs! :)

How do you know they're enhanced that way?  Just remember to take your milemarker enhancement pills.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Terry Shea on December 25, 2020, 09:54:32 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 24, 2020, 08:06:56 AM
Quote from: Terry Shea on December 23, 2020, 07:53:53 PM
I like mile markers with boobs! :)

How do you know they're enhanced that way?  Just remember to take your milemarker enhancement pills.
I gave them the touch and taste test!
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: fillup420 on December 25, 2020, 11:00:57 PM
North Carolina is pretty inconsistent, but new construction projects are becoming more consistent.

All freeways
Urban areas only
Green
I have seen both .1 and .5 interval, never .2
no .0 for whole numbers that i have seen
usually right shoulder

there is one stretch of freeway on US 74 east of downtown Charlotte thats unique. it has the route number as "US-74"  with the direction underneath, and its every .1 interval. However, there is a two-lane bus lane in the median, and the mile markers are posted on the eastbound side of the bus lane, so it is very difficult to see the mile markers from the westbound lanes. Also im pretty sure one of these is mounted backwards, so the eastbound side sees a west direction banner and visa-versa.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on December 25, 2020, 11:35:00 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on December 25, 2020, 11:00:57 PM
North Carolina is pretty inconsistent, but new construction projects are becoming more consistent.

All freeways
Urban areas only
Green
I have seen both .1 and .5 interval, never .2
no .0 for whole numbers that i have seen
usually right shoulder

there is one stretch of freeway on US 74 east of downtown Charlotte thats unique. it has the route number as "US-74"  with the direction underneath, and its every .1 interval. However, there is a two-lane bus lane in the median, and the mile markers are posted on the eastbound side of the bus lane, so it is very difficult to see the mile markers from the westbound lanes. Also im pretty sure one of these is mounted backwards, so the eastbound side sees a west direction banner and visa-versa.
Meanwhile, here's an example of 2 poles being used for mile markers (one for each direction) when it's not needed (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2065915,-84.3716462,3a,37y,339.75h,88.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssVDsXuach_2LDJKu9OHu-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on March 18, 2021, 01:10:15 PM
Thought this topic is worth bumping the thread. Here's one of the proposed MUTCD changes regarding enhanced mile markers:
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 11, 2020, 10:10:33 PM
* Proposed requirement to have all enhanced mile markers be green
The following 6 states are the only ones I know of that mainly uses blue enhanced mile markers currently:
- Indiana
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Ohio
- Tennessee
- Wisconsin

If the proposed MUTCD change of making enhanced mile markers green only, which of those states would you expect to do a mass replacement program of their mile markers just to change the color? I know Ohio most likely wouldn't, as they're currently replacing a lot of the older narrower mile markers with only a cardinal direction abbreviation and no 'mile' word with newer, wider ones that have both (examples of both in the op). They would probably hold out even longer than the dancing arrows change from 2009.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: hotdogPi on March 18, 2021, 01:14:16 PM
The MUTCD says that signals that say WALK/DON'T WALK can remain until replaced. Maybe the same could happen with mile marker colors?
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: JoePCool14 on March 20, 2021, 09:01:00 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 16, 2020, 08:03:57 AM
Illinois

The entire Tollway System (albeit at every quarter mile).
Bloomington-Normal
Metro East

Interestingly, Chicagoland does not have them except on the tollways.  There are mile markers at various intervals on light posts, but they are not enhanced.
IDOT just doesn't seem to find them important. Even in rural areas of the state, they're spotty.

ISTHA on the other hand, I quite like their design. The newer FHWA font ones are great.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on March 20, 2021, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 20, 2021, 09:01:00 PM
IDOT just doesn't seem to find them important. Even in rural areas of the state, they're spotty.
A lot of states seem to skimp on it in rural areas. Like Ohio is pretty good with enhanced markers in large urban areas, but only use the standard green full mile markers in rural areas. Same with Kentucky and Indiana, except Indiana use 0.5 mile (standard) markers in rural areas, which is a bit better.

With the rural areas question, I think Wisconsin have my preferred setup of the enhanced mile markers. Pretty much like what Ohio does (yes, I prefer blue over green, and median over right side) in addition to them existing in intervals of 0.2 in rural stretches of freeways.

Then there's Pennsylvania on the other end of the spectrum, with 0.1 mile markers on the turnpike throughout the state.

Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Scott5114 on March 20, 2021, 09:36:14 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 18, 2021, 01:10:15 PM
Thought this topic is worth bumping the thread. Here's one of the proposed MUTCD changes regarding enhanced mile markers:
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 11, 2020, 10:10:33 PM
* Proposed requirement to have all enhanced mile markers be green
The following 6 states are the only ones I know of that mainly uses blue enhanced mile markers currently:
- Indiana
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Ohio
- Tennessee
- Wisconsin

If the proposed MUTCD change of making enhanced mile markers green only, which of those states would you expect to do a mass replacement program of their mile markers just to change the color? I know Ohio most likely wouldn't, as they're currently replacing a lot of the older narrower mile markers with only a cardinal direction abbreviation and no 'mile' word with newer, wider ones that have both (examples of both in the op). They would probably hold out even longer than the dancing arrows change from 2009.

I imagine Kansas would be out there doing it the day it passes.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on May 31, 2021, 09:55:11 PM
I did a bit more searching on this topic, and here's what I found out with whether a state uses enhanced mile markers or not, at least in urban areas, and which color and interval:

Blue enhanced mile markers:
- Indiana (0.1 or 0.2)
- Kansas (0.2)
- Kentucky (0.1 or 0.2)
- Ohio (0.1 or 0.2)
- Tennessee (0.2)
- Wisconsin (0.2)

Green enhanced mile markers:
- Connecticut (0.2)
- Florida (0.2)
- Georgia (0.2)
- Illinois (0.2 or 0.25)
- Iowa (0.2)
- Louisiana (0.2)
- Massachusetts (0.2)
- Michigan (0.2)
- Minnesota (0.1)
- Mississippi (0.2)
- Missouri (0.2)
- Nebraska (0.1)
- Nevada (1)
- New Hampshire (0.2)
- New Jersey (0.1 or 0.2)
- New Mexico (1)
- New York (0.1 or 0.2)
- North Carolina (0.1, 0.2 or 0.5)
- Oklahoma (0.5)
- Oregon (0.5, limited use)
- Pennsylvania (0.1)
- Rhode Island (0.2)
- Utah (0.1, limited use)

Some form of fractional or decimal mile markers:
- Colorado (0.1 or 0.2)
- Delaware (0.5)
- Maryland (0.5)
- Vermont (0.2)
- West Virginia (0.2)

Standard integer mile markers only:
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California (uses white county-based Postmile markers)
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Maine
- North Dakota
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Texas
- Virginia
- Washington
- Wyoming

I'm kind of surprised about some of the states that don't use enhanced mile markers, or at least subdivide their mile markers, like CA, TX, VA or WA, as well as OR and UT outside of one freeway each. They have some large cities that could probably benefit from 0.1 or 0.2 mile markers for roadside assistance.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ran4sh on June 01, 2021, 09:59:17 AM
I don't think you can easily say that a certain state uses enhanced mile markers at a specified interval throughout the state.

At least in Georgia, the "0.2" mile enhanced MMs are only used in urban areas, if rural areas have enhanced MM then they are spaced at 0.5 mile intervals. I imagine there are other states that do it similarly.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on June 01, 2021, 10:26:52 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on June 01, 2021, 09:59:17 AM
I don't think you can easily say that a certain state uses enhanced mile markers at a specified interval throughout the state.

At least in Georgia, the "0.2" mile enhanced MMs are only used in urban areas, if rural areas have enhanced MM then they are spaced at 0.5 mile intervals. I imagine there are other states that do it similarly.
I went with urban areas by default on the list above, probably should've specified that. Like Ohio doesn't use enhanced mile markers at all in rural areas (only the generic whole mile ones), while in urban areas, they go with 0.2 intervals, with the exception of 0.1 intervals in Cincinnati. There's most likely a lot of other states that use them in urban areas, but not rural.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ran4sh on June 01, 2021, 11:25:23 AM
Well there's still a difference between a regular whole mile marker (it reads simply "Mile XXX") and an enhanced whole mile marker (the ones with the route shield and direction, and "Mile XXX"), and some states use the enhanced in rural areas even if they don't use any decimal/fractional mile points.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: vdeane on June 01, 2021, 12:49:19 PM
Plus some states use enhanced for full miles but regular for the tenths - that's what the newer installs in NY around Syracuse on I-81 and Albany on I-87 use (meanwhile, the newer markers on NY 33 around Buffalo use enhanced markers for everything, so it varies by region as usual).
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 01, 2021, 01:03:54 PM
I kinda like the fact that the desert southwest states don't use enhanced mile markers (although in reality, they could benefit more from them seeing how things are so remote you really need to know exactly, down to the tenth of a mile, where you are).  I think it kinda goes hand in hand with the country.  Enhanced mile markers east of the Mississippi, where most of the population is.  More information = more people.  The less populated states don't have enhanced mile markers.  Less information = less people.  Not saying that's a rule, it's just what it makes me think of.  Of course that's not that steadfast a rule.  California with more people than any other state has not statewide based mile markers at all. 
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: CtrlAltDel on June 01, 2021, 02:45:01 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on May 31, 2021, 09:55:11 PM
I did a bit more searching on this topic, and here's what I found out with whether a state uses enhanced mile markers or not, at least in urban areas, and which color and interval:

Blue enhanced mile markers:

Green enhanced mile markers:

Some form of fractional or decimal mile markers:

Standard integer mile markers only:


Not to nitpick too much, but you left out Montana (not that it's the most urban of states) and have Colorado twice.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on June 01, 2021, 02:51:09 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 01, 2021, 02:45:01 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on May 31, 2021, 09:55:11 PM
I did a bit more searching on this topic, and here's what I found out with whether a state uses enhanced mile markers or not, at least in urban areas, and which color and interval:

Blue enhanced mile markers:

Green enhanced mile markers:

Some form of fractional or decimal mile markers:

Standard integer mile markers only:


Not to nitpick too much, but you left out Montana (not that it's the most urban of states) and have Colorado twice.
I had Colorado under integer mile markers initially, until I found 0.1 non-enhanced mile marker stickers on I-25 lighting posts south of Denver after posting the list.
And yea, I missed Montana, but I'm guessing it uses integer mile markers only for how desolate the state is.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Scott5114 on June 01, 2021, 03:11:23 PM
Nevada has some enhanced postmiles that show a shield but otherwise contain the same by-county information that their small postmiles have. California has a few MUTCD-standard enhanced markers on one road but I think the mileage is still by-county.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: stevashe on June 01, 2021, 05:31:11 PM
I can confirm that Montana is just standard integer mile markers, from what I've seen driving there.

