AARoads Forum

Since we have a thread on one pet peeve, why not list your other DOT pet peeves? You know, stuff that the DOT does that grates on you, even if the MUTCD is silent on it. I'm sure we have plenty.

My top peeve is something that ODOT tends to do at termini.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Froadgeek%2Froad-photos%2Fmain.php%3Fcmd%3Dimage%26amp%3Bvar1%3Dok%252Fcaddo%252F037ok_wend.jpg%26amp%3Bvar2%3D700_85&hash=6a2b454f4bf89e71e288b5b18b02b728014f9a08)
It's all well and good to save a buck by glomming the END sign onto the same pole as the junction sign, but could you PLEASE put the END signage at the bottom? Otherwise, it reads to me like you're trying to say 37, 281, and 8 all end to the left and the right. I know what is meant, but it would be clearer if the signs read 281/8 <->, END 37.

When wrong color directional arrows and signs are used with various classifications of highways. (For example, US-395 is represented by a black and white shield, but many directional arrows and signs along the route use the green and white California route colors.)

When signs are missing or unclear (Scott's example would be a minor case of unclarity). I can live with errors in design or even the wrong shield shape, but when there's simply no sign because nobody cares to post it there's a problem.

Inconsistency.  This is especially bad in NY, with our 25 or so versions of the NY route marker...pick one and stick with it, dammit!

US Routes not being posted along interstates is my biggest one. If states want to make their state highways disjointed, that's their prerogative. US Routes should always be very clearly marked.  Beyond that, I just dislike when signs are missing. At any junction of two state highways, there should always and without exception be some signage indicating what is happening.

I guess a secondary aspect to missing signage is lack of redundancy. There should be a junction or advance turn sign, a sign at the intersection telling you which way to turn, and a reassurance sign. That way, if any one sign is missing, you can still turn the correct way (or correct yourself after the fact). Hikers learned this long ago when blazing trails on trees: two blazes means it's about to turn and frequent reassurance lets you know you're going the right way. If a blaze disappears, one will know before long that they're no longer on the trail.

- Meaningless signage that names roads / bridges / etc.  Mostly after politicians.  If people do not call the road after the name, forget about it.

- Kentucky's "parkways" system.  OK, once it was a toll system and had "generic" names.  Now its just another freeway and the names have all been changed to politicians.  Confusing.  Just move the nearby US and KY route numbers onto the "parkways". 

- NC's idiotic misuse of the "business" interstate signage and of I-74 and I-73, especially in the Piedmont Triad area.  Just put the US highway signage up and forget about it.

- Stadium exits.  I can think of at least 8 college stadiums where the signed exit is not the best way to the stadium.  They take those following the signage out on some circuitious path and thus seperate them from those that know what they are doing.  Smart from a traffic management perspective, but at least cover the signs up the 358 days per year that there isn't a game.

- WV Turnpike.  Uses I-77 northbound as its "primary" route.  Parkersburg is the second "control city", there is even a sign telling the distance to the next rest area, on I-77, when 80% of the traffic is NOT going to stay on 77 north of Charleston.

- Any sign that states speed enforcement is "for your safety".  Since every speed limit increase has been followed by a DECLINE in traffic mortality and morbidity, just be honest and say "for the MONEY".

Clearview and neutered interstate shields are too obvious, so I won't include them. However here are some other pet peeves...

-Off centered text. It gets annoying when you see one control city way off to the left or right of the sign. Here is an example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FSkw-uhAyWFI%2FAAAAAAAAJRM%2FJ-RQBwmi41Y%2Fs640%2FIMG_6143.JPG&hash=d76db94c52395e88ea545da9f9d0293b7fced2e4)

-Lack of direction on a route shield on a BGS. Signs on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the New York Thruway have a few interstates that end at them, and they don't even bother to post what direction the interstate is going.

-Obvious green-outs. Seeing signs with a control city covered up with a color patch that doesn't match the color of the rest of the sign. At least try to make it the same color.

-Signs mounted low to the ground on a multi-lane highway. If you are in the left lane, and there is a car to your right blocking the sign, there is trouble. A lot of the Atlantic City Expressway signs have this problem.

-Off standard font on a road sign. Seeing helvetica or arial on a road sign makes me cringe.

-Non-cutout interstate shields. *cough* Rhode Island *cough*. Bubble shields are also a pet peeve.

-Misuse of the new fluorescent yellow/green sheeting on warning signs.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTLudnboHgZI%2FAAAAAAAAjJY%2FxyAtJqDFLcQ%2Fs640%2FIMG_2527.JPG&hash=a2664264ec33acc694553b2d99f0dfbb813850e4)
Notice the sign to the left.

Two pet peeves of mine:
1.) States that do not post "END" signs at route ends. This is particularly true in New Jersey. Whether it is state, interstate, federal, or county, you will rarely ever see an "END" sign in the Garden State.  :ded:

2.) I hate New England's blank square highway shields. They are too easily confused. This is true especially on BGS. Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts's state highway trailblazers look identical on BGS. These tiny states all border each other and can lead to a confused driver.  :banghead:

Boxed street names.  They're no longer supposed to be used, but they're everywhere in some regions regardless.

Poor/inconsistent signage for routes.  WA-202 at it's north end is very poorly marked.  For example, it hangs a right at an intersection immediately after a railroad trestle, the only signage indicating this is the sign attached to the traffic light (showing the street name, with a tiny 202 next to it).  The north end also can't figure out it's cardinal directions:  On consecutive BGS, it's listed as East 202 and South 202.  (The route DOES go SE, but that's ridiculous.  The signs are within 500 feet of one another!)

Seconding the lack of US/State routes on Interstate highways - if the route is on that roadway, mark the thing.   

No state name on interstate shields.  No begin or end signs.  I also hate it when speed limit signs are not posted. 

QuoteI also hate it when speed limit signs are not posted.

`

That's a good one. There's nothing worse than driving down a random empty arterial in a strange city with no speed limit signs posted when the road could easily have a speed limit between 30 and 50 depending on the whims of the town

Quote from: deanej on December 26, 2010, 01:15:31 PM
Boxed street names.  They're no longer supposed to be used, but they're everywhere in some regions regardless.

What are these?

States  that don't  put  up  state line  signs  that make it confusing to  know when  you are actually  in that state.  It happens.   In New  Jersey,  on the Ben Franklin  Bridge  from Philly  going to Camden,  there  is no sign letting you know you  are indeed ,  in Jersey.  Also, entering Oklahoma  from  Arkansas  on the Cherokee  Turnpike,  no  sign  welcoming one to Oklahoma, instead,  it  welcomes  you to the Cherokee Indian Nation.  Does that   now take  precedence  over a state?

Some more pet peeves:

1) Streets which straddle 2 different municipalities that have different speed limits on each side of the roadway. Used to be a road I traveled all the time in NE Ohio where it was 35 MPH southbound in the "City limits" but in the northbound direction, it was 45 as it was in a township.  Always made me wonder that if I was southbound following someone at 35MPH, and had a clear passing zone, would I be "speeding" if I passed the car ahead of me doing 45 in the northbound lane to pass?

2) Lack of mileage signs on a freeway or non-interstate highway outside of urban areas.  Especially in the middle of nowhere, it would be nice to have signage which states the mileage to the next 2 or 3 significant points (cities or intersections) on the highway you are on.

3) States where destinations on interstate off-ramps only point the direction to the control city with only an arrow but not list the mileage to that control city. Indiana is one of the biggest abusers of this pet peeve.

4) The small villages or burbs which give you a lot of notice when the speed goes down at the city limits, but never bother to tell you when you are leaving the other side of the city and you can speed up again.

5) Construction zones/Lane Closures that are set up for a multi-mile stretch, but the actual work zone is only happening in a fraction of the zone. ...and the closed lane(s) are perfectly okay to drive on at regular speeds.

Quote from: NE2 on December 25, 2010, 11:49:39 PM
When signs are missing or unclear (Scott's example would be a minor case of unclarity). I can live with errors in design or even the wrong shield shape, but when there's simply no sign because nobody cares to post it there's a problem.

My biggest pet peeve about my home state (er, commonwealth).  Trying to follow a state or US route in some parts of Massachusetts, particularly in the Boston metro area, is almost impossible.

And yes, papaT, the plain square or rectangle state highway markers ought to be outlawed IMO.  It really shouldn't be that difficult to come up with a unique yet simple design that won't drain the state's treasury to implement.

I grabbed these pics from the aaroads website but I think this proves my point:

BGS in Rhode Island.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages295%2Fi-295_ri_st_09.jpg&hash=98e40f920f4b3e6ad71af4d1f41a8bd03c28ceae)

BGS in Massachusetts
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages495%2Fi-495_ma_st_02.jpg&hash=9c44fc01ddc9e8929140a961a6ea17d4013a11a0)

BGS in Connecticut
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/connecticut050/i-084_eb_exit_015_03.jpg)

Keep in mind these (very tiny) states border each other. I agree, this should be outlawed.

Quote from: Quillz on December 26, 2010, 02:57:04 PM

Quote from: deanej on December 26, 2010, 01:15:31 PM
Boxed street names.  They're no longer supposed to be used, but they're everywhere in some regions regardless.

What are these?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FSYCyFO4YdyI%2FAAAAAAAACw0%2FkIqOoPtyjK8%2Fs640%2FIMG_0759.JPG&hash=0555f8cb0b716197d3727769e514a910448e41ee)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FSeUxcp0MYOI%2FAAAAAAAAGcY%2FKiXeCCrcuQw%2Fs640%2FIMG_3740.JPG&hash=642d303c5916709942fecd585748252a5b71b769)

Another  peeve:  States  that  don't put  the latest  population  figures on the city limits signs.  This  helps  if you're  driving thru  unframiliar territory.  Actually,  hardly any states  do this, but they  should.

- a lack of mile markers or reference markers on state highways. Makes gauging distance that much more difficult.
- even worse is when there's also a general lack of reassurance shields. Following unfamiliar highways can get tricky this way.

- centered exit tabs
- or worse, inconsistently aligned exit tabs. I'd rather see them all centered than have some centered and some done right!

Ok, here's what bugs me...

Construction:
Lane Closure signs posted when then lane is not closed
Flagman Ahead signs posted when there is no flagman.
No warning sign for a Bump or Steel Plate

Warning:
Signal Ahead Sign upside down
Two Way Traffic Sign with arrows reversed (telling you to drive on wrong side)
Divided Highway Ahead/Ends sign upside down or on Island

Guide:
Overhead signs that indicate that you need to be in certain lanes for certain highways, but don't give the distance to the split. You really need to know how long you have to make the nesessary lane change.

Street Name Blades that incorrectly identify a highway's type (Ex: FM 377 when it's actually US 377)

Helvetica, whether it's standard (see Ontario) or not.
Interstate shields in Quebec and New Brunswick: They're almost always wrong in some way.
Not signing route ends. Not putting a cardinal direction under a shield (Ontario county roads).
Non-rounded border corners, whether it's standard (Ontario again) or not.
Putting more than 3 lines of destination legend on BGSs (Canada is an expert at that).
Favouring road names over town destinations, regardless of the highway being in the middle of freaking nowhere (Ontario standard).
...to be continued.

A few more...

-3-digit sized route shields for a 2/1-digit route. South Carolina's new state route shield and Tennessee's state route shields have that for all their routes, and they don't look good in my opinion.

-I'm probably going to get a lot of heat for this one, but I don't like state named interstate shields on BGSs. It is hard to even see the state name when traveling at high speed, mostly because it seems cramped in the shield. Though I am perfectly okay with a state named stand alone interstate shield.  :cool:

-Route shields with a font that is obviously not meant for that shield. Series B for a 3-digit route shield, series E for a 2-digit route shield, etc.

-BGSs with route shields that have a black background (New Jersey style). I never really got into the NJDOT signs with that feature.

-For the exit tabs, a large space between the word "EXIT" and the number. I've seen signs along some of MdTAs (Maryland) roads and they don't look very good.

-Bold font on route shields.

-Mixed-case street signs. It's going to take me a bit to get used to them.

Some of mine:

-Helvetica/Arial or similar fonts used on signage sometimes even mixed with FHWA on the same sign. 

-compressing FHWA fonts to fit them onto the route shield instead of using a narrower series.

-undersized signage especially on freeways, seems to be pretty common here in Ontario

-shrinking the font instead of making the BGS taller when four or more lines of text are used.

-lack of exit tabs on BGSs other than advance signage (standard practice here)

Quote from: PennDOTFan on December 26, 2010, 10:28:14 PM
A few more...

-3-digit sized route shields for a 2/1-digit route. South Carolina's new state route shield and Tennessee's state route shields have that for all their routes, and they don't look good in my opinion.

I'm not a fan of wide shields in general, but I do think the '61 3di shield looks okay for 1- and 2-di:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19570081i1.jpg)

The all uppercase street signs in my home county because they use a totally inappropriate font (Arial) on them.

The FHWA Series fonts are the only proper usage of all uppercase on street signs. But, it is a moot point now because all signs have to be mixed case. (And quite frankly, I am glad.)

Richland County, S.C. uses the FHWA series C, as does Augusta-Richmond County, Ga.

Quote from: Brian556 on December 26, 2010, 09:19:39 PM

Two Way Traffic Sign with arrows reversed (telling you to drive on wrong side)

is that possible??  If you hang a sign with two arrows upside down, it will end up as the same sign.  180 degree rotational symmetry.

in a similar vein, but significantly worse: ONE WAY sign hung upside down.  You cannot tell if it was installed in reverse, or if someone grabbed the wrong direction from the shop and decided to install it upside down  so the arrow pointed in the right way.

also: '70 spec signage.  '61 spec is a whole hell of a lot nicer looking.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 27, 2010, 03:37:49 AM

Quote from: Brian556 on December 26, 2010, 09:19:39 PM
Two Way Traffic Sign with arrows reversed (telling you to drive on wrong side)

is that possible??  If you hang a sign with two arrows upside down, it will end up as the same sign.  180 degree rotational symmetry.

Misprint. I've seen the occasional center right-turn lane sign in the US. It's something to laugh at the first few times, then ignore.

JCT the route you're already on.  Connecticut seems to be the worst offender, but I found out Kentucky will do it every time the route you're on makes a turn, so maybe they'll take over as worst.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 27, 2010, 03:37:49 AM

Quote from: Brian556 on December 26, 2010, 09:19:39 PM
Two Way Traffic Sign with arrows reversed (telling you to drive on wrong side)

is that possible??  If you hang a sign with two arrows upside down, it will end up as the same sign.  180 degree rotational symmetry..

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2602%2F4157513266_c77700c57c_z.jpg&hash=f72ec99b1969dab4b427b7dbdefb9cbc1db23f7b) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawmustard/4157513266/)

Quite possible. For some reason, the sign shop reflects the correct image.

Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2010, 04:49:27 AM
Misprint. I've seen the occasional center right-turn lane sign in the US. It's something to laugh at the first few times, then ignore.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2519%2F3854021653_e5084b3422.jpg&hash=cfddad90430f955d16fce4076c98bad3ea8a9b97) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawmustard/3854021653/)

Oddly enough, I have one of these as well.

Quote from: rawmustard on December 27, 2010, 09:33:24 AM
[honest to goodness upside down double-arrow sign]

well I'll be damned.  Looks like they put the screen backwards when printing or something.

Quote from: AlpsROADS on December 27, 2010, 06:35:43 AM
JCT the route you're already on.  Connecticut seems to be the worst offender, but I found out Kentucky will do it every time the route you're on makes a turn, so maybe they'll take over as worst.

Actually, it's not that common in Kentucky. You must have encountered several aberrations. Illinois, however, is terrible for that.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2010, 09:14:57 PM

Quote from: AlpsROADS on December 27, 2010, 06:35:43 AM
JCT the route you're already on.  Connecticut seems to be the worst offender, but I found out Kentucky will do it every time the route you're on makes a turn, so maybe they'll take over as worst.

Actually, it's not that common in Kentucky. You must have encountered several aberrations. Illinois, however, is terrible for that.

Tennessee does it a lot. Missouri does it occasionally. I've seen Arkansas do it once or twice, but hardly ever.

^^^^

Hmm, for some reason I can't remember seeing any errant junction signs with one exception.  I'm not saying they aren't there, I just don't recall seeing any.

The sign where hidden TN-7 leaves US 31 in Columbia to be an independent route, technically an error but not as far as the average driver is concerned.

Did the hire a British intern to make the signs or something? 

My biggest pet peeve is exit tabs used on the wrong side.  California is notorious as well as Washington in Cowlitz County.  A lot of left exits in Northern California still have right exit tabs.  Meanwhile, normal (right) exits in Cowlitz County, WA, have left exit tabs.

Quote from: AlpsROADS on December 27, 2010, 06:35:43 AM
JCT the route you're already on.  Connecticut seems to be the worst offender, but I found out Kentucky will do it every time the route you're on makes a turn, so maybe they'll take over as worst.

Louisiana is now guilty of that...they've done it when they replaced the old signs with the new black/white ones.

On preview, a lot of things bug me

Big Green Signs:

• Gantries where all panels are the same height, regardless of content (California)
• Exit "tabs" formed by taking a corner of a sign panel by eminent domain (California)
• Jamming route markers wherever they'll fit (...)
• Omitting route markers on a BGS for an intersecting route (e.g. I-84, exit 41, "secret" CT route 173)
• Button copy outline shields (instead of black on white) for CT routes (examples (http://www.gribblenation.net/ctends/2a.html))
  

Non-BGS sign assemblies:

• Cardinal directions omitted (no east, west, etc) (examples (http://www.gribblenation.net/ctends/14a.html))
• Shortcuts such as one shield for both directions, or a double arrow instead of separate arrows (examples (http://www.gribblenation.net/ctends/4.html))
• Mismatched or inappropriate fonts

When on a two lane exit, with an optional lane and the BGS signs don't recognize the optional lane.  They only sign one lane as an "exit only" when there are two lanes that can exit (including the option lane).  They make drivers unfamiliar with the area change lanes for no reason.

Quote from: rawmustard on December 27, 2010, 09:33:24 AM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 27, 2010, 03:37:49 AM

Quote from: Brian556 on December 26, 2010, 09:19:39 PM
Two Way Traffic Sign with arrows reversed (telling you to drive on wrong side)

is that possible??  If you hang a sign with two arrows upside down, it will end up as the same sign.  180 degree rotational symmetry..

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2602%2F4157513266_c77700c57c_z.jpg&hash=f72ec99b1969dab4b427b7dbdefb9cbc1db23f7b) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawmustard/4157513266/)

Quite possible. For some reason, the sign shop reflects the correct image.

Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2010, 04:49:27 AM
Misprint. I've seen the occasional center right-turn lane sign in the US. It's something to laugh at the first few times, then ignore.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2519%2F3854021653_e5084b3422.jpg&hash=cfddad90430f955d16fce4076c98bad3ea8a9b97) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawmustard/3854021653/)

Oddly enough, I have one of these as well.

It makes you wonder what kind of supervision is goinig on in the sign shop. Surely there is some sort of review before the sign goes out for installation. Or "shudder" the DESIGN was wrong to begin with....

Quote from: doofy103 on December 28, 2010, 06:46:52 AM
When on a two lane exit, with an optional lane and the BGS signs don't recognize the optional lane.  They only sign one lane as an "exit only" when there are two lanes that can exit (including the option lane).  They make drivers unfamiliar with the area change lanes for no reason.

There's one interchange here that is really bad with that. the BGS just has one diagonal white arrow, where in fact the right lane is exit only and there is an optional lane: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.237423,-76.634228&spn=0.001249,0.00327&t=k&z=19

Some of mine are repeats of others, although maybe stated in a somewhat different way:

I agree about not always signing US routes on interstate highways-if a highway is going to have a long unsigned concurrency with an interstate, then there's almost no point in maintaining the same number on both sides of the concurrency. On the same issue, I also don't like it when states feel they have to move every US route onto an interstate going through large cities. Indianapolis is probably the worst example of this-where every US route(and one state route) that go through the city are put on I-465. In that particular case, it's understandable why they don't sign all of the concurrent routes because signing all of them would probably be more confusing.

I have several that have to do with destination and mileage signs:

-Lack of destination signage at junctions: States sign most rural road junctions with destination signs, but often don't do so inside cities. I understand in some highly built-up places such signs may not feasible, but in many places you don't see them at all inside cities, even in lightly built-up or residential areas.

-No mileage on destination signage at junctions: This just varies state-to-state-some states sign mileage on destination signage at junctions while others just have the destinations without mileage.

-No mileage signs after road junction or after going through a city

-No destination or mileage signs at surface road junction with interstate or other freeway: You see some kind of destination signage at most such junctions, but sometimes there will be nothing except the route signs. There should be some kind of destination signage at such junctions and it's better to have mileage as well.

-Too much information on exit signs: In most cases, there should not be any more than a road name(and these are often unnecessary in rural areas) and two destinations(one for each direction) on an exit sign. Anything more is too cluttered. Also, non-place name destinations(such as tourist attractions) should be kept off exit signs and put on secondary signs unless the primary reason that the exit exists is to reach such a place.

-No control cities at freeway junctions: Every freeway should have a control city that is associated with it. I especially dislike the practice of some places(like Minnesota in the Twin Cities) of not signing any control cities with the 3di loops.

Quote from: huskeroadgeek on December 28, 2010, 03:46:53 PM
Some of mine are repeats of others, although maybe stated in a somewhat different way:

I agree about not always signing US routes on interstate highways-if a highway is going to have a long unsigned concurrency with an interstate, then there's almost no point in maintaining the same number on both sides of the concurrency. On the same issue, I also don't like it when states feel they have to move every US route onto an interstate going through large cities. Indianapolis is probably the worst example of this-where every US route(and one state route) that go through the city are put on I-465. In that particular case, it's understandable why they don't sign all of the concurrent routes because signing all of them would probably be more confusing.

I have several that have to do with destination and mileage signs:

-Lack of destination signage at junctions: States sign most rural road junctions with destination signs, but often don't do so inside cities. I understand in some highly built-up places such signs may not feasible, but in many places you don't see them at all inside cities, even in lightly built-up or residential areas.

-No mileage on destination signage at junctions: This just varies state-to-state-some states sign mileage on destination signage at junctions while others just have the destinations without mileage.

-No mileage signs after road junction or after going through a city

-No destination or mileage signs at surface road junction with interstate or other freeway: You see some kind of destination signage at most such junctions, but sometimes there will be nothing except the route signs. There should be some kind of destination signage at such junctions and it's better to have mileage as well.

-Too much information on exit signs: In most cases, there should not be any more than a road name(and these are often unnecessary in rural areas) and two destinations(one for each direction) on an exit sign. Anything more is too cluttered. Also, non-place name destinations(such as tourist attractions) should be kept off exit signs and put on secondary signs unless the primary reason that the exit exists is to reach such a place.

-No control cities at freeway junctions: Every freeway should have a control city that is associated with it. I especially dislike the practice of some places(like Minnesota in the Twin Cities) of not signing any control cities with the 3di loops.

I happen to agree with these, too.

One of my pet peeves with signage is when they replace perfectly good old button copy/porcelain BGSs with dodgier, more ghastly signs. If the State DOT wants to replace the signs, they should do so accurately.
Another is where major city (surface-street) arterials don't have state route markers. It kinda helps navigation if you're unfamiliar with the city's surroundings.

I also hate assemblies like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2F30-39%2F031%2Fend031s_2009.jpg&hash=a783b8f766c4661e7c8fc23471ce1a333207b83d)
I'd prefer this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2F80-89%2F385%2Fend385n_1979.jpg&hash=52492fa88f8aa6361a4f228b7c4a0a77b886fcb4)

Am I really the first to say sequential exit numbers?

More on Mile Markers (or in some states: Moron Mile Markers):

All mile markers on US or State Routes should use the same type of mile markers as those found on the Interstates.  This should be read to mean:

1) Mile markers should be based from either the western or southern terminus of the route and/or from the state line if and only if the route touches a state line.  
       (Not like US-163 with only 20-some physical miles in Arizona, but mile markers in the 300's!!!)

2) Mile markers should not look like eye charts (like New York State).

3) Mile markers should not be hidden in some secret code (like PA).

4) Mile markers should not be reset to zero every time you cross into a new county within the state (like OH).

Quote from: thenetwork on December 28, 2010, 10:20:37 PM

4) Mile markers should not be reset to zero every time you cross into a new county within the state (like OH).

or California.  combine that with the lack of exit numbers, and one ends up not knowing at all where they are.

Oh yeah. Guess what else annoys me. Signs that have legends made from that cheap black film that shrinks and peels, and in gerneral makes a sign look like s***. It really does not make sense to use sheeting that last 10+ years with black film that barely lasts 2 years.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2010, 10:43:57 PM

Quote from: thenetwork on December 28, 2010, 10:20:37 PM

4) Mile markers should not be reset to zero every time you cross into a new county within the state (like OH).

or California.  combine that with the lack of exit numbers, and one ends up not knowing at all where they are.

Or Nevada.

Quote from: SP Cook on December 26, 2010, 07:42:32 AM
- Stadium exits.  I can think of at least 8 college stadiums where the signed exit is not the best way to the stadium.  They take those following the signage out on some circuitious path and thus seperate them from those that know what they are doing.  Smart from a traffic management perspective, but at least cover the signs up the 358 days per year that there isn't a game.

How about College/University exits in general? On many occasions, the signed exit is in no way, shape, or form the best way to reach the school. My alma mater, Lynchburg College, is completely guilty of this. Exit 3A - Business US 501 (Kemper Street) is a STRAIGHT shot, yet they have spotty signage saying to continue to regular US 501...which is ridiculously out of the way and poorly signed. Even worse, Google Maps also shows US 501A (which is unsigned and perhaps decommissioned?) When I was a student ambassador (college tour guide for prospective students) people were constantly late because they would get severely lost in the city.

York College of PA is guilty of this, too. Exit 15 (Business 83) is a direct shot, but yet, the interstate signs the college at Exit 16, which is Queen St (PA 74.) This is not only an indirect shot, but reassurance signage completely disappears.

I'm sure there are other examples. It just seems silly to me to route people poorly around town when there are more or less direct routes straight to the front gates.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2010, 10:43:57 PM

Quote from: thenetwork on December 28, 2010, 10:20:37 PM

4) Mile markers should not be reset to zero every time you cross into a new county within the state (like OH).

or California.  combine that with the lack of exit numbers, and one ends up not knowing at all where they are.

California does not use mile markers (except on CA-58 from Bakersfield to Boron).  What's used in California are called Post Miles and are for maintenance purposes only.  Post Miles are NOT intended to be used by the traveling public.

Quote from: myosh_tino on December 29, 2010, 01:24:20 AMPost Miles are NOT intended to be used by the traveling public.

then why make up all those aluminum paddles?  An individual one is cheap; the entire signing program is expensive.  Tax dollars at work.

Really, someone should have thought - in 1963 when they adopted the modern postmile style - that maybe the general public could benefit from a very simple change in the numbering system: namely, to start mileage from the state border, as specified in the AASHO interstate manual of 1957/58.  The maintenance personnel, inasmuch as they would've needed the mileage to the county line (not so often) could have just had a book that added up all the county mileages, if they would've ever needed to know.

Standard mileposts: not exactly a precedent.  They were used on the National Road as early as 1843, and I believe the Appian Way used them in the oh-so-modern year of 312 BC.  Then again, California was far behind in many things: route shields on guide signs, only as late as 1955, and the whole exit numbering fiasco: a successful experiment in 1971 resulted in the whole concept being abandoned until 2002.  Go figure.

like I said: your tax dollars at work.  Why be efficient when you're spending someone else's money??

Of course hindsight is 20/20. 

An ideal system for California today is the dual system used in Nevada (use both white post miles and green mile posts).  But given what's currently in use, the post mile system, adding green mile posts to every single state highway, U.S. route and interstate in California would be very, very expensive.  If you're also advocating the removal of the post mile system in California, then you'd also have to convert all the highway logs, maintenance logs, construction documents, etc from the post mile system to the mile post system.

I would much rather see my tax dollars going towards actual road construction/maintenance than be wasted on some silly project to convert post miles to mile posts just because "everyone else is doing it".

Quote from: myosh_tino on December 29, 2010, 02:57:05 AM
An ideal system for California today is the dual system used in Nevada (use both white post miles and green mile posts). 

You say this as if the dual system is widespread in Nevada. The only highways where NDOT uses standard green MUTCD milepost panels is on Interstate highways--all other highways use post mile panels similar to California's. I-80 is really the only highway in Nevada where postmiles and mileposts are used and don't correlate to the same mileage--I-15 uses both as well (postmiles are sporadic in the Las Vegas area), but the distances are the same since the route stays in one county inside Nevada.

Quote from: myosh_tino on December 29, 2010, 02:57:05 AM
Of course hindsight is 20/20.  

foresight is doable, though... or, in this case, standard due diligence: looking around and seeing what everyone else uses.  by 1964, state-line-based mileposts were not only a good idea, but they were the law.  (see 1957/58 and 1961 AASHO manuals.)  Like I mentioned, a common zero ideal has been around to the time of the Romans: milestones on the Italian peninsula show the distance to Rome, which is a perfectly good zero index.  I wouldn't object if all of CA's mileposts showed the distance to Sacramento; I just wish they wouldn't reset at every county line!

QuoteAn ideal system for California today is the dual system used in Nevada (use both white post miles and green mile posts).  But given what's currently in use, the post mile system, adding green mile posts to every single state highway, U.S. route and interstate in California would be very, very expensive.  If you're also advocating the removal of the post mile system in California, then you'd also have to convert all the highway logs, maintenance logs, construction documents, etc from the post mile system to the mile post system.

the maintenance logs can stay as is - no one cares about those except Caltrans and roadgeeks.  Caltrans can make up a quick reference manual for themselves (i.e. "101 Marin county, offset is 469.4" (or whatever the Hell it is)), and roadgeeks can convert in their heads.  

the adding of the green miles would be significantly less expensive than that horrible "exit tabs or bust" project we have so far, that has caused clumsy and aesthetically displeasing retrofits (seriously? did external tabs kick your dog or something?  why the aversion??), and worse, has been the sad demise of so many historically viable signs.  I've already mentioned the exit number fiasco: they tried them in '71, found that they worked, and couldn't be bothered to install them going forward.

QuoteI would much rather see my tax dollars going towards actual road construction/maintenance than be wasted on some silly project to convert post miles to mile posts just because "everyone else is doing it".

agreed on this one - I just think that in 1964 CA should've gone with 1) state-line-based postmiles, and 2) exit numbers, at least keeping them by 1971 for sure.  

I've noticed many BGS in California often omit the bottom white border on their signs, simply because they're usually not seen from the driver's line of sight. But it's annoying... Three sides of the BGS have a white border, and the bottom one is completely bare.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5203%2F5233247685_bd804b7ec9_b.jpg&hash=5544ba40340862d7bcfb5fa1896f37474a5543b5)
...and
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4133%2F5195180163_5c4f3a2248_b.jpg&hash=98876c92c1642bb39938f4c1282bc3519845f55a)

Can you guess what it is? Well, it's actually two things. Both images feature my first pet peeve: that arrow floating outside of the "exit only" shading. How aesthetically unpleasing.  Unaesthetically pleasing is not quite what you're after.

The second image has the weird lower-case text that's too small which makes the sign look tacky. I've seen this type of problem discussed on the boards somewhere before...

CL: Looking at the second image, the odd mixed case text is reminiscent of California's mid-1950s mixed case style (Series D capital letters, Series E(M) lowercase).

even more extreme - CA used a 2:3 ratio, and that looks like 3:5.  Not quite 1:2 but close.

the major problem with the first photo is that "280 east" is not a shield.  Unless it's road number 280, in which case it is fine.  If it is "to 80 East", then it is beyond the pale.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2010, 09:54:56 PM
the major problem with the first photo is that "280 east" is not a shield.  Unless it's road number 280, in which case it is fine.  If it is "to 80 East", then it is beyond the pale.

280 East is the name of the road. It's the north-south road 2.8 blocks east of the zero line, intersecting east-west roads at address 280. 280 West would be a separate north-south road 5.6 blocks to the west. The integer multiples of 100 are often said with ordinal numbers (200 East = 2nd East) but 280 East is probably said thus,

Quote from: NE2 on December 29, 2010, 10:01:18 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2010, 09:54:56 PM
the major problem with the first photo is that "280 east" is not a shield.  Unless it's road number 280, in which case it is fine.  If it is "to 80 East", then it is beyond the pale.

280 East is the name of the road. It's the north-south road 2.8 blocks east of the zero line, intersecting east-west roads at address 280. 280 West would be a separate north-south road 5.6 blocks to the west. The integer multiples of 100 are often said with ordinal numbers (200 East = 2nd East) but 280 East is probably said thus,

Ha... "2 [to] 80 East." Good one.

But yeah, 280 East is the whole Salt Lake numbering system. 600 South, 2100 North, what have you. That road happens not to lie directly three blocks east of 0, so it's 280 East (although the actual name of that road is Fashion Blvd, but that's a story for another day).

that explains why I had not heard of route 280!  I figured the sign was in the SLC area (where else is there a freeway exit 12 to I-15?) so I was crossing my fingers that this was not the extraordinarily lazy way of signing "to Interstate 80 East".

As a kid I was always amused by the way the parallel freeways in south Jersey are signed 295 and to 95.

One thing I really dislike is when a one-way pair ends and there's a double-arrow sign with no directions. It's correct but doesn't tell you which way to turn to continue on the route you're on.

Also it annoys me when signs combine all sorts of fonts on them.

Today, I came across a sign that had the exit tabs in Series C, the name of the exit in Series E(M) and then an "Exit Only" in Series D.

While I think that guide signs should always be in Series E(M), I'd at least like to see consistent signs, even if they were all in Series A or B.

I also dislike signs that have heavy amounts of greenout, therefore making the sign TACKY. I also dislike old signs that are so dirty that they are illegible. In both these cases, the sign(s) should be replaced.

