So how about some of those super sized signs that show up from time-to-time. I can see super sizing a state route sign or a US highway sign on a 70 MPH controlled access highway but what about those super sized signs on surface routes. Can you name some and why?
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.803328,-82.5762846,3a,19.7y,20.32h,91.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-za4-M7uhigC5a17UgH4Lw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.803328,-82.5762846,3a,19.7y,20.32h,91.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-za4-M7uhigC5a17UgH4Lw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4843/45270343895_d642e8b4ad_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2bYom3B)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7499/15641673428_268483c081_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pQcEyC)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51313791413_dc5b154d9e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mbqArB)
This was for a grass alleyway in Tampa. Seems a little excessive.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49330031176_3413ac2856_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ia8iCU)
That whopping county shield is the BEST. :sombrero:
Can a car even get by that SPEED LIMIT sign? Is it just for pedestrians and bikes?
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 04, 2022, 08:47:55 PM
That whopping county shield is the BEST. :sombrero:
Can a car even get by that SPEED LIMIT sign? Is it just for pedestrians and bikes?
Naaaaaaah........ The weirdly compressed supersize Georgia Route shield is the best. :sombrero:
Anybody got a good photo of that giant unnecessary (but cool) I-95 sign on the tollbooth for the New England Thruway?
https://goo.gl/maps/inMx19PwM3r8iAK98
Wenonah, NJ put in a bunch of curb extensions a number of years ago to make it (supposedly) safer for pedestrians. They then added greatly oversized "Stop Here for Pedestrian" signage on a 35 mph roadway which the local police were pretty strict with the speed limit. This was done every block for several blocks near the center of town. While the people in the town wanted safer crossings, they were very dismayed at the size of the signage, which took away from the charm and beauty of the tree-lined street.
The county, which was in charge of the project, refused to change to smaller signage. The signage would be appropriate if the road was a high speed or multi-lane roadway; but was way oversized for the roadway here. Driving thru here quite often, it's very rare to see pedestrians actually crossing the street, further questioning what benefits the curb extensions and extra large signage have done for safety.
The county has installed similar signage elsewhere in the county, but used appropriately signed signage in those areas based on the speed limit and prevailing speeds.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 04, 2022, 10:49:21 PM
Anybody got a good photo of that giant unnecessary (but cool) I-95 sign on the tollbooth for the New England Thruway?
Not a close-up, but I have it as part of a photo of the toll barrier.
https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i95&state=NY&file=100_8287.JPG
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLjnH76Y/CO58.png)
While this example isn't quite as egregious as some of the previous ones, this sign here is definitely larger than it really needs to be.
https://goo.gl/maps/LmFVsfzLSRCdUp9a7
This thread also begs the question: Do we have a thread for the inverse?
I always thought this guide sign at the end of an off-ramp in Bismarck was a bit unnecessarily large, especially considering traffic has to slow down at least enough to make the turn.
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8301853,-100.7306656,3a,59.1y,125.8h,97.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8N9fSv65v1xQVvL7QGAlhw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
While they weren't technically "wrongly sized" per se, I always thought the old chain of pull-thru signs on the southbound Delaware Turnpike felt ridiculously large and were overkill. They had a string of the old-style pull-thru signs with the downward-pointing arrows, they all spanned four lanes, and they all listed I-95 South to Newark and Baltimore. The amount of text on the sign was minuscule for the huge sign sizes, but they had an arrow over each lane, so the sign size was technically correct. I always felt they were massive overkill because it was just a matter of one lane drop (which could have been signed without all the pull-thru signs) and then, some distance further down the road, an "Exit Only" lane (which again didn't really need the pull-thru signs).
Those signs have all been replaced and they don't show up on Google Street View, but here is an example from AARoads' Interstate Guide. There is another one in the distance hidden by that truck, and I believe there were at least four, maybe five, of these signs all within a mile or two of each other. To my eye, the sign looks totally oversized because the amount of text is so small, even if the sign was "correct" in terms of performing its function. Perhaps the sort of sign you see on northbound I-87 at Exit 7 near Albany (https://goo.gl/maps/1rRgnLh4NfhkXgJt6) would have looked more reasonable. The bigger issue, of course, was just that there were so many of these signs within such a short distance.