Also, I feel like California should at least have a note about them using their own postmile signs and not the MUTCD standard mile markers. Plus, they also have the unique practice of signing the whole miles (x.00) in the increasing direction, and the x.50 miles in the decreasing direction, which is interesting.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: FrCorySticha on June 01, 2021, 06:42:37 PM
Quote from: stevashe on June 01, 2021, 05:31:11 PM
I can confirm that Montana is just standard integer mile markers, from what I've seen driving there.
I have yet to see decimal mileage markers anywhere in Montana. It would be nice if they did that for interstates, but still only integers.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SSOWorld on June 01, 2021, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 15, 2020, 02:37:34 AM

Wisconsin

All freeways
Throughout the state
Blue
.2
Yes
Median

There are rural areas of the state that have not received these yet.  Also there are expressway sections that have these as well - still in urban areas or surrounding them (the signs do go well out of the central urban zones such as Madison or Milwaukee.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: US 89 on June 01, 2021, 07:04:49 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on May 31, 2021, 09:55:11 PM
Green enhanced mile markers:
- Utah (0.1, limited use)

That "limited use"  refers to exactly one route (I-80) where the mainline route designation shifts freeways at the two interchanges with I-15. UDOT uses ramp mileposts (described more in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21703.0)) spaced every 0.1 mile at three complex system interchanges in Salt Lake to aid in emergency response. Most of the ramps carry a 3-letter designator and have blue markers every 0.1 mile, but UDOT opted instead to use MUTCD-standard green enhanced mile markers for the ramps carrying mainline 80.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on June 01, 2021, 07:14:09 PM
Quote from: stevashe on June 01, 2021, 05:31:11 PM
Also, I feel like California should at least have a note about them using their own postmile signs and not the MUTCD standard mile markers. Plus, they also have the unique practice of signing the whole miles (x.00) in the increasing direction, and the x.50 miles in the decreasing direction, which is interesting.
Are CA's postmiles sign on US/SR only or also on interstates? I did a Google image search for CA postmile signs, as I don't know what they look like, and couldn't find an example of one that's on an interstate highway.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: US 89 on June 01, 2021, 08:16:14 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 01, 2021, 07:14:09 PM
Quote from: stevashe on June 01, 2021, 05:31:11 PM
Also, I feel like California should at least have a note about them using their own postmile signs and not the MUTCD standard mile markers. Plus, they also have the unique practice of signing the whole miles (x.00) in the increasing direction, and the x.50 miles in the decreasing direction, which is interesting.
Are CA's postmiles sign on US/SR only or also on interstates? I did a Google image search for CA postmile signs, as I don't know what they look like, and couldn't find an example of one that's on an interstate highway.

They are on interstates too. Here's one on I-80 at the Nevada line: https://goo.gl/maps/4oLXygTb3rdZtrft5

In fact, they are the only mileage markers on California interstates. MUTCD-standard mile markers are limited to a few highways generally in the southern part of the state, and none of them are interstates.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Mccojm on June 01, 2021, 08:17:51 PM
New York (Long Island)
No mileage markers used, nys roads use reference markers which are tiny green signs every 1/10th mile or close to it. The system makes no sense to those who aren't in the know of how the system works.

As a dot employee, I wish we would install enhanced markers on our highways and major routes on Long Island. Probably will never happen while we still use consecutive based exits with no indication of switching to mileage base in my lifetime as well as funding allocated to other necessary improvements.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ran4sh on June 01, 2021, 11:56:09 PM
Those aren't necessarily related, there are states that use MUTCD-standard mile markers even when they used sequential exit numbers.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: MASTERNC on June 02, 2021, 01:05:29 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 01, 2021, 12:49:19 PM
Plus some states use enhanced for full miles but regular for the tenths - that's what the newer installs in NY around Syracuse on I-81 and Albany on I-87 use (meanwhile, the newer markers on NY 33 around Buffalo use enhanced markers for everything, so it varies by region as usual).

The enhanced markers at full miles with regular tenth markers are what the PA Turnpike and MDTA (I-95) use
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on June 13, 2021, 06:29:09 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 14, 2020, 11:10:21 PM
Kentucky
Interstates only or all freeways: Interstates only
Urban areas only or throughout the state: Urban areas only
Color (normally green or blue): Blue
Interval (most common I see are 0.1 and 0.2): 0.2 in Louisville and Lexington, 0.1 in Northern KY (Cincinnati Metro)
.0 on whole miles (Yes or No): Yes
Placement in median or right shoulder: Median, with right shoulder ones on I-64 in Louisville (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.223271,-85.554049,3a,15y,124.04h,85.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv9pzEwGZWJGxj3XoVN_mTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Any more info to add: Has an old design (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2232713,-85.5540479,3a,15y,124.04h,85.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv9pzEwGZWJGxj3XoVN_mTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and new design (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0702266,-84.4498616,3a,15y,290.24h,84.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQMg90vei8Ibqu1jW9mPXsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), with the same details as Ohio's mile markers in each.
Edit to KY, as I was on I-75 in the state yesterday and noticed some things
- South of Lexington, there were enhanced mile markers in 0.2 intervals for the distance of the 6 laned section in rural areas
- At around mileposts 50-70ish, the whole mile markers don't have a ".0". This is the only occurrence of this in the state I found so far. This section was recently 4-laned, I didn't take photos, and GSV only went up to 2018, so no example here.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: roadfro on June 13, 2021, 09:48:36 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 01, 2021, 03:11:23 PM
Nevada has some enhanced postmiles that show a shield but otherwise contain the same by-county information that their small postmiles have. California has a few MUTCD-standard enhanced markers on one road but I think the mileage is still by-county.

Nevada DOT adopted the MUTCD enhanced reference location signs several years ago (showing statewide mileage on interstate highways only). This happened simultaneously with their deployment of enhanced county-based white milepost signs (what Caltrans calls a postmile) for US and state highways in rural areas, which were first trialed in 2014 and adopted circa 2015. (The enhanced Nevada milepost was discussed in the New style of mileposts in test trials on Nevada highways (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13429.msg2005620) thread on the Pacific Southwest board, with pic examples in thread.)

Most deployments of the green enhanced reference location signs thus far have only been in places where major (re-)construction projects have taken place. Thus far, this has included some installations on I-580 and on I-80 near Reno. The ones on I-80 in Reno and the few on I-580 in Carson City ended up being installed with a small white standard milepost (postmile) panel adjacent with the same mile info–this is because NDOT mileposting guidelines still call for a standard county-based milepost at all county-based integer mile locations, and these locations happen to be coincident with the beginning points of the interstates in Nevada. I haven't been on significant stretches of I-80 and I-15 outside of their major urban areas lately to see if NDOT has been better about getting these out to other parts of the interstates...

However, Nevada's white enhanced mileposts have proliferated to decently-traveled rural highways by now. It's become a lot easier to have an idea of where you are when you're out in the middle of nowhere.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: US 89 on June 14, 2021, 12:07:37 AM
Quote from: roadfro on June 13, 2021, 09:48:36 PM
However, Nevada's white enhanced mileposts have proliferated to decently-traveled rural highways by now. It's become a lot easier to have an idea of where you are when you're out in the middle of nowhere.

When I was in Nevada a couple years ago last it seemed totally random which segments of highway had been upgraded to white enhanced mileposts and which parts still had the old ones. All of SR 487 and 488 had the enhanced posts... but US 6/50 and US 93 in that same area largely did not, and I didn't see any on the non-interstate parts of US 93A.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: crispy93 on June 14, 2021, 10:29:51 AM
Quote from: Mccojm on June 01, 2021, 08:17:51 PM
New York (Long Island)
No mileage markers used, nys roads use reference markers which are tiny green signs every 1/10th mile or close to it. The system makes no sense to those who aren't in the know of how the system works.

As a dot employee, I wish we would install enhanced markers on our highways and major routes on Long Island. Probably will never happen while we still use consecutive based exits with no indication of switching to mileage base in my lifetime as well as funding allocated to other necessary improvements.

I have no idea why R10 and R11 don't use mile markers at all. I asked NYSDOT R8 (who seems to be the point-of-contact for the Hutchinson River Parkway conversion to mile exits) and was told that the Bronx section (which is in R11) will indeed be getting proper mile markers. Remains to be seen
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: roadfro on June 22, 2021, 02:26:26 AM
Quote from: US 89 on June 14, 2021, 12:07:37 AM
Quote from: roadfro on June 13, 2021, 09:48:36 PM
However, Nevada's white enhanced mileposts have proliferated to decently-traveled rural highways by now. It's become a lot easier to have an idea of where you are when you're out in the middle of nowhere.

When I was in Nevada a couple years ago last it seemed totally random which segments of highway had been upgraded to white enhanced mileposts and which parts still had the old ones. All of SR 487 and 488 had the enhanced posts... but US 6/50 and US 93 in that same area largely did not, and I didn't see any on the non-interstate parts of US 93A.