Quote from: CL on December 29, 2010, 09:43:10 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5203%2F5233247685_bd804b7ec9_b.jpg&hash=5544ba40340862d7bcfb5fa1896f37474a5543b5)
...and
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4133%2F5195180163_5c4f3a2248_b.jpg&hash=98876c92c1642bb39938f4c1282bc3519845f55a)

Can you guess what it is? Well, it's actually two things. Both images feature my first pet peeve: that arrow floating outside of the "exit only" shading. How unaesthetically pleasing.

The second image has the weird lower-case text that's too small which makes the sign look tacky. I've seen this type of problem discussed on the boards somewhere before...

and the lack of exit tabs.

Quote-No control cities at freeway junctions: Every freeway should have a control city that is associated with it. I especially dislike the practice of some places(like Minnesota in the Twin Cities) of not signing any control cities with the 3di loops.

Some freeways just don't need control cities.  What would you use for MN 62?  Or MN 100?  Or MN 610?

One could make an argument for putting control cities on I-694 (MnDOT posts "Twin Cities Bypass Use I-694" on I-94 on each side).  But not really with I-494.

Quote from: froggie on December 30, 2010, 09:52:49 AM

Quote-No control cities at freeway junctions: Every freeway should have a control city that is associated with it. I especially dislike the practice of some places(like Minnesota in the Twin Cities) of not signing any control cities with the 3di loops.

Some freeways just don't need control cities.  What would you use for MN 62?  Or MN 100?  Or MN 610?

One could make an argument for putting control cities on I-694 (MnDOT posts "Twin Cities Bypass Use I-694" on I-94 on each side).  But not really with I-494.

Furthermore, there may be too many outgoing highways from a city each with its own control city that it may be difficult to determine which control city or cities you should use. For cities that have four highways coming out in each of the cardinal directions it may be alright, like what I've seen in Ohio, but for Indianapolis where I'm from, we have six, soon to be eight freeways coming out from the city that you have to start signing two or three control cities and then you have to change those cities after a few exits, becoming unnecessary clutter.

Quote from: doofy103 on December 30, 2010, 05:41:44 AM

{removed images}

and the lack of exit tabs.

They do have exit tabs, full-width exit tabs a la Illinois, but only one of them (the California Ave exit) is done right, IMHO, by aligning it to the side of the exit ramp.

Quote from: Quillz on December 30, 2010, 01:12:18 AM
Also it annoys me when signs combine all sorts of fonts on them.

Then you'd love some of the ISTHA bgses on I-88 that have Series E and Clearview.  The signs are for the 22nd Street exit (to IL-83) with a distance in miles.  I've still got to get a photo, but I kid you not, the "22" in 22nd Street is Series E, but the distance is in Clearview!

Quote from: Brian556 on December 26, 2010, 09:19:39 PM

Warning:
Signal Ahead Sign upside down

<-------------- Yeah, me too

Quote from: 6a on December 30, 2010, 02:47:01 PM

Quote from: Brian556 on December 26, 2010, 09:19:39 PM

Warning:
Signal Ahead Sign upside down

<-------------- Yeah, me too

Need a pic of it, but IDiOT did one of these for a ramp meter for an entrance from Wbd St Charles Rd to the Ebd Ike.

Here's an example of something I see occasionally here in Oregon that annoys me a little bit:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOregon%2520State%2520Routes%2FOR223Wren1.jpg%3Ft%3D1293768109&hash=e460ed725968a7cffa428793725fcae6a2f2596c)

Wouldn't it make more sense for the 223 shield to be on the right?

Here's another goofy arrow arrangement not too far away:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOregon%2520State%2520Routes%2FOR99EAlbany1.jpg%3Ft%3D1293768274&hash=18f9541e7516358a895237d692aa29514ba24f67)

I hate that Georgia doesn't have -- well at least in the Atlanta region -- consistent, well signed lane ending signage. Sometimes, you're driving along and the lane just ends. I've seen this around quite a bit. What I like about Alabama is that when a lane ends, you know it's ending. The lines indicate that the lane's ending. This is popping up in some places in Georgia; not a lot, though. (At least I've not seen it in a lot of place here.)


Be well,

Bryant

Quote from: xonhulu on December 30, 2010, 11:07:03 PM
Here's an example of something I see occasionally here in Oregon that annoys me a little bit:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOregon%2520State%2520Routes%2FOR223Wren1.jpg%3Ft%3D1293768109&hash=e460ed725968a7cffa428793725fcae6a2f2596c)

Wouldn't it make more sense for the 223 shield to be on the right?

How does one continue straight on US 20 there? It looks like there is a guard rail and a parking lot in the way.

Quote from: Brandon on December 30, 2010, 11:04:30 AM

Quote from: doofy103 on December 30, 2010, 05:41:44 AM

{removed images}

and the lack of exit tabs.

They do have exit tabs, full-width exit tabs a la Illinois, but only one of them (the California Ave exit) is done right, IMHO, by aligning it to the side of the exit ramp.

Utah exit tabs have been full-width from about the late 1970s to the mid 2000s, and they've been aligned based on what side of the road the exit's on since the late '80s (sporadically from then, always since the mid '90s). This is what Utah exit tabs look like nowadays:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3260%2F3169845432_fa8565237a_b.jpg&hash=ffbab965bae19ccf6cb0908d612966d258fade64)

(I used this photo because I especially like that way of marking left exits - much less cumbersome than the "left" shaded in yellow and then having the "Exit ##" below, like on I-379 in Pennsylvania...)

Also, while I've been in California for the past week, I've really come to like its old signage, but my only caveat is the way it marks exit only lanes (if at all marked) - terrible for those unfamiliar with the area. This is what I'm talking about:

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images880/i-880_nb_exit_046a_03.jpg)
(AARoads)

EDIT: here's a better example. Looking solely at this sign and being somewhat used to California signing practices, I'd think only the right lane would be required to exit. After all, wouldn't they stick that cryptic "only" next to the left arrow too if that were the case? Just stick those arrows inside the exit only shading like the rest of the country does. But I guess it wouldn't be a true California sign then.

Quote from: Laura Bianca on December 29, 2010, 01:01:55 AM
York College of PA is guilty of this, too. Exit 15 (Business 83) is a direct shot, but yet, the interstate signs the college at Exit 16, which is Queen St (PA 74.) This is not only an indirect shot, but reassurance signage completely disappears.

That's a relic from when Business 83 wasn't accessible directly from southbound I-83, and you had to use the Queen Street exit to get there.  Only with the recent interchange rebuild did that become possible.  Somewhere back there, too, is Penn State York Campus, which is closest to Exit 16.

Several colleges in Baltimore are near the Charles Street corridor (MD 139) inside I-695 Exit 25.  Towson University, Loyola College, Johns Hopkins University, and Notre Dame of MD are all along there. So the directional signage on the off ramp just says "Colleges", in the same spirit as "Shore Points."

Someone mentioned irregular mile markers... US 1 in Harford County has mileage from the southern county line.  Most other US highways here use cumulative state mileage.

Quote from: papaT10932 on December 30, 2010, 11:21:18 PM
How does one continue straight on US 20 there? It looks like there is a guard rail and a parking lot in the way.

Sign's off the right side of the road a bit, they don't really expect you to drive over the guard rail!

Today, on a day trip to Ojai, I was taking an alternate route (CA-118 -> CA-23 -> CA-126 -> CA-150). Anyway, I was on CA-150 when I noticed a very odd reassurance marker... It appeared that the "1" and "0" were in Series C while the "5" was in D(M), as if the original reassurance marker was a "CA-5" error shield but they decided to reuse it. I didn't get a picture of it, but it really stood out, it was very awkward... I think it was just north of Santa Paula.

Quote from: xonhulu on December 30, 2010, 11:07:03 PM
Here's an example of something I see occasionally here in Oregon that annoys me a little bit:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOregon%2520State%2520Routes%2FOR223Wren1.jpg%3Ft%3D1293768109&hash=e460ed725968a7cffa428793725fcae6a2f2596c)

Wouldn't it make more sense for the 223 shield to be on the right?

Here's another goofy arrow arrangement not too far away:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOregon%2520State%2520Routes%2FOR99EAlbany1.jpg%3Ft%3D1293768274&hash=18f9541e7516358a895237d692aa29514ba24f67)

And yes, I agree... "Lesser" routes (Interstate trumps U.S. which trumps state which trumps county) should always be as far right as possible, and then ordered by number. At least, that's how I always do any fictitious sign gantries.

Quote from: Quillz on December 31, 2010, 04:09:06 AMAnd yes, I agree... "Lesser" routes (Interstate trumps U.S. which trumps state which trumps county) should always be as far right as possible, and then ordered by number. At least, that's how I always do any fictitious sign gantries.

I agree with you, but that wasn't my point: 223 should be on the right because it's a right turn to get on it.

Quote from: MDRoads on December 31, 2010, 12:31:07 AM

Quote from: Laura Bianca on December 29, 2010, 01:01:55 AM
York College of PA is guilty of this, too. Exit 15 (Business 83) is a direct shot, but yet, the interstate signs the college at Exit 16, which is Queen St (PA 74.) This is not only an indirect shot, but reassurance signage completely disappears.

That's a relic from when Business 83 wasn't accessible directly from southbound I-83, and you had to use the Queen Street exit to get there.  Only with the recent interchange rebuild did that become possible.  Somewhere back there, too, is Penn State York Campus, which is closest to Exit 16.

Several colleges in Baltimore are near the Charles Street corridor (MD 139) inside I-695 Exit 25.  Towson University, Loyola College, Johns Hopkins University, and Notre Dame of MD are all along there. So the directional signage on the off ramp just says "Colleges", in the same spirit as "Shore Points."

Someone mentioned irregular mile markers... US 1 in Harford County has mileage from the southern county line.  Most other US highways here use cumulative state mileage.

US 40 in Cecil County does that too.  I don't pay lots of attention to off-Interstate mile markers, but with those two examples I just assumed it was standard practice in Maryland to start at the county line.

- Subject Change Alert - talking of mileage in Maryland, what's the official starting point for mileage on I-95, the Maryland/DC line?  I always have an urge not to recognize the DC segment's existence....

1. Misuse of Clearview on route shields. There are several Clearview I-96 shields in Detroit, MI, there is a pic of one in the shield gallery here on AARoads: www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19880962 (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19880962)

2. Using a 2-digit shield for a 3-digit route, especially on business Interstate shields, as is the case here, also in the gallery: www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19721961 (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19721961)

3. Using the federal default circle shield instead of the normal state route shield for a state: www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19880752 (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19880752)

4. Whenever a route is decomissioned, failure to take down signs that still mention said route even though said route no longer is in the vicinity: www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19800102 (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19800102)

I also don't like 1970 specification Interstate and U.S. Route shields.

Quote from: MDOTFanFB on December 31, 2010, 10:21:49 PM
1. Misuse of Clearview on route shields. There are several Clearview I-96 shields in Detroit, MI, there is a pic of one in the shield gallery here on AARoads: www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19880962 (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19880962)

2. Using a 2-digit shield for a 3-digit route, especially on business Interstate shields, as is the case here, also in the gallery: www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19721961 (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19721961)

3. Using the federal default circle shield instead of the normal state route shield for a state: www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19880752 (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19880752)

4. Whenever a route is decomissioned, failure to take down signs that still mention said route even though said route no longer is in the vicinity: www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19800102 (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MI19800102)

I agree with numbers 1, 3, and 4 but number 2 is old style, and it looks better IMO, especially with states that continue to use the 2-digit shield for all routes (NH, CT, etc.).

Quote from: PennDOTFan on December 31, 2010, 11:53:59 PM
but number 2 is old style, and it looks better IMO, especially with states that continue to use the 2-digit shield for all routes (NH, CT, etc.).

Here in MI, they are still using 2-digit shields for all M-xx routes. All except for M-553 and the now-decomissioned M-554. But a 2-digit Interstate shield for a 3-digit Interstate looks just wrong for me.

OT: Only one more minute until 2011! We're now in 2011!

Quote from: MDOTFanFB on December 31, 2010, 11:57:48 PM
But a 2-digit Interstate shield for a 3-digit Interstate looks just wrong for me.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NH/NH19792931i1.jpg)

It looks pretty good to me.

I also don't care for 3di numbers squeezed into 2di shields, but I do like the opposite: 1- and 2di numbers placed into 3di shields. While I'm not normally a fan of wide shields, I happen to like the wide Interstate shield and I have no qualms about any kind of number being in one.

My pet peeve is how most people here have rather trivial peeves. When you visit an area where signage is missing to the point of not being able to follow a route, you'll stop fretting about the small things.

Quote from: NE2 on January 01, 2011, 12:49:08 AM
My pet peeve is how most people here have rather trivial peeves. When you visit an area where signage is missing to the point of not being able to follow a route, you'll stop fretting about the small things.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the term "pet peeve" by definition imply something small or trivial?

Which is what signs in general are to most locals.

Quote from: NE2 on January 01, 2011, 12:58:27 AM
Which is what signs in general are to most locals.

Not the point I was getting at...

Quote from: Michael in Philly on December 31, 2010, 09:16:20 AM
US 40 in Cecil County does that too.  I don't pay lots of attention to off-Interstate mile markers, but with those two examples I just assumed it was standard practice in Maryland to start at the county line.

- Subject Change Alert - talking of mileage in Maryland, what's the official starting point for mileage on I-95, the Maryland/DC line?  I always have an urge not to recognize the DC segment's existence....

I figured the situation there with US 40 in Cecil Co. was due to the presence of the Hatem Bridge and its toll status.  The current mile markers would have been preceded by the cryptic mile markers that MDTA used on toll facilities.

The official SHA inventory of I-95 begins at the western end of the Wilson Bridge.  However, the mile markers are noted in the inventory, and they differ by between .15-.30 miles from the inventory in the first several miles, possibly due to the DC segment.

Presumably because bridge maintenance is now a joint venture between VDOT and SHA.

On a related note to that, about a year ago SHA installed new 0.2 milemarkers on the Beltway between the perceived state line and St. Barnabas Rd (MD 414).  Of note is that the new milemarkers are roughly 0.7mi off from the old milemarkers.

Quote from: MDOTFanFB on December 31, 2010, 11:57:48 PM

Here in MI, they are still using 2-digit shields for all M-xx routes. All except for M-553 and the now-decomissioned M-554.

M-554 was never signed, except on City of Marquette street sign blades. The new M-553 markers placed along McClellan Avenue are squares, not rectangles.

Quote from: AlpsROADSJCT the route you're already on.  Connecticut seems to be the worst offender, but I found out Kentucky will do it every time the route you're on makes a turn, so maybe they'll take over as worst.

NH consistently does this wherever multiplexes are involved. JCT [16] {302} when you're already on 16 and 302 is about to join, and again when you're already on both routes and they're about to split up.

Also, ditto to Kurumi's "Cardinal directions omitted". Maine is very bad with this.

Quote from: doofy103When on a two lane exit, with an optional lane and the BGS signs don't recognize the optional lane.  They only sign one lane as an "exit only" when there are two lanes that can exit (including the option lane).  They make drivers unfamiliar with the area change lanes for no reason.

Thsi is the big one that's really cheesed me off lately.
MDOT already had enough problems signing their exit only vs optional exit lanes.
And now, after the recent rebuild of I-295 in downtown Portland & SoPo, there are many aux lane / exit only lane / optional exit lane scenarios. So MDOT has of course gone apeshit signing them all... incorrectly.
In most cases, both lanes are signed as "exit only", implying a single thru lane on the freeway mainline. (Not exactly up to freeway standards, that, and complete rubbish when you look at the actual physical layout of the road! (This particular gaffe has even made it as far north as Exit 28 in Brunswick.))
Worse yet, there's a 2-lane exit at Exit 3 southbound, where the long-time bottleneck from the Exit 4 interchange has been widened out with an auxiliary lane. Here, the old signage is still in place. This would lead drivers to think they're on a wide-open new highway, free to put the pedal down all the way to the Turnpike. They're in for a rude surprise when they find their lane peeling off onto an exit with no warning, and having to weave left into another lane full of exiting traffic to continue.
I haven't witnessed any yet, but I can only foresee this causing a great deal of ugliness.
The only place (in the state!) MDOT gets it right, with one black arrow on yellow and one white arrow on white, is the replacement for this sign, at the Scarborough Connector's left exit from US1.

Quote from: doofy103When on a two lane exit, with an optional lane and the BGS signs don't recognize the optional lane.  They only sign one lane as an "exit only" when there are two lanes that can exit (including the option lane).  They make drivers unfamiliar with the area change lanes for no reason.

I'll add a third vote for this one. Another MDOT (Michigan) usually gives no indication that the second right lane is an optional exit lane. Example (complete with negative contrast clearview):


Ironically Caltrans usually does a decent job in these situations, but there are a handful of examples around the bay area where the exit only plaque is omitted entirely and replaced with a RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT and/or a RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT (??) sign. In this photo from I-280 at Page Mill Rd. the right lane is exit only and the 2nd lane from the right is an option.

Quote from: Mikeroburst on January 03, 2011, 02:08:11 AM

Quote from: doofy103When on a two lane exit, with an optional lane and the BGS signs don't recognize the optional lane.  They only sign one lane as an "exit only" when there are two lanes that can exit (including the option lane).  They make drivers unfamiliar with the area change lanes for no reason.

I'll add a third vote for this one. Another MDOT (Michigan) usually gives no indication that the second right lane is an optional exit lane. Example (complete with negative contrast clearview):

I also don't like the solid white line at the two lane exit.  the right lane and the option lane is separated by a solid white line.  I think it should stay broken.   

How about exit only tabs used (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=huntsville,+al&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=53.741627,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Huntsville,+Madison,+Alabama&ll=34.740431,-86.66419&spn=0.013842,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.740384,-86.664056&panoid=rkZ4CoFql8Rk7Nvojk4hCg&cbp=12,315.35,,0,12.51) when the lane doesn't actually exit? I know that link doesn't clearly show it, but the right most lane is indicated as an exit-only lane, when it actually continues straight. This sign has since been modified.

Quote from: Mikeroburst on January 03, 2011, 02:08:11 AM
I'll add a third vote for this one. Another MDOT (Michigan) usually gives no indication that the second right lane is an optional exit lane. Example (complete with negative contrast clearview):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmikeroburst.com%2Faaroads%2Fm39exit1-small.jpg&hash=bfac44fecce4c5c648719c7c5fa3b8be4ae46dfa)

Notice the NJDOT-style M-39 shield on the "FREEWAY ENDS" sign!

Also, the Michigan MDOT sometimes puts two shields for the same route on the same sign. I caught one of these on Sunday (the sign on the left):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F_AXtC_YsMww4%2FTSCrAgYBETI%2FAAAAAAAAAdA%2F40HLW7q-yO8%2Fs800%2FSAM_0298.JPG&hash=b6b5459c59db768e0f786b9109ebc15535061bc6)

Quote from: doofy103 on January 03, 2011, 04:51:03 AM

Quote from: Mikeroburst on January 03, 2011, 02:08:11 AM

Quote from: doofy103When on a two lane exit, with an optional lane and the BGS signs don't recognize the optional lane.  They only sign one lane as an "exit only" when there are two lanes that can exit (including the option lane).  They make drivers unfamiliar with the area change lanes for no reason.

I'll add a third vote for this one. Another MDOT (Michigan) usually gives no indication that the second right lane is an optional exit lane. Example (complete with negative contrast clearview):

I also don't like the solid white line at the two lane exit.  the right lane and the option lane is separated by a solid white line.  I think it should stay broken.   

Used to discourage last minute lane changes approaching the exit (where there's aready enough nonsense going on).

^ You think that solid white line is gonna stop 'em? Even in the prescence of ceramic domes (http://www.whnt.com/videobeta/c308dbb9-9db9-436b-8d2e-07d8ffddae60/News/Driving-You-Crazy-Wall-Triana-and-I-565) in the white stripe doesn't stop some people.

Add Tennessee to the list of states that reset the mileage on US and state routes at county lines.

Quote from: codyg1985 on January 04, 2011, 01:45:00 PM
^ You think that solid white line is gonna stop 'em? Even in the prescence of ceramic domes (http://www.whnt.com/videobeta/c308dbb9-9db9-436b-8d2e-07d8ffddae60/News/Driving-You-Crazy-Wall-Triana-and-I-565) in the white stripe doesn't stop some people.

I said 'discourage', not prohibit.  This is in the verbiage in the MUTCD for use of the solid white stripe.  You can't keep people from doing stupid stuff.

The diagrams for lane striping with exit only lanes in the MUTCD show that, if there is no option lane, the solid stripe is optional and, when used, of variable length.  When there is an option lane, the solid stripe is merely of variable length.

At least in Florida it's legal to cross a solid single white line.

Kind of off-topic:
Couldn't they install a connector ramp from the Glenn Hearn Boulevard exit on I-565 curving north towards the intersection of Glenn Hearn Boulevard and Madison Boulevard at Exit 7?  Here's (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=34.668794,-86.766543&spn=0.00863,0.021136&t=h&z=16) a Google Maps link.

Quote from: Michael on January 05, 2011, 04:31:43 PM
Kind of off-topic:
Couldn't they install a connector ramp from the Glenn Hearn Boulevard exit on I-565 curving north towards the intersection of Glenn Hearn Boulevard and Madison Boulevard at Exit 7?  Here's (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=34.668794,-86.766543&spn=0.00863,0.021136&t=h&z=16) a Google Maps link.

There are plans to put a WB I-565 ramp to County Line Road to the west and a County Line Rd to EB I-565 ramp in a couple of years. That's where the majority of the traffic exiting off at Wall-Triana Hwy is headed, anyway. It is needed badly.

Quote from: Michael on January 05, 2011, 04:31:43 PM
Kind of off-topic:
Couldn't they install a connector ramp from the Glenn Hearn Boulevard exit on I-565 curving north towards the intersection of Glenn Hearn Boulevard and Madison Boulevard at Exit 7?  Here's (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=34.668794,-86.766543&spn=0.00863,0.021136&t=h&z=16) a Google Maps link.

Pardon, in what way is that even close to on topic?

Quote from: NE2 on January 05, 2011, 02:46:23 PM
At least in Florida it's legal to cross a solid single white line.

In California, if you cross a solid white line like the one pictured in the I-94 exit in Michigan, that will earn you a ticket if a police officer sees you do it.

I believe around here the distinction is single white line = okay to cross but discouraged, double white line = prohibited to cross.

It's illegal to cross a solid white line in NY as well.

Various peeves of mine:

• The use of artificially distorted typefaces, such as Series D condensed to be as narrow as Series C or stretched to be as wide as Series E.  The resulting lettering has an uneven stroke width, and looks unbalanced and ugly.  (Here's (http://www.flickr.com/photos/llnesinthesand/3437164212/) an example in an unlikely context.)


• Any use of Helvetica, Arial, or other off-the-shelf fonts not designed with on-road use in mind.  Worse yet is if the lettering is artificially distorted for good measure.


• Excessively-wordy guide signs in narrow lettering that's extremely hard to read.  This sign is posted in Green Bay, and it's just about impossible to make heads or tails out of at a glance:
  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5004%2F5211779683_d2a34a61e2_m.jpg&hash=f4ff980b8b5d4145bda07918974817adda2d0c4e) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-turnbull/5211779683/)


• Brand new "word-only" signs being posted for warnings or regulations (i.e., "Stop Ahead"), when graphic equivalents for them have existed in the MUTCD for decades.
• Neutered Interstate shields with disproportionately-large numerals.
• Interstate shields on white squares:  www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=WI19880436
• Cheap, one-piece plywood "billboards" for route marker assemblies.  (WisDOT is famous for this.)
• U.S. highways erroneously posted with state route markers, and vice versa.
• "Rough Road" and "Bump" signs posted on smoothly-repaved roads with no bumps.
• Parking regulation signs in red; "No Parking" signs in green.
• School and Pedestrian signs with small symbols shifted upwards...essentially, using the pre-2000 "crossing lines" template with the crossing lines removed.  There are more of these posted locally than I care to admit:
  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrew-turnbull.net%2Fnew%2Fnolines.png&hash=fc0f267b9ecde6aa85f786194a18b2807f5dd19c)
  I'm not fond of how "school" and "school crossing" have been redesignated with the same sign in the newest regulations, either; although that's crying over spilt milk.
• Limited-access highways with no exit numbering.  (I sometimes nearly lose my way on the Illinois Tollway for this reason.)
• The use of "feet," "miles," and customary short "tons" on signs.  Switching to metric once and for all would provide finer measures, simplify unit conversions, bring about synchronization with international conventions, and put an end to thirty-odd years of deadline-scuttling and procrastination.  (But let the slings and arrows begin...)

Quote from: Andrew T. on January 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM

• Brand new "word-only" signs being posted for warnings or regulations (i.e., "Stop Ahead"), when graphic equivalents for them have existed in the MUTCD for decades.

Alabama has started doing this with Divided Highway and Divided Highway Ends signs. The state MUTCD actually has those signs called out with text-only. This drives me nuts since the symbols are universally accepted elsewhere.

Quote from: Andrew T. on January 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM

• Neutered Interstate shields with disproportionately-large numerals.

You pretty much just described 1970 specification Interstate shields. I dislike them, too.

What's your definition of "disproportionately-large numerals"?  10" numerals on a 24" shield?  12"?

I happen to like 10" numerals on that shield size....and proportionally larger on larger shields as needed.

Quote from: Andrew T. on January 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM

• Excessively-wordy guide signs in narrow lettering that's extremely hard to read.  This sign is posted in Green Bay, and it's just about impossible to make heads or tails out of at a glance:
  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5004%2F5211779683_d2a34a61e2_m.jpg&hash=f4ff980b8b5d4145bda07918974817adda2d0c4e) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-turnbull/5211779683/)


• Neutered Interstate shields with disproportionately-large numerals.
• Interstate shields on white squares:  www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=WI19880436
• Cheap, one-piece plywood "billboards" for route marker assemblies.  (WisDOT is famous for this.)
• U.S. highways erroneously posted with state route markers, and vice versa.
• "Rough Road" and "Bump" signs posted on smoothly-repaved roads with no bumps.

I agree with all these, although plywood shields have a certain "only in Wisconsin" kitschy-ness. IMHO
Here are my pet peeves:

• Button Copy, especially when the reflectors have lost there reflectivity. (fire at will)
• Non use of route shields on BGS's, i.e. "US -151        1 mile" 
• Those new BGS arrows (one arrow per-lane)
• This sign:
  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.comcast.net%2F%7Ealmikul%2Fimages%2Fsigns%2Fusdot%2FR3-27.jpg&hash=a264a9d5c9989dfc123aea3340a2d910240a7a68)
• The new "school bus stop ahead" sign.
• USH 3di shields

Quote from: Andrew T. on January 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM

• Brand new "word-only" signs being posted for warnings or regulations (i.e., "Stop Ahead"), when graphic equivalents for them have existed in the MUTCD for decades.

New York actually continued to use word-only signs (especially "Stop Ahead") for many years after the graphic equivalents were written into the MUTCD that, being that NY only just starting using the national standard ones within the past few years, the graphic ones look weird...to say nothing short of the waste of taxpayer dollars replacing perfectly good signs.

Extra Large Caps bothers me as well, both in mixed-case and all-uppercase. They've been replacing perfectly good route shields with new ones with the first letter on the direction banner being larger than the rest, and it just looks weird.  It doesn't help that the NY shield they're using looks even worse (seriously...pick one standard and stick with it!)

Quote from: Andrew T. on January 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5004%2F5211779683_d2a34a61e2_m.jpg&hash=f4ff980b8b5d4145bda07918974817adda2d0c4e) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-turnbull/5211779683/)

Did anyone else initially read "ProSolutions" as "Prostitutions" on that sign?  :-D

Quote from: froggie on January 06, 2011, 02:03:33 PM
What's your definition of "disproportionately-large numerals"?  10" numerals on a 24" shield?  12"?

I happen to like 10" numerals on that shield size....and proportionally larger on larger shields as needed.

I would imagine he was referring to the 12/24.  10/24 looks somewhat better.  But if you're going to do 10/24, you may as well have the wide white margins of '61 spec.

'70:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19880881i1.jpg)

'61:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/ID/ID19830151i1.jpg)

Quote from: froggie on January 06, 2011, 02:03:33 PM
What's your definition of "disproportionately-large numerals"?

12/24...essentially, any shield where the numbers look swollen and about to burst out of their frame at any moment:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WI/WI19880435t100430.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/VA/VA19883951t103950.jpg)

10/24 looks better, and the non-neutered 10/24 shield (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=WI19790431) is actually my personal favorite; proportion-wise.

Quote from: cu2010 on January 06, 2011, 02:25:04 PM
Did anyone else initially read "ProSolutions" as "Prostitutions" on that sign?  :-D

Ha, perhaps they knew what they were doing with that sign after all!

Quote from: froggie on January 06, 2011, 02:03:33 PM
What's your definition of "disproportionately-large numerals"?  10" numerals on a 24" shield?  12"?

I happen to like 10" numerals on that shield size....and proportionally larger on larger shields as needed.

I don't have exact dimensions to give, but I just don't like when the numbers are so large that there is little, if any, space between the numerals and the (thin) outer white border.

I just feel the '57 and '61 Interstate shields got it right and the '70 shields got it wrong.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 06, 2011, 02:07:21 PM
This sign: (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.comcast.net%2F%7Ealmikul%2Fimages%2Fsigns%2Fusdot%2FR3-27.jpg&hash=a264a9d5c9989dfc123aea3340a2d910240a7a68)

What would you use instead?

While I can't speak for other members, I'd handle that with some combination of (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrew-turnbull.net%2Fsigns%2F3onlyleft.png&hash=50120d7800c20da0525436dabbc6cfb312326527) signs and a (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrew-turnbull.net%2Fsigns%2F3donotenter.png&hash=b1e0fafce87dc2f6e128347943c12ba3bd575cca) on the other side of the intersection.
I can't think of any situation that should require (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrew-turnbull.net%2Fsigns%2F3nostraight.png&hash=8f92c03770a53a32dbe68f6b836333a080e10e9a) to be used.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 06, 2011, 02:07:21 PM

Here are my pet peeves:

• The new "school bus stop ahead" sign.

This one?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5284%2F5279323232_941639f3f2_z_d.jpg&hash=bc93667a8ddc0385bd3b0ef541f06492e52f3572)

So far, they aren't very common. I've only seen 2 or 3 of them.

This (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrew-turnbull.net%2Fsigns%2F3nostraight.png&hash=8f92c03770a53a32dbe68f6b836333a080e10e9a)would be helpful where one is on a two way street where it becomes a one way street in the opposing direction. It would be good to use it in addition to Left/Right only signs

Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 06, 2011, 02:07:21 PM
This sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.comcast.net%2F%7Ealmikul%2Fimages%2Fsigns%2Fusdot%2FR3-27.jpg&hash=a264a9d5c9989dfc123aea3340a2d910240a7a68)

The only time where I have ever seen that sign is along US 202 at the Concord Mall north entrance in Wilmington, DE.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FSjbvQ4pYQLI%2FAAAAAAAAIoA%2Fe-NfBmDNYjU%2Fs640%2FIMG_4925.JPG&hash=6b01f45b48144e5c08978b204ce2f7cfb7e65951)

It is certainly an oddball.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 06, 2011, 02:07:21 PM

Here are my pet peeves:

• The new "school bus stop ahead" sign.

I actually like it, not that bad of a design.

Quote from: Andrew T. on January 06, 2011, 05:41:40 PM
While I can't speak for other members, I'd handle that with some combination of (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrew-turnbull.net%2Fsigns%2F3onlyleft.png&hash=50120d7800c20da0525436dabbc6cfb312326527) signs and a (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrew-turnbull.net%2Fsigns%2F3donotenter.png&hash=b1e0fafce87dc2f6e128347943c12ba3bd575cca) on the other side of the intersection.
I can't think of any situation that should require (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrew-turnbull.net%2Fsigns%2F3nostraight.png&hash=8f92c03770a53a32dbe68f6b836333a080e10e9a) to be used.

A little hard to see but there's one here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.378648,-81.504307&spn=0.00791,0.020599&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.378621,-81.504445&panoid=2JR_LIwgIWogYiRjTKZ3PQ&cbp=12,198.29,,0,-3.3
I guess it's a level above left turn only to make it extra-clear that you shouldn't go straight if you take the wrong exit and need to get back on. (The ramp from SR 535 south to I-4 east has a green at the same time as the left turn from I-4 west to SR 535 south, which would not be possible if going straight were permitted.)

I have to say I really don't like the fact that some places are starting to use lime green for warning signs. And here's my reasoning.


A lot of companies are starting to switch over to lime green vests/jackets/etc for various road workers, law enforcement officers, etc...  Now yes lime green is a lot more visible, but part of the reason is that drivers have simply become so accustomed to orange being on the roads, orange signs, orange cones, orange barrels etc....

So now if lime green really takes off we'll be seeing more lime green signs, lime green cones (which are starting to make their way out there) and possibly other lime green road furniture. And soon enough it won't stick out as much as it should.

In my opinion lime should be reserved for people only, so that when drivers see it, they'll know its a person. And that ends my little rant lol.

Karma +5: Bold and insightful, reasonable, and most importantly, correct.

I agree with that, too. I already associate bold orange or green with construction work, so it makes sense to keep orange for equipment and green for people.

I agree as well.  As a matter of fact, I was thinking about people being "desensitized" to the fluorescent green signs not too long ago.

Quote from: Andrew T. on January 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM
Brand new "word-only" signs being posted for warnings or regulations (i.e., "Stop Ahead"), when graphic equivalents for them have existed in the MUTCD for decades.

I like the "word-only" signs.  I HATE the new "speed zone ahead" signs.  I think they're too hard to read.  What was wrong with "Speed Zone Ahead", or (my favorite) "Reduced Speed Ahead"?

Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 06, 2011, 02:07:21 PM
Those new BGS arrows (one arrow per-lane)

I like diagrammatics.  They take less space than "one arrow per lane".  Even at 60 MPH, I can still see the strippling in the arrows.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 06, 2011, 02:07:21 PM
The new "school bus stop ahead" sign.

It's downright ugly!  I haven't seen it in person, thankfully.