(https://www.aaroads.com/wp-content/albums/i-095-de-archive-south/i-095_sb_exit_004_21.jpg)
I was always partial to the gigantic BGSes on the Mountain Parkway in KY.
The bloated I-80 pullthrough signage in Fairfield, installed a few years ago after the reconstruction of the eastern I-80/Route 12 junction:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2326486,-122.1086176,3a,15y,64.62h,92.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXImMdUC9WQRyyK5Vf_Ckiw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DXImMdUC9WQRyyK5Vf_Ckiw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D129.18245%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
This formatting feels like one of those "mistakes in AutoCAD" that never got resolved at any point, despite visually looking wrong the entire time.
Quote from: Rothman on October 06, 2022, 11:08:32 AM
I was always partial to the gigantic BGSes on the Mountain Parkway in KY.
Indeed, especially the one for the Slade exit. Huge sign, just five letters. But they were all over the Interstate and Parkway system in Kentucky back in the 1970s. So they had the same thing for Exit 76 on I-75 for Berea, and close behind was Exit 25 on I-75 for Corbin. I do remember older, smaller BGS signs on the pieces of I-64 back in the days before it was completed through all of Eastern Kentucky.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2022, 11:07:11 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/inMx19PwM3r8iAK98
Wenonah, NJ put in a bunch of curb extensions a number of years ago to make it (supposedly) safer for pedestrians. They then added greatly oversized "Stop Here for Pedestrian" signage on a 35 mph roadway which the local police were pretty strict with the speed limit. This was done every block for several blocks near the center of town. While the people in the town wanted safer crossings, they were very dismayed at the size of the signage, which took away from the charm and beauty of the tree-lined street.
Does NJ not have a law prohibiting vehicles from blocking an intersection while stopped? It looks like any vehicle (aside from maybe a Smart Car) that stops right there for pedestrians would be blocking the intersection.
Pretty much every 3di shield in MA
Excessively large street sign on a traffic light: https://goo.gl/maps/mEbVfNPGyedrSVSH8
^^^
Looks like a truck collected it, too?
US 422 in Hersey, PA along the western part of the town has large shields between its terminus and where it narrows to two lanes along Chocolate Avenue.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 06, 2022, 07:53:43 PM
Excessively large street sign on a traffic light: https://goo.gl/maps/mEbVfNPGyedrSVSH8
Here's some near Williamsburg, VA
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eorKX9yscVpBziDV8
This beast (https://goo.gl/maps/6ADU4xf9adn1AwLr5) for the Penna Turnpike probably qualifies. Technically a BGS and not just a shield, but still, the shield takes up most of it.
This massive route shield heading towards the Hood Canal Floating Bridge in Washington.
(https://imgur.com/a9JfgTX.png)
Big construction shield for VA 189 on US 258 just north of the NC/VA border:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52430976829_a61f379a58_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nT9sK8)
Pennsylvania Turnpike Signs for entrance ramps are a little too much...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7340/27419816240_187b4cd615_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HLZJ5q)
Every full-sized APL at non-freeway to freeway junctions (looking at you, I-70 in St Charles County, MO). Go with a partial one, with one lane's width for a pullthrough if needed.
https://goo.gl/maps/iV2wdna3deSyXmZt8
This one according to latest GSV is finally seen as not needed as it's gone
https://goo.gl/maps/7wDNfvDBLKE1uyan7
Noticed this one on MN 282 in Jordan.
https://goo.gl/maps/BUzh5Nkfa6fcjnu36
https://goo.gl/maps/JkomfGiDF9o89V9w7
One in Florida that is not needed in size.
Quote from: formulanone on October 16, 2022, 11:04:00 AM
Pennsylvania Turnpike Signs for entrance ramps are a little too much...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7340/27419816240_187b4cd615_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HLZJ5q)
Nah, they're classic, like the old Mass Pike entrance signage.
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 16, 2022, 11:13:22 AM
Every full-sized APL at non-freeway to freeway junctions (looking at you, I-70 in St Charles County, MO). Go with a partial one, with one lane's width for a pullthrough if needed.
Partial APLs don't actually comply with the 2009 MUTCD. Their first appearance is in the 2022 (2023?) MUTCD, which isn't out yet.