Well, the implementation has certainly been a bit random at times. At first, they were really only installed coincident with a major reconstruction project. Lately, there have been instances where it looks like no major or even minor projects have gone happened but the stretch will have enhanced mileposts. So it's kinda hard to predict.

The area you're describing is near Great Basin National Park, most of the highways in that area are in NDOT's District 3 (northeastern Nevada). That district probably sees less maintenance and construction dollars than the other two districts (District 1 has Las Vegas, District 2 has Reno/Carson/Tahoe). Thus, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that region has seen less enhanced mileposts deployed than other areas (by contrast; they're almost constant now on US 95 between Vegas and roughly Hawthorne, spread over Districts 1 & 2). I'd guess there was a more recent minor repaving or safety enhancement project (shoulder flattening, center rumble strip installation, etc.) along SR 487 & 488 that may have bumped the priority for installing enhanced mileposts there...otherwise, I'd expect to have seen them on US 6/50 and US 93 long before SR 488.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 10:16:57 AM
Found a wide variant (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3983428,-81.5090585,3a,15y,157.25h,87.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siXUWRmZgBZFzySwxTukH4w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) with the I-271 and I-480 shields side by side in Cleveland. With a width like this, I would prefer the numbers to be written in one line, like "25.2", and make the sign shorter in height, also reducing the empty blue space.
Also this one on I-69 in Bloomington (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.10671,-86.5588621,3a,45.1y,34.97h,86.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB6NUNUFGwXXK1unBlo79dQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), with the oversized route shield and tiny milepost number, looks obnoxious.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 22, 2021, 10:34:39 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 10:16:57 AM
Found a wide variant (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3983428,-81.5090585,3a,15y,157.25h,87.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siXUWRmZgBZFzySwxTukH4w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) with the I-271 and I-480 shields side by side in Cleveland. With a width like this, I would prefer the numbers to be written in one line, like "25.2", and make the sign shorter in height, also reducing the empty blue space.
Also this one on I-69 in Bloomington (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.10671,-86.5588621,3a,45.1y,34.97h,86.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB6NUNUFGwXXK1unBlo79dQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), with the oversized route shield and tiny milepost number, looks obnoxious.

That wide one in Cleveland looks so stupid. That sign has absolutely no reason to be that big. Either stack everything vertically, or only show one route number. It's also hilarious that they couldn't be bothered to write out the word "SOUTH" with all that space that they had.

The I-69 example... I actually find it interesting. It's totally a waste of space like the first example, but if it were better proportioned, it actually could look decent.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: DRMan on June 22, 2021, 10:40:37 AM
I don't think Arizona typically uses enhanced mile markers, but they are starting to install memorial mile markers for fallen officers. They are essentially enhanced mile markers with a memorial plaque that are placed near the location of their death.

https://www.eacourier.com/news/dps-honoring-fallen-officers-with-roadside-markers/article_022793c4-ae88-11eb-9535-47ec479904df.html
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 12:42:41 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 22, 2021, 10:34:39 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 10:16:57 AM
Found a wide variant (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3983428,-81.5090585,3a,15y,157.25h,87.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siXUWRmZgBZFzySwxTukH4w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) with the I-271 and I-480 shields side by side in Cleveland. With a width like this, I would prefer the numbers to be written in one line, like "25.2", and make the sign shorter in height, also reducing the empty blue space.
Also this one on I-69 in Bloomington (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.10671,-86.5588621,3a,45.1y,34.97h,86.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB6NUNUFGwXXK1unBlo79dQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), with the oversized route shield and tiny milepost number, looks obnoxious.

That wide one in Cleveland looks so stupid. That sign has absolutely no reason to be that big. Either stack everything vertically, or only show one route number. It's also hilarious that they couldn't be bothered to write out the word "SOUTH" with all that space that they had.
The old style wide ones in Ohio and Kentucky, like this one at I-70/71 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9533154,-83.0077489,3a,21.4y,114.75h,93.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_iMhsqaaBZ9dS3SlWxJQRg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and I-71/75 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0514182,-84.5625281,3a,16.6y,296.96h,87.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sApo_YMe-DHMlDvNY6KFkdQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), actually looked great imo. Maybe it's the two 3di shields, opposed to the two 2di in those two examples, that makes the I-271/480 one looks off to me. As for stacking the route shields instead of placing them side by side, I see that Wisconsin does that with I-43/94 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9788537,-87.9160139,3a,29.4y,303.01h,87.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slh1XYmjqCWREYy1sC8adPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), and it looks good too. Ohio could follow that example, after all, both states are one of the handful of "blue states" when it comes to enhanced mile markers. :D Ohio sometimes also only use the dominant route only (one with exit number continuity) on mile markers in concurrencies, like using I-76 only on the I-76/77 concurrency in Akron.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 22, 2021, 10:34:39 AM
The I-69 example... I actually find it interesting. It's totally a waste of space like the first example, but if it were better proportioned, it actually could look decent.
You mean with the ".0" for integer miles gone? A better proportioned example would be like this one on I-75 in Toledo (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6850575,-83.5682623,3a,18.1y,184.28h,91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD-Iu_zLM2izyQGw5dPz4mQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), which I like.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 12:46:50 PM
Quote from: DRMan on June 22, 2021, 10:40:37 AM
I don't think Arizona typically uses enhanced mile markers, but they are starting to install memorial mile markers for fallen officers. They are essentially enhanced mile markers with a memorial plaque that are placed near the location of their death.

https://www.eacourier.com/news/dps-honoring-fallen-officers-with-roadside-markers/article_022793c4-ae88-11eb-9535-47ec479904df.html
Normally, enhanced mile markers are used for navigation, though using them for roadside memorials have to be one of the most interesting uses for them I've seen so far.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ran4sh on June 22, 2021, 11:13:16 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 10:16:57 AM
Found a wide variant (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3983428,-81.5090585,3a,15y,157.25h,87.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siXUWRmZgBZFzySwxTukH4w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) with the I-271 and I-480 shields side by side in Cleveland. With a width like this, I would prefer the numbers to be written in one line, like "25.2", and make the sign shorter in height, also reducing the empty blue space.
Also this one on I-69 in Bloomington (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.10671,-86.5588621,3a,45.1y,34.97h,86.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB6NUNUFGwXXK1unBlo79dQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), with the oversized route shield and tiny milepost number, looks obnoxious.

I don't think I agree with showing both/all routes of an overlap especially since the mileage usually is only correct for one of them. (The I-71/75 in Ohio is a rare case that they do match) Georgia only includes the shield for the dominant route (example https://goo.gl/maps/S2JSGKddquAL41TW8 ).

Although this gives me the idea that there could be enhanced MM for both routes of an overlap, by having most of the MM be for the dominant route but when the lesser route reaches a whole number mile, remove the corresponding dominant MM and install a MM for the lesser route instead.

For example, route A is dominant, routes A & B have a multiplex that begins at mile 20.0 on A, mile 10.6 on B. So the mile markers could be "North A 20", "North A 20.2", "North B 11" (instead of A 20.4), "North A 20.6", etc
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on June 23, 2021, 12:01:14 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on June 22, 2021, 11:13:16 PM
Although this gives me the idea that there could be enhanced MM for both routes of an overlap, by having most of the MM be for the dominant route but when the lesser route reaches a whole number mile, remove the corresponding dominant MM and install a MM for the lesser route instead.

For example, route A is dominant, routes A & B have a multiplex that begins at mile 20.0 on A, mile 10.6 on B. So the mile markers could be "North A 20", "North A 20.2", "North B 11" (instead of A 20.4), "North A 20.6", etc
I don't think I like this idea, as I think the numbers should be consistent all the way down for navigation purposes. Out of your two preferred options, I'll take the using the dominant route and mile markers in a concurrency only.

Also, I found one that is worse looking than the I-271/480 example: I-55/70 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6627356,-90.0925532,3a,24.2y,46.17h,88.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s314g2iwK2bYjpgsJEwTJ1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in a single route shield.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ran4sh on June 23, 2021, 02:16:23 AM
I don't think anyone is actually navigating with decimal mile markers. Those are to refer to locations. Navigation is done with the regular signage
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on June 23, 2021, 02:25:52 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on June 23, 2021, 02:16:23 AM
I don't think anyone is actually navigating with decimal mile markers. Those are to refer to locations. Navigation is done with the regular signage
That's what I meant. Poor word choice on my part.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: JoePCool14 on June 23, 2021, 10:15:52 AM
Quote from: DRMan on June 22, 2021, 10:40:37 AM
I don't think Arizona typically uses enhanced mile markers, but they are starting to install memorial mile markers for fallen officers. They are essentially enhanced mile markers with a memorial plaque that are placed near the location of their death.

https://www.eacourier.com/news/dps-honoring-fallen-officers-with-roadside-markers/article_022793c4-ae88-11eb-9535-47ec479904df.html

That's a neat concept, though it may be a bit unnerving if you have to make an emergency stop somewhere and see a memorial and think that someone was killed in that spot. I guess it's no different than all the crosses or wreaths people put out.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Bickendan on June 23, 2021, 10:28:52 AM
OR 126 has .1 mileposts for a couple miles between Eugene and Florence, likely related to a construction project through the area.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on July 01, 2021, 10:36:38 PM
Found some green enhanced mile markers in Ohio. Besides the Ohio Turnpike ones, these generally only last for a couple of miles before the blue ones take over again.
- Ohio Turnpike (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5918957,-84.0433699,3a,17.8y,231.27h,87.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbLY59g2zseDrkdZaKt0nYA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
- I-75 Dayton (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7376462,-84.2048784,3a,51.5y,141.73h,90.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssMV7XqKsXkyjvjSEEUQ5NQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
- I-90 Cleveland (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4936109,-81.6848643,3a,46.1y,197.77h,91.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfeR9fcIEtl08OpTFBnnprQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 02, 2021, 09:27:41 PM
Have we even come up with a consensus on whether most of us here prefer blue or green mile markers? While I still think the blue ones look good, I think green makes more sense and fits in better.