Quote from: Michael on January 06, 2011, 09:33:52 PM
I HATE the new "speed zone ahead" signs.  I think they're too hard to read.  What was wrong with "Speed Zone Ahead", or (my favorite) "Reduced Speed Ahead"?

They don't tell you what the speed is getting reduced to, for one. In Oklahoma, I can normally count on the speed limit dropping from 65 to 55, then 45, then 35 as I enter a town, but for the other states that allow a direct drop from 65 to 35 at the town limits, it'd be nice to know exactly how reduced the reduced speed is so I can act accordingly. The new sign (not really new–it was introduced in the 2003 MUTCD) allows that.

I've seen, on a few occasions, a variant of the old "reduced speed ahead" signs that read like this (all text):

REDUCED
SPEED
45
AHEAD

with the number larger than the rest of the text.  What's wrong with this version?

Quote from: Eth on January 06, 2011, 11:14:14 PMI've seen, on a few occasions, a variant of the old "reduced speed ahead" signs that read like this (all text):

REDUCED
SPEED
45
AHEAD

with the number larger than the rest of the text.  What's wrong with this version?

The main objection, and the reason we now have warning diamonds for speed reductions, is that the sign only warns of an upcoming reduction in speed limit, and does not itself impose the new speed limit.

QuoteI've seen, on a few occasions, a variant of the old "reduced speed ahead" signs that read like this (all text):

REDUCED
SPEED
45
AHEAD

with the number larger than the rest of the text.  What's wrong with this version?

Wyoming uses a sign that looks exactly like a speed limit sign but says "REDUCED SPEED 45" instead of "SPEED LIMIT 45." This is awesome because out of towners often think the speed limit is 45 when you get to that sign. Sometimes there's a banner underneath it that specifies how many feet, but usually not.

Quote from: corco on January 06, 2011, 11:28:49 PM
Wyoming uses a sign that looks exactly like a speed limit sign but says "REDUCED SPEED 45" instead of "SPEED LIMIT 45." This is awesome because out of towners often think the speed limit is 45 when you get to that sign. Sometimes there's a banner underneath it that specifies how many feet, but usually not.

I've seen "Reduced Speed 45" in Illinois. They also use the rectangular "Reduced Speed Ahead" with a supplementary sign underneath with the speed.

Quote from: US71 on January 07, 2011, 12:04:29 AM

Quote from: corco on January 06, 2011, 11:28:49 PM
Wyoming uses a sign that looks exactly like a speed limit sign but says "REDUCED SPEED 45" instead of "SPEED LIMIT 45." This is awesome because out of towners often think the speed limit is 45 when you get to that sign. Sometimes there's a banner underneath it that specifies how many feet, but usually not.

I've seen "Reduced Speed 45" in Illinois. They also use the rectangular "Reduced Speed Ahead" with a supplementary sign underneath with the speed.

Exactly.  Never saw any problem with this as here, they usually have been "REDUCED SPEED AHEAD" with "XX MPH" being the speed below the sign i.e:

REDUCED
SPEED
AHEAD
45
MPH

I also think Michigan's variant was good as well:

REDUCED
SPEED
45
AHEAD

As for Mr. Winkler's calling it a warning sign, I always took the reduced speed ahead signs as regulatory, not warning, i.e. if you don't slow you violate a law up ahead, not as an equal to a deer crossing or curve warning.  I agree with the others that they should be regulatory signs, not warning signs.

Quote from: Brandon on January 07, 2011, 12:35:04 AM
As for Mr. Winkler's calling it a warning sign, I always took the reduced speed ahead signs as regulatory, not warning, i.e. if you don't slow you violate a law up ahead, not as an equal to a deer crossing or curve warning.  I agree with the others that they should be regulatory signs, not warning signs.

But the problem is that "Reduced Speed Ahead" warns of a impending change in the road condition--the way you explained it can also be interpreted as a warning as well (although not typical in the road condition sense).

There was one state which actually changed it to "Reduce Speed Ahead", which changes the message from warning to command and is thus more regulatory.


In any event, I like the new reduced speed ahead warning signs which show the speed limit signs. The prior version was "XX MPH SPEED ZONE AHEAD", which never sat right with me because the term "speed zone" wasn't really applicable in most situations.

Quote from: agentsteel53I would imagine he was referring to the 12/24.  10/24 looks somewhat better.  But if you're going to do 10/24, you may as well have the wide white margins of '61 spec.

Is that the only real difference between '61-spec and '70-spec?  The only other difference I could tell was the vertical placement of the numerals.

Quote from: Andrew T.and the non-neutered 10/24 shield is actually my personal favorite

Same here, which is why I've taken to using MnDOT's old version in my sign doodlings.

Quote from: US71So far, they aren't very common. I've only seen 2 or 3 of them.

Likely depends on jurisdiction.  They're all over the place in West Virginia.

Regarding "Reduced Speed Ahead", etc etc, I liked MnDOT's old style of doing it, which was a regulatory:

BEGIN
SPEED
LIMIT
XX
X/X MILE (usually 1/4 or 1/5 mile)

BEGIN and X/X MILE were separate sign plaques.

However, several years ago, they changed their standard signs manual to drop this version and incorporate the graphic warning-sign version (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/mnstdsigns/W%20Series/W3-5.pdf) (W3-5), which alas does not include the distance.

Quote from: Brandon on January 07, 2011, 12:35:04 AM
As for Mr. Winkler's calling it a warning sign, I always took the reduced speed ahead signs as regulatory, not warning, i.e. if you don't slow you violate a law up ahead, not as an equal to a deer crossing or curve warning.  I agree with the others that they should be regulatory signs, not warning signs.

Look at it as akin to stop ahead or yield ahead.

Quote from: PennDOTFan on January 06, 2011, 06:25:56 PM
The only time where I have ever seen that sign is along US 202 at the Concord Mall north entrance in Wilmington, DE.

There's one in an alley in Potsdam NY at US 11.  The reason is that apparently too many people were running across the opposing sidewalk and crashing into HSBC.

Back to the subject of solid-white lines. An earlier poster said it's illegal to cross it in New York. That is only true in New York City. In the rest of the state you can cross it. See Page 47 of the 2010 State Drivers' Manual, given to prospective drivers preparing for their written test.

Quote from: Andrew T.
I can't think of any situation that should require (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrew-turnbull.net%2Fsigns%2F3nostraight.png&hash=8f92c03770a53a32dbe68f6b836333a080e10e9a) to be used.

It certainly shouldn't exist in the USA as the Vienna Convention explicitly states that sign is an alternative "Do Not Enter" sign rather than a prohibited mvoement sign - the Republic of Ireland, for example, uses it instead of the red disc with white bar version.

Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2011, 07:20:21 AM
Is that the only real difference between '61-spec and '70-spec?  The only other difference I could tell was the vertical placement of the numerals.

The '61 specification shields also have thicker white borders and a slightly taller crown. The '70 specification shields made both thinner (and smaller) in order to give more space to the (now larger) numerals, similar to how the U.S. shields were made bloated the same way to give more white space to the numerals.

From a purely aesthetic viewpoint, I find both neutered and non-neutered '61 Interstate shields to be the best. I posted this pic in another thread, but here's what I personally think was the best looking Interstate shield design:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.picdrop.net%2Fuploads%2FVA19580641i1.jpg&hash=4e77ca6245857367af9cc117c779d3c46360de7e) (http://"http://www.picdrop.net/pictures/VA19580641i1.jpg")

If you compare it to a modern '70 wide shield, you'll see the white borders are considerably thinner and the crown is smaller, to the point that there is barely any red space above and below "INTERSTATE."

Quote from: BrynM65 on January 07, 2011, 11:24:30 AM

Quote from: NE2 on January 06, 2011, 06:35:49 PM
I can't think of any situation that should require (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrew-turnbull.net%2Fsigns%2F3nostraight.png&hash=8f92c03770a53a32dbe68f6b836333a080e10e9a) to be used.

It certainly shouldn't exist in the USA as the Vienna Convention explicitly states that sign is an alternative "Do Not Enter" sign rather than a prohibited mvoement sign - the Republic of Ireland, for example, uses it instead of the red disc with white bar version.

Fix your quote. I didn't say this.

Quote fixed, wasn't deliberately misattributing!

Quote from: Andrew T. on January 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM
Brand new "word-only" signs being posted for warnings or regulations (i.e., "Stop Ahead"), when graphic equivalents for them have existed in the MUTCD for decades.

MDOT in Michigan is known for that, they still install new text "Pavement Ends" and "Narrow Bridge" signs.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 06, 2011, 02:07:21 PM
The new "school bus stop ahead" sign.

Thanfully, that MDOT has not adopted that sign.

Quote from: Brandon on January 07, 2011, 12:35:04 AMI also think Michigan's variant was good as well:

REDUCED
SPEED
45
AHEAD

As for Mr. Winkler's calling it a warning sign, I always took the reduced speed ahead signs as regulatory, not warning, i.e. if you don't slow you violate a law up ahead, not as an equal to a deer crossing or curve warning.  I agree with the others that they should be regulatory signs, not warning signs.

I supported this change, but it was not "my" idea.  The idea of treating the reduced-speed-ahead condition with a warning sign was originally Canadian and the MUTCD authors were impressed with the Canadian example.  And, as NE2 notes, there is already precedent for warning signs being used to advise of upcoming regulatory conditions, such as stop, yield, and traffic signals.  This practice is also loosely related to the use of yellow-background "EXIT ONLY" bottom panels even though the exit condition is compulsory for traffic in the dropped lane and in many jurisdictions is so indicated using regulatory signs along with the bottom yellow panels.

Quote from: MDOTFanFB on January 07, 2011, 07:36:26 PM
MDOT in Michigan is known for that, they still install new text "Pavement Ends" and "Narrow Bridge" signs.

Now where has MDOT needed to install a new "Pavement Ends" sign, considering it's been almost 50 years since a stretch of state trunkline has been gravel? Even all the "unsigned" trunklines are hard-surfaced?  :crazy:

Now if you're talking county road commissions, OTOH...

Quote from: rawmustard on January 08, 2011, 01:37:52 AM
Now where has MDOT needed to install a new "Pavement Ends" sign

The text "Pavement Ends" sign is still in the MMUTCD. The 1994 MMUTCD had a symbol "Pavement Ends" sign, but it confused motorists and it was removed from the 2005 MMUTCD, which reverted back to the text version of the sign.

Quote from: Quillz on January 07, 2011, 03:36:42 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.picdrop.net%2Fuploads%2FVA19580641i1.jpg&hash=4e77ca6245857367af9cc117c779d3c46360de7e) (http://"http://www.picdrop.net/pictures/VA19580641i1.jpg")

I just gained back a little respect for VDOT.

Quote from: SignBridge on January 07, 2011, 10:36:59 AM
Back to the subject of solid-white lines. An earlier poster said it's illegal to cross it in New York. That is only true in New York City. In the rest of the state you can cross it. See Page 47 of the 2010 State Drivers' Manual, given to prospective drivers preparing for their written test.

They must have changed it... I'm pretty sure that just a couple years ago it was illegal to cross a white line everywhere!

Quote from: MDOTFanFB on January 07, 2011, 07:36:26 PM

Quote from: Andrew T. on January 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM
Brand new "word-only" signs being posted for warnings or regulations (i.e., "Stop Ahead"), when graphic equivalents for them have existed in the MUTCD for decades.

MDOT in Michigan is known for that, they still install new text "Pavement Ends" and "Narrow Bridge" signs.

The 2009 MUTCD no longer has symbols for "Pavement Ends" and "Narrow Bridge". Narrow Bridge/One-lane bridge specifically was a symbol that was not readily understood by many drivers.

These may have even been eliminated in the 2003 edition or earlier (can't recall at the moment).

deanej, re: the solid white lines; this has been the law in New York for at least 50 years since my dad explained it to me when I was a little kid. I think someone misinformed you..........maybe your defensive driving instructor? It wouldn't be the first time a driving instructor didn't know his course material. (Chuckle!) But we're off-topic. If you'd like to send me a private message, I'll give you a few examples.

Quote from: roadfro on January 08, 2011, 03:59:28 PM
The 2009 MUTCD no longer has symbols for "Pavement Ends" and "Narrow Bridge". Narrow Bridge/One-lane bridge specifically was a symbol that was not readily understood by many drivers.

These may have even been eliminated in the 2003 edition or earlier (can't recall at the moment).

County road comissions in Michigan experimented with symbols for both the mentioned signs, but motorists were confused, so they went back to the text versions. So they were deleted from the 2005 Michigan MUTCD, four years before their deletion from the federal MUTCD.

Quote from: Andrew T. on January 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM

• Brand new "word-only" signs being posted for warnings or regulations (i.e., "Stop Ahead"), when graphic equivalents for them have existed in the MUTCD for decades.

Or to go even further, when they add smaller word signs underneath an already existing symbol sign. There used to be a time when you had to know what the symbols meant, and frankly they are fairly obvious but I guess some people are just that dumb that they can't figure out that a picture of a fire truck means there is a fire station ahead.

How about when they add the state name to the state outline, as if you don't know what state is being shown? :)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=760;type=avatar)

 :-P

Not all of them do, although this may have just been a screw up by the sign manufacturer.


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2F03%2F%21CBf%2CT1%21%212k%7E%24%28KGrHqN%2C%21lEEz%2B6Oy%29BIBNH70CF7rw%7E%7E_3.JPG&hash=ff1080142f942fbeda2e3aa7ec472264ca06a1cc)

Quote from: NE2 on January 08, 2011, 11:33:06 PM
How about when they add the state name to the state outline, as if you don't know what state is being shown? :)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=760;type=avatar)

Yeah, I find that annoying, too. For states that use more abstract shapes, like CA or NY, I have no issue with the state name, but when you shields for Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc, there is no need for the state name.

I have no issue with the state name, period.  I really don't see a reason why you can't have both the state outline and the state name within a shield.

I have no issue either. But then I have no issue with redundant text below a symbol.

Quote from: MDOTFanFB on January 08, 2011, 07:01:37 PM

Quote from: roadfro on January 08, 2011, 03:59:28 PM
The 2009 MUTCD no longer has symbols for "Pavement Ends" and "Narrow Bridge". Narrow Bridge/One-lane bridge specifically was a symbol that was not readily understood by many drivers.

These may have even been eliminated in the 2003 edition or earlier (can't recall at the moment).

County road comissions in Michigan experimented with symbols for both the mentioned signs, but motorists were confused, so they went back to the text versions. So they were deleted from the 2005 Michigan MUTCD, four years before their deletion from the federal MUTCD.

Just checked. The "Narrow Bridge" symbol sign was an option in the MUTCD Millennium Edition, and that option was removed for the 2003 Edition. A symbol for "Pavement Ends" did not appear in any of the 2009, 2003 or Millennium editions of the manual.

Quote from: NE2 on January 09, 2011, 09:37:42 AM
I have no issue either. But then I have no issue with redundant text below a symbol.

You might not know what a symbol means the first time you see it.

^^^

And, the sad truth is that many people do not know what state goes with what outline.

Quote from: mightyace on January 10, 2011, 11:48:07 AM
^^^

And, the sad truth is that many people do not know what state goes with what outline.

In recent days I have learned a lot of sad truths about what people do not know.

But getting back to signs, I remember that when many of the graphical signs were introduced in the late 60s and early 70s, text legends accompanied the new installations. I also remember that there was no symbolic sign for "narrow bridge" and I drew up something that looked eerily like what was eventually adopted and made its first appearance in Kentucky in the late 70s to early 80s.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 10, 2011, 01:07:19 PM

But getting back to signs, I remember that when many of the graphical signs were introduced in the late 60s and early 70s, text legends accompanied the new installations. I also remember that there was no symbolic sign for "narrow bridge" and I drew up something that looked eerily like what was eventually adopted and made its first appearance in Kentucky in the late 70s to early 80s.

I remember the Narrow Bridge sign showing up (I think) in ITE Journal as a proposed sign. Also the Pavement Ends and Limited Sight Distance signs showed up there, IIRC.

The University of Arkansas Library was a great place to find stuff. Besides ITE Journal, they had a 1940's , 60's and 70's MUTCD's plus an Arkansas MUTCD.

For old MUTCDs, see this link (https://ceprofs.civil.tamu.edu/ghawkins/MUTCD-History.htm).  As for the "Narrow Bridge" sign, I understood a picture version when I first saw it.  The only one I can remember seeing is on Park Road in Selinsgrove, PA back in 2008.  It seemed obvious to me.  As for a "Pavement Ends" symbol, I imagined a sign similar to the one shown in the 1988 MUTCD.

Quote from: mightyace on January 10, 2011, 11:48:07 AM
^^^

And, the sad truth is that many people do not know what state goes with what outline.

But does that really matter?  Someone may not know what Arkansas is shaped like, but I would hope that if they were in a situation where they had to follow Arkansas-shaped signs, they would know what state they were in.

QuoteBut does that really matter?  Someone may not know what Arkansas is shaped like, but I would hope that if they were in a situation where they had to follow Arkansas-shaped signs, they would know what state they were in.

You expect too much from people

Quote from: Kacie Jane on January 13, 2011, 11:02:44 PM
But does that really matter?  Someone may not know what Arkansas is shaped like, but I would hope that if they were in a situation where they had to follow Arkansas-shaped signs, they would know what state they were in.

Only thing you have to worry about in Arkansas is making sure you're still on the right road...or that there IS a road.  :confused:

^^^    AMEN Brother!  Testify!   :clap:

Quote from: Andrew T. on January 06, 2011, 05:41:40 PMI can't think of any situation that should require (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrew-turnbull.net%2Fsigns%2F3nostraight.png&hash=8f92c03770a53a32dbe68f6b836333a080e10e9a) to be used.

According to some notes in a 2009 MUTCD training slideshow, this sign can be used in an intersection when a road can be entered from the left, right or whatever else, but you can't go straight through. One possibility that comes to my mind right now is a restriction based on a schedule.

^^^

As was said before, it can be used along with or in place of a do not enter.

Here we have an intersection where the cross street (West St.) is one way in opposing directions at the intersection with Main St.:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bloomsburg,+PA&aq=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.956929,49.658203&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Bloomsburg,+Columbia,+Pennsylvania&ll=41.001174,-76.461035&spn=0.001496,0.001515&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.001222,-76.460926&panoid=0EleUJ-gdJFFpBQUK_J2tA&cbp=12,22.46,,0,-4.72

No, that's not what was said before. Its primary use is when you can enter from other approaches but you're not allowed to go straight.

Picky, picky....

Anyway, that still doesn't invalidate the intersection I gave as an example as a place where it could be used.  (At least in my opinion.)

Quote from: NE2 on February 03, 2011, 05:17:15 PM
No, that's not what was said before. Its primary use is when you can enter from other approaches but you're not allowed to go straight.

I could see this sign being useful when you have a cross street but there's a median island without a break in it. Lets you know that you're not crossing that island.

Quote from: AlpsROADS on February 03, 2011, 07:48:12 PM

Quote from: NE2 on February 03, 2011, 05:17:15 PM
No, that's not what was said before. Its primary use is when you can enter from other approaches but you're not allowed to go straight.

I could see this sign being useful when you have a cross street but there's a median island without a break in it. Lets you know that you're not crossing that island.

In that case, wouldn't a "RIGHT TURN ONLY" (accompanied by a "ONE WAY" on the median itself) be sufficient?

Atrocious 3di shields bother me:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CT/CT19793954i1.jpg)

There is nothing good about this shield. Horrible number font, the white margins aren't aligned properly and it uses the ugly, bloated '70 specs. There is almost no space between the number and the state name.

And the white lines don't have an even width. Even the "INTERSTATE" and "CONNECTICUT" words seem botched, but that might be the photo.

Thankfully there is a button copy sign just next to save the picture a bit. :p

At least it's not neutered.  :clap:

Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 06, 2011, 02:07:21 PM
This sign: (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.comcast.net%2F%7Ealmikul%2Fimages%2Fsigns%2Fusdot%2FR3-27.jpg&hash=a264a9d5c9989dfc123aea3340a2d910240a7a68)

In Auburn, NY, truck traffic cannot continue straight to Dunning Ave from Columbus St., and I think that this sign could be used with a "TRUCKS" banner in that situation.

Quote from: cjk374 on February 03, 2011, 11:21:13 PM
At least it's not neutered.  :clap:

It might as well be neutered considering how little space there is between the state name and number. Even a standard '70 Interstate shield looks better than this.

See the example that I posted: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.378648,-81.504307&spn=0.00791,0.020599&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.378621,-81.504445&panoid=2JR_LIwgIWogYiRjTKZ3PQ&cbp=12,198.29,,0,-3.3
You can physically go straight, but then you conflict with traffic on the southbound exit ramp.

QuoteIn that case, wouldn't a "RIGHT TURN ONLY" (accompanied by a "ONE WAY" on the median itself) be sufficient?

Not if a median doesn't exist or is too narrow (due to the presence of a left turn lane) or too far set back to install signage on.

We have a case of that at the Potomac Yard development in Alexandria.  Steve might recall it from dinner after the DC meet last year.  Though I don't think this particular sign is in use there.

If you look closely at the White River Junction overhead BGS that PennDOT Fan posted, you should quickly pick up on three of my pet BGS peeves:

1) Cardinal Direction to left of Interstate shield (North 89).  This treatment is normally reserved for exit direction signs where the advance signs are left arrow diagrammatic signs, and is intended to give the driver a consistent legend format throughout the entire sign series for the interchange.  On an exit direction sign where the advance signs are normal BGS format, this distinction is NOT needed.  None of the new advance signs for I-89 installed by NH Bureau of Turnpikes in 2007 (?) are diagrammatic signs, and this exit isn't a left side exit either.

2)  Exit Only plate with standard white up arrow to the right.  Should be full black on yellow Exit Only banner with black downward arrow over right lane.

3)  No exit numbers at Interstate highway to Interstate highway connections.  New Hampshire continues to be notorious for this practice, even on newer sign installations such as I-93 to I-89 in Bow and on I-93 to I-293 in Manchester.  What's even worse in the case of the diagrammatic signs for I-293, NHDOT placed an "exit tab" on these signs that reads Manchester Airport.

BTW, the northbound advance sign sequences on I-93 for both I-293 and I-89 also highlight another of my pet peeves (which, again, New Hampshire is notorious for).  Advance BGS panels (usually at the 2 mile point) on Interstate mainlines that only indicate "Junction" and the route shield, with NO destinations provided.

Quote from: roadman on February 04, 2011, 09:53:31 PM
1) Cardinal Direction to left of Interstate shield (North 89).

Why am I just noticing this until now? I guess I've passed by the sign so many times it never hit me...

Quote from: roadman on February 04, 2011, 09:53:31 PM
3)  No exit numbers at Interstate highway to Interstate highway connections.  New Hampshire continues to be notorious for this practice, even on newer sign installations such as I-93 to I-89 in Bow and on I-93 to I-293 in Manchester.  What's even worse in the case of the diagrammatic signs for I-293, NHDOT placed an "exit tab" on these signs that reads Manchester Airport.

I contacted NHDOT about that because I have been wondering why the state never numbered interstate/interstate junctions. Here is the response I got:

QuoteI have found no record that indicates why this decision was made initially, but have been told that since the subject interchange is more of a "split"  between two interstate highways, it was not considered an "exit" .  This same practice occurs at the north and south "splits"  between I-93 and I-293, along with the "split"  between I-93 and NH 101 in Manchester.

I'm reposting the picture in question since it last appeared about seven pages ago.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FSkw-uhAyWFI%2FAAAAAAAAJRM%2FJ-RQBwmi41Y%2Fs640%2FIMG_6143.JPG&hash=d76db94c52395e88ea545da9f9d0293b7fced2e4)

Quote from: roadman on February 04, 2011, 09:53:31 PMIf you look closely at the White River Junction overhead BGS that PennDOT Fan posted, you should quickly pick up on three of my pet BGS peeves:

[. . .]

2)  Exit Only plate with standard white up arrow to the right.  Should be full black on yellow Exit Only banner with black downward arrow over right lane.

I am interpreting this to be the exit direction sign gantry because I can see a ramp speed sign in the distance.  That being the case, I agree with all the other criticisms but would not use a downward-pointing arrow.  Downward-pointing arrow with no distance legend means advance guide sign for a lane drop within one-quarter of a mile; upward-pointing arrow (either white on the green part of the sign panel or black on the yellow part) means exit direction sign.

I have a ton of other criticisms about this particular sign panel.  Primary destination legend is left-justified, when it should be centered.  I don't like "VT."  Arrow is badly positioned.  My usual preference for exit direction signs at simple lane drops is to treat the main message on the green-background portion as a single block and to center the arrow vertically to the right of it, but because "White River Jct VT" is so long (and would still be quite long even if "VT" were omitted, rendered in small caps, or changed to "Vt"), placing the arrow on the bottom yellow panel would reduce the sign panel area significantly.  In this placement the arrow should be between "EXIT" and "ONLY" and the three should be centered as a block.

BTW, if I am interpreting this situation correctly as a simple lane drop (no option lane), then the arrows on the pull-through sign are also superfluous.  The sign itself is not because freeway-to-freeway interchanges need pull-throughs.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5217%2F5417840902_a2b19317ac_o.jpg&hash=0d32dc0cc7a71e24a7ce5a4fd6d12f776d7a255c)

...enough said.

The sign on the right is especially ugly with no separation between the exit number and the exit name.

BLATCH!

They couldn't even get the baseline for "WEST" right...

also 1:2 lowercase to capital ratio??  that is a bit excessive.  3:4 has been proven by studies to be the most legible, and it does indeed aesthetically look the best.  2:3 is quaint and I like it because California used it 1950-1958 (and it shows up randomly on newer signs every once in a while) but 3:4 is the way to go.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2011, 10:50:04 PM
I'm reposting the picture in question since it last appeared about seven pages ago.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FSkw-uhAyWFI%2FAAAAAAAAJRM%2FJ-RQBwmi41Y%2Fs640%2FIMG_6143.JPG&hash=d76db94c52395e88ea545da9f9d0293b7fced2e4)

Quote from: roadman on February 04, 2011, 09:53:31 PMIf you look closely at the White River Junction overhead BGS that PennDOT Fan posted, you should quickly pick up on three of my pet BGS peeves:

[. . .]

2)  Exit Only plate with standard white up arrow to the right.  Should be full black on yellow Exit Only banner with black downward arrow over right lane.

I am interpreting this to be the exit direction sign gantry because I can see a ramp speed sign in the distance.  That being the case, I agree with all the other criticisms but would not use a downward-pointing arrow.  Downward-pointing arrow with no distance legend means advance guide sign for a lane drop within one-quarter of a mile; upward-pointing arrow (either white on the green part of the sign panel or black on the yellow part) means exit direction sign.... <snip> ...
BTW, if I am interpreting this situation correctly as a simple lane drop (no option lane), then the arrows on the pull-through sign are also superfluous.  The sign itself is not because freeway-to-freeway interchanges need pull-throughs.

You raise a good point, but the format on the I-89 exit direction sign is still non-standard.

Unless you are retrofitting an existing overhead sign to reflect a newly created exit only lane, the only case where using a white on green arrow for an "Exit Only" condition is acceptable is on the new "arrow per lane" signs for option lanes detailed in the 2009 MUTCD.  In all other cases, the arrow (either downward pointing or upward slanted) is to be part of the "Exit Only" banner and is to be black.

You also raise a good point about the arrows on the pull-thru sign.  However, in this case, the purpose of the sign appears to be not only confirmation of the I-93 north route, but serves as a lane assignment panel as well.  Given that the right lane is "Exit Only" to I-89, having the arrows on this sign makes sense from a driver guidance perspective.

Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 04, 2011, 10:30:46 PM

I contacted NHDOT about that because I have been wondering why the state never numbered interstate/interstate junctions. Here is the response I got:

QuoteI have found no record that indicates why this decision was made initially, but have been told that since the subject interchange is more of a "split"  between two interstate highways, it was not considered an "exit" .  This same practice occurs at the north and south "splits"  between I-93 and I-293, along with the "split"  between I-93 and NH 101 in Manchester.

.

The NHDOT response is generally correct.  When exit numbering standards were first developed for the Interstate system in the 1960s, commonly accepted signing practice was not to assign exit numbers for Interstate to Interstate connections.  However, based on subsequent changes to the Federal standards, the majority of states have since assigned exit numbers to these types of interchanges.

Note that at both the I-93 northbound/NH 101 eastbound 'split' in Manchester and the I-293 northbound/NH 101 'split' in Bedford, NH 101 has exit numbers.  The I-93 southbound/NH 101 westbound split in Manchester does not have an exit number, but that is because the exit is for I-293 northbound - NH 101 westbound follows the I-293 northbound roadway at this location.

Quote from: Andrew T. on January 06, 2011, 05:41:40 PMI can't think of any situation that should require (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrew-turnbull.net%2Fsigns%2F3nostraight.png&hash=8f92c03770a53a32dbe68f6b836333a080e10e9a) to be used.

One situation: Mae Anne Ave & Sierra Highlands Dr in Reno, NV (Google Street View (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Mae+Anne+Avenue+%26+Sierra+Highlands+Dr,+Reno,+NV&aq=t&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.284089,93.076172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Mae+Anne+Ave+%26+Sierra+Highlands+Dr,+Reno,+Washoe,+Nevada+89523&ll=39.533505,-119.868715&spn=0.010823,0.022724&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.533507,-119.868773&panoid=tZ-RdJVPAWwFxk0TbKUhxQ&cbp=12,148.11,,0,6.1)).

Mae Anne Ave is a collector arterial that ends at nearby McCarran Blvd, a major arterial. Sierra Highlands is primarily a residential street, which intersects Mae Anne, but also curves to intersect McCarran closer to I-80. There had been considerable cut-through traffic on Sierra Highlands from Mae Anne, so the city of Reno prohibited through traffic from taking Sierra Highlands SB across Mae Anne to cut through; however, they left an opening so that local traffic could turn in from WB Mae Anne. It is possible to make that straight ahead movement SB on Sierra Highlands, so in this instance a "no through movement" sign would be useful but a "Do Not Enter" sign would be inappropriate.

Massachusetts' oversized route shields really aggrevate me - I can see on the interstates but not on 2-lane state routes. 

Any outline shield.

Multiplexes not properly signed, or pointless multiplexes for that matter.

These two installations which went up a couple of years ago make me sick!


(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_LdJssxlEuTQ/TU3-ewN_AzI/AAAAAAAANpQ/Xj1gUALXYN8/s720/Exit%2011-NB.jpg)

This is basically a carbon copy of the original - except the new assembly sports the VA HOSPITAL tab where an EXIT ONLY tab should be.  The most disgusting part is the missing arrow on the pull-though.  The missing EXIT tab is also annoying but it appears on the ground-mounted sign just past the overhead.


Then just off the exit, there's this:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_LdJssxlEuTQ/TU3-ei-7I1I/AAAAAAAANpU/pSeNsNuzyRo/s720/Exit%2011%20ramp.JPG)

Just really poor arrow placement, and the all-caps St Johnsbury is irritating!

Quote from: shadyjay on February 05, 2011, 08:44:21 PM

Any outline shield.

I love outline shields because they are an old standard.  1961 is where they made colored shields mandatory.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19581012i1.jpg)

1960 sign.  the last of its kind - there are five state route outline shields and one US route left in California.

There are two CA-27 outline shields I know of right at 101's Exit 27.

QuoteUnless you are retrofitting an existing overhead sign to reflect a newly created exit only lane, the only case where using a white on green arrow for an "Exit Only" condition is acceptable is on the new "arrow per lane" signs for option lanes detailed in the 2009 MUTCD.  In all other cases, the arrow (either downward pointing or upward slanted) is to be part of the "Exit Only" banner and is to be black.

So what you're saying is that this (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/i035/nb-exit132.jpg) (don't directly click, but the photo is there) is no longer acceptable?

I would also point out that, notwithstanding provisions in the 2009 MUTCD, that arrow configuration is still in wide use in signing construction plans, including ones which feature the new arrow-per-lane diagrammatics.

I don't know why, but BGS with an outline but no rounded corners irritates me. As evident in shadyjay's picture. Although I can't say I've ever seen one with rounded corners, but I think it would look better.

One of my personal pet peeves is dark-to-dark and light-to-light color boundaries.  These make the sign message difficult to interpret, especially in poor-visibility situations such as extreme backlighting.  Where a dark-to-dark color boundary is involved and one of the colors is nonretroreflective (e.g. black), this arguably also results in the sign failing to meet the MUTCD requirement to have similar appearance by night as by day.

Examples of dark-to-dark color boundaries include shields or black-on-yellow warning messages outlined in black and then laid on a retroreflective green background.

I also dislike color pairs with poor contrast, such as yellow on blue (or vice versa).  This is not a problem in the US since this particular color combination is not used, but in Britain it is used for driver location signs.

RJ145: Not a lot of states or provinces trim BGS corners, but NY does. I've also been told that Québec used to.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 06, 2011, 01:18:45 PM
I also dislike color pairs with poor contrast, such as yellow on blue (or vice versa).  This is not a problem in the US since this particular color combination is not used, but in Britain it is used for driver location signs.

New Hampshire uses it: http://lh3.ggpht.com/_imPvElHkh5g/S4vjsyqQzqI/AAAAAAAAIcg/U1wF7h5gfJA/P1010060.JPG

Quote from: Quillz on February 06, 2011, 03:46:44 AM
There are two CA-27 outline shields I know of right at 101's Exit 27.

no, those are newer.  there are five of the old-style state route spades: two 2s on 2 southbound approaching 5 on consecutive pull-throughs, a 118 and a 126 in rapid succession on 126 eastbound, and a 107 northbound on I-405.  

the 27s are not the old style.  I think the signs date to 1965.

I also today noted two signs from 1961 that have small outline shields - a 2 and a 42, both on 5 north.  However, the small shields used on upcoming-exit distance signs have the same shape from 1959 to 1972, with just a brief change in color to white 1962-1964.  

(btw, the two outline shields on 126 may be some of the very last ones ever made.  the freeway segment was opened in 1963.  I do not know what the date codes are on the back of the signs but my guess is 1962, as by August '62, CA had adopted the white shields for green sign use.  the 107 on 405 is a '60, and I do not know what the two 2s are.)