These beauties on Skyline Drive in Shenandoah National Park:
(https://i.imgur.com/QN39kFe.jpg)
Ew, 2dus shield stretched to 3dus width. (And do you really need a wide shield for the number 211?)
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 16, 2022, 06:34:22 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 16, 2022, 11:13:22 AM
Every full-sized APL at non-freeway to freeway junctions (looking at you, I-70 in St Charles County, MO). Go with a partial one, with one lane's width for a pullthrough if needed.
Partial APLs don't actually comply with the 2009 MUTCD. Their first appearance is in the 2022 (2023?) MUTCD, which isn't out yet.
Ah, but they comply with the
Utah version of that MUTCD... :sombrero:
Here's MDOT being super sized.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4148072,-83.9333567,3a,15y,129.83h,88.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syXCCppQ-6XNvGjWKWD2hWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: US 89 on October 16, 2022, 10:28:17 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 16, 2022, 06:34:22 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 16, 2022, 11:13:22 AM
Every full-sized APL at non-freeway to freeway junctions (looking at you, I-70 in St Charles County, MO). Go with a partial one, with one lane's width for a pullthrough if needed.
Partial APLs don't actually comply with the 2009 MUTCD. Their first appearance is in the 2022 (2023?) MUTCD, which isn't out yet.
Ah, but they comply with the Utah version of that MUTCD... :sombrero:
Sure, but it would be pretty funny if MoDOT tried that as justification for installing one. :sombrero:
MoDOT's "MUTCD", as it were, is the Engineering Policy Guide (https://epg.modot.org/index.php/Main_Page). Which uses MediaWiki, the same software that runs Wikipedia, as its software package. Someone had a lot of fun making the logo for it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 16, 2022, 06:34:22 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 16, 2022, 11:13:22 AM
Every full-sized APL at non-freeway to freeway junctions (looking at you, I-70 in St Charles County, MO). Go with a partial one, with one lane's width for a pullthrough if needed.
Partial APLs don't actually comply with the 2009 MUTCD. Their first appearance is in the 2022 (2023?) MUTCD, which isn't out yet.
Huh, TIL. Thought it would have to comply with the national MUTCD before states can use it at all. I've seen partial APLs in use in multiple states, including Utah, Indiana and Michigan, which made me think that it's officially a standard already.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 16, 2022, 11:20:29 PM
Quote from: US 89 on October 16, 2022, 10:28:17 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 16, 2022, 06:34:22 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on October 16, 2022, 11:13:22 AM
Every full-sized APL at non-freeway to freeway junctions (looking at you, I-70 in St Charles County, MO). Go with a partial one, with one lane's width for a pullthrough if needed.
Partial APLs don't actually comply with the 2009 MUTCD. Their first appearance is in the 2022 (2023?) MUTCD, which isn't out yet.
Ah, but they comply with the Utah version of that MUTCD... :sombrero:
Sure, but it would be pretty funny if MoDOT tried that as justification for installing one. :sombrero:
MoDOT's "MUTCD", as it were, is the Engineering Policy Guide (https://epg.modot.org/index.php/Main_Page). Which uses MediaWiki, the same software that runs Wikipedia, as its software package. Someone had a lot of fun making the logo for it.
That's a very interesting path to go instead of using plain PDFs. Not sure how I feel about that.
All the "Frontage Road" overhead signs along Kellogg in Wichita.
Example: https://goo.gl/maps/XTcPyrnP3ziWkF7W6
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2022, 10:26:07 AM
All the "Frontage Road" overhead signs along Kellogg in Wichita.
Example: https://goo.gl/maps/XTcPyrnP3ziWkF7W6
I disagree, I think that looks appropriate there. Maybe you don't need the Frontage Road panel but having an overhead sign makes finding the ramps much easier.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 17, 2022, 12:35:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 17, 2022, 10:26:07 AM
All the "Frontage Road" overhead signs along Kellogg in Wichita.
Example: https://goo.gl/maps/XTcPyrnP3ziWkF7W6
I disagree, I think that looks appropriate there. Maybe you don't need the Frontage Road panel but having an overhead sign makes finding the ramps much easier.
I should have clarified. I was specifically referring to the 'Frontage Road' panel, as it is frankly unnecessary information.