Maybe a thread poll would be useful.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on July 02, 2021, 09:33:44 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on July 02, 2021, 09:27:41 PM
Have we even come up with a consensus on whether most of us here prefer blue or green mile markers? While I still think the blue ones look good, I think green makes more sense and fits in better.

Maybe a thread poll would be useful.
I prefer blue, mainly because I'm in a state that uses blue, and near two other states that also uses blue, so I'm a bit more used to the color.

I'll create a poll. First poll I made on this forum too!
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on July 03, 2021, 10:18:32 PM
Both the EB 70 mile 95.6 and EB 670 mile 0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9701385,-83.0706269,3a,19.8y,82.36h,92.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAv6FWGzgm8zVR9J5btACyA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) markers are posted at the same point here. Besides that there's no reason to post both route's mile markers in a concurrency, this point isn't even part of I-670 at all, as it's 0.4 miles before I-670 exits off I-70.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ran4sh on July 05, 2021, 02:24:06 AM
The proposed new MUTCD requires green for enhanced mile markers (the current MUTCD is that either green or blue can be used, but the same agency [state, local, etc] has to use one color for all their enhanced mile markers)

Do states with blue enhanced MMs use regular MMs (which have to be green)? That would seem to be a remarkable change when a motorist starts seeing blue MMs after having seen green ones along the route.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Scott5114 on July 05, 2021, 02:28:52 AM
When Kansas used blue enhanced milemarkers (which was before the MUTCD added enhanced milemarkers; I believe they are in the process of changing over to the MUTCD-standard enhanced markers now), they posted blue enhanced markers in the median and green standard markers on the right shoulder (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0528207,-94.6791376,3a,48.9y,354.26h,90.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp9puOajLLJXdV46KQYBRuw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on July 05, 2021, 08:14:35 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on July 05, 2021, 02:24:06 AM
The proposed new MUTCD requires green for enhanced mile markers (the current MUTCD is that either green or blue can be used, but the same agency [state, local, etc] has to use one color for all their enhanced mile markers)

Do states with blue enhanced MMs use regular MMs (which have to be green)? That would seem to be a remarkable change when a motorist starts seeing blue MMs after having seen green ones along the route.
In Ohio, yes. The state only uses green regular integer mile markers on the right side on rural interstates, and the blue enhanced mile markers (generally in intervals of 0.2, exception is Cincinnati with 0.1) start appearing in the median in urban/suburban areas, along with the green regular ones. So at whole miles in a city, you see, for example, a blue "North (75) Mile 10.0"  in the median, as well as a standard "Mile 10"  with stacked digits on the right.

Kentucky is similar to Ohio in terms of how mile markers are done, so they have both at integer miles when enhanced mile markers are used too. 

In Indiana, the green regular mile markers aren't used when enhanced mile markers (in intervals of 0.1, also placed in the median) are used in the urban areas. In rural areas, the green regular mile markers are used every 0.5 miles.

I drove through Tennessee a month ago, and iirc, don't think I saw regular mile markers when enhanced ones are used. Though you might know about TN's practices more, as one of your border states.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: amroad17 on July 07, 2021, 01:18:13 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on July 03, 2021, 10:18:32 PM
Both the EB 70 mile 95.6 and EB 670 mile 0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9701385,-83.0706269,3a,19.8y,82.36h,92.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAv6FWGzgm8zVR9J5btACyA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) markers are posted at the same point here. Besides that there's no reason to post both route's mile markers in a concurrency, this point isn't even part of I-670 at all, as it's 0.4 miles before I-670 exits off I-70.
I have noticed that before.  I guess the Ohio DOT considers the ramp from I-670 WB to where it meets I-70 WB as part of I-670 (notice the reverse gore area on the WB side in the googlemaps capture above).
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on July 08, 2021, 08:37:58 PM
"West (76) 240 Mile .4" (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.917677,-80.5324504,3a,15.5y,257.08h,88.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWUOaf6XNeTUEQSENw1Nd5Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: roadfro on July 09, 2021, 11:26:48 AM


Quote from: ran4sh on June 22, 2021, 11:13:16 PM
I don't think I agree with showing both/all routes of an overlap especially since the mileage usually is only correct for one of them. (The I-71/75 in Ohio is a rare case that they do match) Georgia only includes the shield for the dominant route (example https://goo.gl/maps/S2JSGKddquAL41TW8 ).

Although this gives me the idea that there could be enhanced MM for both routes of an overlap, by having most of the MM be for the dominant route but when the lesser route reaches a whole number mile, remove the corresponding dominant MM and install a MM for the lesser route instead.

For example, route A is dominant, routes A & B have a multiplex that begins at mile 20.0 on A, mile 10.6 on B. So the mile markers could be "North A 20", "North A 20.2", "North B 11" (instead of A 20.4), "North A 20.6", etc

I agree with only showing one route on mile markers in a multiplex.

But if you had to post both, removing A when B reaches an integer mile point would be a bit weird. I'd suggest posting the A miles normally, with a small all-text placard beneath showing the equivalent B mileage at that point–this keeps the dominant mileage prominent and provides the secondary mile info.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on July 09, 2021, 11:41:15 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 09, 2021, 11:26:48 AM


Quote from: ran4sh on June 22, 2021, 11:13:16 PM
I don't think I agree with showing both/all routes of an overlap especially since the mileage usually is only correct for one of them. (The I-71/75 in Ohio is a rare case that they do match) Georgia only includes the shield for the dominant route (example https://goo.gl/maps/S2JSGKddquAL41TW8 ).

Although this gives me the idea that there could be enhanced MM for both routes of an overlap, by having most of the MM be for the dominant route but when the lesser route reaches a whole number mile, remove the corresponding dominant MM and install a MM for the lesser route instead.

For example, route A is dominant, routes A & B have a multiplex that begins at mile 20.0 on A, mile 10.6 on B. So the mile markers could be "North A 20", "North A 20.2", "North B 11" (instead of A 20.4), "North A 20.6", etc

I agree with only showing one route on mile markers in a multiplex.

But if you had to post both, removing A when B reaches an integer mile point would be a bit weird. I'd suggest posting the A miles normally, with a small all-text placard beneath showing the equivalent B mileage at that point–this keeps the dominant mileage prominent and provides the secondary mile info.
So something like this (https://imgur.com/a/S5WsbPn)? (I used random numbers in this sketch as it's not important to the main point.)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: roadfro on July 09, 2021, 10:19:28 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on July 09, 2021, 11:41:15 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 09, 2021, 11:26:48 AM
I agree with only showing one route on mile markers in a multiplex.

But if you had to post both, removing A when B reaches an integer mile point would be a bit weird. I'd suggest posting the A miles normally, with a small all-text placard beneath showing the equivalent B mileage at that point–this keeps the dominant mileage prominent and provides the secondary mile info.
So something like this (https://imgur.com/a/S5WsbPn)? (I used random numbers in this sketch as it's not important to the main point.)

Yeah, something like that, with the plaque being noticeably smaller.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Scott5114 on July 10, 2021, 03:00:43 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 09, 2021, 11:26:48 AM


Quote from: ran4sh on June 22, 2021, 11:13:16 PM
I don't think I agree with showing both/all routes of an overlap especially since the mileage usually is only correct for one of them. (The I-71/75 in Ohio is a rare case that they do match) Georgia only includes the shield for the dominant route (example https://goo.gl/maps/S2JSGKddquAL41TW8 ).

Although this gives me the idea that there could be enhanced MM for both routes of an overlap, by having most of the MM be for the dominant route but when the lesser route reaches a whole number mile, remove the corresponding dominant MM and install a MM for the lesser route instead.

For example, route A is dominant, routes A & B have a multiplex that begins at mile 20.0 on A, mile 10.6 on B. So the mile markers could be "North A 20", "North A 20.2", "North B 11" (instead of A 20.4), "North A 20.6", etc

I agree with only showing one route on mile markers in a multiplex.

But if you had to post both, removing A when B reaches an integer mile point would be a bit weird. I'd suggest posting the A miles normally, with a small all-text placard beneath showing the equivalent B mileage at that point–this keeps the dominant mileage prominent and provides the secondary mile info.

Why not just post both full enhanced milemarkers next to each other at the integer mileage points according to the dominant route, with the recessive route showing a non-round milemarker?

(https://i.imgur.com/Nd5W9NQ.png)

While this is likely not appropriate on concurrencies that exist mostly to connect two disparate and unrelated sections of a minor highway, anyone who has a destination along the recessive route and is actually interested in following the recessive route through the concurrency is likely to find its mileposts more useful to them than the dominant route's.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ran4sh on July 11, 2021, 01:16:45 AM
The reason I didn't suggest posting both routes' mile markers at the same point is for message loading and/or sign spreading concerns. Two mile markers at the same point can be confusing in certain situations, for example, when reporting the location of an incident (i.e. if a 911 dispatcher asks a motorist where they are, do they read the content of both mile markers?)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Scott5114 on July 11, 2021, 02:30:41 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on July 11, 2021, 01:16:45 AM
The reason I didn't suggest posting both routes' mile markers at the same point is for message loading and/or sign spreading concerns. Two mile markers at the same point can be confusing in certain situations, for example, when reporting the location of an incident (i.e. if a 911 dispatcher asks a motorist where they are, do they read the content of both mile markers?)

Presumably they could read either marker and it should suffice. The only issue would be if someone read the shield for one marker and the mileage for another, but I don't know why anyone would think that was a desirable thing to do.