I don't particularly have a problem with yellow on blue as long as the yellow is bright enough; a more orangey yellow blends in too much. A lot of slot machines have yellow and blue error screens for some reason.

Quote from: shadyjay on February 05, 2011, 08:44:21 PM
Any outline shield.

Then you must really hate Connecticut, because they're everywhere there.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg249.imageshack.us%2Fimg249%2F7250%2Fimg0074ao.jpg&hash=a3ee8cbb380209fd827091ba0e3c80b8833ae419)

I despise the use of "Pky" as an abbreviation for "Parkway". The W sound is just too vital to omit. The proper abbreviation is "Pkwy" - "Pky" looks like it wants to be short for "Pucky" or something.

Better Pky than Py.

Quote from: Duke87 on February 18, 2011, 09:25:34 PM
I despise the use of "Pky" as an abbreviation for "Parkway". The W sound is just too vital to omit. The proper abbreviation is "Pkwy" - "Pky" looks like it wants to be short for "Pucky" or something.

I agree.  Tennessee has this disease. 

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2733%2F4321818228_c24b069381.jpg&hash=a8fe6f93ba27524cf2ba4b7ce76c6621200bca8e) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/4321818228/)
20100125 US 31 S @ TN 396-3CM (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/4321818228/) by mightyace (http://www.flickr.com/people/mightyace/), on Flickr

wide exit tabs, center aligned (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=wood+river,+il&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wood+River,+Madison,+Illinois&gl=us&ll=38.858365,-90.053139&spn=0.0005,0.001321&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=38.858365,-90.053139&panoid=bPw9k4dS4EPAGX7GL_QSPg&cbp=12,220.67,,0,5)

If you're going to use wide tabs, put them on the left or right but not in the center.

right-aligned cities (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=wood+river,+il&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wood+River,+Madison,+Illinois&gl=us&ll=38.867284,-90.05587&spn=0.000449,0.002642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.867285,-90.055871&panoid=Dio6iQ6DvrgvRurxBwJx6A&cbp=12,298.87,,0,5)

center alignment looks better

^^

I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I like the center aligned exit number better.

If you have to have left/right tabs, don't make 'em full width.

USPS states the abbreviation for Parkway is Pkwy.

http://www.usps.com/ncsc/lookups/usps_abbreviations.html

Ever wanted to know the abbreviation of an obscure road type,... well that link is the answer.

Sykotyk

Quote from: Duke87 on February 18, 2011, 09:25:34 PM
I despise the use of "Pky" as an abbreviation for "Parkway". The W sound is just too vital to omit. The proper abbreviation is "Pkwy" - "Pky" looks like it wants to be short for "Pucky" or something.

This happens on I-435 in Kansas, too, for Shawnee Mission Parkway, which gets truncated all the way to "Sh Mn Pky". Fortunately at the exits themselves, abbreviations are eschewed entirely.

Norman, OK goes the other way hand has some signs for "ED NOBLE PRKWY".

Quote from: kharvey10 on February 19, 2011, 10:59:54 PM
wide exit tabs, center aligned (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=wood+river,+il&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wood+River,+Madison,+Illinois&gl=us&ll=38.858365,-90.053139&spn=0.0005,0.001321&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=38.858365,-90.053139&panoid=bPw9k4dS4EPAGX7GL_QSPg&cbp=12,220.67,,0,5)

If you're going to use wide tabs, put them on the left or right but not in the center.

right-aligned cities (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=wood+river,+il&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wood+River,+Madison,+Illinois&gl=us&ll=38.867284,-90.05587&spn=0.000449,0.002642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.867285,-90.055871&panoid=Dio6iQ6DvrgvRurxBwJx6A&cbp=12,298.87,,0,5)

center alignment looks better

Ah, the Collinsville IDiOT district.  They couldn't figure out how to make a sign if it bit them in the tailpipe.  They need to send their signage people up to District 1 (Chicagoland) and learn how not to make these errors.

Quote from: Brandon on February 20, 2011, 01:53:20 PM

Quote from: kharvey10 on February 19, 2011, 10:59:54 PM
wide exit tabs, center aligned (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=wood+river,+il&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wood+River,+Madison,+Illinois&gl=us&ll=38.858365,-90.053139&spn=0.0005,0.001321&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=38.858365,-90.053139&panoid=bPw9k4dS4EPAGX7GL_QSPg&cbp=12,220.67,,0,5)

If you're going to use wide tabs, put them on the left or right but not in the center.

right-aligned cities (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=wood+river,+il&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wood+River,+Madison,+Illinois&gl=us&ll=38.867284,-90.05587&spn=0.000449,0.002642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.867285,-90.055871&panoid=Dio6iQ6DvrgvRurxBwJx6A&cbp=12,298.87,,0,5)

center alignment looks better

Ah, the Collinsville IDiOT district.  They couldn't figure out how to make a sign if it bit them in the tailpipe.  They need to send their signage people up to District 1 (Chicagoland) and learn how not to make these errors.

And they are lazy in fixing up their errors too.

Here is another right-aligned cities on the same highway at the same exit (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=wood+river,+il&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wood+River,+Madison,+Illinois&gl=us&t=h&layer=c&cbll=38.877738,-90.060553&panoid=44Aul09wPFuZszKgNS1GsQ&cbp=12,189.31,,0,5&ll=38.877625,-90.060613&spn=0.000898,0.005284&z=18), except its in the southbound lanes.

^^^

Right aligned exit numbers.  I may not like it, but at least it's MUTCD.

Right aligned control cities?  UGH!

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 20, 2011, 12:24:40 AM

Quote from: Duke87 on February 18, 2011, 09:25:34 PM
I despise the use of "Pky" as an abbreviation for "Parkway". The W sound is just too vital to omit. The proper abbreviation is "Pkwy" - "Pky" looks like it wants to be short for "Pucky" or something.

This happens on I-435 in Kansas, too, for Shawnee Mission Parkway, which gets truncated all the way to "Sh Mn Pky". Fortunately at the exits themselves, abbreviations are eschewed entirely.

Norman, OK goes the other way hand has some signs for "ED NOBLE PRKWY".

So...am I supposed to know what "Sn Mn Pky" means ahead of time if I were driving past that sign?

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=33.862086,-118.041626&spn=0,0.015407&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.862257,-118.042083&panoid=VYvWTf-sbFfQiLzfBe81UQ&cbp=12,330.7,,0,2.3

Wonder why they stuck the county line/city limit sign on the wall like that? If youre just looking straight at the road you're probably unlikely to notice.

Illinois has started doing this too (the sign on the sound wall) espcially on parts of the Tri-State and North South Tollways.  But that's because IDOT put the sound walls so close to the highway.

Quote from: hobsini2 on February 25, 2011, 08:02:56 AM
Illinois has started doing this too (the sign on the sound wall) espcially on parts of the Tri-State and North South Tollways.  But that's because IDOT put the sound walls so close to the highway.

Not IDOT, but ISTHA.  ISTHA widened the roads (god forbid IDOT ever think of such a thing) and has very little room left between the sound wall and the shoulder on these roads.

Québec sometimes does that with community limit signs on freeways too, EVEN when they are stand-alone, on a post... they're mounted parallel to the road.

Quote from: tdindy88 on February 20, 2011, 04:59:34 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 20, 2011, 12:24:40 AM

Quote from: Duke87 on February 18, 2011, 09:25:34 PM
I despise the use of "Pky" as an abbreviation for "Parkway". The W sound is just too vital to omit. The proper abbreviation is "Pkwy" - "Pky" looks like it wants to be short for "Pucky" or something.

This happens on I-435 in Kansas, too, for Shawnee Mission Parkway, which gets truncated all the way to "Sh Mn Pky". Fortunately at the exits themselves, abbreviations are eschewed entirely.

Norman, OK goes the other way hand has some signs for "ED NOBLE PRKWY".

So...am I supposed to know what "Sn Mn Pky" means ahead of time if I were driving past that sign?

I've thought this too on I-295 SB in southern New Jersey and the I-95/295 split in Delaware... "Del Mem Br." Good thing they use other control cities as well, like NJ-NY in Delaware and Baltimore in NJ, but not all the time. Most long distance travelers (as I should know from working weekends in the Interchange 1 toll plaza at the NJTP). They just follow whatever Google tells them.

I second 100x the pet peeve of lack of milemarkers. Part of my job now is assisting motorists on the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway, and half these people can't find a milemarker even when they're every tenth of a mile. In my home state of West Virginia, I've noticed they post them every 2/10 on Interstates (I-79, at least) and every mile otherwise, when they have them at all. Makes it difficult to determine a location for disabled vehicles, accidents, etc. I can't tell you how many times I hear "All I see are trees." THAT narrows it down. ;)

Quote from: Duke87 on February 18, 2011, 09:25:34 PM

I despise the use of "Pky" as an abbreviation for "Parkway". The W sound is just too vital to omit. The proper abbreviation is "Pkwy" - "Pky" looks like it wants to be short for "Pucky" or something.

The Census' TIGER map system (base dataset for OSM in the US), uses "Pky" that way, and "Expy" for Expressway.  Strange to insist having it without W, as it's USPS standard.  Since there's no agreement on abbreviations, it's advised to spell everything out on new edits.

Hrm where to start:

- Exit not numbered in a proper fashion when they intend to be.

- Numbered signs mentioning exit renumbering, 10 years after the renumbering. Hrm, I wonder what DOT did that?

- Clearview showing up on shields. Oh, I wonder what DOT did that?

- Signage that is produced in another color unnecessarily.

- Signs that try to load too many exits on to one sign.

- END signs being posted on the BGSs, it wastes space.

- Posting more than one shield within 50 feet of the last one. This drives me nuts in NY, like really, we need 2 within 50 feet.

(Anyone who gets the DOT I am referring to shouldn't be that hard :P )

Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on March 29, 2011, 05:53:17 PM
(Anyone who gets the DOT I am referring to shouldn't be that hard :P )

*cough*PennDOT*cough* (though Michigan also uses Clearview numbers in shields from time to time...and I think I may have even saw Clearview on a shield on a NYSTA sign a few weeks ago)

I was just through PA a couple weeks ago, and I was amazed that several of those old "OLD EXIT" signs still existed...and their use of Clearview is just really bad (especially compared to Ohio and Michigan, which actually looked decent despite still being damn Clearview...though there's some nice new Clearview signs on the NY Thruway that make PennDOT look good!)

Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on March 29, 2011, 05:53:17 PM
- Clearview showing up on shields. Oh, I wonder what DOT did that?

Just more to love!  :pan:

I will admit, PennDOT's first generation of clearview signs were really bad looking with unnecessarily large text, but they have gotten better. I think the states that do it the best may be Arizona or Michigan. For the worst, probably Virginia (though I do admire that they still round their BGS corners).

I dunno...I actually like Virginia's use of Clearview...those signs look really sharp to me. I dunno why. Of course, I've never seen them in person, just pictures...so that might change.

Worst is NYSTA, hands down. The text is unnecessarily large (NYSTA's older Series E(M) signs had the same problem), the kerning tends to be wonky, and the whole sign just has a bad layout. There were a few on the WB Thruway near Buffalo that looked particularly bad (including new signs before the US219 interchange with the new multiple arrow (I forget what that's called offhand) layout...)

The newer PennDOT Clearview doesn't look as bad, but I hate how they're mixing and matching fonts on the sign...if they're going to use Clearview, the entire sign (minus the route shield) should be Clearview as well...

The new clearview signs on I-395 in Virginia look just awful. The text seems to large for such a squished sign.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_ZkmN2RrOJxw/TPQ8IvuWbJI/AAAAAAAAkck/oF_G5ffYwWw/s640/IMG_0713.JPG)

And yeah, the NYSTA's clearview signs are really horrific. Talk about over sized text. And I may be the minority, but I don't mind PennDOT mix and matching fonts on the sign.

Texas's Clearview is as tastefully done as Clearview can be.

NY's BGS signs seem to be oversized.  First, they seem to have metal plates for the signs rather than the usual "stacked" type sign (like the background of this board).

Plus their tabs look odd since NY uses curved edges on their BGSes.

I prefer the way CT does it....by the way now CT uses border tabs that are alligned.  Every new sign I see has a bordered tab.  They aren't too big and not too small.

Quote from: doofy103 on March 29, 2011, 08:32:22 PM
I prefer the way CT does it....by the way now CT uses border tabs that are alligned.  Every new sign I see has a bordered tab.  They aren't too big and not too small.

But they are too boring. I used to think the borderless center exit tabs were really unique, but now that ConnDOT uses standard exit tabs, there isn't really anything special to the new signs  :no:.

Quote from: PennDOTFan on March 29, 2011, 08:51:19 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on March 29, 2011, 08:32:22 PM
I prefer the way CT does it....by the way now CT uses border tabs that are alligned.  Every new sign I see has a bordered tab.  They aren't too big and not too small.

But they are too boring. I used to think the borderless center exit tabs were really unique, but now that ConnDOT uses standard exit tabs, there isn't really anything special to the new signs  :no:.

Plus there are some new signage projects due this year, we'll see if the new tabs have borders.  
It's odd....in 2005, the new signs had centered non-bordered tabs.
In 2009 the new signs had side-alligned non-bordered tabs
Now in 2010, only the past year, it's fully MUTCD appropriate with side-alligned bordered tabs.

In fact, the side-alligned borderless tabs look really good with the square unshaved corners!! If anybody has a new pic..please post!

138-221 has already been advertised.  Bordered tabs!

I loathe the raised first letter on directions "North, East, South, etc." I realize that in typography that it can increase readability, however it destroys all aspects of centering and symmetry on overhead signage.

My native NC has always avoided the raised first letter, however their new signage on I-40 through Raleigh now has it. Yuck....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fraisedletter.jpg&hash=5290435d033c7cb2d03050d3931a7135944f3ca7)
My preferred treatment:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fyoungs-1.jpg&hash=e4332e8b0c9c0da30121d48b06c215eef2b761eb)

Quote from: PennDOTFan on March 29, 2011, 08:01:05 PM

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_ZkmN2RrOJxw/TPQ8IvuWbJI/AAAAAAAAkck/oF_G5ffYwWw/s640/IMG_0713.JPG)

I've always wondered why Virginia has these two (state?) shields. Is one of them a county shield?

It's for secondary routes (in most counties VDOT maintains pretty much everything). West Virginia and North Carolina are similar, though the latter doesn't have any proper shields for secondaries.

Quote from: NE2 on March 30, 2011, 11:26:56 AM
It's for secondary routes (in most counties VDOT maintains pretty much everything). West Virginia and North Carolina are similar, though the latter doesn't have any proper shields for secondaries.

I've always wondered the point of state secondary markers.  from a driver navigation perspective, having two styles is just confusing, especially given that for the most part there is no easy way to delineate primary from secondary.  can't be the maintenance - for just about every state, I can think of a primary route that is in far shoddier condition than the average secondary.

It's maintenance on a theoretical level - the two systems are funded differently.

Quote from: NE2 on March 30, 2011, 11:46:21 AM
It's maintenance on a theoretical level - the two systems are funded differently.

yeah, but who gives a shit?  route markers are navigational aids; no driver cares how the road is funded, so long as it doesn't fall off a cliff after the next bend.

I don't mind the raised initial caps on a sign...what I don't like is this new "LEFT" words in white-on-green lettering NC is starting to use.  I don't see how that's going to raise a driver's attention enough to warrant going to this trouble.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 30, 2011, 11:33:31 AM

Quote from: NE2 on March 30, 2011, 11:26:56 AM
It's for secondary routes (in most counties VDOT maintains pretty much everything). West Virginia and North Carolina are similar, though the latter doesn't have any proper shields for secondaries.

I've always wondered the point of state secondary markers.  from a driver navigation perspective, having two styles is just confusing, especially given that for the most part there is no easy way to delineate primary from secondary.  can't be the maintenance - for just about every state, I can think of a primary route that is in far shoddier condition than the average secondary.

In the case of Virginia (as opposed to, say, Tennessee), secondary route numbers can be reused in different counties.  I think this distinction in the numbering system makes it a good idea to use a different marker to emphasize that.  When you see a VA 236 marker, you can be sure that there's only one VA 236 it can be referring to; however, there may be numerous SR 648s.  (And the average motorist isn't going to know rules like "numbers over 600 aren't unique".)

Quote from: PennDOTFan on March 29, 2011, 08:51:19 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on March 29, 2011, 08:32:22 PM
I prefer the way CT does it....by the way now CT uses border tabs that are alligned.  Every new sign I see has a bordered tab.  They aren't too big and not too small.

But they are too boring. I used to think the borderless center exit tabs were really unique, but now that ConnDOT uses standard exit tabs, there isn't really anything special to the new signs  :no:.

Well, the good news is, at the rate ConnDOT replaces things, it will be 50 years by the time all the old unique signs are gone. And by then what's normal and boring now will be old and unique and still hanging around.

Quote from: Duke87 on March 30, 2011, 07:36:24 PM
Well, the good news is, at the rate ConnDOT replaces things, it will be 50 years by the time all the old unique signs are gone. And by then what's normal and boring now will be old and unique and still hanging around.

Yeah I mean who knows? In 50 years, signs could be hot pink with comic sans font. They we'll be taking those clearview signs we see today for granted! Speaking of, are those new signs on I-84 between New York and the Housatonic River going to be clearview?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 30, 2011, 11:52:17 AM
yeah, but who gives a shit?  route markers are navigational aids; no driver cares how the road is funded, so long as it doesn't fall off a cliff after the next bend.

Says the guy who is obsessed with the intricate details, vintages, shapes, and sizes of said navigation aid!  :-D

Quote from: realjd on March 30, 2011, 09:15:29 PM

Says the guy who is obsessed with the intricate details, vintages, shapes, and sizes of said navigation aid!  :-D

certainly, but from the perspective of navigational aid, having a classification between primary and secondary adds little.  people can be trained to expect that an interstate shield means a certain quality (sorry, Breezewood), that a US route can keep its number for many states, and that a state highway ... well ... it likely won't fall off a cliff and take you with it. 

I have no idea why Virginia reuses state secondary numbers.  it's not like there's a finite number of integers...

There is a finite number of ones that can be easily squeezed into a shield. Considering that typically routes from 600 into the 1000s or higher in densely developed counties get the full signage treatment, with hundreds more going unsigned (or only mentioned on little white rectangles), this means that each county would need, say, 2000 route numbers dedicated to it, and at 95 counties that's 190,000 unique route numbers. That could probably be dropped down to 150,000 to accommodate more rural counties and multi-county routes needing only one number. Now I don't know about you, but I think route 142658 might be a bit hard to parse at freeway speed. And then there's the issue of which counties get the smaller, easier-to-remember numbers.

I like Virginia's system (though I may be biased as a Virginian) because I like being able to distinguish the two systems. 95% of the time a primary highway will at least have a centerline and be full-width wide, whereas most of the 600-1000 SRs might have such a centerline, and in heavily developed suburban areas may even be a full 6-lane divided arterial, but more often than not they will be narrow, of relatively low quality, and lack things like a centerline and warning signs. Even without this though, you can assume that a primary highway will be of higher quality because it receives more money. This is a well-known fact. While most locals around here anyway may not know the difference, almost everyone knows that by default routes with a circular shield are minor.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on March 30, 2011, 09:53:48 PM
I think route 142658 might be a bit hard to parse at freeway speed.

in that case, why bother to sign them at all?  how does the average motorist benefit from a "644" shield on a 0.2 mile long dead-end road?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 30, 2011, 09:55:34 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on March 30, 2011, 09:53:48 PM
I think route 142658 might be a bit hard to parse at freeway speed.

in that case, why bother to sign them at all?  how does the average motorist benefit from a "644" shield on a 0.2 mile long dead-end road?

Because it is a bit helpful to have a number for the route. If you happen to not know that that road is called "E. Tiny Backwater Nowhere Rd" but saw it on a map as 644, you'd be good. Plus they're a good idea to have for identification purposes for VDOT.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on March 30, 2011, 10:04:13 PM


Because it is a bit helpful to have a number for the route. If you happen to not know that that road is called "E. Tiny Backwater Nowhere Rd" but saw it on a map as 644, you'd be good. Plus they're a good idea to have for identification purposes for VDOT.

yes, more information is generally helpful, but in this case I think it is diluting the value of a numbered state highway system.  I expect state highways to go places and connect locations of relative importance.  I think small spur roads should not receive shields at all.  (I-375 in Florida, anyone?)

I would tend to agree with you there, but the problem becomes determining WHICH roads should get shields. Would there be an arbitrary length limit, of, say 1 mile? What about dead-ends that are 1.5 miles long, or important connecting routes that are 0.5 miles? What about routes that are actually well-known by the locals, or not known as anything else?
Already most roads that are short and not worth signing AREN'T, but they still have numbers, that are usually still found on little white rectangles.

On top of that, there still has to be SOME sort of inventory for VDOT to keep track of roads it maintains (whether it be 150,000 unique numbers or ones that duplicate between counties), and this is greatly simplified if you have numbers that actually line up with those in the field, which means one of these options must be used.

In all honesty, I really don't think there is any better way you could do Virginia's system, besides maybe turning maintenance over to the counties.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on March 30, 2011, 10:26:02 PMturning maintenance over to the counties.

sure, why the hell not?  I'm a big fan of federalism!

I'd put the minimum length of a numbered state highway at 5 or 10 miles, actually.  If I am following a numbered route, I want to go somewhere.  sure, not all routes are going to be US-20 but I don't much see the need to slap shields on a half-mile connector.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 30, 2011, 10:34:38 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on March 30, 2011, 10:26:02 PMturning maintenance over to the counties.

sure, why the hell not?  I'm a big fan of federalism!

I'd put the minimum length of a numbered state highway at 5 or 10 miles, actually.  If I am following a numbered route, I want to go somewhere.  sure, not all routes are going to be US-20 but I don't much see the need to slap shields on a half-mile connector.

Are you offering to pay for these counties who have never maintained their own roads to buy all the necessary equipment, build the necessary facilities, and go through the logistics of taking over and entirely renumbering and reclassifying a highway system? If you are, I'll support you wholeheartedly.

Although there are quite a few highways less than 5 or 10 miles that I think should remain state-maintained (for example, VA 278, which connects US 258 with Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, and VA 406, an expressway that connects I-564 with Norfolk International Terminals and Hampton Blvd in Norfolk). Hell, there are interstates shorter than that that are important!

Quote- END signs being posted on the BGSs, it wastes space.

I don't see this one being a problem, especially on major routes where the ending route in question ties seamlessly into another route (such as at a freeway-to-freeway interchange).  Reinforces the fact that "Route x" ends.

QuoteI have no idea why Virginia reuses state secondary numbers.  it's not like there's a finite number of integers...

DTP said it best...there's a finite limit on the number of digits you can put on a shield.  We're already into the 10xxx's in Fairfax County alone.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 30, 2011, 10:16:02 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on March 30, 2011, 10:04:13 PM


Because it is a bit helpful to have a number for the route. If you happen to not know that that road is called "E. Tiny Backwater Nowhere Rd" but saw it on a map as 644, you'd be good. Plus they're a good idea to have for identification purposes for VDOT.

yes, more information is generally helpful, but in this case I think it is diluting the value of a numbered state highway system.  I expect state highways to go places and connect locations of relative importance.  I think small spur roads should not receive shields at all.  (I-375 in Florida, anyone?)

Heh, you think that's bad?  While we're talking about Virginia, let it be noted that the state secondary system includes things such as school parking lots.  And that, at least in some parts of the state, these are actually signed from the main road with shields.  I've seen this east of Fredericksburg as well as all along the US 29 corridor - actual full assemblies with a number such as 9252 in a circle secondary route shield and an arrow pointing directly into a school parking lot.  (Google Street View example (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.732098,-78.894206&spn=0,0.004128&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.73201,-78.894277&panoid=LQKo8MkL9cDgE4RdG5Dndg&cbp=12,258.7,,0,-5.15) - picture quality sucks, sorry)  How is this helpful to anybody?  Even if such facilities need numbers for some reason, why confuse the motorists?

indeed - you do not need to post your inventory numbers in the field!

as for county vs. state maintenance - that issue is actually independent of the quantity of routes that need signing; if it's too much of a logistical hassle then don't do it.  but, again, not every parking lot access ramp needs a full junction assembly.  routes that get numbers and shields should be of some importance beyond the local, because one figures that the locals just remember the number by name.

I think California has an ideal system in this regard - even the county routes tend to go about 5-10 miles and connect something to somewhere.  we have very few state highways that are only a brief ramp or whatnot (I-980 notwithstanding) and most of our routes persist for quite a while.  it isn't a shame to link together a whole slew of short connector routes to form a single named route - even if no one ever drives highway 20 from, say, Nevada City to Fort Bragg, it is still useful to know that a single route number runs east-west across the state connecting the two.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg96.imageshack.us%2Fimg96%2F7223%2Fnv19885151i1.jpg&hash=f76b8502e2ecd7850bc5db398a74d00b92c7ead6) (http://img96.imageshack.us/i/nv19885151i1.jpg/)

Two of the three shields on this gantry are extremely ugly. I believe the I-515 shield is using compressed Series D on a 2di template, while US-95 gained a lot of weight.

Does the 93 shield look like a '61 spec?

Quote from: ausinterkid on March 31, 2011, 12:34:50 AM
Does the 93 shield look like a botched '61 spec?

It appears accurate to me, and botched or not, it's certainly much better than the other two shields.

I'm likely a minority here, but I like the US 95 shield...moreso than the US 93.  But I also prefer Series D numerals over Series C for 2-digit routes.

the 93 to me looks like completely correct '61 spec.  is that still around?  if so, it may very well be the last '61 spec shield in Nevada.  I didn't see any on my 6/50 run a few months ago.

and yes, the 515 is compressed D where B or C should've been used (well, that or a wider shield).  the 95 has a nonstandard 9 and a standard 5.  the 9 is Nevada's custom font.  the fact that the stroke thickness is ever-so-slightly bolder is what makes the shield look a tad off-kilter.

I like all 3 of the Nevada shields. Of course, the I-515 shield could use a state name...

Quote from: froggie on March 31, 2011, 08:03:12 AM
I'm likely a minority here, but I like the US 95 shield...moreso than the US 93.  But I also prefer Series D numerals over Series C for 2-digit routes.

I only like the fat shields when they're cutout, like how California and Virginia used to make them. There's just too much unused white space when putting the same style onto a black background. (And yet that's the very reason the '70 spec is the way it is.)

Quote from: Quillz on March 31, 2011, 04:48:46 PM
I only like the fat shields when they're cutout, like how California and Virginia used to make them. There's just too much unused white space when putting the same style onto a black background. (And yet that's the very reason the '70 spec is the way it is.)

those are three different shapes: California '57, Virginia late 50s, federal '70.

Late 50's Virginia was the best shield style I've seen.

Quote from: Quillz on March 31, 2011, 08:52:21 PM
Late 50's Virginia was the best shield style I've seen.

it does the job.  my favorite shield shape, other than 1926 standard, is this 1956 California three-digit:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19564661i1.jpg)

QuoteThere's just too much unused white space when putting the same style onto a black background. (And yet that's the very reason the '70 spec is the way it is.)

Depends on the numerals used.  IMO, the bulging makes it easier to see those numerals which are rounded near the bottom...namely 3, 5, 6, and 8.  Easier to use D-series font with it.  That US 93 shield is atrocious.

Since so much discussion is about shields here (I don't care much about them at all), I thought I'd show you some decent Georgia shields at Buckhead-Atlanta's newly made over crossroads, Peachtree Rd./Piedmont Ave. intersection.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fpeachtree_piedmont.jpg&hash=1d582c2379b969801e0d9dd995d54915d90e6637)

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on March 30, 2011, 10:04:13 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 30, 2011, 09:55:34 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on March 30, 2011, 09:53:48 PM
I think route 142658 might be a bit hard to parse at freeway speed.

in that case, why bother to sign them at all?  how does the average motorist benefit from a "644" shield on a 0.2 mile long dead-end road?

Because it is a bit helpful to have a number for the route. If you happen to not know that that road is called "E. Tiny Backwater Nowhere Rd" but saw it on a map as 644, you'd be good. Plus they're a good idea to have for identification purposes for VDOT.

I think laws passed related to 911 service and GPS navigation in North Carolina prompted the state to give every rural route (formerly "Route 2 Box 103" for mailing addresses) a specific name like "E. Tiny Backwater Nowhere Rd". In my native Franklin County, NC, every last country road now has a name like this.

that is so not what the state of Georgia is shaped like.

yeah...some route shields are better suited for wideness than others. Georgia is one of the "others".

I like most of the shields done in the shape of their respective states, but when they get used on a wide shield, the state shape gets horribly distorted...they should just squeeze three digits of Series C into a two-digit shield.

(Of course, then there's Alabama, whose shape is distorted in the regular two-digit shield!)

Well, at the risk of upsetting some of you, I don't Washington State's "bust" of George's head. The face side and the hair are too similar so it looks like the same shape mirrored. Texas's use of it's shape is about the only one that looks fantastic.

Quote from: architect77 on April 01, 2011, 06:56:45 PM
Well, at the risk of upsetting some of you, I don't Washington State's "bust" of George's head. The face side and the hair are too similar so it looks like the same shape mirrored. Texas's use of it's shape is about the only one that looks fantastic.

I thought the old style shield looked much better:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F3d%2FWA-PSH6.svg%2F500px-WA-PSH6.svg.png&hash=eb85ecb283c628a5fb0f3ac39b1e29a029d7e616)

Also interesting to note it's one of the very few signs I've ever seen with a white border to also have a black outer border, as the MUTCD generally does not recommend an additional border beyond the white.

Quote from: cu2010 on April 01, 2011, 12:18:47 PM
yeah...some route shields are better suited for wideness than others. Georgia is one of the "others".

I like most of the shields done in the shape of their respective states, but when they get used on a wide shield, the state shape gets horribly distorted...they should just squeeze three digits of Series C into a two-digit shield.

(Of course, then there's Alabama, whose shape is distorted in the regular two-digit shield!)

South Dakota looks best as a 3-di (it seems scrunched as a 2-di).....Pennsy is good-lookingl regardless of 2 or 3-di width

Quote from: ctsignguy on April 01, 2011, 08:00:40 PM

Quote from: cu2010 on April 01, 2011, 12:18:47 PM
yeah...some route shields are better suited for wideness than others. Georgia is one of the "others".

I like most of the shields done in the shape of their respective states, but when they get used on a wide shield, the state shape gets horribly distorted...they should just squeeze three digits of Series C into a two-digit shield.

(Of course, then there's Alabama, whose shape is distorted in the regular two-digit shield!)

South Dakota looks best as a 3-di (it seems scrunched as a 2-di).....Pennsy is good-lookingl regardless of 2 or 3-di width

Shields that have relatively abstract shapes, like CA, PA and NY tend to look decent at either 2di or 3di width. That's why I'm not a huge fan of shields that have the shape of the state, because they are going to look awkward at one size or both.

Quote from: architect77 on April 01, 2011, 06:56:45 PM
Well, at the risk of upsetting some of you, I don't Washington State's "bust" of George's head. The face side and the hair are too similar so it looks like the same shape mirrored. Texas's use of it's shape is about the only one that looks fantastic.

Florida seems to do a good job because they don't try to cram the numbers into the state outline.

The old Arkansas state route shields were quite nice:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AR/AR19550082i1.jpg)

My two biggest pet peeves are and will remain:

CT state route shields (and for that matter MA, RI, ME, ETC...)

My biggest though, even bigger than that, the disappearance of ligthed BGS's.  CT seems to be THE state that has done everything possible to ensure that every last lighted assembly has it's lights ripped down.  New england is generally not into lighted BGS's, but at least you can find a few needles in the haystack in most of the New England States...  But not in CT.  All the lights were stripped off the signs on the lower level of 84 near the 84/8 interchange in Waterbury in the last 10 years, and now there are only two NON WORKING assemblies left on highways in the entire state to the best of my knowledge... Exit 10 EB i 84 which will disappear once the new signing project finishes, and 1 at the onramp to 84 EB at exit 48.

I vaguely remember lighted signs here in CT when I was very very young.  Earrrrly 80's.  I wish I knew enough to pay attention to them then, and photograph them.  It's my favorite part of roadtrips down south.  I love the glow the lights illuminating the signs.  

I know they are disappearing all over the country really in favor of high grade reflective sheeings, but overhead BGS's w/out lights are so bleeding boring.  

Obviously this a cost saving/eco friendly measure to reduce energy consumption, but there is so much new energey efficient, (LED) lighting technology out there that we should be able to light all overhead BGS's for a fraction of the former costs.

Ok I'm rambling, I can't explain why it pains me so much, lol, but every night driving on 84 or 91 around the hartford area, I try and imagines those (crappy-late-model) button copy signs w/ a glow cast on them from something other than the reflection of my headlights.  Or driving around in west hartford in daylight, where the sign gantries are still original, and some of them still have conduit for wiring attached from the upright portion to the horizontal portion, appearing on close inspection as just the ghost of days gone by.

Speaking of i 84 in West Hartford, the signs SHOULD be lighted, they are circa 1986 CT button copy w/ retro reflective fields.  The bottons are so NON-REFLCTIVE now that all you can see at night is the green squares of retroreflective paneling dotted w/ a fuzzyness of dark spots that are actually button copy letters whose buttons just don't reflect for crap anymore. They are completely illegible.  This is dangerous for people who are not from the area and needs those signs at night.  I have a great idea... LIGHT THEM, then we can read them after sundown!

I've noticed some annoying inconsistencies regarding the way my home state of Michigan has been signing termini recently. It seems like we'd always had the shield above the "ENDS" plate, e.g. "M-1 ENDS". It's my understanding that most other states put the "END" plate above the shield, which is fine. But with all the signs that have been replaced in Michigan in the last 5 or 6 years, there have been a few I've seen where the "ENDS" plate has been installed above the shield for some reason. The most notorious example is the eastern terminus of US 10 at I-75, where there is an "ENDS US 10" assembly on both sides of the road! Then, I recently noticed that the shield assembly at the northern terminus of I-275 inexplicably reads "I-275 END". I coudn't speculate on who (MDOT, contractors, county road commissions, et al.) is responsible for putting these goofs up, but I have to wonder if they are looking them over afterward to make sure they make sense...