I'm not sure that message loading or sign spreading would be a concern in this situation, since it's not a problem when displaying two adjacent shields for concurrent highways. so I'm not sure why two adjacent milemarkers would be a concern, especially since people could focus on whichever one they're interested in.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on September 05, 2021, 12:55:56 AM
Found some 2021 GSV images on various Tennessee interstates, and along with my drive on I-40 east of Knoxville a few months ago, seems like the state replaced a lot of their old enhanced mile markers with new, slightly larger and more detailed, ones, similar to what Ohio has been slowly doing for years now:
(https://i.imgur.com/SMlJlr5.png)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: hbelkins on September 05, 2021, 09:55:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 10, 2021, 03:00:43 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 09, 2021, 11:26:48 AM


Quote from: ran4sh on June 22, 2021, 11:13:16 PM
I don't think I agree with showing both/all routes of an overlap especially since the mileage usually is only correct for one of them. (The I-71/75 in Ohio is a rare case that they do match) Georgia only includes the shield for the dominant route (example https://goo.gl/maps/S2JSGKddquAL41TW8 ).

Although this gives me the idea that there could be enhanced MM for both routes of an overlap, by having most of the MM be for the dominant route but when the lesser route reaches a whole number mile, remove the corresponding dominant MM and install a MM for the lesser route instead.

For example, route A is dominant, routes A & B have a multiplex that begins at mile 20.0 on A, mile 10.6 on B. So the mile markers could be "North A 20", "North A 20.2", "North B 11" (instead of A 20.4), "North A 20.6", etc

I agree with only showing one route on mile markers in a multiplex.

But if you had to post both, removing A when B reaches an integer mile point would be a bit weird. I'd suggest posting the A miles normally, with a small all-text placard beneath showing the equivalent B mileage at that point–this keeps the dominant mileage prominent and provides the secondary mile info.

Why not just post both full enhanced milemarkers next to each other at the integer mileage points according to the dominant route, with the recessive route showing a non-round milemarker?

(https://i.imgur.com/Nd5W9NQ.png)

While this is likely not appropriate on concurrencies that exist mostly to connect two disparate and unrelated sections of a minor highway, anyone who has a destination along the recessive route and is actually interested in following the recessive route through the concurrency is likely to find its mileposts more useful to them than the dominant route's.

Mile markers are posted for both US 13 and US 50 on the Salisbury, Md. bypass.

And I read over the weekend that mile markers for I-395 are being placed as a supplement to the mile markers for I-290 in Massachusetts.

Meanwhile, these have been posted along I-24 in the Paducah area. (Photo from KYTC District 1's Facebook page.)

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/241415158_4275822185786830_7063935021255507330_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=e3f864&_nc_ohc=jzN82Al7AwUAX84qukn&tn=v77cwJmzn5_8fm7l&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=bff5fdf47ba09a7d94f46f73dc327514&oe=615A1665)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Bickendan on September 06, 2021, 03:36:02 AM
Green 24?
Is there a business loop I'm not aware of?
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on September 06, 2021, 11:01:23 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 06, 2021, 03:36:02 AM
Green 24?
Is there a business loop I'm not aware of?
That is one of my two thoughts.
The other is "why is this one green when KY uses blue in the rest of the state?"
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: hbelkins on September 06, 2021, 09:35:08 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 06, 2021, 11:01:23 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 06, 2021, 03:36:02 AM
Green 24?
Is there a business loop I'm not aware of?
That is one of my two thoughts.
The other is "why is this one green when KY uses blue in the rest of the state?"

There is a signed Business Loop 24 in Paducah (formerly signed as Downtown Loop 24) but this is on the mainline interstate. Why they're green, I have no idea.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ErmineNotyours on September 23, 2021, 10:13:14 PM
Washington has sort-of adopted fractional mile markers on the northbound I-5 approach to Downtown Seattle.  The green mile makers with tenth of a mile divisions are used to identify variable speed limit sign gantries.  Example. (https://goo.gl/maps/9sdXZgQjW5vRrWDE8)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Bickendan on September 26, 2021, 03:05:57 AM
I like how it goes Mile 162 then Mile 162.0  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: adventurernumber1 on October 02, 2021, 11:23:01 AM
My first vivid memory of enhanced mile markers was that of the blue ones on Interstate 75 in Chattanooga, Tennessee when I was real young. From the get-go I had always associated these more with urban areas since I was used to the non-enhanced green markers on I-75 in Georgia closer to home.

I like the blue enhanced mile markers, but I might just slightly prefer the green ones, since the color is more consistent with mile markers across the board, and thus I inherently associate mile markers with the color green (despite having seen the blue enhanced ones in Chattanooga myriad times).


Quote from: hbelkins on September 05, 2021, 09:55:53 PM
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/241415158_4275822185786830_7063935021255507330_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=e3f864&_nc_ohc=jzN82Al7AwUAX84qukn&tn=v77cwJmzn5_8fm7l&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=bff5fdf47ba09a7d94f46f73dc327514&oe=615A1665)

I'm not at all into that mile marker either...it indeed looks far too much like a business shield, they definitely should have used a regular red-and-blue-colored shield instead.  :no:  :crazy:  :-D
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 02, 2021, 02:42:41 PM
I was driving on Route 4 in NJ recently and called 911 to report a large car bumper sitting in the travel lanes that people were swerving around. NJ is pretty consistent about posting EMMs, so when I called I gave the route, direction, and mile marker. The operator replied that this information was "useless to her"  and asked me to give the town and a cross street. I'm not from Bergen county so I don't usually make note of which one of the 500 tiny municipalities I'm in at a given moment. I was able to give a cross street by retracing my location on google maps satellite view, but someone not as geographically minded or tech-savvy probably wouldn't be able to do that. If EMMs are really "useless"  to 911 operators when reporting an emergency, I don't know why NJ wastes their money installing them.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on October 02, 2021, 02:53:37 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 02, 2021, 02:42:41 PM
I was driving on Route 4 in NJ recently and called 911 to report a large car bumper sitting in the travel lanes that people were swerving around. NJ is pretty consistent about posting EMMs, so when I called I gave the route, direction, and mile marker. The operator replied that this information was “useless to her” and asked me to give the town and a cross street. I’m not from Bergen county so I don’t usually make note of which one of the 500 tiny municipalities I’m in at a given moment. I was able to give a cross street by retracing my location on google maps satellite view, but someone not as geographically minded or tech-savvy probably wouldn’t be able to do that. If EMMs are really “useless” to 911 operators when reporting an emergency, I don’t know why NJ wastes their money installing them.
I had the complete opposite experience. When my dad driving got into a car crash, they had me call the 911 dispatcher (yes, a 14 year old back then), while they talked with the people in the other car involved. After I told them that the crash was on I-71, and we were parked in the median, I was about to give the two nearest exits, though the dispatcher asked me "do you see a blue mile marker nearby?". I did, and gave them the mile marker number, and that was all they needed (Cincinnati uses 0.1 intervals on enhanced mile markers, unlike most other urban areas I've been to, so that's pretty precise already).
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: rower155 on October 04, 2021, 12:15:59 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 02, 2021, 02:53:37 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 02, 2021, 02:42:41 PM
I was driving on Route 4 in NJ recently and called 911 to report a large car bumper sitting in the travel lanes that people were swerving around. NJ is pretty consistent about posting EMMs, so when I called I gave the route, direction, and mile marker. The operator replied that this information was "useless to her"  and asked me to give the town and a cross street. I'm not from Bergen county so I don't usually make note of which one of the 500 tiny municipalities I'm in at a given moment. I was able to give a cross street by retracing my location on google maps satellite view, but someone not as geographically minded or tech-savvy probably wouldn't be able to do that. If EMMs are really "useless"  to 911 operators when reporting an emergency, I don't know why NJ wastes their money installing them.
I had the complete opposite experience. When my dad driving got into a car crash, they had me call the 911 dispatcher (yes, a 14 year old back then), while they talked with the people in the other car involved. After I told them that the crash was on I-71, and we were parked in the median, I was about to give the two nearest exits, though the dispatcher asked me "do you see a blue mile marker nearby?". I did, and gave them the mile marker number, and that was all they needed (Cincinnati uses 0.1 intervals on enhanced mile markers, unlike most other urban areas I've been to, so that's pretty precise already).

It is definitely not the norm if a 911 dispatcher says the milepost doesn't help them.  The Mile-1 app works well for knowing your mile marker, especially if you can't see the nearest one.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mile-1/id1562022453
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on October 04, 2021, 02:10:36 PM
Quote from: rower155 on October 04, 2021, 12:15:59 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 02, 2021, 02:53:37 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 02, 2021, 02:42:41 PM
I was driving on Route 4 in NJ recently and called 911 to report a large car bumper sitting in the travel lanes that people were swerving around. NJ is pretty consistent about posting EMMs, so when I called I gave the route, direction, and mile marker. The operator replied that this information was "useless to her"  and asked me to give the town and a cross street. I'm not from Bergen county so I don't usually make note of which one of the 500 tiny municipalities I'm in at a given moment. I was able to give a cross street by retracing my location on google maps satellite view, but someone not as geographically minded or tech-savvy probably wouldn't be able to do that. If EMMs are really "useless"  to 911 operators when reporting an emergency, I don't know why NJ wastes their money installing them.
I had the complete opposite experience. When my dad driving got into a car crash, they had me call the 911 dispatcher (yes, a 14 year old back then), while they talked with the people in the other car involved. After I told them that the crash was on I-71, and we were parked in the median, I was about to give the two nearest exits, though the dispatcher asked me "do you see a blue mile marker nearby?". I did, and gave them the mile marker number, and that was all they needed (Cincinnati uses 0.1 intervals on enhanced mile markers, unlike most other urban areas I've been to, so that's pretty precise already).

It is definitely not the norm if a 911 dispatcher says the milepost doesn't help them.  The Mile-1 app works well for knowing your mile marker, especially if you can't see the nearest one.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mile-1/id1562022453

I have had a similar situation happen to me more than once, being a 911 operator saying mile markers on specific routes mean nothing to them.  They wanted an address. 
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: vdeane on October 04, 2021, 09:03:51 PM
I can't comment on 911 operators, but AAA roadside assistance almost never takes milemarkers.  They always want an address, even when such is far less precise.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2021, 09:37:03 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 02, 2021, 02:42:41 PM
I was driving on Route 4 in NJ recently and called 911 to report a large car bumper sitting in the travel lanes that people were swerving around. NJ is pretty consistent about posting EMMs, so when I called I gave the route, direction, and mile marker. The operator replied that this information was "useless to her"  and asked me to give the town and a cross street. I'm not from Bergen county so I don't usually make note of which one of the 500 tiny municipalities I'm in at a given moment. I was able to give a cross street by retracing my location on google maps satellite view, but someone not as geographically minded or tech-savvy probably wouldn't be able to do that. If EMMs are really "useless"  to 911 operators when reporting an emergency, I don't know why NJ wastes their money installing them.

One 911 operator doesn't mean that thousands of these signs are suddenly useless.  911 operators are used to drivers being disoriented and not having an idea where they are, so I'm sure they would've figured it out in short order.  Besides, if a crash - especially a fatal crash - resulted from that bumper, and it got out that the issue was called in but the operator told the caller the information was useless, that would probably be the last time that would ever be used as an excuse for not providing assistance.

Even if someone did live in the area, there are so many towns that it's not uncommon for an incorrect town to be mentioned at first, even by a local.  If they have time, they'll talk on the radio and figure out the true location of the issue.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Rothman on October 04, 2021, 09:49:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 04, 2021, 09:03:51 PM
I can't comment on 911 operators, but AAA roadside assistance almost never takes milemarkers.  They always want an address, even when such is far less precise.
AAA is terrible at this regard.  I had a breakdown right at the Kaaterskill Falls Trailhead on NY 23A.  I told them that and the dispatcher insisted I give them a cross street, despite it being in the middle of nowhere.  Evetually, I just said NY 32 some miles east and that finally appeased him.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: CtrlAltDel on October 05, 2021, 05:39:31 PM
I sometimes wonder if AAA, and perhaps even 911, just type what you tell them into Google Maps, and the computer takes it from there. And so, if Google Maps worked with mile markers and exit numbers and the like, these services would too.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on December 24, 2021, 06:01:23 PM
Crossposting this from the I-69 in Indiana thread, as there's a section in a KTC study on why enhanced mile markers were originally blue instead of green:
Quote from: mukade on December 24, 2021, 05:39:11 PM
I took a quick run down to Martinsville this morning to see the newest section of I-69. As discussed earlier in this thread, the mile markers are very inconsistent in this stretch from the north end of section 5 up to SR 144. This is a summary of what I saw.








Location
Type
Color
Interval
Placement
Section 5 (existing I-69)Standard (no shield or cardinal direction)Green.5 milesRight shoulder
Between north end of section 5 and SR 39Enhanced with no fractional number on full milesBlue.5 milesRight shoulder
Martinsville new section (SR 39 to Morgan St.)EnhancedGreen.5 milesMedian
North of Morgan St. to MM 151EnhancedBlue.5 milesRight shoulder
From MM 151 north to SR 144EnhancedBlue.2 milesRight shoulder

The little mile markers that mark bridges were also green where the green enhanced reference markers existed in Martinsville. That makes me think the green ones are a mistake.

I Googled trying to find some of the history behind the history of the enhanced reference markers. This report on the evaluation of reference markers (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.954.7422&rep=rep1&type=pdf) describes some of the issues and discussions that occurred back in the late 1990s. This particular document is from the Kentucky Transportation Center. One finding about the color choice is the following:

Quote
The results of this preliminary evaluation were reported and there was a general consensus that the "white on blue" markers could be more distinguishable and could serve to supplement the standard milepost marker which has traditionally been "white on green" in conformance with concept that the information presented serves as guide sign-type information.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: hbelkins on December 24, 2021, 10:15:42 PM
KTC -- a branch of the University of Kentucky College of Engineering. Not to be confused with KYTC, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: epzik8 on December 26, 2021, 08:38:08 PM
So is there no MUTCD standard color for these?
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on December 26, 2021, 09:00:06 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on December 26, 2021, 08:38:08 PM
So is there no MUTCD standard color for these?
Nope, states can pick between blue or green, although a bunch of the blue enhanced mile markers states (namely IN, KY and OH I can think of so far) have some one-off green ones.

I can see where the reasoning for using blue comes from. You use enhanced mile markers to give out your location on a freeway to roadside assistance or a 911 dispatcher in an emergency, which is a service, and normally denoted in blue on freeways. As said above in the thread, they aren't used for navigation (which is what green signs are for).
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ran4sh on December 27, 2021, 12:10:56 AM
You also use standard mile markers to do the same thing, despite those being green
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on January 17, 2022, 10:01:17 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on December 27, 2021, 12:10:56 AM
You also use standard mile markers to do the same thing, despite those being green
I think the report also preferred blue as a reason to differentiate them from standard mile markers. Not that it's the best idea out there, as there's so much inconsistency over which color to use for enhanced mile markers on the new I-69 Martinsville segment in Indiana currently, with examples of both green and blue EMM over a short distance.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on March 22, 2022, 07:08:24 PM
Found out that IL also uses blue mile markers on a section of I-57 driving down it last week:
(https://i.imgur.com/GYvmfCP.jpg?1)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on August 08, 2022, 09:48:54 PM
Thought of two questions with enhanced mile markers.

- What is the longest interstate that uses an enhanced mile marker in every state it goes through (MM doesn't have to be continuous all the way)?

- What is the longest interstate that doesn't use any enhanced mile markers (or in other words, doesn't have a mile marker with its route shield on it) at all?

For the first, I know I-75 uses enhanced mile markers in every state it passes through. Not sure about the interstates longer than I-75 in some states they pass through.

I imagine the answer for the second one would be an x5 out west, but I'm not sure exactly which one, or if there are lone enhanced mile markers that I'm not aware of.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ran4sh on August 09, 2022, 11:29:23 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 08, 2022, 09:48:54 PM
Thought of two questions with enhanced mile markers.

...

- What is the longest interstate that doesn't use any enhanced mile markers (or in other words, doesn't have a mile marker with its route shield on it) at all?

...

I imagine the answer for the second one would be an x5 out west, but I'm not sure exactly which one, or if there are lone enhanced mile markers that I'm not aware of.

All of the western x5 go through urban areas that are large enough to use enhanced MM, so I don't think it would be any of them. Unless, for some reason, CO or WA etc choose not to use enhanced MM at all
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 09, 2022, 03:43:37 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 09, 2022, 11:29:23 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 08, 2022, 09:48:54 PM
Thought of two questions with enhanced mile markers.

...

- What is the longest interstate that doesn't use any enhanced mile markers (or in other words, doesn't have a mile marker with its route shield on it) at all?

...

I imagine the answer for the second one would be an x5 out west, but I'm not sure exactly which one, or if there are lone enhanced mile markers that I'm not aware of.

All of the western x5 go through urban areas that are large enough to use enhanced MM, so I don't think it would be any of them. Unless, for some reason, CO or WA etc choose not to use enhanced MM at all

I am going to guess I-25. 
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Scott5114 on August 10, 2022, 03:45:21 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 09, 2022, 11:29:23 AM
All of the western x5 go through urban areas that are large enough to use enhanced MM, so I don't think it would be any of them. Unless, for some reason, CO or WA etc choose not to use enhanced MM at all

Enhanced milemarkers in metro areas is not a given. Oklahoma didn't have them until a few years ago (and that's part of a statewide enhanced MM plan, not urban specifically, and as such they are placed only at ½-mile increments, not ⅕).
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: US 89 on August 14, 2022, 10:46:01 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 10, 2022, 03:45:21 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 09, 2022, 11:29:23 AM
All of the western x5 go through urban areas that are large enough to use enhanced MM, so I don't think it would be any of them. Unless, for some reason, CO or WA etc choose not to use enhanced MM at all

Enhanced milemarkers in metro areas is not a given. Oklahoma didn't have them until a few years ago (and that's part of a statewide enhanced MM plan, not urban specifically, and as such they are placed only at ½-mile increments, not ⅕).

Yep. I-15 has none in Utah, nor do 70/84/215. 80 only has a few within the interchanges where it enters and exits the I-15 mainline.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on August 14, 2022, 11:00:21 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 09, 2022, 11:29:23 AM


All of the western x5 go through urban areas that are large enough to use enhanced MM, so I don't think it would be any of them. Unless, for some reason, CO or WA etc choose not to use enhanced MM at all
From what I got out of this thread, a lot of western states don't use them at all for some reason. CA only have them on CA 17, and I don't remember seeing them on I-5 in Seattle. Haven't been to Oregon yet, but I only see them on OR 217 from a GSV search of the Portland area, so it's possible I-5 doesn't have any enhanced mile markers at all despite all the major cities it goes through.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: kirbykart on August 14, 2022, 11:19:43 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 20, 2021, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 20, 2021, 09:01:00 PM
IDOT just doesn't seem to find them important. Even in rural areas of the state, they're spotty.
A lot of states seem to skimp on it in rural areas. Like Ohio is pretty good with enhanced markers in large urban areas, but only use the standard green full mile markers in rural areas. Same with Kentucky and Indiana, except Indiana use 0.5 mile (standard) markers in rural areas, which is a bit better.

With the rural areas question, I think Wisconsin have my preferred setup of the enhanced mile markers. Pretty much like what Ohio does (yes, I prefer blue over green, and median over right side) in addition to them existing in intervals of 0.2 in rural stretches of freeways.

Then there's Pennsylvania on the other end of the spectrum, with 0.1 mile markers on the turnpike throughout the state.
Are you sure about Ohio? I swore I remember seeing enhanced mile-markers on I-90 between Cleveland and the PA Line.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: SkyPesos on August 14, 2022, 11:48:29 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on August 14, 2022, 11:19:43 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 20, 2021, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 20, 2021, 09:01:00 PM
IDOT just doesn't seem to find them important. Even in rural areas of the state, they're spotty.
A lot of states seem to skimp on it in rural areas. Like Ohio is pretty good with enhanced markers in large urban areas, but only use the standard green full mile markers in rural areas. Same with Kentucky and Indiana, except Indiana use 0.5 mile (standard) markers in rural areas, which is a bit better.