Today when driving on US-395 to Mammoth Mtn, I came across a CA-168 shield using Series F numerals. It looked particularly ugly on the wide shield.

It's been briefly mentioned in a different context on page 6 or so of this thread, I suppose, but in a different context.

Back in the mid-1990s I lived in North Carolina while attending law school and I noted how the white signs warning of a reduction in the speed limit always said "REDUCE SPEED AHEAD." Every other state in which I've ever driven has used "REDUCED SPEED AHEAD." I believe the latter is the version called for by the MUTCD. The grammarian in me far prefers North Carolina's version because the driver in me notes that the MUTCD's version is incorrect as a practical matter in most cases: It is the SPEED LIMIT that is reduced ahead, not the "SPEED," since most of the time everybody continues to drive at the same speed they were already going, especially when the speed limit change is arbitrary or unnecessary (a local example that comes to mind is where eastbound I-66 drops from 65 mph to 60 mph near Manassas). "REDUCE SPEED AHEAD" more accurately communicates the situation–the driver is supposed to reduce his speed ahead.

Thus, the verbiage "REDUCED SPEED AHEAD" has long been a pet peeve of mine because I believe the use of "REDUCED" would only be correct if the sign said "REDUCED SPEED LIMIT AHEAD."

With that said, I prefer the new yellow warning-sign version based on the Canadian style because it tells you what the reduced speed limit will be. I know there are apparently some places that used a "REDUCE[D] SPEED AHEAD" sign that included the number, but I've never encountered those that I can recall.


On page 10 of this thread, PennDOTFan mentioned Virginia's implementation of Clearview and included a picture of some signs seen on I-395. I don't think all of Virginia's Clearview signs are as bad as the I-395 ones are. The newer ones at the Beltway's interchange with Telegraph Road are a lot better, for example. I think the problem on I-395 is that they replaced a bunch of perfectly good signs for the sole purpose of putting up Clearview signs, but they made the new signs exactly the same as the old ones in all other ways (except perhaps for a lighter shade of green). The northbound sign for Exit 3A, for example (Duke Street towards Landmark), still has the exit tab on the left for a right-hand exit. Because they failed to rethink any of the signage, the text is simply too big. (The new signs also introduce some other oddities. The first advance sign for Exit 3 on the northbound carriageway refers to "Little River Trpk" as opposed to the usual "Tnpk.")

My pet peeve with signage associated with I-95 and I-395 in Virginia is the half-assed manner in which VDOT signs the reversible HOV carriageway. The signs seem to be a mish-mash of things they've thrown together over the years with little rhyme or reason to what they actually post. I know signage for "managed lanes," as the MUTCD calls them, is allowed to assume some level of knowledge on the driver's part because there are "non-managed lanes" (what the DC-area traffic reporters often call the "main line" as to Shirley Highway) that can be used without restriction. But VDOT's signs are bizarre. For example, the signs on the Fairfax County Parkway list "TO RESTRICTED LANES" as a destination without ever mentioning what the "Restricted Lanes" are–no I-95 shield, no I-395 shield, just "TO RESTRICTED LANES." If I hadn't lived here since 1974 I'd give a big "WTF???" when I saw that. None of the other signs directing drivers to those lanes ever contain a shield either (for example, there's an overhead sign on the Franconia-Springfield Parkway giving distances to exits that simply lists "Restricted Lanes" with a distance.) The other thing that I've always thought is stupid is that there is no sign advising what the exits from the express lanes are until you're already in the express lanes. Going north, for example, once you're in there you see a sign saying "Exits from Restricted Lanes" that lists the mileage to Springfield, the Pentagon, and DC. That sign ought to be posted BEFORE the entry to those lanes. I suppose giving less information discourages non-local drivers from going in there, so I ought to like the lack of helpful signs as a local resident, but the roadgeek in me takes offense.

I remember back in the old days (1970s/1980s) the signs over the express lanes used white text on a black background to distinguish them from the signs over the local lanes. The FHWA made them change it and now they have standard white-on-green signs but with tabs on top saying "EXPRESS LANES ONLY." I rather prefer the old system. Toronto does something similar on Ontario 401 whereby the collector lanes use white-on-blue signs reminiscent of European motorway signage while the express lanes use white-on-green. To me that makes more sense than the "EXPRESS LANES ONLY" tab because of the possibility of the tab disappearing.......although I also think that if a driver cannot tell that a sign over a separate carriageway applies only to the other carriageway, he's not competent enough to have a driver's license.


Edited to add: Here are some pictures I took of the signs I mention above on the Franconia-Springfield Parkway. The first sign is taken from Hooes Road, the old road that runs parallel to, and was largely superseded by, the Parkway. The remaining signs are the ones you see as you proceed east to the interchange with the I-95 HOV facility. Note that nowhere do any of these signs tell you that the "Restricted Lanes," as VDOT calls them, are on I-95.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2Fb0fd721f.jpg&hash=26283d545e28bc9b99c36daa2d19a33a36a39777)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2F45829c27.jpg&hash=b83d7450a840c76f101bc64d59e5dacff728c71b)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2F7d8d01e1.jpg&hash=b635bbab6ae24fbdd95e6969be70b2c0c906a50d)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2F9f323f41.jpg&hash=1ebba1efc65a078e5c81329cbc99e3bd866a612b)

In contrast, when you leave the nearby Franconia-Springfield Metrorail station you see the sign gantry shown below. These signs are not without their own sins–"Parkway" should say "Franconia-Springfield Parkway" and the periods in "H.O.V." are hideous and remind me of the silly New York Times style that mandates stuff like "N.F.L." and "N.H.L." (In general, I hate unnecessary periods in abbreviations, no doubt due in large part to the overuse of stupid periods in legal citation.) But the idea of "TO I-95 HOV" makes a lot more sense than VDOT's versions shown above, especially the first of the signs shown above, simply because it tells you what road the HOV is!!!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2F8390a1f8.jpg&hash=829354e2a0ebac38ab03031764b1a0b783a61343)

@1995hoo: I've see "REDUCED SPEED 25 AHEAD", "REDUCED SPEED 25 MPH", "REDUCED SPEED 25 MILES", or "REDUCED SPEED 25" all used as advance warnings. The latter is frustrating because it's only three lines, so it looks exactly like a speed limit even if the actual drop is hundreds of feet ahead.

Quote from: AlpsROADS on May 02, 2011, 06:44:06 PM
@1995hoo: I've see "REDUCED SPEED 25 AHEAD", "REDUCED SPEED 25 MPH", "REDUCED SPEED 25 MILES", or "REDUCED SPEED 25" all used as advance warnings. The latter is frustrating because it's only three lines, so it looks exactly like a speed limit even if the actual drop is hundreds of feet ahead.

Whereas "REDUCED SPEED 25 MILES" sounds as though it's warning you of something 25 miles ahead, which would be kind of pointless. I may have seen some signs of these sort at some point, but off the top of my head I simply don't ever recall seeing any. But they all suffer from the same problem I cited in my prior post–the "speed" itself isn't reduced. Only the "speed limit" is reduced. Yeah, I'm extremely picky about grammar. My mother was an English teacher.

I wanted to mention this yesterday but didn't have a suitable picture of the second sign shown below. (I don't have "pet" peeves. I have a whole zoo of peeves.)

Fairfax County used to put up tiny little green street signs on most corners. They were hard to see and often you didn't see them until you passed the street you wanted. Part of the reason is supposedly that VDOT favors span wire for traffic lights yet maintains (wrongly) that it's unsafe to hang street signs from the span wire (never mind that plenty of other places do it with no problem). In recent years Fairfax County opted for larger white-on-blue street signs.....but they still put them in some really stupid places. See photo below. How is anyone turning right (see the white pickup and the white Acura) supposed to see this street sign? They're the people for whom the sign is there in the first place! This shows a lack of thought by the people who put up the sign: The light pole was once closer to the intersection since there was no right-turn lane there (it was added when the houses visible in the background were built) and so the sign wasn't hidden behind a tree then. Evidently they simply moved the thing and didn't bother to think about it.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2Feb379ffa.jpg&hash=4a829601b64802bac1817d74694ed5e460be0623)


Now, in fairness I should acknowledge that there is an advance green sign up the street from that (see below), which is especially important when the sign at the intersection is hidden behind a tree. But what I don't understand is why they don't want to put the sign up on the mast arm out over the road where it belongs. Yes, the street changes names, but that's easy enough to solve—you just put up a sign with both names using arrows. (I just noticed that you can see the pole for that mast arm poking up behind the tree in the distance to the right of the Land Rover.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2Feda8c29f.jpg&hash=e0a4837cea35f2bc0c0f310b1093580ed73a2e20)


I suppose it's fair to acknowledge that putting the street sign behind a tree is particularly stupid and not routine, but the general theme of using these sorts of small signs when you're moving to mast-arm traffic lights is the bigger peeve of mine in this context.

QuotePart of the reason is supposedly that VDOT favors span wire for traffic lights

Not the case anymore.  VDOT standard is mast arm.  Older signals may be span wire (and most of the secondary route installations around me are), but the newer standard, and the standard period on virtually all primary routes, is mast arm.

Meanwhile, at least in my corner of Fairfax County, most of the mast arm installations include the cross-street name on the mast arm.

Quote from: froggie on May 03, 2011, 09:52:05 AM

QuotePart of the reason is supposedly that VDOT favors span wire for traffic lights

Not the case anymore.  VDOT standard is mast arm.  Older signals may be span wire (and most of the secondary route installations around me are), but the newer standard, and the standard period on virtually all primary routes, is mast arm.

Meanwhile, at least in my corner of Fairfax County, most of the mast arm installations include the cross-street name on the mast arm.

Well, I could change it to "favored," but historically that was a major reason for refusing to put the street signs up overhead in a visible place–they contended that the span wire wouldn't support them. I remember when I first saw wire-mounted street signs (probably in the Raleigh area) I rolled my eyes at the notion that Virginia didn't do this.

It's weird, it seems to me that it's hit or miss whether they install an arm-mounted sign. The next two intersections south from the one shown above have them, although the fonts are inconsistent (one set is caps/lowercase, one is all caps), whereas the next intersection north (the big one at Van Dorn and Franconia) doesn't have them, and at an intersection of that size you'd think it would make sense.

I think more than anything it's the utter inconsistency that I find irritating.

But with all that said, putting a street sign behind a row of trees as shown above is stupid.

Here are two on Wisconsin's U.S. 41 -- I mean, Interstate 41/55/57/__.

The first is the "Stadium" exit in Green Bay. That is, of course, for Lambeau Field, which hasn't been called a "Stadium" since the name was changed from City Stadium in 1965.

I was reminded of the second tonight when I drove through the Fox Cities. There is an exit sign that reads (paraphrasing)
_____
VA Outpatient Center
Exit 139

Fox Cities Stadium
Exit 138
--------

The problem? I was going northbound, so the sign listing is in the wrong order.

And there's also an exit sign with a green border underneath the white border that is the width of the white border. Misplaced border.

Farther south: I hate cities/metro areas that have names for freeways and interchanges and then fail to put a sign indicating the name of the interchange. This is a problem when you're going into an unfamiliar area and listen to radio traffic reports and you don't know what they're talking about.

In Milwaukee, for instance, I-94 from Waukesha County into downtown is the East-West Freeway, and I-43/94 from north of Milwaukee through downtown is the North-South Freeway. No signs indicate either. Ditto for the Stadium Freeway (U.S. 41 north and south of I-94), such as it is, or the Zoo Freeway (the west part of 894 -- I-894 from I-94 to I-43 -- plus U.S. 45 north of I-894), or the Airport Freeway (the south part of 894 -- I-894/43 from I-43 to I-94), or the Rock Freeway (I-43 west of I-894), or the Fond du Lac Freeway (which is not U.S. 45 toward Fond du Lac, but Wisconsin 145 east of U.S. 45)

What's worse is the interchange names:
Marquette: I-94/I-43
Mitchell: I-94/43/I-894
Zoo: I-94/I-894/U.S. 45
Stadium: I-94/U.S. 41
Airport: I-94/Wisconsin 119 (so the Airport Interchange is south of the Airport Freeway)
Hale: I-894/I-43 (connecting the Zoo, Rock and Airport freeways)
Lake: I-794 (keep going east and you will get wet)
North: U.S. 45/Wisconsin 145
Richfield: U.S. 41/U.S. 45

The only reason I know any of this is because of www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/system_map.html (http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/milwaukee/system_map.html). I once made a 911 call while driving in Milwaukee and told the dispatcher where the crash was, and she said "Oh, the Marquette Interchange?" Well, how was I (a non-Milwaukeean) supposed to know that?

Quote from: 1995hoo on May 03, 2011, 09:13:09 AM
Part of the reason is supposedly that VDOT favors span wire for traffic lights yet maintains (wrongly) that it's unsafe to hang street signs from the span wire (never mind that plenty of other places do it with no problem).

NYSDOT seems to do just fine (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.928083,-76.606793&spn=0,0.006968&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.928083,-76.606793&panoid=Ietx7D0nh24HyJPhGdrlPg&cbp=12,359.45,,0,-7.41).  On the other extreme, in the early 2000s, Onondaga County installed signs above the center turn lane on Route 57 using long mast arms (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=43.142346,-76.22838&spn=0,0.027874&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.141999,-76.228224&panoid=418b0yEAWW_4uFVDPaeaTA&cbp=12,30.9,,0,2.22) for what I'd guess to be a 24" x 24" sign.

Quote from: Michael on May 10, 2011, 04:00:32 PM
On the other extreme, in the early 2000s, Onondaga County installed signs above the center turn lane on Route 57 using long mast arms (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=43.142346,-76.22838&spn=0,0.027874&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.141999,-76.228224&panoid=418b0yEAWW_4uFVDPaeaTA&cbp=12,30.9,,0,2.22) for what I'd guess to be a 24" x 24" sign.

Pennsylvania seems to do that too. When I was up in State College last month both US Routes and many of the local roads had overhead signs indicating the SLTL.

Quote from: Rupertus on April 03, 2011, 08:20:39 PM
I've noticed some annoying inconsistencies regarding the way my home state of Michigan has been signing termini recently. It seems like we'd always had the shield above the "ENDS" plate, e.g. "M-1 ENDS". It's my understanding that most other states put the "END" plate above the shield, which is fine. But with all the signs that have been replaced in Michigan in the last 5 or 6 years, there have been a few I've seen where the "ENDS" plate has been installed above the shield for some reason. The most notorious example is the eastern terminus of US 10 at I-75, where there is an "ENDS US 10" assembly on both sides of the road! Then, I recently noticed that the shield assembly at the northern terminus of I-275 inexplicably reads "I-275 END". I coudn't speculate on who (MDOT, contractors, county road commissions, et al.) is responsible for putting these goofs up, but I have to wonder if they are looking them over afterward to make sure they make sense...

In traveling throughout the state, signage differences are usually due to district preferences.  For example, University prefers to use the smaller cities as controls on I-94 (Marshall, Jackson, Ann Arbor) and North is much more prolific with Clearview than other regions.

Quote from: InterstateNG on May 11, 2011, 08:46:13 AMdistrict preferences

yep, much signage inconsistency can be explained away by that.  for example, in New Mexico, some districts were using embossed route shields with printed numbers as early as 1935 (embossed "NEW MEXICO" and "US", printed number).  I have seen a US-180 shield like that, and US-180 did not exist in the state between 1935 and 1961 due to there being two different incarnations of the route ...

meanwhile, other districts used fully embossed shields with the round font set as late as 1959, as evidenced by the "NEW MEXICO/US/84" shield I got that is stamped "59" on the back.

just makes it a lot tougher to figure out what the standards were for a given state at a given time!

Quote from: InterstateNG on May 11, 2011, 08:46:13 AM
In traveling throughout the state, signage differences are usually due to district preferences.  For example, University prefers to use the smaller cities as controls on I-94 (Marshall, Jackson, Ann Arbor) and North is much more prolific with Clearview than other regions.

There probably have been a lot more sign replacements since 2005 (when MDOT adopted Clearview) in the counties in both the North and Superior regions. Once counties in the regions in the lower parts of the state undergo their next round of sign replacements, they too will have Clearview on guide signage.

My biggest pet peeve - and I pass it every day - is US-23's exit 1 in Michigan. Sterns Rd. My problem? IT SHOULD BE EXIT 2! Clearly between mile markers 1 & 2.

Quote from: JCinSummerfield on June 04, 2011, 07:43:25 AM
My biggest pet peeve - and I pass it every day - is US-23's exit 1 in Michigan. Sterns Rd. My problem? IT SHOULD BE EXIT 2! Clearly between mile markers 1 & 2.

Google puts the distance from the state line as 1.5 miles. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=US-223+N%2FUS-23+N&daddr=US-223+N%2FUS-23+N&hl=en&geocode=FdSxfAIdDgMD-w%3BFf0CfQIdWu4C-w&mra=me&mrsp=1,0&sz=14&sll=41.738016,-83.67651&sspn=0.032151,0.084543&ie=UTF8&ll=41.737824,-83.690414&spn=0.032151,0.084543&z=14)
So, you might think round up, but if they use two decimal places when measuring and if it's actually at mile 1.49, then exit 1 is what it should be.
They may also have simply measured to the northbound offramp.

Exit 1 comes after mile 1 and before mile 2, always, everywhere. It's a question of what "before mile 2 " means. Some states measure by the first ramp, meaning the overpass could be at mile 2.25. Some states measure by the overpass. A couple of states do their own things that I don't recall offhand. Some states allow Exit 0 for exits before mile 1.

Quote from: Steve on June 04, 2011, 11:38:54 AM
Exit 1 comes after mile 1 and before mile 2, always, everywhere.

Not so.  In California, exit 1's "zone" is the first 1.49 miles (0 to 1.49), exit 2's zone is from mile 1.5 to 2.49 and so on.  Also, exit numbers are determined by where the intersecting road crosses the freeway.

I don't buy that either.  Exit 1 in Michigan should be in the first mile, exit 2 should be in the second mile.  While that may not be the case, that's the way it should be.

If only the first mile is exit 1, then you might have exit 2 right after milepost 1 (or even before if the state uses the overpass location). Since the exit numbers are supposed to match the mileposts, this is to be avoided.

When I'm driving, my assumption is generally 0.00-1.99 = 1, 2.00-2.99 = 2, etc., in otherwords, round down.  A quick glance at I-5's mileposts/exit numbers shows Washington uses this system.

Although California's pure rounding is certainly a reasonable alternative.

Michigan uses pure rounding, but MM 159 on US-31 is within Exit 158.

Pet peeve is my local city (Tigard, Oregon) that seems to hand-make its own signs, making them appear to be very unprofessional and "fake".  Fonts used are inconsistent and letters are often unevenly spaced.  Some of the newer signs with the newest reflective sheeting are applied right on top of an older sign without removing the old sign sheeting first so the old sign image is clearly visible even when driving and sometimes even at night.  What's worse is that Washington County has a pretty darn good sign shop that rarely ever goofs.

Quote from: sp_redelectric on June 05, 2011, 11:12:32 PM
Pet peeve is my local city (Tigard, Oregon) that seems to hand-make its own signs, making them appear to be very unprofessional and "fake".  Fonts used are inconsistent and letters are often unevenly spaced.  Some of the newer signs with the newest reflective sheeting are applied right on top of an older sign without removing the old sign sheeting first so the old sign image is clearly visible even when driving and sometimes even at night.  What's worse is that Washington County has a pretty darn good sign shop that rarely ever goofs.

Here's a classic from Tigard most of you have probably seen:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR99WStrangeShieldinTigard1.jpg%3Ft%3D1268962932&hash=28ed9cc8c6a92c67cd21228038db0a3406c954de)

Still up as far as I know.

Quote from: sp_redelectric on June 05, 2011, 11:12:32 PM
Pet peeve is my local city (Tigard, Oregon) that seems to hand-make its own signs, making them appear to be very unprofessional and "fake".  Fonts used are inconsistent and letters are often unevenly spaced.  Some of the newer signs with the newest reflective sheeting are applied right on top of an older sign without removing the old sign sheeting first so the old sign image is clearly visible even when driving and sometimes even at night.  What's worse is that Washington County has a pretty darn good sign shop that rarely ever goofs.

Tigard has been notorious for stretching out Series C for any application, as if that's the only typeface in their shop!

Quote from: xonhulu on June 06, 2011, 12:21:42 AM
Here's a classic from Tigard most of you have probably seen:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FSign%2520Goofs%2FOR99WStrangeShieldinTigard1.jpg%3Ft%3D1268962932&hash=28ed9cc8c6a92c67cd21228038db0a3406c954de)

Still up as far as I know.

This goof shows up at nearly every signal from Hall Blvd. all the way south to Bull Mtn. Rd. The only one of these signs that I saw with a correct OR-99W shield was at (or near) the intersection at SW 72nd Ave. next to Freddy's. Probably a Multnomah County sign shop that put that one up, though I don't even know if that particular sign is around anymore.

Quote from: luokou on June 06, 2011, 08:39:51 PMThis goof shows up at nearly every signal from Hall Blvd. all the way south to Bull Mtn. Rd. The only one of these signs that I saw with a correct OR-99W shield was at (or near) the intersection at SW 72nd Ave. next to Freddy's. Probably a Multnomah County sign shop that put that one up, though I don't even know if that particular sign is around anymore.

If I recall correctly, the intersection at 72nd/Freddy's doesn't have a Pacific Highway sign.

However thanks to the Hall/Main/Greenburg project, the Main/Greenburg intersection has a proper shield; Hall had the separate Highway 99W sign (formerly with the upside down Oregon shield but has since been corrected), and Canterbury has a separate and proper sign.

Further south at 124th avenue (in Tualatin city limits) Tualatin omits the highway shield but includes the city's logo and includes the "West" as part of the highway name that Tigard omits.

States that still use the old exit numbering system....Don't want to say any names *eyes turn towards the northeast*.


WRONG SHIELDS!!!!!!!
Honestly, how hard is it to put an Ohio shield instead of a circle?

Finally, the things like wrong fonts, off center control cities, PENNDOT, anything like that.

Unsigned optional exit lanes - as noted, causes unnecessary lane changes.

Messed up shields - wrong shape (aspect ratio) for number of digits, OH/US mixup, using literal OH outline instead of simplified shape in SDM, numbers too small (should be half height of shield, using C or B for Interstates if necessary)

Incomplete Clearview Application - Just approve neg-contrast Clearview already. It's already used in a lot of places, and besides 4B looks better than E next to 4W.  On the other hand, mixed E should be acceptable instead of E(M) in pos contrast for names on guide signs.  Still, I disagree with geometry of numerals in Clearview. They should basically be FHWA numerals with stroke weights modidied to match Clearview letters. (With the bolder neg contrast, this would make awesome shields!)

High intensity yellow on signs that use regular-intensity white

Ground-mounted BGS with more than 2 lanes each way or high truck traffic

No signage for common freeway & interchange names

Unclear directional signage at rest areas - most Ohio rest areas have a sign that basically says, but not so simply, "everything but cars go left". They really need signs that clearly indicate "cars go right".

Cardinal directions disjoint from shields on guide signs - I'm looking at you, Indiana

Edit - one more I just remembered
Do Not Enter signs oriented as if I can't continue straight when they really mean I can't turn down the side street

Quote from: vtk on June 27, 2011, 02:19:05 AM
Unsigned optional exit lanes - as noted, causes unnecessary lane changes.

Indeed.  Especially dangerous in an area like Kamikaze Curve where traveling in the signed exit lane results in making a lane change anyways.

QuoteNo signage for common freeway & interchange names

Ever see signage in NYC?  It's way too cluttered; looks like NYCDOT contracts out their signage to Caltrans and sticks a tab on top.  I'd prefer it if traffic reports just started using the proper numbers in addition to local names.

Quote from: vtk on June 27, 2011, 02:19:05 AM
No signage for common freeway & interchange names

This is something discouraged (prohibited?) in the national MUTCD, and some agencies (such as Caltrans) are moving away from with new/revised signs. Ultimately, more and more people nowadays use highway numbers over highway names.

Interestingly, signing junction names (though not road/freeway names) something that's being moved towards in the UK, as it assists Europeans, especially Germans, who for some reason can't work with road numbers or exit numbers (though there don't tend to be exit numbers where the name is signed, at least not on the road you are on).

They aren't signed on motorways, unless you are coming to a terminal roundabout and have to slow down anyway. But they are signed on equally fast grade-separated dual carriageways.

Quote from: roadfro on June 28, 2011, 04:35:02 AM

Quote from: vtk on June 27, 2011, 02:19:05 AM
No signage for common freeway & interchange names

This is something discouraged (prohibited?) in the national MUTCD, and some agencies (such as Caltrans) are moving away from with new/revised signs. Ultimately, more and more people nowadays use highway numbers over highway names.

Last time I read the relevant sections, it was allowed under fairly limited conditions.  In Columbus, that allowance is used to post a few "memorial" designations that nobody ever uses.  Besides those memorial signs, I have not seen any signed freeway names in Columbus for as long as I've been paying attention to such things -- nearly 20 years.  Yet, the traffic reports consistently refer to freeway segments and interchanges by names that aren't signed.  Signing these common names (not the memorial names) would be of some benefit to visitors, particularly if nationally-published maps begin displaying the names as well. 

Perhaps a topic for another thread, but...
Seriously, freeway and interchange names need to be signed, and they should be the common / traffic-report names, not memorial names.  They're not on signs, and they're not on nationally-published maps; I would have to go to Wikipedia or a roadgeek website to find out for example where the Borman, Kennedy, and Eisenhower expressways are in Chicago, and personally, I'm not likely to remember such information unless I see the highways labeled as such on a map or on signage along the applicable freeways.  I imagine visitors to Columbus could have similar issues, though our freeway names are a bit more obviously named.  Still, our terms "Outerbelt" and "Innerbelt" could confuse some people from the east coast, who might believe these refer to the counter-clockwise and clockwise halves of I-270, respectively; in fact, that would only be one-quarter true. </rant>

Quote from: Laura Bianca on December 29, 2010, 01:01:55 AM
How about College/University exits in general? On many occasions, the signed exit is in no way, shape, or form the best way to reach the school. My alma mater, Lynchburg College, is completely guilty of this. Exit 3A - Business US 501 (Kemper Street) is a STRAIGHT shot, yet they have spotty signage saying to continue to regular US 501...which is ridiculously out of the way and poorly signed. Even worse, Google Maps also shows US 501A (which is unsigned and perhaps decommissioned?) When I was a student ambassador (college tour guide for prospective students) people were constantly late because they would get severely lost in the city.

York College of PA is guilty of this, too. Exit 15 (Business 83) is a direct shot, but yet, the interstate signs the college at Exit 16, which is Queen St (PA 74.) This is not only an indirect shot, but reassurance signage completely disappears.

I'm sure there are other examples. It just seems silly to me to route people poorly around town when there are more or less direct routes straight to the front gates.

Well, when I was doing college visits back in the day, I asked a tour guide why the signs took us on a 10 minute U-shaped route when the college was only 2 minutes off a different exit?  "We asked for the signs to use that route so people don't come through the bad part of town on the way here...it would give them a bad first impression of the school!"

I agree 100 percent.  (with Vtk - sorry, Laura Bianca - you posted while I was typing.)

I grew up in the New York area and see little point in complaining about people calling expressways by the names they've been using for half a century or more (and calling them "expressways," for that matter) because it's not compliant with a document which - notwithstanding its biblical status around here - most people have never heard of.  And likewise I see little point in complaining about said commonly-used expressway names being on signs (besides, didn't New York get specific permission to do that?)

That said, don't Chicago expressway names show up on most road atlases, and the Chicago map within the Illinois official map?  I'd expect them to be on any road map of the Chicago area (as opposed to a map of the whole state, where the scale would be too small).  Los Angeles too....

Quote from: vtk on June 28, 2011, 09:45:52 PM

Quote from: roadfro on June 28, 2011, 04:35:02 AM

Quote from: vtk on June 27, 2011, 02:19:05 AM
No signage for common freeway & interchange names

This is something discouraged (prohibited?) in the national MUTCD, and some agencies (such as Caltrans) are moving away from with new/revised signs. Ultimately, more and more people nowadays use highway numbers over highway names.

Last time I read the relevant sections, it was allowed under fairly limited conditions.  In Columbus, that allowance is used to post a few "memorial" designations that nobody ever uses.  Besides those memorial signs, I have not seen any signed freeway names in Columbus for as long as I've been paying attention to such things -- nearly 20 years.  Yet, the traffic reports consistently refer to freeway segments and interchanges by names that aren't signed.  Signing these common names (not the memorial names) would be of some benefit to visitors, particularly if nationally-published maps begin displaying the names as well. 

Names are not supposed to supplant the numbered designation. The MUTCD does not allow memorial names on directional guide signs on the mainline or intersecting routes. The signs are preferred to be located off the highway...

And non-memorial designations - which people actually use - are prohibited altogether....

If you have access to the New York Times archive:
June 25, 1961: DEBATE STIRRED BY HIGHWAY SIGNS (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30716F93D5B147A93C7AB178DD85F458685F9)
May 23, 1964: SAFETY MEN URGE CLEAR ROAD SIGNS (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60716FD3A5415738DDDAA0A94DD405B848AF1D3)
December 14, 1966: Signs to Nowhere (editorial) (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0911FF3958117B93C6A81789D95F428685F9)
June 17, 1967: Auto Club Assails Highway Signs Here as Obsolete and Deceptive (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40813FC3B5E137A93C5A8178DD85F438685F9)
August 26, 1967: STATE TO REPLACE ROAD SIGNS HERE (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F2081FF8345E137A93C4AB1783D85F438685F9)
July 9, 1968: Highway Signs Here Point Way to Confusion (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0D11FD345D147493CBA9178CD85F4C8685F9)
April 5, 1970: Road Signs Still Confusing (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10912FC3F5517768FDDAC0894DC405B808BF1D3)
There may be others that I didn't save years ago when I had access.

The gist is that the state interpreted the MUTCD to say that Interstates must be identified only by numbers, not names. The 1964 article includes the following:

QuoteHowever, the Bureau of Public Roads has ruled: "There is no objection to the display of a route number with a highway name on the top line of a guide sign so long as other conditions of the sign design are met. This amounts to a ruling that the intersected road may be identified by name, number or both."

This one also talks about the "local stranger", "a person who lives and works in the metropolitan area but who gets off his regular routes on trips to the World's Fair or other recreational points on weekends". This driver would be more familiar with names than numbers.

Most of this--including the specific term "local stranger"--comes from research the California Division of Highways carried out into freeway guide signing in the late 1950's and early 1960's (the Auto Safety Foundation study and the Bulletin 244 study).  The general recommendation that freeway names not be signed originates from this work, but in cities with old freeway systems where the freeway names are entrenched in people's minds, there is a strong relatability argument for signing freeway names which tends to clash with the message-loading argument for not signing them.  "Relatability" in this context means that it is desirable to have freeway names on the signs so that they correspond to other navigational information, such as maps, telephone directories, directions given orally, etc. which references freeway names.

I don't support freeway name signing for places like Columbus, Wichita, Kansas City, or even Portland.  But in cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles, I think it is probably unavoidable.

The tipping point for me would be whether the name was signed before the number. For example, in Orlando, the toll roads were originally marked with special shields, and only later had the numbers publicly signed. So SR 408 is often called the East-West and SR 528 the Beachline (silly recent renaming of the Bee Line).

that's generally a good tipping point. 

however, for California, the route numbers were signed by 1955, albeit in a dual name-and-number format well into the 70s.

at what point do you think "no one has called these freeways by name in over a generation"? 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 29, 2011, 12:00:45 PM

at what point do you think "no one has called these freeways by name in over a generation"? 

In California's case, I think the answer is likely "never" with some rather long-standing examples, i.e. Bayshore and Eastshore and MacArthur (all of which predate the freeways built there).  And this is with very little current signing mentioning those names anywhere - though there are examples of it in existence scattered about.

I don't know if the Nimitz name was ever signed on Route 17/today's I-880 to the extent that freeway names were signed in SoCal, but that one has also stuck to this day.

Quote from: TheStranger on June 29, 2011, 02:04:25 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 29, 2011, 12:00:45 PM

at what point do you think "no one has called these freeways by name in over a generation"? 

In California's case, I think the answer is likely "never" with some rather long-standing examples, i.e. Bayshore and Eastshore and MacArthur (all of which predate the freeways built there).  And this is with very little current signing mentioning those names anywhere - though there are examples of it in existence scattered about.

I don't know if the Nimitz name was ever signed on Route 17/today's I-880 to the extent that freeway names were signed in SoCal, but that one has also stuck to this day.

I tend to agree with TheStranger on this one especially when you factor in the local radio and TV stations who continue to use the freeway names (Bayshore, Eastshore, MacArthur, Nimitz, etc), in combination with the route numbers, quite extensively on their traffic reports. 

I've also heard KCBS, the local all-news radio station in San Francisco, refer to CA-85 as the "West Valley Freeway" or the "Stevens Creek Freeway".

Let me be clear: I support, at minimum, signing the common names (which are often official, in that they are recognized by the city) of freeways on those freeways*, in addition to route numbers.  I also support signing those names on guide signage on intersecting roads, in addition to route numbers, only if it does not result in cluttered signs or message overload. 

Of course I expect map publishers to include common names of freeways, but I recognize that this is extremely unlikely if the names aren't signed or already included on other maps.  How else is the mapmaker going to know about them?

* Probably the best place to sign freeway names would be on pull-through signage after major interchanges, particularly at the start of the stretch of freeway to which the name applies, and preferrably not on the same gantry as any other guide signage.  Speed limit signs could be mounted alongside these pull-through signs, particularly if some of the traffic may have just come from a freeway with a different speed limit.

If they do it right, there's no reason they cannot include the recognized name of the freeway under the cardinal direction - and that's what I'd prefer.

How it's done in Chicagoland is close. These overhead BGS get it right:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.865486,-87.644387&spn=0,0.004748&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.688268,77.783203&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.865576,-87.644392&panoid=y3R4uaTQdpW0FLY5g7Kfzw&cbp=12,22.33,,0,-0.81

These don't, because the name is on two lines. I understand why - it's a space issue - but the name itself could be set in a smaller type perhaps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.855474,-87.644366&spn=0.002657,0.004748&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.688268,77.783203&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.855939,-87.644228&panoid=CxyEBxAqABr9RnsUkoSvWg&cbp=12,22.39,,0,-2.95

ISHTA has signs up along I-355 and I-88 that have the name "N-S Tollway" and "E-W Tollway" respectively. Those are no longer the 'official' names - 355 is the "Veterans Memorial Tollway" and 88 is the "Reagan Memorial Tollway". No BGS's show those names - most newer signs show just "TOLLWAY", and the latest signs now have the black-on-yellow TOLL banner above the cardinal direction (another peeve of mine.)

Like vtk said, if it can be done without clutter, it should be. But I'd put it on the signs AT interchanges, as well as on pull-throughs.

In other cases, using local names isn't helpful. Example - I-290 west of the I-294/Tri-State is known as "The Eisenhower Extension." Personally, it's been a long enough time since it was built, it's time to just include it as part of the whole "Eisenhower Expressway." Same with the "Edens Spur" - just make it part of the Edens.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5286%2F5351051292_98094baf79_z.jpg&hash=89b431f2790ad9c3d45aac10c2dd77b75c635bae)

Take the name down a few sizes, maybe a narrower type, and put it on one line - and you'd have a good looking sign. And, if the local common name is "Deegan Expy" - then use that.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5204%2F5351051892_2726d8cb6f_z.jpg&hash=db8db4c25099351fb08109b146f4f17d4a9e743d)

^ Those I-95 button copy signs have been replaced  :-(

Quote from: Stratuscaster on June 30, 2011, 12:19:44 AM
Take the name down a few sizes, maybe a narrower type, and put it on one line - and you'd have a good looking sign. And, if the local common name is "Deegan Expy" - then use that.

As a middle-aged native of the New York area, "Major Deegan Expressway" sounds right; so does "the Deegan" as a shortening.  "Deegan Expressway" sounds wrong - well, at least looks wrong, because the "Major" wouldn't be left off on a map.  Others' mileage may vary....

Then those signs have been replaced since last fall, since I took those pics on my way home from the Springfield, Mass. road meet.

Quote from: myosh_tino on June 29, 2011, 03:22:01 PM
I tend to agree with TheStranger on this one especially when you factor in the local radio and TV stations who continue to use the freeway names (Bayshore, Eastshore, MacArthur, Nimitz, etc), in combination with the route numbers, quite extensively on their traffic reports.  

I've also heard KCBS, the local all-news radio station in San Francisco, refer to CA-85 as the "West Valley Freeway" or the "Stevens Creek Freeway".

Wow!  While I've known 85 as the Stevens Creek freeway for years, I didn't realize that name was actually in common usage (though Stevens Creek Boulevard is a well known thoroughfare in the area).

Junipero Serra Freeway (another freeway name derived from the existing boulevard it paralleled/replaced) is the other well known one in the area.  The Cypress section of the Nimitz hasn't been referred to as a separate entity since the late 90s though, now that it is once again one unified route (and with the Cypress replacement not being a double-deck structure).

---

Quote from: StratuscasterSame with the "Edens Spur" - just make it part of the Edens.

In that case, the differentiation actually makes sense - the Edens Spur is a toll road, unlike the rest of the expressway.  (Isn't US 41 north of the spur still part of the Edens?  Though it's listed on Google Maps and Wikipedia as part of Skokie Highway)

Quote from: hbelkins on June 30, 2011, 09:41:42 AMThen those signs have been replaced since last fall, since I took those pics on my way home from the Springfield, Mass. road meet.

They were probably replaced as part of the Alexander Hamilton Bridge rehabilitation (NYSDOT key number X726.81).

Quote from: TheStranger on June 30, 2011, 11:56:16 AM
In that case, the differentiation actually makes sense - the Edens Spur is a toll road, unlike the rest of the expressway.  (Isn't US 41 north of the spur still part of the Edens?  Though it's listed on Google Maps and Wikipedia as part of Skokie Highway)

Google labels the Edens Spur as "Edens Expy (Toll Road)" - for what that's worth. And from what I recall, there's one mainline toll plaza on the Spur - really just to serve as the last/first toll for getting on/off the Tri-State.

They could do like they do with I-88 in IL - east of Sterling/Rock Falls, it's the "Reagan Memorial Tollway" - west of there it's the "Reagan Memorial Expressway."

Google Maps is incorrect.  The Edens Expressway designation continues up 41 to Highland Park.  Spur is a different facility altogether and was constructed later.

Given its short length, the spur is probably not worth signing by name. Just say TOLLWAY at the Edens end and EDENS EXPWY at the tollway end.

Based on the latest signage that I mentioned earlier, that's likely the result - just the black-on-yellow TOLL banner above the cardinal direction.

I know and understand the Spur was a separate facility from the Edens itself. 'Spose I can just chalk it up to forever being one of those "local road quirks."

Quote from: InterstateNG on July 01, 2011, 11:35:48 AM
Google Maps is incorrect....

:-o

Quote from: Stratuscaster on July 01, 2011, 12:30:49 AM

Quote from: TheStranger on June 30, 2011, 11:56:16 AM
In that case, the differentiation actually makes sense - the Edens Spur is a toll road, unlike the rest of the expressway.  (Isn't US 41 north of the spur still part of the Edens?  Though it's listed on Google Maps and Wikipedia as part of Skokie Highway)

Google labels the Edens Spur as "Edens Expy (Toll Road)" - for what that's worth. And from what I recall, there's one mainline toll plaza on the Spur - really just to serve as the last/first toll for getting on/off the Tri-State.

They could do like they do with I-88 in IL - east of Sterling/Rock Falls, it's the "Reagan Memorial Tollway" - west of there it's the "Reagan Memorial Expressway."

Google needs to pull its head from its ass.  The Edens Spur is a part of the Tri-State Tollway.  The full name is The Edens Spur of the Tri-State Tollway.  The Edens itself continues north on US-41 and becomes Skokie Highway.

Rather, Google needs to hire some "road enthusiasts." ;)

It's probably not right for me to call this a "pet peeve" because it's not a road I travel often at all, but this thread seems like the most appropriate one because I found the formatting on these signs annoying. This past week on FL-417 I noted a number of signs that said "Pay Toll .50" or ".75" or whatever. I found myself wondering why they didn't use the cent sign such that the signs would say "Pay Toll 50¢" or the like. The decimal style (especially without "$0.50") struck me as less clear at a quick glance.

I wonder if they figured that since so many people no longer use the cent sign because it was omitted from computer keyboards maybe people no longer know what it means.

Here's an example of one such sign (lousy Street View image, but it's legible):

http://maps.google.com/?ll=28.375316,-81.412082&spn=0.028999,0.066047&z=15&layer=c&cbll=28.375336,-81.412206&panoid=XmapnAuTTk3I96xN31LALw&cbp=12,297.62,,0,-10.94

Could also be that everyone puts things in terms of dollars these days because coins are virtually worthless due to inflation.

Quote from: hbelkins on June 30, 2011, 09:41:42 AM
Then those signs have been replaced since last fall, since I took those pics on my way home from the Springfield, Mass. road meet.

And I can vouch they were still there as of April. Unfortunately when I passed through NYC last weekend I took the Tappan Zee instead of the GWB though so I can't vouch for more recently than that.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 03, 2011, 12:34:24 PM
It's probably not right for me to call this a "pet peeve" because it's not a road I travel often at all, but this thread seems like the most appropriate one because I found the formatting on these signs annoying. This past week on FL-417 I noted a number of signs that said "Pay Toll .50" or ".75" or whatever. I found myself wondering why they didn't use the cent sign such that the signs would say "Pay Toll 50¢" or the like. The decimal style (especially without "$0.50") struck me as less clear at a quick glance.

I wonder if they figured that since so many people no longer use the cent sign because it was omitted from computer keyboards maybe people no longer know what it means.

I would guess that the large number of foreign tourists may play a part in that. There's a reason that "Disney World" and "Int'l Airport" are two of the most common control "cities" on Orlando area freeways!

Another pet peeve of mine: adjacent borders of the same color that aren't merged into a single border.  This is particularly common with exit number panels.  Really, if they're going to give the exit tab a full, 4-sided box with all corners rounded, the least they could do is overlap it slightly with the main sign panel so there's not effectively a double-thick border between the exit number and the rest of the sign.

Quote from: vtk on July 31, 2011, 07:10:30 PM
Another pet peeve of mine: adjacent borders of the same color that aren't merged into a single border.  This is particularly common with exit number panels.  Really, if they're going to give the exit tab a full, 4-sided box with all corners rounded, the least they could do is overlap it slightly with the main sign panel so there's not effectively a double-thick border between the exit number and the rest of the sign.

Nevada's solution for this, at least on older signs, was that the exit tab only had a three-sided border. The bottom of the exit tab had no border, and the bottoms of the side borders went straight down the edge of the sign. This would result in a border gab at the bottom right corner of the tab, as the right edge of the tab lined up with the curved corner border of the main sign panel.

NDOT doesn't seem to do this much anymore, as most recent installations I've seen have a fully-bordered exit tab.

Quote from: roadfro on July 31, 2011, 10:03:36 PM

Quote from: vtk on July 31, 2011, 07:10:30 PM
Another pet peeve of mine: adjacent borders of the same color that aren't merged into a single border.  This is particularly common with exit number panels.  Really, if they're going to give the exit tab a full, 4-sided box with all corners rounded, the least they could do is overlap it slightly with the main sign panel so there's not effectively a double-thick border between the exit number and the rest of the sign.

Nevada's solution for this, at least on older signs, was that the exit tab only had a three-sided border. The bottom of the exit tab had no border, and the bottoms of the side borders went straight down the edge of the sign. This would result in a border gab at the bottom right corner of the tab, as the right edge of the tab lined up with the curved corner border of the main sign panel.

NDOT doesn't seem to do this much anymore, as most recent installations I've seen have a fully-bordered exit tab.

That's a fairly common way of doing it in Ohio, too.  That method looks especially good when the upper-right corner of the main sign panel isn't rounded.  Really, I think the MUTCD should have standardized on that.

On I-75 and I-475 in Toledo there are still quite a few button copy signs, but I fear that many of them will be replaced with Clearview in the near future because of the slight presence of it along both roads. When did Ohio stop using button copy?

I don't think I've mentioned it in this thread, but one of my signage pet peeves is exit only panels. In particular, I don't like how the border is drawn around only part of the panel when it's at the bottom of the overall sign. This causes the additional problem of having the black edge of the panel border directly on the edge of the overall sign, when there should be some yellow on the outside edge as is typical of warning signage.

Example from forum user kniwt (US 395 NB in Reno, NV):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzoza.com%2F%7Ekniwt%2FIMGP3190.JPG&hash=ab0ff72711ed04854f81b4ba8c274d86dc4293bf)

In my opinion, the exit only panel should be set in slightly from the edge of the sign. The panel should either be fully bordered or have no border at all (I like the look without a border).

Example from AARoads (I-80 EB in Reno, NV):
(https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada080/i-080_eb_exit_013_04.jpg)

Quote from: roadfro on July 31, 2011, 11:03:55 PM
I don't think I've mentioned it in this thread, but one of my signage pet peeves is exit only panels. In particular, I don't like how the border is drawn around only part of the panel when it's at the bottom of the overall sign. This causes the additional problem of having the black edge of the panel border directly on the edge of the overall sign, when there should be some yellow on the outside edge as is typical of warning signage.

Example from forum user kniwt (US 395 NB in Reno, NV):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzoza.com%2F%7Ekniwt%2FIMGP3190.JPG&hash=ab0ff72711ed04854f81b4ba8c274d86dc4293bf)

In my opinion, the exit only panel should be set in slightly from the edge of the sign. The panel should either be fully bordered or have no border at all (I like the look without a border).

Example from AARoads (I-80 EB in Reno, NV):
(https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada080/i-080_eb_exit_013_04.jpg)

Either of those styles looks fine to me.  The second one is really slick if the rounded corners in the lower-right are all concentric, and the extra green is trimmed from outside the corners, like I have seen in North Carolina. 

Personally I actually prefer the first style, with the black border incorporated into the border of the sign.

Granted, that's purely an aesthetic preference on my part, and is probably heavily influenced by growing up in Ohio (where that is the standard)

My issue is more with the unfinished border of the panel than the black border being incorporated. Unfortunately, the first style is much more prevalent in Nevada. I think it looks incredibly tacky.

It bothers me much more on signs like the ones I linked above, where there's an exit only and a drop lane, so that only one corner of the sign has the panel. If the whole bottom of the sign is an exit only panel, it seems less egregious to me. As in either sign in this example below from AARoads (US 95 SB approaching Rancho Dr & I-15).
(https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada095/us-095_sb_exit_077_02a.jpg)

Quote from: roadfro on July 31, 2011, 11:03:55 PMI don't think I've mentioned it in this thread, but one of my signage pet peeves is exit only panels. In particular, I don't like how the border is drawn around only part of the panel when it's at the bottom of the overall sign. This causes the additional problem of having the black edge of the panel border directly on the edge of the overall sign, when there should be some yellow on the outside edge as is typical of warning signage.

I personally don't have a problem with that arrangement because I can see the black border around the "EXIT ONLY" panel (whether full-width or not) as a continuation of the white-on-green sign border.  But this is an area where tastes vary.

What I absolutely hate is black borders for yellow patches on green signs.  The green-against-black color boundary just hurts.

Not all warning signage has a "doubled" border with the background color running to the physical edge of the sign.  It depends on the size of the sign.  Flat panel signs (usually classified as small signs) do have the doubled border, but if a large sign has a warning message, the background will be yellow and the black border will run to the physical edge of the sign.

To me both of the signs in roadfro's post from yesterday look better than Maryland's peculiar style of sometimes using just the word "Only" when there's one must-exit lane and one optional-exit lane. An example can be seen at the link below. I had never noticed how the color of the sign border changes to black on the yellow portion of that particular style of sign. Now that I see it, it looks funny to me even though it's obviously standard on signs where the yellow portion spans the width of the sign (like in roadfro's post from early this morning with the I-15 to LA exit sign photo). I've never seen a sign like the one for the Downtown Reno exit sign shown above.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=38.994431,-77.158232&spn=0.003181,0.008256&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.994316,-77.158217&panoid=9JeTIckg7JHlQdhLkGiQKg&cbp=12,162.08,,0,-2.75

Replacing a "mile based" or "sequential" exit number sign with a sign that just says "EXIT". It's cheap and lazy.

Quote from: ftballfan on July 31, 2011, 10:48:34 PM
On I-75 and I-475 in Toledo there are still quite a few button copy signs, but I fear that many of them will be replaced with Clearview in the near future because of the slight presence of it along both roads. When did Ohio stop using button copy?

Depended on the region.  Parts of I-71 around Mansfield/Ashland stopped using button copy over 10 years ago -- and this was before the re-building/widening project. 

Said area was also installing them on large, wooden posts.  I don't think ODOT really caught onto the wooden post craze, although you do see occasional installs at various locations around the state with no real rhyme or reason.

Quote from: architect77 on March 30, 2011, 10:59:02 AM
I loathe the raised first letter on directions "North, East, South, etc." I realize that in typography that it can increase readability, however it destroys all aspects of centering and symmetry on overhead signage.

You'd love Texas then (and I agree with your statement).
(https://www.aaroads.com/texas/ih110-820/i-610_s_eb_exit_038a_02.jpg)

A BGS from another thread reminds me how much I dislike improper plurals or lack thereof in distances.

It's not 1 1/2 MILE; it's 1 1/2 MILES.
It's not 3/4 MILES; it's 3/4 MILE.

Quote from: Quillz on August 05, 2011, 05:00:09 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F3%2F3b%2FInterstate35SplitHillsboro1.JPG&hash=ca719ffc3e73da3f1f784c1b1f293af7dfc851b9)

Quote from: Marc on August 02, 2011, 02:46:49 AM

Quote from: architect77 on March 30, 2011, 10:59:02 AM
I loathe the raised first letter on directions "North, East, South, etc." I realize that in typography that it can increase readability, however it destroys all aspects of centering and symmetry on overhead signage.

You'd love Texas then (and I agree with your statement).
[image removed from quote]

I don't necessarily mind the initial larger capital letter depending on the sign, but the one shown below in Springfield, Virginia, strikes me as hideous because the letters all look so squished-in on that tiny sign. (Of course, any typeface might look a bit kak on that narrow of a sign.) I find the directions on the other sign to the right to be far easier to read. This is one area where being in the correct lane for your desired connection is very important and so the clearer the sign, the better, although of course if you don't know the area merely having a compass point may not be of much help. The non-centered arrows on the sign on the right seem to correspond to a newer trend I've noted where VDOT seems to prefer somewhat smaller signs where feasible. Doesn't bother me here because the sign is still aligned correctly, but I've seen others where arrows meant for adjacent lanes wind up being over the same lane.

Sorry about the grainy picture. Zooming in a long way with a phone camera is not ideal.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F2f0d49ee.jpg&hash=6902cd253141c93c6b8b86f7b818deef1fc23dcd)

I know it's been said before, but the raised initial capital letter just nags me. I don't care if it's a standard, either follow proper capitalization rules or keep it all the same height.

Other than that, I like occassional weird things, so variety is interesting.

Quote from: Marc on August 02, 2011, 02:46:49 AM

Quote from: architect77 on March 30, 2011, 10:59:02 AM
I loathe the raised first letter on directions "North, East, South, etc." I realize that in typography that it can increase readability, however it destroys all aspects of centering and symmetry on overhead signage.

You'd love Texas then (and I agree with your statement).

... and California.  California does not use a raised first letter on cardinal directions on any of it's guide signs with the only exception being an I-5 pull through near the CA-126 junction.  Some newer reassurance assemblies (route shield + cardinal direction banner) have begun to feature a raised first letter but you have to look really close to notice it.

Nor NY, for the most part...though some districts have been replacing signs with those with the raised first letter.

I think part of what's bothering you there is the fact that it's Series D. It doesn't look so hot then. If you take Series EM and space it out a bit like Kansas does it starts looking a lot nicer.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FK6mDR.jpg&hash=34b5ad1d581bb9a57aafb9b08b8ac12b2ba0a073)

I just thought of one.  I don't remember seeing this mentioned, but I apologize if it was and escaped my notice.

Undersized exit number tabs.

The Kansas Turnpike has long been guilty of this, even on some of its newer beautiful/ugly Clearview signs, but I'm sure it happens in other places as well.  It makes the sign look as if the exit number is just some piece of miscellaneous information that was thrown on to fulfill a requirement.  I greatly prefer the standard exit number tabs, where the text is the same or nearly the same size as the text in the rest of the BGS.

Actually, I prefer the way the New Jersey Turnpike handles exit numbers, but that's a unique case.  And I suppose people in Illinois would tell me, "Just be grateful your state's toll road has exit numbers."

A big one for me is BAD looking construction signs!  Here in CT, the ones that are owned by the DOT are fine, they have the proper fonts, borders and are curved corners and properly alligned, just like any other sign.  They are metal too.
BUT
The ones that are made by contractos are awful, square corners, awful fonts, misalligned words.  Its like they were made of cardboard, even if they are made of plastic, can't they still be properly alligned and the usual signage fonts!?!?!? I wish I had pics of either or.

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 06, 2011, 04:30:46 PM
Undersized exit number tabs.

Allow me to also add:  oversized exit number tabs.  Maryland, I'm looking directly at you.  There is no need for the exit tab to be wide enough to comfortably fit a five-digit exit number.

Quote from: Eth on August 06, 2011, 10:11:46 PM
Allow me to also add:  oversized exit number tabs.  Maryland, I'm looking directly at you.  There is no need for the exit tab to be wide enough to comfortably fit a five-digit exit number.

Agreed 110%

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 06, 2011, 04:30:46 PM
I just thought of one.  I don't remember seeing this mentioned, but I apologize if it was and escaped my notice.

Undersized exit number tabs.

The Kansas Turnpike has long been guilty of this, even on some of its newer beautiful/ugly Clearview signs, but I'm sure it happens in other places as well.  It makes the sign look as if the exit number is just some piece of miscellaneous information that was thrown on to fulfill a requirement.  I greatly prefer the standard exit number tabs, where the text is the same or nearly the same size as the text in the rest of the BGS.

Actually, I prefer the way the New Jersey Turnpike handles exit numbers, but that's a unique case.  And I suppose people in Illinois would tell me, "Just be grateful your state's toll road has exit numbers."

Honestly, coming from Illinois, we've never much cared one way or the other about Tollway exit numbers.  We always used the street name or route number for the exit (even when the expressway (IDOT) has exit numbers).  Of course, it's all changing now that the Tollway (ISTHA) is getting exit numbers.  They exist west of Aurora on I-88 right now, and are distance-based.

Quote from: Brandon on August 06, 2011, 11:27:36 PM
Honestly, coming from Illinois, we've never much cared one way or the other about Tollway exit numbers.  We always used the street name or route number for the exit (even when the expressway (IDOT) has exit numbers).  Of course, it's all changing now that the Tollway (ISTHA) is getting exit numbers.  They exist west of Aurora on I-88 right now, and are distance-based.

Ah, I didn't know the ISTHA had already started to implement exit numbers.  I haven't driven on any of the Illinois Tollways since 2007, when I distinctly noticed that all of the IDOT-maintained Interstates had exit numbers but none of the Tollways did.

Quote from: Eth on August 06, 2011, 10:11:46 PM

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 06, 2011, 04:30:46 PM
Undersized exit number tabs.

Allow me to also add:  oversized exit number tabs.  Maryland, I'm looking directly at you.  There is no need for the exit tab to be wide enough to comfortably fit a five-digit exit number.

Or tall enough to fit the Thruway's implementation of clearview.

I'd rather have my own pic of this, but since Sergey and Larry sent their little camera-car around...

http://maps.google.com/?ll=32.306713,-96.003567&spn=0.000005,0.0042&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=32.306661,-96.003456&panoid=HwpieMh5J0EP5wHQ8t_L3Q&cbp=12,159.37,,1,-0.63

After a recent widening of US 175 through Eustace, TX, the re-signers did a rush job of the approach signage of the east end of a brief multiplex with FM 316.  WHY would you ever put a route that will turn off to the left, on the *right* side of the signpost arrangement?!?  It's bad enough that they used that AWFUL skinny-font version of the US 175 shield (umm, how much more would it cost to do it with the font in my avatar--which is well-represented along other parts of the highway??)....>ugh<  IIRR, before the widening, they just had a simple straight-pole FM 316-turning-left sign arrangement there.

There's another lovely sign mess I could post about down around the eastern terminus, but I need a drink first (IINM, that excuse for signage is still the same after almost *10 years*!!).....

For me:

-Inconsistency in signage material. In California, it's annoying to see a nice new sign then see an ancient one from the 70s.

-Inconsistency in exit numbers. Again, in California, it's annoying having some exits with exit numbers and some that don't.

-Signs that have plates on them that cover up old shields and exits.(They look terrible and cheap)

-deformed route shields.

-Construction signs still up when the construction has been done for months.

Definitely agree on inconsistent signage material. Seems the S.F. Valley is full of new signs, ancient signs and "Frankensigns" (old ones that have been patched with newer elements.)

I also noticed when driving through NorCal that tons of I-5 freeway entrance signs along remote exits (mostly in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties) were using wide, 21×18 shields. Not so much a pet peeve, as I quite like them, but I guess they would technically be in error.

Quote from: Marc on August 02, 2011, 02:46:49 AM

Quote from: architect77 on March 30, 2011, 10:59:02 AM
I loathe the raised first letter on directions "North, East, South, etc." I realize that in typography that it can increase readability, however it destroys all aspects of centering and symmetry on overhead signage.

I know that is 610, but is this pic going towards Reliant Stadium or towards I-45 where you'd exit for Hobby Airport and Galveston?

You'd love Texas then (and I agree with your statement).
(https://www.aaroads.com/texas/ih110-820/i-610_s_eb_exit_038a_02.jpg)

Quote from: Riverside Frwy on August 17, 2011, 11:51:53 PM
For me:

-Signs that have plates on them that cover up old shields and exits.(They look terrible and cheap)

-deformed route shields.

I agree with you on the deformed route shields like California's 2-digit angular interstate shields and the 3-digit bubble interstate shields.

But I will disagree with the greenout plates.  I don't find them irritating because it extends the life of a sign and it probably costs less to "correct" a sign instead of replacing it.

Quote from: Quillz on August 18, 2011, 12:18:11 AM

I also noticed when driving through NorCal that tons of I-5 freeway entrance signs along remote exits (mostly in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties) were using wide, 21×18 shields. Not so much a pet peeve, as I quite like them, but I guess they would technically be in error.

technically an error, but only if you follow federal guidelines.  the feds have not used that size since 1970, but it is still officially on California's books.

I don't think there is a correlation between ruralness, though; just by district, maybe, with a whole slew of randomness added on.  There are a bunch in Kern County, for example.

I've always wanted to find at least one example for each route number - having just found some 15s, and a 210, I am quite happy.

the real trick is to find an 18x18.  I'd have to do my research but I don't think that was ever a size California used.  Certainly not by 1980, which is the earliest a particular 110 could've been installed.  It's the only one I know of in the state!

Quote from: msubulldog on August 18, 2011, 01:46:29 AM
I know that is 610, but is this pic going towards Reliant Stadium or towards I-45 where you'd exit for Hobby Airport and Galveston?

Interstate 610 East at SH 288. The gantries on the westbound approach to 288 are the originals. The last time I went through there, the signs were still damaged from Hurricane Ike. I-610 from 288 to I-45 also does not have high mast lighting, a refreshing thing to see in the Houston area.

My biggest pet peeve is inconsistency.  I've always hated all Iowa signage... The arrows, the gore point exit signage... just everything. 
I haven't been a huge fan of Arkansas signage either.  I don't mind their Clearview takeover at all, but along I-540 in NW AR, I see so many things that need change.  Why is Exit 83 signed as only Pinnacle Hills Parkway, when New Hope Road is the main arterial that 540 is intersecting.  The same could be said about Exit 82.  Promenade Blvd is signed but that actual street doesn't technically touch 540.  It's Whitaker Parkway.  I also noticed that in NW AR, they sign medical centers/hospitals as the names.  Normally, and as it should be (like along I-40), the medical centers/hospitals are signed with blue HOSPITAL signs.
Another big issue is the ridiculous use of abbreviations on AHTD signage.  AHTD likes to use abbreviations like "Reg", "Nat", and "Wash".  "Reg" could be regular or regional.  "Nat" could be natural or national.  "Wash" is just a sorry excuse for a abbreviation. 
Also, when I lived in Sioux Falls, I battled with a DOT engineer about signage that I thought was needed at a newly constructed SPUI, but he used accident data to back his opinion up... which consisted of a few months.

Exit tabs that are wider than the sign itself.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=41.693985,-91.659719&spn=0.000008,0.015256&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=41.694002,-91.659273&panoid=1S2vtXnuk-FOxMCeu13bLw&cbp=12,289.26,,0,1.58

Quote from: pianocello on August 29, 2011, 04:19:26 PM
Exit tabs that are wider than the sign itself.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=41.693985,-91.659719&spn=0.000008,0.015256&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=41.694002,-91.659273&panoid=1S2vtXnuk-FOxMCeu13bLw&cbp=12,289.26,,0,1.58

You'd love this one near my house, then (and notice the one in the background that's the same way).

http://maps.google.com/?ll=38.794634,-77.147155&spn=0.025688,0.066047&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.794593,-77.14732&panoid=dByecXRwaasgO7CCLOWu7w&cbp=12,251.56,,0,0&t=h&z=15

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2011, 12:24:44 PM
To me both of the signs in roadfro's post from yesterday look better than Maryland's peculiar style of sometimes using just the word "Only" when there's one must-exit lane and one optional-exit lane. An example can be seen at the link below. I had never noticed how the color of the sign border changes to black on the yellow portion of that particular style of sign. Now that I see it, it looks funny to me even though it's obviously standard on signs where the yellow portion spans the width of the sign (like in roadfro's post from early this morning with the I-15 to LA exit sign photo). I've never seen a sign like the one for the Downtown Reno exit sign shown above.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=38.994431,-77.158232&spn=0.003181,0.008256&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.994316,-77.158217&panoid=9JeTIckg7JHlQdhLkGiQKg&cbp=12,162.08,,0,-2.75

I agree, this sign reads as if the leftmost lane could crossover an exit only lane and continue straight.

Quote from: Marc on August 02, 2011, 02:46:49 AM

Quote from: architect77 on March 30, 2011, 10:59:02 AM
I loathe the raised first letter on directions "North, East, South, etc." I realize that in typography that it can increase readability, however it destroys all aspects of centering and symmetry on overhead signage.

I do love this Texas photo. With proper kerning Clearview looks fantastic also.

You'd love Texas then (and I agree with your statement).
(https://www.aaroads.com/texas/ih110-820/i-610_s_eb_exit_038a_02.jpg)

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 05, 2011, 10:22:36 AM

Quote from: Marc on August 02, 2011, 02:46:49 AM

Quote from: architect77 on March 30, 2011, 10:59:02 AM
I loathe the raised first letter on directions "North, East, South, etc." I realize that in typography that it can increase readability, however it destroys all aspects of centering and symmetry on overhead signage.

You'd love Texas then (and I agree with your statement).
[image removed from quote]

I don't necessarily mind the initial larger capital letter depending on the sign, but the one shown below in Springfield, Virginia, strikes me as hideous because the letters all look so squished-in on that tiny sign. (Of course, any typeface might look a bit kak on that narrow of a sign.) I find the directions on the other sign to the right to be far easier to read. This is one area where being in the correct lane for your desired connection is very important and so the clearer the sign, the better, although of course if you don't know the area merely having a compass point may not be of much help. The non-centered arrows on the sign on the right seem to correspond to a newer trend I've noted where VDOT seems to prefer somewhat smaller signs where feasible. Doesn't bother me here because the sign is still aligned correctly, but I've seen others where arrows meant for adjacent lanes wind up being over the same lane.

Sorry about the grainy picture. Zooming in a long way with a phone camera is not ideal.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F2f0d49ee.jpg&hash=6902cd253141c93c6b8b86f7b818deef1fc23dcd)

I love the black gantries, and one thing Virginia does very well is mast arm signals often with a signal for every lane. Statewide, they're consistent and practically perfect.

I've seen a few signs around lately, usually at entrances to freeways from conventional roads, where the text sizes look goofy.  For one thing, the first letter of the highway's direction often looks like it's 33% larger than the rest of the word; I think 20% larger should be the max.  More annoying is the destination legend, which is often in a size similar to or smaller than the direction word!  After seeing destinations larger than directions for so many years, this just looks wrong.  I suspect these signs are the result of going with the specified minimum size for each element, without regard for the proportions between elements.

Isn't the MUTCD specification supposed to be 5:4 anyway?  I've seen signs in NC with what looks like much different sizes than that on the raised caps.

Never been a big fan of the signage around John Wayne Airport.  The signs to find your airline, merge into what lanes, rental car returns, etc all seem so faded and old. Plus they're all in italics.   I like those nice blue guide signs most airports have.

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 05, 2011, 01:03:22 PM

Quote from: Marc on August 02, 2011, 02:46:49 AM

Quote from: architect77 on March 30, 2011, 10:59:02 AM
I loathe the raised first letter on directions "North, East, South, etc." I realize that in typography that it can increase readability, however it destroys all aspects of centering and symmetry on overhead signage.

You'd love Texas then (and I agree with your statement).

... and California.  California does not use a raised first letter on cardinal directions on any of it's guide signs with the only exception being an I-5 pull through near the CA-126 junction.  Some newer reassurance assemblies (route shield + cardinal direction banner) have begun to feature a raised first letter but you have to look really close to notice it.

Tennessee has begun doing the raised first letter on cardinal directions, but it is also hard to notice on most signs, both shields and BGS. This sign in Memphis is an exception, however: http://g.co/maps/3ghyy

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 05, 2011, 01:03:22 PM
California does not use a raised first letter on cardinal directions on any of it's guide signs with the only exception being an I-5 pull through near the CA-126 junction.  Some newer reassurance assemblies (route shield + cardinal direction banner) have begun to feature a raised first letter but you have to look really close to notice it.

Looks like Google Streetview has been updated on this portion of I-5 near Santa Clarita.  Here's the only guide sign in California that I've seen that features a raised cap...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fca-raisedcap-ex.jpg&hash=c3ae0af32ee9be38de445f244d87df612c662840)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048696/Road-signs-make-sense-unnecessary-removed.html

Sign clutter

Quote from: cu2010 on March 29, 2011, 07:44:04 PMThe newer PennDOT Clearview doesn't look as bad, but I hate how they're mixing and matching fonts on the sign...if they're going to use Clearview, the entire sign (minus the route shield) should be Clearview as well...

Disagree.  Only the control legend should be Clearview.  The exit tab and distance legend - in caps, where clearview has no advantage - should be FHWA and ALL numerals should be FHWA.  Don't get me started again on how hideous Clearview numerals are.

And that's my 'tolerant' view.  My 'intolerant' view is that Clearview should not be used, period.

US-43|72...I agree.  It looks hideous.

I disagree. I've become less a fan of Clearview as time has passed, but I still think the only thing that should remain the old FHWA font on a Clearview sign is the numerals inside route shields. Period. Utah, in its ephemeral experiment with Clearview, did this, and I think it looks better than having exit tab, the distance, everything except the destination name/street name be in Clearview.

We already know I don't like the font, so I'm not going to get into that.

Everyone admits there is no advantage to using Clearview in all-caps, so why make that Clearview?

And the numerals are hideous.  Just hideous.  I would honest-to-goodness take Arial/Helvitica numerals over Clearview numerals.  That's how bad I think Clearview numerals are.

Basically, the only Clearview signs I've seen in person that I could put up with are those like I described - with only the control legend in Clearview, everything else FHWA.