With the rural areas question, I think Wisconsin have my preferred setup of the enhanced mile markers. Pretty much like what Ohio does (yes, I prefer blue over green, and median over right side) in addition to them existing in intervals of 0.2 in rural stretches of freeways.

Then there's Pennsylvania on the other end of the spectrum, with 0.1 mile markers on the turnpike throughout the state.
Are you sure about Ohio? I swore I remember seeing enhanced mile-markers on I-90 between Cleveland and the PA Line.
It's not used in rural areas most of the time, though there are exceptions. I-71 between Columbus and Cleveland uses 0.2 blue mile markers all the way, and I mentioned I-90 upthread.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: kirbykart on August 14, 2022, 03:44:53 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 14, 2022, 11:48:29 AM
Quote from: kirbykart on August 14, 2022, 11:19:43 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 20, 2021, 09:31:29 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 20, 2021, 09:01:00 PM
IDOT just doesn't seem to find them important. Even in rural areas of the state, they're spotty.
A lot of states seem to skimp on it in rural areas. Like Ohio is pretty good with enhanced markers in large urban areas, but only use the standard green full mile markers in rural areas. Same with Kentucky and Indiana, except Indiana use 0.5 mile (standard) markers in rural areas, which is a bit better.

With the rural areas question, I think Wisconsin have my preferred setup of the enhanced mile markers. Pretty much like what Ohio does (yes, I prefer blue over green, and median over right side) in addition to them existing in intervals of 0.2 in rural stretches of freeways.

Then there's Pennsylvania on the other end of the spectrum, with 0.1 mile markers on the turnpike throughout the state.
Are you sure about Ohio? I swore I remember seeing enhanced mile-markers on I-90 between Cleveland and the PA Line.
It's not used in rural areas most of the time, though there are exceptions. I-71 between Columbus and Cleveland uses 0.2 blue mile markers all the way, and I mentioned I-90 upthread.
Oh, OK, that's interesting.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Mr. Matté on September 10, 2022, 08:00:41 PM
Apparently Burlington County, NJ had installed a couple of probably test enhanced markers along CR 630 in July 2019 (per the sticker on the signs, verified in Aug. 2019 GSV) that I've never noticed until last week, even though I've biked down this road a couple of times since then.
(https://i.imgur.com/TCRcEZz.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/daGy8Iq.jpg)

But there's a grand total of four: MPs 12 and 13 east and west (between US 206 and Birmingham-Arneys Mt. Road), and I haven't seen any others since on any other county roads.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Rothman on September 10, 2022, 08:44:33 PM
Service road.  Taft Road to I-81 SB:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/U8Btd5M6as3YRQoe7
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Mr. Matté on September 10, 2022, 09:32:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 10, 2022, 08:44:33 PM
Service road.  Taft Road to I-81 SB:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/U8Btd5M6as3YRQoe7

Oddly enough, the EMMs down on the southern part of I-81 (non-service road) seem like the I-81 shield is on an overlay of the original marker, but the shield is aged/faded. I took this back in August:
(https://i.imgur.com/txQAwsB.jpg)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: vdeane on September 11, 2022, 03:41:21 PM
^ You should see the ones on I-87 in Warren County (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2646995,-73.6757568,3a,32.6y,64.78h,87.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srDIpSUXcYX0yXSUv5WgRfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  In this case, these are overlays, since they were installed with US 87 shields by mistake.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Quillz on September 18, 2022, 09:05:44 PM
I don't know if I've commented or not. But I prefer black-on-white for mile markers. The color scheme for regulatory information. White-on-green is intended for guidance, as opposed to information. (Which of course is a very blurred line to begin with). To me, a mile marker is a perfect example of regulatory information. Although it's said white-on-black isn't as legible as white-on-green. So that might play a role.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: odditude on September 18, 2022, 09:08:36 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 18, 2022, 09:05:44 PM
I don't know if I've commented or not. But I prefer black-on-white for mile markers. The color scheme for regulatory information. White-on-green is intended for guidance, as opposed to information. (Which of course is a very blurred line to begin with). To me, a mile marker is a perfect example of regulatory information. Although it's said white-on-black isn't as legible as white-on-green. So that might play a role.

regulatory information? what, precisely, is a mile marker instructing drivers what to (not) do?
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Quillz on September 18, 2022, 09:12:19 PM
Quote from: odditude on September 18, 2022, 09:08:36 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 18, 2022, 09:05:44 PM
I don't know if I've commented or not. But I prefer black-on-white for mile markers. The color scheme for regulatory information. White-on-green is intended for guidance, as opposed to information. (Which of course is a very blurred line to begin with). To me, a mile marker is a perfect example of regulatory information. Although it's said white-on-black isn't as legible as white-on-green. So that might play a role.

regulatory information? what, precisely, is a mile marker instructing drivers what to (not) do?
Regulatory, general purpose information. That's how the color scheme is intended to be used. White-on-green was originally intended for guidance (telling you how to get somewhere, what street that off-ramp goes to). Of course it's very blurred and almost any color scheme could be used, but I think black-on-white would be a good choice for mile markers.

It's like when I see signs telling you not to park here. But the color scheme is green-on-white, as opposed to red-on-white. Seems like green is the wrong color choice there because of its association with positive, non-restrictive information. Whereas I see black-on-white as just any sort of generic information. Perhaps regulatory was the wrong word choice. A mile marker is generic information, that's why I think of that color scheme.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: CrystalWalrein on September 18, 2022, 10:48:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 10, 2022, 08:00:41 PM
Apparently Burlington County, NJ had installed a couple of probably test enhanced markers along CR 630 in July 2019 (per the sticker on the signs, verified in Aug. 2019 GSV) that I've never noticed until last week, even though I've biked down this road a couple of times since then.
(https://i.imgur.com/TCRcEZz.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/daGy8Iq.jpg)

But there's a grand total of four: MPs 12 and 13 east and west (between US 206 and Birmingham-Arneys Mt. Road), and I haven't seen any others since on any other county roads.

I believe there's one on CR 542 in Washington Township as well. Burlington County either is only sporadically replacing old mile markers or quickly abandoned the idea, seeing as I know of them on just these two roads.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: kphoger on September 19, 2022, 02:39:50 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 18, 2022, 09:12:19 PM

Quote from: odditude on September 18, 2022, 09:08:36 PM

Quote from: Quillz on September 18, 2022, 09:05:44 PM
I don't know if I've commented or not. But I prefer black-on-white for mile markers. The color scheme for regulatory information. White-on-green is intended for guidance, as opposed to information. (Which of course is a very blurred line to begin with). To me, a mile marker is a perfect example of regulatory information. Although it's said white-on-black isn't as legible as white-on-green. So that might play a role.

regulatory information? what, precisely, is a mile marker instructing drivers what to (not) do?

Regulatory, general purpose information. That's how the color scheme is intended to be used. White-on-green was originally intended for guidance (telling you how to get somewhere, what street that off-ramp goes to). Of course it's very blurred and almost any color scheme could be used, but I think black-on-white would be a good choice for mile markers.

It's like when I see signs telling you not to park here. But the color scheme is green-on-white, as opposed to red-on-white. Seems like green is the wrong color choice there because of its association with positive, non-restrictive information. Whereas I see black-on-white as just any sort of generic information. Perhaps regulatory was the wrong word choice. A mile marker is generic information, that's why I think of that color scheme.

You're wrong.  "Regulatory" doesn't mean "general purpose information".  The intention of regulatory signage is to tell drivers what the law indicates they must do or must not do.

Mile markers do not point to any traffic law, they do not tell drivers what to do, therefore they are not regulatory in nature.

Quote from: U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration – Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009 Edition)
Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates

Section 2B.01 – Application of Regulatory Signs

Standard:
01 Regulatory signs shall be used to inform road users of selected traffic laws or regulations and indicate the applicability of the legal requirements.

02 Regulatory signs shall be installed at or near where the regulations apply. The signs shall clearly indicate the requirements imposed by the regulations and shall be designed and installed to provide adequate visibility and legibility in order to obtain compliance.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Quillz on September 19, 2022, 03:37:47 PM
Well as I said, I obviously chose the wrong word. I was going more for "general purpose." I simply prefer black-on-white for mile markers. But they aren't and thus it doesn't actually matter.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: kphoger on September 19, 2022, 03:42:04 PM
What black-on-white signs are you thinking of, that are just general information purpose rather than actually restricting or prohibiting something?  About the only ones I can think of are "cross traffic does not stop" plaques under stop signs, and some of those are even yellow rather than white.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: hotdogPi on September 19, 2022, 03:54:17 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2022, 03:42:04 PM
What black-on-white signs are you thinking of, that are just general information purpose rather than actually restricting or prohibiting something?  About the only ones I can think of are "cross traffic does not stop" plaques under stop signs, and some of those are even yellow rather than white.

Route markers in most states.

There are also a few old white distance signs (e.g. Ware 15 →, Springfield 35 →), but those are clearly pre-standard.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Quillz on September 19, 2022, 04:02:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2022, 03:42:04 PM
What black-on-white signs are you thinking of, that are just general information purpose rather than actually restricting or prohibiting something?  About the only ones I can think of are "cross traffic does not stop" plaques under stop signs, and some of those are even yellow rather than white.
Route markers would provide general purpose information (state, federal). "END FREEWAY" signs are black-on-white (although this could be more regulatory). There are many examples. I just like that color scheme being used for regulatory OR general purpose information. I think enhanced mile markers would work in that color scheme, set them apart from all the other white-on-green signs. But they work just fine in white-on-green. But the poll was asking what color scheme is preferred, and that's mine.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Quillz on September 19, 2022, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 19, 2022, 03:42:04 PM
and some of those are even yellow rather than white.
Which is most likely a better color scheme to begin with, as black-on-yellow will typically get used for cautionary information, like "CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP." (Which is why I really dislike this color scheme being used for route markers like in Wyoming).
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: kphoger on September 19, 2022, 04:07:57 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 19, 2022, 04:02:49 PM
"END FREEWAY" signs are black-on-white (although this could be more regulatory).