Quote from: US-43|72 on October 15, 2011, 02:43:17 AM
Basically, the only Clearview signs I've seen in person that I could put up with are those like I described - with only the control legend in Clearview, everything else FHWA.

In the newspaper business, they used to call that mixing of fonts a circus layout.

Quote from: hbelkins on October 15, 2011, 10:47:39 PM

Quote from: US-43|72 on October 15, 2011, 02:43:17 AM
Basically, the only Clearview signs I've seen in person that I could put up with are those like I described - with only the control legend in Clearview, everything else FHWA.

In the newspaper business, they used to call that mixing of fonts a circus layout.

Oh, great....and i always wondered if there were clowns running the FHWA with these crazy ideas they have had the last several years...

Quote from: US-43|72 on October 15, 2011, 02:43:17 AM
And the numerals are hideous.  Just hideous.  I would honest-to-goodness take Arial/Helvitica numerals over Clearview numerals.  That's how bad I think Clearview numerals are.

In Clearview's defense, I've always thought Helvetica has particularly nice numerals. Actually, Helvetica in general is a nice font, it just looks horribly out of place on road signs.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 16, 2011, 01:19:31 AM
In Clearview's defense, I've always thought Helvetica has particularly nice numerals. Actually, Helvetica in general is a nice font, it just looks horribly out of place on road signs.

I think that's just because we're used to FHWA.

I'm sure that's most of it. Helvetica looks awesome on transit signage, for instance, and at my work place a good many of the signs (all of which say things like office names and stuff like "Delta 8935") are done in outlined Arial, which doesn't look terrible.  Another part of it is probably that the standard font sizes are designed to maximize legibility when FHWA fonts are used, and so Arial doesn't work as well. I wonder, too, if perhaps the Interstate shield was designed to complement some arcs and such found in the FHWA Series fonts–Jake, have you found any familiar looking numbers in the trig of both of them?

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 17, 2011, 01:23:51 AM
I'm sure that's most of it. Helvetica looks awesome on transit signage, for instance, and at my work place a good many of the signs (all of which say things like office names and stuff like "Delta 8935") are done in outlined Arial, which doesn't look terrible.  Another part of it is probably that the standard font sizes are designed to maximize legibility when FHWA fonts are used, and so Arial doesn't work as well. I wonder, too, if perhaps the Interstate shield was designed to complement some arcs and such found in the FHWA Series fonts–Jake, have you found any familiar looking numbers in the trig of both of them?

I've always thought Helvetica/Arial/Univers/Grotesk/anything vaguely from that family was an okay font, but nothing I'd splatter the world with.  I'd use Series D on transit signage as well!

I have never taken a detailed look at the relationships between shield shapes and font arcs.  The only thing that comes to mind is that both FHWA Highway Gothic and the basic shield shapes (US, interstate) use solely circular arcs - never elliptical, parabolic, bezier, or something more complex than that.  So that gives an innate harmony of "circles within circles", adding to the slightly bizarre effect that stretched shields and fonts have when we see them.

Quote from: hbelkins on October 15, 2011, 10:47:39 PMIn the newspaper business, they used to call that mixing of fonts a circus layout.

Then, by all means, bring on the circus layout.

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 17, 2011, 01:23:51 AM
Helvetica looks awesome on transit signage, for instance

I verily say unto you that yes, I am in agreement with this. Helvetica on station signs, information displays on buses and LRVs, etc looks stellar. However, please don't compare Helvetica with Arial (I know Jake is scoffing at this). Arial to me looks tacky and cheap, but Helvetica (when used in the right contexts) looks classy. In other regards I'm not a huge font snob, but the Helvetica/Arial difference is huge to me.

I'll be honest, I'm a little sick of the proliferation of the FHWA fonts (well, really Interstate). The Interstate equivalent to series E is okay, but when a company adopts the series C equivalent for all of its marketing, branding etc I find it long-in-the-tooth and tiresome. Call me crazy, but there you have it.

Use of a T-intersection sign mounted sideways in place of a side street sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg684.imageshack.us%2Fimg684%2F7532%2Fsidewayst.jpg&hash=e41af79566c2de02730f3fbede83e690e0b84726)

Would be a curiousity if it was just an occasional oddity, but this error is rampant.

They have some of those sideways T-intersection signs around here as well.

QuoteUse of a T-intersection sign mounted sideways in place of a side street sign

If you think that's bad, the town of Double Oak, Texas uses T intersection ahead signs in place of double arrow signs. This error exists at multiple interesctions within the town.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1209.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc395%2FBrian5561%2F100511012.jpg&hash=f88b4ddc2f284e4984d426ad69f119ea8240116f)

Quote from: Brian556 on October 19, 2011, 09:18:51 PM
If you think that's bad, the town of Double Oak, Texas uses T intersection ahead signs in place of double arrow signs. This error exists at multiple interesctions within the town.
(image)

I've seen those "Captain Obvious" signs in central IL as well.

I hate it when the traffic light mast arm is positioned on the near side of the intersection so close that you have to bend down to see the light. This light is about two miles from my house and when I took the picture I was stopped at the stop bar. I held the camera at eye level to take the picture.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F5adacb32.jpg&hash=30f9b7af1e97d8c95e354c10bd448f54726ebe0a)

Where is that located, 1995hoo?

Seconded. Practically every light in Westbrook ME is mounted on the near side of the intersection, causing me to scrunch way down in my seat in order to see. Grrrr!

Quote from: Roadman66 on November 04, 2011, 10:14:32 PM
Where is that located, 1995hoo?

In that particular photo I'm on westbound Franconia Road (Virginia secondary route 644 in Fairfax County) at the intersection with Fleet Drive; the overpass in front of me carries the road over the railroad and Metrorail tracks. If you look at the pavement in front of my car you'll see that the stop bar used to be closer to the intersection. Notice the pole located on the far side to the right (under my SunPass that's taped to the windshield). The lights used to be suspended diagonally across the intersection using span wire, which is what you'll see if you look at that intersection on Google Street View (link provided below if you care).

I'm all for replacing ugly span wire with mast arms whenever it's feasible to do so, but the mast arms need to be positioned properly. I hate it when they make you scrunch way down to see the lights.

Here's the Street View link as close as I could get it to where I was stopped. (http://maps.google.com/?ll=38.780204,-77.155708&spn=0.0016,0.004128&t=m&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.780221,-77.155593&panoid=y-0uWH1q0AGO0ZiG9IPr-Q&cbp=12,265.85,,0,12.63) Notice they redid the pedestrian crosswalk to look more like a zebra crossing as well. The new stop bar is maybe half to two-thirds of the way back on the solid line between the second and third lanes. The far left lane is a left-only lane and I took the picture shown above from the middle of the three straight-ahead lanes. The pole I referred to above that supported the span wire is behind the white Peapod truck.

(BTW, the light was red when I raised the camera to take the picture and it went green right as I clicked the shutter.)

Pet peeve:  states that can't seem to figure out what their state route markers are supposed to look like.

Here are a few examples from a trip I took last weekend in Rockdale, Walton, and Barrow Counties (apologies for poor image quality; these are captures of a video taken on my phone):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2Froadphotos%2Fga0081_nb_end.jpg&hash=fde05b3e088ce062a7954113ddcac358564fd48b)
The GA 8 shield here used to be the standard; I think most shields from the 1990s and earlier are of this style.
The GA 81 shield is a 2000s style.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2Froadphotos%2Fga0020_nb_rockdale1.jpg&hash=0ba1e5149f80b3c4cd82803d3097dcf7a9dd63cf)
This is a newer style, one I think I've only seen in the past couple years.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2Froadphotos%2Fga0020_nb_conyers1.jpg&hash=eab497ff86cbdc1052d311c3b770fa96b0ab7cb2)
This one is...well, it's just straight up ugly.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2Froadphotos%2Fga0020_ga0081_nb_loganville1.jpg&hash=787ca1fa5a37d9ce8a31223845a0adb24ae0966f)
This is the style that I hope catches on statewide, as I think it's the best-looking option, probably because it's an actual accurate state outline.

Examples of all four of these styles (and probably a couple others I've missed) are plentiful.  Seriously, Georgia, pick one and stick with it.

Quote from: 1995hoo on November 01, 2011, 02:39:12 PM
I hate it when the traffic light mast arm is positioned on the near side of the intersection so close that you have to bend down to see the light. This light is about two miles from my house and when I took the picture I was stopped at the stop bar. I held the camera at eye level to take the picture.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F5adacb32.jpg&hash=30f9b7af1e97d8c95e354c10bd448f54726ebe0a)

We have one like that here, but its problem is...its a programmable visablity type....so it is barely able to be seen to begin with.

Quote from: Eth on November 13, 2011, 02:51:29 PM
Pet peeve:  states that can't seem to figure out what their state route markers are supposed to look like.

[photos]

Examples of all four of these styles (and probably a couple others I've missed) are plentiful.  Seriously, Georgia, pick one and stick with it.

Yeah. Utah has the same problem. Several different variations of the state highway shield have come out; before 2000 there was one consistent design. But, I digress. I've already discussed the problem at length.

Quote from: SteveG1988 on November 13, 2011, 03:32:13 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on November 01, 2011, 02:39:12 PM
I hate it when the traffic light mast arm is positioned on the near side of the intersection so close that you have to bend down to see the light. This light is about two miles from my house and when I took the picture I was stopped at the stop bar. I held the camera at eye level to take the picture.

....

We have one like that here, but its problem is...its a programmable visablity type....so it is barely able to be seen to begin with.

I don't believe I'm familiar with that term. Could you clarify for me?

Edited: Never mind, I did a Google search. I hadn't heard the term "programmable visibility" before, but when I saw a picture of such a traffic light I instantly recognized the style (just not the name). I hate those too, especially at this very time of year in the late afternoon when the sun makes driving very difficult in the first place. Thankfully there aren't very many of them around here on roads I use regularly.

Why did they position that mast-arm on the near-side unlike usual practice? I assume they had a reason........... The only place I normally see that done is at fire stations.

I've noticed that most states tend to have non-standard US Route shields, as opposed to state route shields. I've seen a fair share of strange Interstate shields, too.

One of the reasons I like that California uses its own shield standards is that they're quite consistent. For the most part, the proper Interstate, US Route and state route shields are used correctly. The main inconsistencies I've seen are BGS shields being used independently, as well as various BGS shield practices (some borderless, some with one border, others with two borders, etc.)

I think it comes down to manufacturers. I believe Safeway Signs is the only company that does California shield signage, whereas most states probably have multiple, correct? I remember being in Oregon and seeing a number of odd looking state route shields. Some would use Series B, others C and still more D. I saw wide shields being used for one- and two-digit numbers, etc.

Quote from: 1995hoo on November 14, 2011, 09:27:51 AM

Edited: Never mind, I did a Google search. I hadn't heard the term "programmable visibility" before, but when I saw a picture of such a traffic light I instantly recognized the style (just not the name). I hate those too, especially at this very time of year in the late afternoon when the sun makes driving very difficult in the first place. Thankfully there aren't very many of them around here on roads I use regularly.

I despise that sort of light.  I have to spend all kinds of rarely-used mental cycles trying to figure out whether the light is off due to a power outage, what the law is in this jurisdiction for that situation, how likely the drivers are to obey the law as opposed to devolving to anarchy, etc etc...

Quote from: Quillz on November 15, 2011, 06:31:04 PM
One of the reasons I like that California uses its own shield standards is that they're quite consistent. For the most part, the proper Interstate, US Route and state route shields are used correctly.

I could find you a maybe 20-mile stretch of I-5 in Kern County with six or seven different styles of independent-mount shield on the mainline and side streets.  

* 36 inch "triangular" reassurance, otherwise 1957 spec
* 36 inch "triangular" reassurance, 61 spec neutered
* 24 inch state named standard
* 24 inch neutered, 61 spec
* 24 inch neutered, 70 spec
* 24 inch neutered, 70 spec, Series C digit
* 21x18 61 spec

I'm probably forgetting a few styles.  the California MUTCD calls for two styles: '57 spec, 36 inch mainline, 24 inch side streets.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 15, 2011, 07:11:44 PM

Quote from: Quillz on November 15, 2011, 06:31:04 PM
One of the reasons I like that California uses its own shield standards is that they're quite consistent. For the most part, the proper Interstate, US Route and state route shields are used correctly.

I could find you a maybe 20-mile stretch of I-5 in Kern County with six or seven different styles of independent-mount shield on the mainline and side streets. 

* 36 inch "triangular" reassurance, otherwise 1957 spec
* 36 inch "triangular" reassurance, 61 spec neutered
* 24 inch state named standard
* 24 inch neutered, 61 spec
* 24 inch neutered, 70 spec
* 24 inch neutered, 70 spec, Series C digit
* 21x18 61 spec

I'm probably forgetting a few styles.  the California MUTCD calls for two styles: '57 spec, 36 inch mainline, 24 inch side streets.

The "triangular neutered shield" is probably the most common error Interstate shield I've seen. There are also a lot of them along the stretch of I-5 near Dodger Stadium. I also have seen some BGS that use independent shields, and independent shields that are lacking the "California" and are intended for BGS. But still, most of the shields I've seen throughout the state are built to standard.

What I find most odd is some states that use extremely simple shields (like a square or circle) will still have tons of variants, whether it be bad stretching, different font weights (using B when C will fit just fine, etc.)

Quote from: Quillz on November 15, 2011, 07:15:18 PM
But still, most of the shields I've seen throughout the state are built to standard.

the independent-mount state routes tend to be extra consistent, with the most common error being the use of a two-digit shield for a three-digit number, and (more rarely) vice versa.  this is especially prevalent in the northeast corner of the state.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19632991i1.jpg)

CA very, very rarely uses a font weight other than D (or DM) on their state or US route shields.

Quote from: SignBridge on November 14, 2011, 08:41:04 PM
Why did they position that mast-arm on the near-side unlike usual practice? I assume they had a reason........... The only place I normally see that done is at fire stations.

Or at railroad crossings where the RR is next to the cross street.

I'm not a particular fan of how Texas aligns their arrows at the bottom of exit signs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/texas/ih010/i-010_e_exit_325_01.jpg)

I hate improperly used Series B...
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-sFWbVWJ7Ir4/T7qm1z97F7I/AAAAAAAACh0/A3FHinEQ94A/s816/DSC00988.JPG)

...and everything about this sign.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-1q_YhZd09Ms/T7qnJ8SWx9I/AAAAAAAACkc/Tumqap-t88M/s816/DSC01011.JPG)

apart from the Clearview and the goofy-looking shield, that isn't a bad guide sign.  its overall layout is quite appealing.  maybe switch the two control cities for aesthetics.

OK, everything except the green part! :-D

(I think Rocky Mount may be first because you get to the southbound exit first.)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 24, 2012, 10:48:58 AM
apart from the Clearview and the goofy-looking shield, that isn't a bad guide sign.  its overall layout is quite appealing.  maybe switch the two control cities for aesthetics.

If this is I-85's northern terminus, the controls have to be listed in that order because the ramp to Rocky Mount departs first.

Quote from: Takumi on May 24, 2012, 11:05:32 AM
OK, everything except the green part! :-D

actually, if the sign were black, I would somehow find myself strangely unoffended.

Signs on interstate exits that identify a destination (civic center, etc.) then no follow up signs after you exit. (I guess they figure that you have ESP)

Lack of proper signs approaching an an intersection to alert you of the correct lane and direction that you should use. ( La DODT is bad about this one)

Damaged missing signs not replaced. (in Louisiana sometimes years)

On Wichita's street blades, they use the hundred block rather than the actual reference point.  So, rather than street blades on both sides of 21st Street North saying 2200 N (by which I could safetly assume houses south of it will be between 2100 and 2199, while houses north of it will be between 2200 and 2299), signs on the south side say 2100 N and signs on the north side say 2200 N.  It confused the heck out of me when we first moved here.

I really hate how Salinas uses Clarendon on its signs, especially that they do it so ugly.

Quote from: kphoger on May 24, 2012, 01:41:27 PMOn Wichita's street blades, they use the hundred block rather than the actual reference point.  So, rather than street blades on both sides of 21st Street North saying 2200 N (by which I could safetly assume houses south of it will be between 2100 and 2199, while houses north of it will be between 2200 and 2299), signs on the south side say 2100 N and signs on the north side say 2200 N.  It confused the heck out of me when we first moved here.

Sometimes the blades with block numbers are not always on the correct block--for example, I took a walk just now and discovered that the 1600 N blade for West Street is actually on the 1700 N block.

Each of us tends to think of the conditions that prevailed when we grew up as normative.  I grew up in Wichita, so I am used to the street and block numbering conventions:  numbered street always gives its number to the "in" block rather than the "out" block, addresses are always N, W, S, or E, blocks are numbered in integer multiples of 100, block identifiers on street name blades always refer to addresses on the street on the blade rather than an intersecting street, etc.  Before Google Maps made it possible to localize and preview street addresses more precisely, it was always a significant adjustment to deal with a new city departing from one or more of these conventions.  I have been in cities where street blades reference the block numbers of the intersecting streets, where street addresses are always NW, SW, SE, or NE, where numbered streets give their numbers to the "out" rather than the "in" block, the block numbering increment is something other than 100, etc.

Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on May 24, 2012, 08:40:55 PM
I really hate how Salinas uses Clarendon on its signs, especially that they do it so ugly.

I agree, I dunno who thought that was a good idea.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 24, 2012, 09:13:16 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 24, 2012, 01:41:27 PMOn Wichita's street blades, they use the hundred block rather than the actual reference point.  So, rather than street blades on both sides of 21st Street North saying 2200 N (by which I could safetly assume houses south of it will be between 2100 and 2199, while houses north of it will be between 2200 and 2299), signs on the south side say 2100 N and signs on the north side say 2200 N.  It confused the heck out of me when we first moved here.

Sometimes the blades with block numbers are not always on the correct block--for example, I took a walk just now and discovered that the 1600 N blade for West Street is actually on the 1700 N block.

Each of us tends to think of the conditions that prevailed when we grew up as normative.  I grew up in Wichita, so I am used to the street and block numbering conventions:  numbered street always gives its number to the "in" block rather than the "out" block, addresses are always N, W, S, or E, blocks are numbered in integer multiples of 100, block identifiers on street name blades always refer to addresses on the street on the blade rather than an intersecting street, etc.  Before Google Maps made it possible to localize and preview street addresses more precisely, it was always a significant adjustment to deal with a new city departing from one or more of these conventions.  I have been in cities where street blades reference the block numbers of the intersecting streets, where street addresses are always NW, SW, SE, or NE, where numbered streets give their numbers to the "out" rather than the "in" block, the block numbering increment is something other than 100, etc.

I also grew up believing it "standard" that house numbering would jump to the next 100 in subsequent blocks. Thus, Pasadena (CA) always seemed weird in that, between blocks, house numbering would continue to increase without a jump. So, going in one direction the street sign would indicate 720 and in the other direction it would indicate 728. Minneapolis goes by 100s, while St. Paul is continuous. Now I live in an area where street numbering can give you fits because both directional prefixes and suffixes can apply to the same street. Thanks to the same developers who assigned streets the worst Spanish names possible.

This raises an interesting question:  whose idea was it to have blocks numbered in increments of 100 and in general to "overcrowd" the space of possible addresses (each block typically has four to five times as many possible addresses as it has houses)?  This is a very New World thing if not strictly American--in Europe, for example, house numbers tend to be allocated consecutively from the start of the street (though it seems to be universal to keep the odds and evens on consistent sides of the street).

I noticed residential areas tend to number consecutively from 1 or from 100 in the Huntsville, Alabama area. It seems a lot of older communities also did this, from my experience growing up in the Northeast.

I suppose the non-consecutive numbers were later used in the cases where larger office buildings, or rows of suites/bays, apartments, townhomes, etc could then fit inside "the grid" without disrupting the numerical pattern, yet allowing enough room to denote that a contiguous range of numbers signified the same building or complex.

I was speaking not of addresses jumping when they cross the street, but that the street blade does not actually say the imaginary street address at the corner.  21st Street North in Wichita is the imaginary 2200 line; to me, blades on both sides of the street should say 2200 N.  But, they don't: ones on the south side say 2100 N, while ones on the north side say 2200 N.  That's my pet peeve.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 25, 2012, 12:51:31 AM
This raises an interesting question:  whose idea was it to have blocks numbered in increments of 100 and in general to "overcrowd" the space of possible addresses (each block typically has four to five times as many houses as it has possible addresses)?  This is a very New World thing if not strictly American--in Europe, for example, house numbers tend to be allocated consecutively from the start of the street (though it seems to be universal to keep the odds and evens on consistent sides of the street).

I imagine this came into being when the thought occurred to have numbered streets form the addressing scheme–that is, 89th Street starts the 8900 block. Following from that, incrementing by 100 each block and thus having "too many addresses" falls out of the system naturally. The question is where does that convention arise from–and if I had to guess, I'd imagine Manhattan.

Stupid Control Cities on overhead signs.  Every "north US 183" sign within Austin says "Lampasas".  How about "Cedar Park" the far northwest suburb?.  All north 35 signs say "Waco" instead of Dallas-Fort Worth.  South 183 signs say "Lockhart" instead of "Airport".  Sometimes they get it right...South 35: San Antonio, East 290: Houston, West 290: Fredricksburg.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2012, 03:52:39 PMI imagine this came into being when the thought occurred to have numbered streets form the addressing scheme–that is, 89th Street starts the 8900 block. Following from that, incrementing by 100 each block and thus having "too many addresses" falls out of the system naturally. The question is where does that convention arise from–and if I had to guess, I'd imagine Manhattan.

Can't be, as Manhattan street addresses don't follow that convention (they're more or less consecutive).  Queens addresses do, however.

Hm. Chicago, maybe? If not I have no idea where the practice started.

My biggest pet peeve at the moment is missing signs.  Here in the Litchfield area there are numerous signs along state-maintained highways that are missing.  Some have been gone for months.

These are all different types of signs.  Off the top of my head I know at least one of each of the following is missing.

IL 127 where it splits from IL 16
Historic US 66 shield
Speed limit sign
Road crossing sign
No Passing Zone sign
Speed zone ahead sign

A couple of the missing signs are right up or down the road from the local IDOT building. 

Quote from: kphoger on May 25, 2012, 01:45:12 PMI was speaking not of addresses jumping when they cross the street, but that the street blade does not actually say the imaginary street address at the corner.

Actually, they do, if they are installed correctly.  To recycle your example, if you are on the north side of 21st Street, the street blade will say 2200 N and the first address on the intersecting street will be a low 2200 number, whereas if you are on the south side, the street blade will say 2100 N and the first address on the intersecting street will be a high 2100 number (actually not that high--probably around 2150 since house numbers in Wichita modulus 100 tend not to be greater than 50).

Your objection, as I understand it, is not really to the block numbering scheme per se but rather the fact that the block reference on a street name blade is not a grid reference relating to an edge (in this case, the centerline of the street).  While I can understand this point of view, there are difficulties with the counterfactual case you outline.  If the blades said 2200 N on both sides of the street, this would obscure the fact that 21st Street functions as the northern edge of the 2100 N blocks, since 2200 is not a simple integer multiple of 21.  The "grid reference" on the blade would match the addresses on the block where it is located only about half the time.  It would also require drivers to rely on other cues (such as having passed other numbered streets in an ascending or descending direction) to sort out which side of the street has the lower-numbered blocks.  While this concern would be largely technical in the case of 21st Street, it would not be so in the case of east-west streets which are not numbered within Wichita (such as Central, Douglas, Maple, Lewis, McCormick, Lincoln, Harry, Pawnee . . .).  Another wrinkle is that Central "changes number" as it wends its way around the confluence of the Big and Little Arkansas Rivers (west of the Big River, it is the dividing line between the 600 N and 700 N blocks; east of there it is the dividing line between the 400 N and 500 N blocks).

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2012, 07:18:44 PMHm. Chicago, maybe? If not I have no idea where the practice started.

It may very well have started in Chicago.  I suspect the idea was probably pushed by one or more of the city planning associations when City Beautiful progressivism was at its apogee, and this may explain why the concept has propagated among so many cities in the US.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 25, 2012, 10:54:25 PM
Your objection, as I understand it, is not really to the block numbering scheme per se but rather the fact that the block reference on a street name blade is not a grid reference relating to an edge (in this case, the centerline of the street).  While I can understand this point of view, there are difficulties with the counterfactual case you outline.  If the blades said 2200 N on both sides of the street, this would obscure the fact that 21st Street functions as the northern edge of the 2100 N blocks, since 2200 is not a simple integer multiple of 21.  The "grid reference" on the blade would match the addresses on the block where it is located only about half the time.  It would also require drivers to rely on other cues (such as having passed other numbered streets in an ascending or descending direction) to sort out which side of the street has the lower-numbered blocks.  While this concern would be largely technical in the case of 21st Street, it would not be so in the case of east-west streets which are not numbered within Wichita (such as Central, Douglas, Maple, Lewis, McCormick, Lincoln, Harry, Pawnee . . .).  Another wrinkle is that Central "changes number" as it wends its way around the confluence of the Big and Little Arkansas Rivers (west of the Big River, it is the dividing line between the 600 N and 700 N blocks; east of there it is the dividing line between the 400 N and 500 N blocks).

Exactly.  I was used to Chicago's system, in which, for example, street blades on both sides of 63rd Street say 6300 S (http://goo.gl/maps/pL3R (http://goo.gl/maps/pL3R)).  To me, that made total sense, especially if a street splits the "100 block".  Let's say Street X is the imaginary 3550 North line; in Chicago, street blades on both sides of Street X would say 3550 N.  In Wichita, however, a street blade facing an intersecting street would say 3500 N and, if I were to be turning and looking for a house numbered 3512, I wouldn't know which way to turn.

In the example here (http://goo.gl/maps/v9mH), you are looking from a point that's actually approximately 630 North; notice that the sign blade says 500 N.  This is apparently Wichita's practice when a street splits a "100 block".

Quote from: adt1982 on May 25, 2012, 10:19:24 PM
My biggest pet peeve at the moment is missing signs.  Here in the Litchfield area there are numerous signs along state-maintained highways that are missing.  Some have been gone for months.

These are all different types of signs.  Off the top of my head I know at least one of each of the following is missing.

IL 127 where it splits from IL 16
Historic US 66 shield
Speed limit sign
Road crossing sign
No Passing Zone sign
Speed zone ahead sign

A couple of the missing signs are right up or down the road from the local IDOT building. 

US-60, back before it was four lanes all the way across central Missouri, was missing a lot of No Passing Zone signs.  So, traffic counts were high enough to warrant four-laning, yet passing was a bit dicey due to missing signs.  There were a few times I remember passing a truck at dusk or after dark, only to find out the solid yellow line had unexpectedly started, then headlights appear over the horizon.....CRAP!

I don't know what font it uses, but the lower-case L used on signs on I-565 throughout Huntsville are hideous!

Quote from: kphoger on May 25, 2012, 01:45:12 PM
I was speaking not of addresses jumping when they cross the street, but that the street blade does not actually say the imaginary street address at the corner.  21st Street North in Wichita is the imaginary 2200 line; to me, blades on both sides of the street should say 2200 N.  But, they don't: ones on the south side say 2100 N, while ones on the north side say 2200 N.  That's my pet peeve.

In the Las Vegas area, Reno area and much of Nevada, your pet peeve is the norm for street blades. A street name sign will indicate the block number on which it is located, not the exact address at which the sign is located. So, using your example of 21st Street being the imaginary line of 2200 north, a blade on the south side would give a block number of N 2100 while the north side says N 2200. Blades in Nevada don't use an arrow or other symbol to determine direction of increasing numbers.

I've always thought this method to be helpful in determining which direction I need to turn to find an address at a major intersection. Having the block number the same on both sides doesn't give me any indication which way to go. This is also helpful in navigating certain areas of Las Vegas where the block number jumps--a peculiar case, caused partially by the diagonal downtown street grid mashing with the public land survey street grid, makes E. Charleston Blvd the dividing line between the N 00 block and S 1100 block for a significant distance.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 25, 2012, 10:54:25 PM
It may very well have started in Chicago.  I suspect the idea was probably pushed by one or more of the city planning associations when City Beautiful progressivism was at its apogee, and this may explain why the concept has propagated among so many cities in the US.

Chicago was one of the first cities developed as the population expanded westward that had streets aligned along a section line grid. This gave a rational grid, usually with 8 or 10 blocks per mile, upon which to impose a numbering system where the lowest number in each block was a multiple of 100.

QuoteAnother  peeve:  States  that  don't put  the latest  population  figures on the city limits signs.  This  helps  if you're  driving thru  unframiliar territory.  Actually,  hardly any states  do this, but they  should.

Might be off topic, but California is the only place I really notice the population and elevation pretty consistently signed.  I agree, it's nice to have.

As far as my pet peeve goes, it's when a highway has what I like to call a "silent partner" where a mutliplex is poorly signed or not signed at all.  Probably too many examples to list, but one that come to mind from various travels:

- US 90 actually follows I-10 all the way through Houston, but I don't think there is any signage to indicate this, especially on a BGS.

Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 26, 2012, 08:20:36 PM
As far as my pet peeve goes, it's when a highway has what I like to call a "silent partner" where a mutliplex is poorly signed or not signed at all.  Probably too many examples to list, but one that come to mind from various travels:

- US 90 actually follows I-10 all the way through Houston, but I don't think there is any signage to indicate this, especially on a BGS.

This happens a lot, especially in states like Arkansas.

Oklahoma likes to cover its butt in cases like this by posting a BGS like "{270} EAST FOLLOW (40) EAST NEXT ## MILES".

Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on May 26, 2012, 07:00:55 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 25, 2012, 10:54:25 PM
It may very well have started in Chicago.  I suspect the idea was probably pushed by one or more of the city planning associations when City Beautiful progressivism was at its apogee, and this may explain why the concept has propagated among so many cities in the US.

Chicago was one of the first cities developed as the population expanded westward that had streets aligned along a section line grid. This gave a rational grid, usually with 8 or 10 blocks per mile, upon which to impose a numbering system where the lowest number in each block was a multiple of 100.

With the sole exception of the area between Madison and 31st Street, it is always 8 blocks to the mile (Madison to Roosevelt (12th) - 12; Roosevelt to Cermak (22nd) - 10; Cermak to 31st - 9).

Quote from: kphoger on May 25, 2012, 01:45:12 PM
I was speaking not of addresses jumping when they cross the street, but that the street blade does not actually say the imaginary street address at the corner.  21st Street North in Wichita is the imaginary 2200 line; to me, blades on both sides of the street should say 2200 N.  But, they don't: ones on the south side say 2100 N, while ones on the north side say 2200 N.  That's my pet peeve.

We differ, then. To me, it makes sense that the street sign indicates the block of the street the sign is on. So if we're talking about 21st North intersecting an imaginary Robinson St with Robinson defining the break between blocks, then it makes sense to me that the blade for Robinson St. on the SOUTH side of that intersection says 2100N. If BOTH blades say 2200N, then I might assume that Robinson is a street wedged into the grid in the middle of a block and I'm not where I want to be.

But as I've lived in four different cities and traveled through many more, I've learned you can't count on the street sign, anyway. There are too many ways to display a block number and many different ways to define a block. Heck, yesterday, I helped my roomate pick up a piece of furniture she bought from someone on the south side of Pittsburg. She was supposed to find a house on the 800 west block of Euclid. She turned on Euclid and I saw buildings with 700 addresses on my side of the street, so I told her she had to turn around. She asked why. Turned out she was looking at houses with 800 addresses. The south side of that block was numbered in the 700s and the north side was the 800s. I don't know if that exists anywhere else in Pittsburg and it's the first time I've ever seen that without something like a side street jogging or maybe a T-intersection in the middle of the block.

EDIT: Went back and looked at that street today. It's actually at least a 2 1/2-block stretch of out-of-sync addresses. The first half of the 500 block is OK. Then there's a cross street that only goes north, so the block changes on the north side of the street to 600 but stays 500 on the south. At the next intersection, instead of jumping both sides of the block to 700, only the north side goes up; the south sides goes to 600. I didn't go past the 700-south-800-north-side block to see if the pattern continued. Since that's divided by Georgia St., which goes all the way from 12th down to Quincy (about three miles), I'd think that's a major enough street to correct this unusual situation and jump both sides of the street to 900.

^^ I've only seen that situation where two municipalities abut the same street.  An odd one exists between Joliet and Crest Hill (IL) along Theodore Street (IL-7).  Both sides of the street are even numbers.  Joliet uses even numbers on the south side of a street, and Crest Hill uses even numbers on the north side of a street.  Fortunately, there are few addresses along Theodore that could conflict.

Exit direction signs posted way upstream from the exit.  It seems like newer installations put the exit direction sign about at the beginning of the taper that begins the exit lane; I think the best place for the sign would be about halfway between there and the gore. 

Also, ODOT is bad at recognizing when they need to be more specific about the locations of entrance ramps.  Sometimes there's another street right before the ramp, and it's not obvious whether that right-turn-only lane is for the ramp or for the side street.  And then there's OH-13 SB approaching I-71... A half mile before the entrance ramps is a sign saying on two lines "Cleveland [up arrow] / Columbus [right arrow]" but there's no right turn.  An up-then-right bent arrow probably would be better, or better still, up-then-slight-right.  Anyway, just after that sign is an intersection where the off-ramp from I-71 SB comes in from the left; no turns.  Then there's a traffic light for a local road on the left. Then a right-turn-only lane appears, which runs up to the next traffic light – another local road. Finally, just before reaching the I-71 bridge itself, is the ramp to I-71 South and Columbus, which is duly marked with an overhead exit-direction sign.  That initial sign a half-mile upstream is rather misleading, and would only be appropriate if the local roads weren't there. I think it's rather likely that whoever drew up those sign plans either ignored or wasn't aware of the presence of the local roads. Similar signage flaws exist all over Ohio.

Agreed, vtk. That issue has made me miss my exit a few times.