No, they aren't.

(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2c_05.gif)
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Quillz on September 19, 2022, 05:14:42 PM
BEGIN FREEWAY: https://imgur.com/v2gfp7Y
END FREEWAY: https://imgur.com/zN9RbzZ

These might be an older spec. But the color scheme has been used for them.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: bulldog1979 on September 19, 2022, 06:32:08 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 18, 2022, 09:05:44 PM
I don't know if I've commented or not. But I prefer black-on-white for mile markers. The color scheme for regulatory information. White-on-green is intended for guidance, as opposed to information. (Which of course is a very blurred line to begin with). To me, a mile marker is a perfect example of regulatory information. Although it's said white-on-black isn't as legible as white-on-green. So that might play a role.

As Road Guy Rob says, black-on-white regulatory signs should be read with "or you'll get a fine" after the sign. So tell me how "mile 123, or you'll get a fine" works.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ran4sh on September 19, 2022, 08:54:50 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on September 19, 2022, 06:32:08 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 18, 2022, 09:05:44 PM
I don't know if I've commented or not. But I prefer black-on-white for mile markers. The color scheme for regulatory information. White-on-green is intended for guidance, as opposed to information. (Which of course is a very blurred line to begin with). To me, a mile marker is a perfect example of regulatory information. Although it's said white-on-black isn't as legible as white-on-green. So that might play a role.

As Road Guy Rob says, black-on-white regulatory signs should be read with "or you'll get a fine" after the sign. So tell me how "mile 123, or you'll get a fine" works.

That's too simplistic though. Good for a YouTube video but when people apply it to literally everything they can get confused. Such as regulatory signs designating a bike lane - " 'Bike Lane' or you'll get a fine" - this confuses some bike lane advocates into thinking that those signs should really be yellow (warning) because bikes are still allowed in the other lanes (when passing or making left turns, etc). When the regulatory message is that if a car uses the bike lane then they are subject to being ticketed.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Scott5114 on September 19, 2022, 09:01:33 PM
Chapter 2H of the MUTCD covers "general information signs". And in it you'll find:

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD Section 2H.02
Standard:
03 Except for political boundary signs, General Information signs shall have white legends and borders on green rectangular-shaped backgrounds.

And so the MUTCD already makes a distinction between guide signs and general information signs...it just defines them both to be green.

This is also the chapter where milepost signage can be found. And so mileposts are green under the terms of this standard.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 19, 2022, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 10, 2022, 08:00:41 PM
Apparently Burlington County, NJ had installed a couple of probably test enhanced markers along CR 630 in July 2019 (per the sticker on the signs, verified in Aug. 2019 GSV) that I've never noticed until last week, even though I've biked down this road a couple of times since then.

I'll raise you, enhanced TMMs on CR-681 in Hudson County: https://goo.gl/maps/X4gVf2CE8ihpJCir7

I suspect NJDOT installed these for the NJ-496 viaduct reconstruction and incident response since Paterson Plank Rd. was a detour route. Hudson County certainly didn't put them in as they can't be bothered to sign any county routes.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: kphoger on September 20, 2022, 01:38:38 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on September 19, 2022, 08:54:50 PM

Quote from: bulldog1979 on September 19, 2022, 06:32:08 PM

Quote from: Quillz on September 18, 2022, 09:05:44 PM
I don't know if I've commented or not. But I prefer black-on-white for mile markers. The color scheme for regulatory information. White-on-green is intended for guidance, as opposed to information. (Which of course is a very blurred line to begin with). To me, a mile marker is a perfect example of regulatory information. Although it's said white-on-black isn't as legible as white-on-green. So that might play a role.

As Road Guy Rob says, black-on-white regulatory signs should be read with "or you'll get a fine" after the sign. So tell me how "mile 123, or you'll get a fine" works.

That's too simplistic though. Good for a YouTube video but when people apply it to literally everything they can get confused. Such as regulatory signs designating a bike lane - " 'Bike Lane' or you'll get a fine" - this confuses some bike lane advocates into thinking that those signs should really be yellow (warning) because bikes are still allowed in the other lanes (when passing or making left turns, etc). When the regulatory message is that if a car uses the bike lane then they are subject to being ticketed.

A "bike lane" sign is regulatory because it restricts who can use the lane and for what purpose (note:  not all states have such a law to go along with the sign).  Similarly, "HOV lane" signs are also white rectangles, even though qualifying vehicles are allowed to use the other lanes instead if they so choose.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: hotdogPi on September 20, 2022, 01:41:54 PM
How is a route marker regulatory, though?
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: kphoger on September 20, 2022, 01:54:12 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 20, 2022, 01:41:54 PM
How is a route marker regulatory, though?

It isn't.  But I don't know what the solution would be, other than to mandate they all be green or something.

So we've got, what? a total of one white rectangular sign type that's unequivocally not regulatory in nature.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: ran4sh on September 20, 2022, 04:40:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 20, 2022, 01:38:38 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on September 19, 2022, 08:54:50 PM

Quote from: bulldog1979 on September 19, 2022, 06:32:08 PM

Quote from: Quillz on September 18, 2022, 09:05:44 PM
I don't know if I've commented or not. But I prefer black-on-white for mile markers. The color scheme for regulatory information. White-on-green is intended for guidance, as opposed to information. (Which of course is a very blurred line to begin with). To me, a mile marker is a perfect example of regulatory information. Although it's said white-on-black isn't as legible as white-on-green. So that might play a role.

As Road Guy Rob says, black-on-white regulatory signs should be read with "or you'll get a fine" after the sign. So tell me how "mile 123, or you'll get a fine" works.

That's too simplistic though. Good for a YouTube video but when people apply it to literally everything they can get confused. Such as regulatory signs designating a bike lane - " 'Bike Lane' or you'll get a fine" - this confuses some bike lane advocates into thinking that those signs should really be yellow (warning) because bikes are still allowed in the other lanes (when passing or making left turns, etc). When the regulatory message is that if a car uses the bike lane then they are subject to being ticketed.

A "bike lane" sign is regulatory because it restricts who can use the lane and for what purpose (note:  not all states have such a law to go along with the sign).  Similarly, "HOV lane" signs are also white rectangles, even though qualifying vehicles are allowed to use the other lanes instead if they so choose.

Yes, you are correct, yet some people thought bike lane signs should be yellow instead of white.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 20, 2022, 05:15:18 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 20, 2022, 01:38:38 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on September 19, 2022, 08:54:50 PM

Quote from: bulldog1979 on September 19, 2022, 06:32:08 PM

Quote from: Quillz on September 18, 2022, 09:05:44 PM
I don't know if I've commented or not. But I prefer black-on-white for mile markers. The color scheme for regulatory information. White-on-green is intended for guidance, as opposed to information. (Which of course is a very blurred line to begin with). To me, a mile marker is a perfect example of regulatory information. Although it's said white-on-black isn't as legible as white-on-green. So that might play a role.

As Road Guy Rob says, black-on-white regulatory signs should be read with "or you'll get a fine" after the sign. So tell me how "mile 123, or you'll get a fine" works.

That's too simplistic though. Good for a YouTube video but when people apply it to literally everything they can get confused. Such as regulatory signs designating a bike lane - " 'Bike Lane' or you'll get a fine" - this confuses some bike lane advocates into thinking that those signs should really be yellow (warning) because bikes are still allowed in the other lanes (when passing or making left turns, etc). When the regulatory message is that if a car uses the bike lane then they are subject to being ticketed.

A "bike lane" sign is regulatory because it restricts who can use the lane and for what purpose (note:  not all states have such a law to go along with the sign).  Similarly, "HOV lane" signs are also white rectangles, even though qualifying vehicles are allowed to use the other lanes instead if they so choose.

But...

Can a pedestrian use a bike lane? On some streets, the shoulder is now a marked bike lane.  If there's no sidewalk, the only prudent area for a pedestrian to walk would be facing traffic in the bike lane.  Will bicyclists say, no, the lane is for bikes only?
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: kphoger on September 20, 2022, 07:48:59 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 20, 2022, 05:15:18 PM
But...

Can a pedestrian use a bike lane? On some streets, the shoulder is now a marked bike lane.  If there's no sidewalk, the only prudent area for a pedestrian to walk would be facing traffic in the bike lane.  Will bicyclists say, no, the lane is for bikes only?

I don't think I've ever seen that issue addressed in a state's vehicle code.  In fact, most states don't even appear to have a statute restricting cars from using a bike lane (which makes me wonder about the enforceability of the signs there);  indeed, I don't see anything like that in the UVC either.  But, for the state codes I've read that do, only vehicular traffic is restricted, which implies to me that pedestrians are allowed to treat a bike lane as they would any other lane:  use a sidewalk if there is one, keep close to the edge of the roadway and face traffic if there isn't.
Title: Re: Enhanced Mile Markers
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on September 23, 2022, 01:38:51 PM
Quote from: DRMan on June 22, 2021, 10:40:37 AM
I don't think Arizona typically uses enhanced mile markers, but they are starting to install memorial mile markers for fallen officers. They are essentially enhanced mile markers with a memorial plaque that are placed near the location of their death.

https://www.eacourier.com/news/dps-honoring-fallen-officers-with-roadside-markers/article_022793c4-ae88-11eb-9535-47ec479904df.html

Other than the memorial mile markers, the only enhanced markers I have seen in Arizona have been on a small stretch of I-10 west of AZ 85.