And I have mixed feelings about states that put TWO exit direction signs, one before and one after the gore, the second being overhead most of the time. I've mostly seen that in Canada.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 26, 2012, 10:15:47 PM


Oklahoma likes to cover its butt in cases like this by posting a BGS like "{270} EAST FOLLOW (40) EAST NEXT ## MILES".

that is a very Minnesota thing to do as well.  I believe US-52 exists entirely under I-94 and there are signs at each end of the state to reflect that.

my problem with exit signage is having a gore sign placed before the off-ramp, as opposed to on the gore where it belongs.  there was an example of this on CA-85 in the mid-2000s that, combined with poor lighting and lane striping, nearly caused me to climb a berm!

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 05, 2012, 11:26:52 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 26, 2012, 10:15:47 PM


Oklahoma likes to cover its butt in cases like this by posting a BGS like "{270} EAST FOLLOW (40) EAST NEXT ## MILES".

that is a very Minnesota thing to do as well.  I believe US-52 exists entirely under I-94 and there are signs at each end of the state to reflect that.

I'm pretty sure there isn't even a sign like that on the Moorhead end, either, so US 52 basically just disappears when you cross the state line. There is one on US 52 northbound at Concord Ave stating that US 52 traffic should follow I-94 west. What's more interesting is that on I-94 westbound, the BGSs refer to US 52 South but no mention of US 52 North following I-94, and on I-94 eastbound the BGSs just say US 52 without a directional banner.

US 12 on the other hand gets a little more attention. As you enter on I-94 from Wisconsin there is a "US 12 follow I-94" sign, on I-394 east there is a sign that US 12 should follow I-94 east, and the signage on I-94 at the I-394 interchange shows US 12.

I'm not a big fan of how MnDOT handles these longer concurrencies. US 12 is certainly important enough in Minnesota to deserve signage along I-94 (and the concurrency is only about 27 miles). I can understand why they MnDOT doesn't want to sign US 52 between St. Paul and Moorhead (~250 miles), but maybe they could update some signage at the I-94/I-35E/US 52 interchange (and/or other major interchanges along the concurrency) and at the ND state line to acknowledge US 52's presence.

MDOT putting "ENDS" on top of a route sign at a terminus when it used to go below the route sign.

LA DOTD's auxiliary shield policies. The DOTD has a history of signing north-south aligned routes with an east-west number, then putting banners on the sign to reflect the number. Example is LA 472, below Winnfield, which runs north-south instead of east-west... Street View shows LA 472 at the northern terminus, going south, with a West banner... although the highway is, for a moment, going east. So you look away from the sunset at a West banner. However, on LA 123 in Dry Prong, LA 123 is signed east-west.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 05, 2012, 11:28:16 AM
my problem with exit signage is having a gore sign placed before the off-ramp, as opposed to on the gore where it belongs.  there was an example of this on CA-85 in the mid-2000s that, combined with poor lighting and lane striping, nearly caused me to climb a berm!

A very obnoxious practice that's a very dangerous one as well, seeing as 99.999999% of the time these signs are done correctly.
The only example of the gore sign placed before the ramp that I know of is on the MassPike westbound in Newton. Exits 16/17 I believe.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m569g7yz8Q1rob8r8o1_500.png&hash=f3c6b0cc0f9728f78ffa83f8cd962cb1e0c0cde1)
This shit. This pisses me the hell off. Trying not to spam with it but it goes in 2 boards  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Quote from: vtk on June 03, 2012, 06:04:38 AM
Also, ODOT is bad at recognizing when they need to be more specific about the locations of entrance ramps.  Sometimes there's another street right before the ramp, and it's not obvious whether that right-turn-only lane is for the ramp or for the side street.

This one isn't like this anymore thanks to construction, but...Cleveland Avenue northbound at I-670. (http://goo.gl/maps/uR3f) The overhead sign for the eastbound onramp is styled like an exit direction sign, but it's placed downstream of the gore. The first couple times I drove this way I missed the ramp because I assumed the sign was pointing to another ramp beyond the overpass.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 05, 2012, 09:52:38 PMA very obnoxious practice that's a very dangerous one as well, seeing as 99.999999% of the time these signs are done correctly.
The only example of the gore sign placed before the ramp that I know of is on the MassPike westbound in Newton. Exits 16/17 I believe.

Correct.  Exit 37 off I-95 in Bensalem, PA (for PA 132 Street Road) does similar as well.

Quote from: bulkyorled on June 05, 2012, 09:58:12 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m569g7yz8Q1rob8r8o1_500.png&hash=f3c6b0cc0f9728f78ffa83f8cd962cb1e0c0cde1)
This shit. This pisses me the hell off. Trying not to spam with it but it goes in 2 boards  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Not sure why they even bother with illuminated street name signs here in Louisiana. When the lamps fail they are never replaced.

Mark

Quote from: ftballfan on June 05, 2012, 07:43:58 PM
MDOT putting "ENDS" on top of a route sign at a terminus when it used to go below the route sign.

Above is where it's supposed to be.

Quote from: Special K on June 06, 2012, 12:08:33 PM

Quote from: ftballfan on June 05, 2012, 07:43:58 PM
MDOT putting "ENDS" on top of a route sign at a terminus when it used to go below the route sign.

Above is where it's supposed to be.

That depends.  Does the sign in question read END (which is the accepted MUTCD standard) or indeed ENDS (MDOT standard, perhaps)?  If it's the former; then, yes it should go above the route shield.  OTOH, if it's the latter; then it would make more sense to place it below the shield.

Quote from: PHLBOS on June 06, 2012, 12:18:50 PM

Quote from: Special K on June 06, 2012, 12:08:33 PM

Quote from: ftballfan on June 05, 2012, 07:43:58 PM
MDOT putting "ENDS" on top of a route sign at a terminus when it used to go below the route sign.

Above is where it's supposed to be.

That depends.  Does the sign in question read END (which is the accepted MUTCD standard) or indeed ENDS (MDOT standard, perhaps)?  If it's the former; then, yes it should go above the route shield.  OTOH, if it's the latter; then it would make more sense to place it below the shield.

Just checked the MiDOT MUTCD.  "ENDS" is an M6 series sign, which would be installed below the route shield.  Good catch.

Quote from: pctech on June 06, 2012, 11:28:22 AM

Quote from: bulkyorled on June 05, 2012, 09:58:12 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m569g7yz8Q1rob8r8o1_500.png&hash=f3c6b0cc0f9728f78ffa83f8cd962cb1e0c0cde1)
This shit. This pisses me the hell off. Trying not to spam with it but it goes in 2 boards  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Not sure why they even bother with illuminated street name signs here in Louisiana. When the lamps fail they are never replaced.

Mark

That's weird. They fix them around here it just depends, sometimes it takes a while. There was one broken a few streets away that was missing the front panel and had been for nearly a year but they just put it back a few weeks ago. But then there was another one that was busted and was fixed in a week. The one pictured has been broken for a few months but its kind of facing a spot where it's likely to be over looked :(

They probably take a while to fix your guys' cause they are rather expensive to keep up... or they dont report that they're broken. Or someone isnt reporting it. Most cities don't deal with these themselves I've found out. Ive been trying to get my hands on a used one and that's how I found out a little bit about who deals with it

I seen some newer versions of the illuminated street name signs that appear to be LED lit. They are thin panels. Maybe they will hold up better?

Mark

They are LED. They hold up way better and the lights last years where as the florescent ones don't last nearly as long. They're able to take a better beating to weather than the old style too.

Quote from: twinsfan87 on June 05, 2012, 12:10:34 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 05, 2012, 11:26:52 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 26, 2012, 10:15:47 PM
Oklahoma likes to cover its butt in cases like this by posting a BGS like "{270} EAST FOLLOW (40) EAST NEXT ## MILES".

that is a very Minnesota thing to do as well.  I believe US-52 exists entirely under I-94 and there are signs at each end of the state to reflect that.

Signs that only AASHTO and roadgeeks could love.

Rather than a invisible route to fulfill technocratic requirements, they should just decommission the stupid thing and take it off the maps. That's one of my pet peeves anyway.

Quote
I'm not a big fan of how MnDOT handles these longer concurrencies. US 12 is certainly important enough in Minnesota to deserve signage along I-94 (and the concurrency is only about 27 miles). I can understand why they MnDOT doesn't want to sign US 52 between St. Paul and Moorhead (~250 miles), but maybe they could update some signage at the I-94/I-35E/US 52 interchange (and/or other major interchanges along the concurrency) and at the ND state line to acknowledge US 52's presence.

I don't really like how 12 disappears along I-394. However, US 12 is not a very important route in western Wisconsin, at least until you get to Baraboo, so there's no real point in signing it along I-94. I suppose MnDOT wishes WisDOT would give it the hidden route treatment as well.

Quote from: flowmotion on June 07, 2012, 10:02:15 PM

Quote from: twinsfan87 on June 05, 2012, 12:10:34 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 05, 2012, 11:26:52 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 26, 2012, 10:15:47 PM
Oklahoma likes to cover its butt in cases like this by posting a BGS like "{270} EAST FOLLOW (40) EAST NEXT ## MILES".

that is a very Minnesota thing to do as well.  I believe US-52 exists entirely under I-94 and there are signs at each end of the state to reflect that.

Signs that only AASHTO and roadgeeks could love.

Rather than a invisible route to fulfill technocratic requirements, they should just decommission the stupid thing and take it off the maps. That's one of my pet peeves anyway.

Not always possible to do; in Oklahoma's case with US 270, 270 is a fairly important highway through NW OK, and becomes important again in SE OK, it is just that the middle segment linking the two is a lengthy concurrency with I-40. I suppose arguably the middle segment could be deleted and half of the route renumbered to something else, but it seems like the "invisible route" works without requiring any numbering changes.

Quote from: Central Avenue on June 06, 2012, 04:47:00 AM

Quote from: vtk on June 03, 2012, 06:04:38 AM
Also, ODOT is bad at recognizing when they need to be more specific about the locations of entrance ramps.  Sometimes there's another street right before the ramp, and it's not obvious whether that right-turn-only lane is for the ramp or for the side street.

This one isn't like this anymore thanks to construction, but...Cleveland Avenue northbound at I-670. (http://goo.gl/maps/uR3f) The overhead sign for the eastbound onramp is styled like an exit direction sign, but it's placed downstream of the gore. The first couple times I drove this way I missed the ramp because I assumed the sign was pointing to another ramp beyond the overpass.

I sort of get why they did it that way – it's not a traditional right-angle intersection, but two streamlined curves that merge to form the entrance ramp, and they wanted to put both signs on a single post – but because of the (shared) location of the sign, they really should have used a (horizontal) right-pointing arrow like they would at a typical intersection.  But ODOT actually considered "ramp from Cleveland Ave NB to I-670 EB" and "ramp from Cleveland Ave SB to I-670 EB" to be distinct, even though they were only separate for about 20 or 30 feet.  I personally considered it to be one ramp with something like a backwards splitter island due to 60's-style turn channelization, and I think most drivers did too.  I believe that peculiar feature will not be restored when the construction is done.

Quote from: ftballfan on June 05, 2012, 07:43:58 PM
MDOT putting "ENDS" on top of a route sign at a terminus when it used to go below the route sign.

That's actually MUTCD practice, although their banner is "End" (without the 's').


EDIT: Didn't see the additional discussion upthread before responding...

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 07, 2012, 10:44:02 PM
Not always possible to do; in Oklahoma's case with US 270, 270 is a fairly important highway through NW OK, and becomes important again in SE OK, it is just that the middle segment linking the two is a lengthy concurrency with I-40. I suppose arguably the middle segment could be deleted and half of the route renumbered to something else, but it seems like the "invisible route" works without requiring any numbering changes.

I'm suggesting that if it's not important enough to sign, the route shouldn't appear on maps. Neither part needs to be renumbered, the route should be officially defined as two discontinuous segments to reflect how it unofficially exists.

Quote from: flowmotion on June 08, 2012, 09:48:18 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 07, 2012, 10:44:02 PM
Not always possible to do; in Oklahoma's case with US 270, 270 is a fairly important highway through NW OK, and becomes important again in SE OK, it is just that the middle segment linking the two is a lengthy concurrency with I-40. I suppose arguably the middle segment could be deleted and half of the route renumbered to something else, but it seems like the "invisible route" works without requiring any numbering changes.

I'm suggesting that if it's not important enough to sign, the route shouldn't appear on maps. Neither part needs to be renumbered, the route should be officially defined as two discontinuous segments to reflect how it unofficially exists.

Yet a route with an actual gap in the middle is likely more confusing than one with a concurrency with a few missing signs here and there. At least a "270 FOLLOW 40 WEST" sign provides guidance for how to continue (i.e. "follow this road until you see signs stating otherwise").

Quote from: flowmotion on June 07, 2012, 10:02:15 PMHowever, US 12 is not a very important route in western Wisconsin

Anyone who lives in the Menomonie/ Eau Claire metro area would strongly disagree with you.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Pet Peeve: Pretty much anything that comes out of the WisDOT SE region's sign department.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on June 09, 2012, 01:45:42 AM

Quote from: flowmotion on June 07, 2012, 10:02:15 PMHowever, US 12 is not a very important route in western Wisconsin

Anyone who lives in the Menomonie/ Eau Claire metro area would strongly disagree with you.

If US 12 was moved to a hidden duplex along I-94, and replaced with a state route, I doubt 90% of them would even notice much less care. (And 12 appears to be duplexed through the entire Menomonie "metro area".)

Quote from: on_wisconsin on June 09, 2012, 01:45:42 AM
Pet Peeve: Pretty much anything that comes out of the WisDOT SE region's sign department.

Agreed.  I really wish the guy in charge there would have elected early retirement. :banghead:

Quote from: flowmotion on June 10, 2012, 06:03:18 PM

Quote from: on_wisconsin on June 09, 2012, 01:45:42 AM

Quote from: flowmotion on June 07, 2012, 10:02:15 PMHowever, US 12 is not a very important route in western Wisconsin

Anyone who lives in the Menomonie/ Eau Claire metro area would strongly disagree with you.

If US 12 was moved to a hidden duplex along I-94, and replaced with a state route, I doubt 90% of them would even notice much less care. (And 12 appears to be duplexed through the entire Menomonie "metro area".)

Okay, then what about that long, congested, 6-lane urban arterial in Eau Claire? (locally known as Clairemont Ave BTW) (and yes Google has 12 going through downtown like its still 1935)

"Historical Site"

Quote from: Special K on June 12, 2012, 12:13:38 AM
"Historical Site"

what's wrong with that?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 12, 2012, 10:22:02 AM

Quote from: Special K on June 12, 2012, 12:13:38 AM
"Historical Site"

what's wrong with that?

It should be "Historic Site".

"Historical" merely means the site is old, while "historic" implies significance.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historical

Quote from: NE2 on June 12, 2012, 12:11:08 PM
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historical

Exactly.

Go exactly yourself. "2: famous in history"

Quote from: NE2 on June 12, 2012, 01:18:13 PM
Go exactly yourself. "2: famous in history"

Well, read it again...

"2: Famous in history: HISTORIC".

I always mutter to the passenger:  "As opposed to a mythological landmark".....

Quote from: Special K on June 12, 2012, 03:04:29 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 12, 2012, 01:18:13 PM
Go exactly yourself. "2: famous in history"

Well, read it again...

"2: Famous in history: HISTORIC".

Yes, that means it's a synonym for historic meaning a ("famous or important in history"). Learn to read a dictionary.

Quote from: NE2 on June 12, 2012, 04:35:25 PM

Quote from: Special K on June 12, 2012, 03:04:29 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 12, 2012, 01:18:13 PM
Go exactly yourself. "2: famous in history"

Well, read it again...

"2: Famous in history: HISTORIC".

Yes, that means it's a synonym for historic meaning a ("famous or important in history"). Learn to read a dictionary.

You're adorable.  Not only are you stubbornly mistaken, but you're condescending, too.

historic vs. historical (http://grammarist.com/usage/historic-historical/)

Quote from: Special K on June 12, 2012, 05:02:35 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 12, 2012, 04:35:25 PM

Quote from: Special K on June 12, 2012, 03:04:29 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 12, 2012, 01:18:13 PM
Go exactly yourself. "2: famous in history"

Well, read it again...

"2: Famous in history: HISTORIC".

Yes, that means it's a synonym for historic meaning a ("famous or important in history"). Learn to read a dictionary.

You're adorable.  Not only are you stubbornly mistaken, but you're condescending, too.

historic vs. historical (http://grammarist.com/usage/historic-historical/)

I'm pretty sure I would trust a dictionary more than someone's blog.

To be clear, I'm pretty sure that Special K is correct that "historic" should be preferred, but NE2 is also correct that "historical" is perfectly acceptable.

Quote from: NE2 on June 12, 2012, 05:04:26 PM
Fucking grammatical prescriptivist.

thanks for update.  using condom?

From that grammarist site: "Historic means (1) momentous or (2) historically significant. Historical means (1) of or relating to history, or (2) of or relating to the past."

* A historic site is historically significant.
* A historical site relates to history and the past.

Different meanings, both valid in this context. We're done here. Let's move on.

According to the Associated Press Stylebook:

Quote"A historic event is an important occurrence, one that stands out in history. Any occurrence in the past is a historical event."

That a dictionary allows an alternate definition merely means that people have started to use the term in that way; the fact remains that people have started to use the term in error.

Webster's 1828 dictionary defines historical thusly:

Quotehistorical
HISTOR'ICAL, a. [L. historicus.] Containing history, or the relation of facts; as a historical poem; the historic page; historic brass.


1. Pertaining to history; as historic care or fidelity.

2. Contained in history; deduced from history; as historical evidence.

3. Representing history; as a historical chart; historical painting.

As you can see, its meaning has descendeded from that of historic; no mention in the definition was made of noteworthy significance.  That distinction has grown since the 18th Century, and has consistently been associated with the word historic, the two only becoming widely conflated due to popular ignorance in recent times.

Long story short, we've identified that this is definitely among people's pet peeves. (:

Quote from: on_wisconsin on June 11, 2012, 08:28:27 PM
Okay, then what about that long, congested, 6-lane urban arterial in Eau Claire? (locally known as Clairemont Ave BTW) (and yes Google has 12 going through downtown like its still 1935)

The US Route system was intended to be for intercity travel, not just busy streets in some small/midsized town. Nobody is taking 12 to Eau Claire, except for the locals who could find their way otherwise. 

Quote from: kphoger on June 12, 2012, 07:23:40 PM

Quotehistorical
HISTOR'ICAL, a. [L. historicus.] Containing history, or the relation of facts; as a historical poem; the historic page; historic brass.

1. Pertaining to history; as historic care or fidelity.

2. Contained in history; deduced from history; as historical evidence.

3. Representing history; as a historical chart; historical painting.

Seems to me that many, if not most places that are signed as Historical Sites might fall under #3--representing history the same way a painting or something might.  And using the Grammarist link above, "historic" has a definition of "historically significant"--using the term "historical" in the definition of "historic"!

In a totally unrelated area, the $2 million bid on an item up for bids on The Price Is Right was an historic moment (in that field), as was the first spin of the big wheel and the retirement of Bob Barker.  Shower Game, Hurdles, and Bump are historical pricing games that are so because they are retired artifacts of the show--possibly not significant in the minds of fans of the show but part of the history of the show.

As far as "incorrect" use becoming dominant, isn't language development/etymology kind of like most proper speed limits--cases of "majority rule"?  Language changes over time, or else we'd all be speaking Old English or something even older.  Words can be legislated (like in France) but that doesn't mean that people will follow the legislated words and meanings.

It's worth noting that in the US, there are National Historic Sites and National Historical Parks, both federal designations.  The federal reasoning is that a site can be historic in and of itself, but a park that is created by the government or private entity encloses resources that are historical in nature--the park itself is not historic, but its resources are.  So, a sign for a Historical Site introduces an interesting cross between the two names.

Quote from: kphoger on May 25, 2012, 01:45:12 PM
I was speaking not of addresses jumping when they cross the street, but that the street blade does not actually say the imaginary street address at the corner.  21st Street North in Wichita is the imaginary 2200 line; to me, blades on both sides of the street should say 2200 N.  But, they don't: ones on the south side say 2100 N, while ones on the north side say 2200 N.  That's my pet peeve.

Hang on, wouldn't 21st Street North be the 2100 line... 20XX to the south, 21XX to the north.

Also, is the 2100 N/2200 N markers on 21st, or on the cross street markers.

In Lawrence, the block number on the street name sign is the block number of that street in the location of that sign.

For Example, Monterrey Way is the 3900 West line. The Street Marker for 7th and Monterrey Way is on the northeast corner - the block number for Monterrey Way is 600, West 7th is 3800. The Marker for 8th Street is on the southwest corner, so the block numbers are 800 for Monterrey Way and 3900 for West 8th (some of the early block number signs do have a directional indicator, but current ones do not unless it is a numbered street or is a north/south street north of the 100 block line)

Quote from: route56 on June 14, 2012, 11:09:50 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 25, 2012, 01:45:12 PM
I was speaking not of addresses jumping when they cross the street, but that the street blade does not actually say the imaginary street address at the corner.  21st Street North in Wichita is the imaginary 2200 line; to me, blades on both sides of the street should say 2200 N.  But, they don't: ones on the south side say 2100 N, while ones on the north side say 2200 N.  That's my pet peeve.

Hang on, wouldn't 21st Street North be the 2100 line... 20XX to the south, 21XX to the north.

Also, is the 2100 N/2200 N markers on 21st, or on the cross street markers.

In Lawrence, the block number on the street name sign is the block number of that street in the location of that sign.

For Example, Monterrey Way is the 3900 West line. The Street Marker for 7th and Monterrey Way is on the northeast corner - the block number for Monterrey Way is 600, West 7th is 3800. The Marker for 8th Street is on the southwest corner, so the block numbers are 800 for Monterrey Way and 3900 for West 8th (some of the early block number signs do have a directional indicator, but current ones do not unless it is a numbered street or is a north/south street north of the 100 block line)

No, there is no zero line in Wichita, therefore street addresses are 100 off from the street number.  Confusing until you figure it out, then not so bad.  I'm confused by what you mean about cross street markers.  The street signs are on the corners, which is to say they are on both streets.  ??

Quote from: route56 on June 14, 2012, 11:09:50 PMHang on, wouldn't 21st Street North be the 2100 line... 20XX to the south, 21XX to the north.

No.  That would be true only if numbered streets gave their numbers to the "out" block.  In Wichita they give their numbers to the "in" block.  (The "in" block is the block immediately adjacent to the street that is between that street and the dividing line for addresses.)

An address numbering plan where block numbers are integer multiples of 100 has addresses with a minimum of three digits if numbered streets give their numbers to the "in" block; if they give their numbers to the "out" block, then addresses can have as few as one digit because there are zero blocks along the dividing lines.

QuoteAlso, is the 2100 N/2200 N markers on 21st, or on the cross street markers.

In Wichita, block references are on the cross-street markers.  In other words, they refer to addresses actually found on the cross streets.

QuoteIn Lawrence, the block number on the street name sign is the block number of that street in the location of that sign.

For Example, Monterey Way is the 3900 West line. The Street Marker for 7th and Monterey Way is on the northeast corner - the block number for Monterrey Way is 600, West 7th is 3800. The Marker for 8th Street is on the southwest corner, so the block numbers are 800 for Monterey Way and 3900 for West 8th (some of the early block number signs do have a directional indicator, but current ones do not unless it is a numbered street or is a north/south street north of the 100 block line)

7th and Monterey is in the southwest quadrant of Lawrence's address numbering plan.  The method used for indicating block numbers on street name blades is precisely the same as that used in Wichita except for the absence of a compass-point indicator, but numbered streets in Lawrence give their numbers to "out" blocks rather than "in" blocks as in Wichita.

OK, based on what Johnathan had said, I have to disagree with you. I think it makes more sense for the street sign to have the block number correspond to the block that the sign is located.

That implies a basic difference in how we perceive the signs.  I don't naturally see the number as a "block number", but rather more as a line on a cartesian plane; you naturally see the number as a "block number".  This is why it irks me that the number does not correspond to an x or y value, whereas you find it completely logical

I'm peeved at Central Ohio's tendency not to put block numbers at all on street signs, but they keep the directional prefix – which I generally* consider to be the +/- of the house number or block number, and not actually part of the name of the street.  It's possible this practice has led people to believe otherwise, actually.  But if I'm on the East Side and I come to a road like 5th Ave, the sign that just says E 5th Ave doesn't really help me know which way to turn if I'm looking for a specific address; it only tells me I'm east of High St which I already know.  Considering the fact that even the more orderly parts of Columbus don't have a correlation between numbered streets and addresses, having house/block numbers on the street signs would be helpful here.

*I'm aware that there are a few places here and there where a directional prefix actually distinguishes between two separate roads, often half-circles, and apparently all the numbered streets in Cleveland.  In these cases I do consider the direction word to be part of the name, and the line is blurred between those and roads whose names just happen to begin with a direction word such as North Star Rd, Westpark St, or North Broadway.

I'm not sure if this refers to what was being talked about further up on this thread, but one thing that always got me about block numbers was the way Indianapolis did theirs on the street signs. There are three classes of street signs, ones for stoplight intersections, one for intersection with at least one major street, and then one for minor street intersections. On the first two, the block number that is on the sign doesn't refer to the block number on the street you are crossing, but rather the street you are on. For example, here is the intersection of 38th Street and Meridian Street:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=38th+and+Meridian+Indianapolis,+IN&hl=en&ll=39.824795,-86.15707&spn=0.003881,0.009978&sll=39.824828,-86.156852&layer=c&cbp=13,82.05,,0,-14.17&cbll=39.824786,-86.156846&hnear=E+38th+St,+Indianapolis,+Marion,+Indiana&t=h&z=17&panoid=5SU9so7DVbm10nsCGQJwwg (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=38th+and+Meridian+Indianapolis,+IN&hl=en&ll=39.824795,-86.15707&spn=0.003881,0.009978&sll=39.824828,-86.156852&layer=c&cbp=13,82.05,,0,-14.17&cbll=39.824786,-86.156846&hnear=E+38th+St,+Indianapolis,+Marion,+Indiana&t=h&z=17&panoid=5SU9so7DVbm10nsCGQJwwg)

This scene should be looking east at 38th Street and has Meridian Street on the street sign with 0/0 above it, which refers to block number along 38th Street (as Meridian is the divider between west and east addresses.) The addresses at this intersection would be 3800 Meridian Street and 0 (East or West) 38th Street.

This is another one, of the second class of street signs at the intersection of Central Avenue and 57th Street, which shows the 5700 block number  for Central Avenue on the 57th Street sign and 500 East on the Central Avenue. Remember the addresses would be 5700 Central Avenue adn 500 East 57th Street.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=38th+and+Meridian+Indianapolis,+IN&hl=en&ll=39.857137,-86.150161&spn=0.000016,0.009978&sll=39.824828,-86.156852&layer=c&cbp=13,46.41,,1,-2.97&cbll=39.857026,-86.150164&hnear=E+38th+St,+Indianapolis,+Marion,+Indiana&t=h&z=17&panoid=zKFeDOTZqogOe_rk_2R3eQ (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=38th+and+Meridian+Indianapolis,+IN&hl=en&ll=39.857137,-86.150161&spn=0.000016,0.009978&sll=39.824828,-86.156852&layer=c&cbp=13,46.41,,1,-2.97&cbll=39.857026,-86.150164&hnear=E+38th+St,+Indianapolis,+Marion,+Indiana&t=h&z=17&panoid=zKFeDOTZqogOe_rk_2R3eQ)

So my question is, is this normal to have something like this or unusual, and what are your thoughts about it.

This is a good and worthy discussion (street numbering) but could it possibly moved to its own thread?

Quote from: vtk on June 20, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
*I'm aware that there are a few places here and there where a directional prefix actually distinguishes between two separate roads, often half-circles, and apparently all the numbered streets in Cleveland.  In these cases I do consider the direction word to be part of the name, and the line is blurred between those and roads whose names just happen to begin with a direction word such as North Star Rd, Westpark St, or North Broadway.

In a lot of the major cities in Oklahoma, you get two directional prefixes/suffixes, one of which distinguishes between other roads and one doesn't. Oklahoma City is the canonical example here–N.W. 10th Street is ten blocks north of Reno Ave, and S.W. 10th Street is a completely different street ten blocks south of Reno. But N.W. 10th Street and N.E. 10th Street are the same street...it just switches from west to east when it crosses Santa Fe Avenue. This is rarely confusing because the major streets are numbered in such a way that the major streets are different numbers than the major streets on the south: N.E. 10th, 23rd, 39th, etc. vs. S.E. 15th, 29th, 44th, etc. So if someone says such-and-such place is "on 59th Street" you can be reasonably sure that they mean S. 59th because N. 59th is some anonymous residential street or minor collector.

Norman does something similar, except rotated ninety degrees; there is a 24th Avenue on the west side and the east side. Norman also puts both at the back: "24th Avenue N.W." Unfortunately Norman always numbers major streets in multiples of 12 so there is a 24th, 36th, and 48th on both sides of town, leading to occasional confusion when someone shows up at a gathering twenty minutes late because they went to 36th Avenue West when the house they wanted to go to was off 36th Avenue East.

bugo might need to correct me on this but I think Tulsa does something similar to OKC but even weirder, namely, streets are of the format "E. 51st St. S.". I think the N/S one is the important one but truly I don't know for sure!

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 20, 2012, 11:07:37 PM
bugo might need to correct me on this but I think Tulsa does something similar to OKC but even weirder, namely, streets are of the format "E. 51st St. S.". I think the N/S one is the important one but truly I don't know for sure!

That one actually makes sense to me, as I'm used to the prefix being only useful as part of the housenumber, and the suffix distinguishing between different streets.  I didn't bring it up in my post, but halves of roughly-circular streets are usually distinguished around here with a suffix rather than a prefix. I can't think of any examples I'd have been aware of, but somehow I got the notion a long time ago that a suffix could also be used to distinguish two parallel streets across town from one another. Combine that with directional prefixes as used in central Ohio and the result is the system described above for Tulsa.

Taking it one step further, with this setup one can have a complete grid, all using the same name suffix "street".  For example, 2800 W 82nd St S would be on the corner of 82nd St S and 28th St W.  Yes, 34th St N would intersect 34th St E, as well as 34th St W, and the latter two would also intersect 34th St S. This is much like how county roads in Indiana are named, actually.  If this grid system were implemented, however, I would hope that the "directional prefix" is presented as part of the block number on signs, or left off the signs completely, because if it's presented as part of the street name, people will get confused.  Though it may be logical, I can understand certain people just refusing to try to figure out the intersection of E 27th St S with S 27th St E; but when you take away the prefixes, which are pointless at intersections anyway, it becomes much less intimidating.

I think that isn't an issue in Tulsa because the streets that run opposite to the numbered ones are named.

The system you describe is almost like that used in most of Utah. There, instead of being "82nd Street S" it would be "8200 South", and "28th Street West" would be "2800 West". So the address you describe would be "2800 West 8200 South". Ultimately a logical one but it confuses the hell out of everyone not familiar with it. I particularly remember someone from Utah hitting a jackpot at work and going into the the cashier cage to work on another jackpot and finding three people, two of them management, poring over the guy's driver license trying to figure out what the deal is with the address.

The SLC addresses made me think of the county road number system that is common in places like Indiana (and probably many others) with the origin in the middle and a grid around it.  100E would be the north-south road a certain increment east of the origin, with the part north of the baseline being N 100E and that south being S 100E.  (The baselines can be numbered as CR 0 or sometimes have names like "Base Line Rd" or "Division Rd" like in Tippecanoe County.)  Usually the grid determines address numbers; I recall in Tippecanoe County that there were hypothetically 1000 address numbers per 100 increment in CR number.  That is, heading south on S 100E, you would pass #2000 crossing CR 200S, and #3750 passing CR 375S.  Thus, there are tons of fun addresses like 4750 N 500E vs. 4750 E 500N--in this case, if there were two properties with those addresses, they wouldn't be too far away from each other because 4750 is close to 5000 which puts it near the intersection with the other 500.  Both would be near the intersection of N 500E and E 500N.  What fun!  (The intersection of N500E and E500N is off IN 25 near its intersection with IN 225, fwiw.  It's far from unique though--there is a S600E/E600S intersection southeast of Lafayette as well, among others.  It's going to happen many times near the y=x and y=-x lines through the origin of the grid.)

When I was first befuddled by the SLC numbering, I realized that it's not too different in principle from the Indiana county road addressing, and it made a little more sense.

Quote from: PurdueBill on June 21, 2012, 06:49:22 PM
100E would be the north-south road a certain increment east of the origin, with the part north of the baseline being N 100E and that south being S 100E.

That certain increment is always one mile between the n00 roads.

Quote from: PurdueBill on June 21, 2012, 06:49:22 PM
The baselines can be numbered as CR 0 or sometimes have names like "Base Line Rd" or "Division Rd" like in Tippecanoe County.

Or something like CR 00NS or CR 00EW. Where roads go along county lines, you see either "County Line Rd" or two names - one for each county. For example, a road could be simultaneously CR 500S and CR 600N.

As for street addresses numbers, doesn't the post office set them?

Quote from: mukade on June 21, 2012, 08:03:54 PM
That certain increment is always one mile between the n00 roads.

Quote from: PurdueBill on June 21, 2012, 06:49:22 PM
The baselines can be numbered as CR 0 or sometimes have names like "Base Line Rd" or "Division Rd" like in Tippecanoe County.

Or something like CR 00NS or CR 00EW. Where roads go along county lines, you see either "County Line Rd" or two names - one for each county. For example, a road could be simultaneously CR 500S and SR 600N.

As for street addresses numbers, doesn't the post office set them?

Yes, I knew that certain counties use 1 mile = 100 increment in route numbers, but felt that I didn't know enough specific ones to be certain enough to generalize...I'll defer to someone who knows that it's always that case.

It is very interesting to see the dually-numbered roads; there are many good examples of it, and sometimes one county goes with County Line Rd. and the other with a numerical name.

I can't believe that I forgot Meridian as another name for the zero line.

I know that there are other examples of addresses following mileage; US 52 in southern Ohio has places where if you watch the white ODOT mile markers by county and the house numbers, they correspond.  Not sure who comes up with it first or how.  Same was true on US 30's old two-lane section in western Ohio--it's possibly true in more places but I haven't noticed or checked.