Both added to my itineraries. MDOTFan, would you be willing to share the location with me? Next time I'm out that way I'd love to grab my own photo of it. I can keep quiet - just ask a certain person who found a certain shield in Virginia, and that's all I'm saying about it.
(As long as you're not unusually penisy* about it, because then I delight in giving it away)
*Family Guy reference
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 07, 2011, 07:55:10 PM
I can keep quiet - just ask a certain person who found a certain shield in Virginia, and that's all I'm saying about it.
argh, don't give away what state it's in!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 07, 2011, 08:03:58 PM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 07, 2011, 07:55:10 PM
I can keep quiet - just ask a certain person who found a certain shield in Virginia, and that's all I'm saying about it.
argh, don't give away what state it's in!
I'd argue that the state, and usually even the city, are fairly obvious regardless...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 07, 2011, 08:07:40 PM
reminds me of this sign:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/DC/DC19793952i1.jpg)
Notice how strangely you can see part of "95" through "395"!
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 07, 2011, 07:55:10 PM
Both added to my itineraries. MDOTFan, would you be willing to share the location with me?
Sorry, but the exact location is being kept a secret, to prevent theft or replacement. All I can tell you it's somewhere between U.S. 12/Michigan Avenue and M-85/Fort Street. And what exactly do you mean by "both added"?
Why does a certain song by Black Sabbath come to mind here?
Quote from: CanesFan27 on March 07, 2011, 10:50:41 PM
Why does a certain song by Black Sabbath come to mind here?
Or the Kinks, or Grand Funk Railroad for that matter.
Quote from: MDOTFanFB on March 07, 2011, 08:21:08 PM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 07, 2011, 07:55:10 PM
Both added to my itineraries. MDOTFan, would you be willing to share the location with me?
Sorry, but the exact location is being kept a secret, to prevent theft or replacement. All I can tell you it's somewhere between U.S. 12/Michigan Avenue and M-85/Fort Street. And what exactly do you mean by "both added"?
Both = Ian's plus yours. I'm not blabbing the location, I'm certainly not stealing it, nor do I have the means to replace it. Just interested in getting my own photo. Hence not asking you to post it here, just to message me, since I'm out to Michigan at least once a year.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on March 07, 2011, 10:50:41 PM
Why does a certain song by Black Sabbath come to mind here?
Really. I think you all are being quite goofy over this whole "Ohmigod, if we put the location of an old sign out on the Internet, Podunk DOT will go out and replace it with Clearview" schtick.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 18, 2011, 06:12:13 PM
Really. I think you all are being quite goofy over this whole "Ohmigod, if we put the location of an old sign out on the Internet, Podunk DOT will go out and replace it with Clearview" schtick.
and have the sign melted down into guardrails.
I'd rather have an, ahem, freelance sign harvester get it, because at least that way it lives on.
there are some DOTs and DPWs that are significantly more aggressive at removing old signs than the demand for replacement would dictate.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 18, 2011, 06:12:13 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on March 07, 2011, 10:50:41 PM
Why does a certain song by Black Sabbath come to mind here?
Really. I think you all are being quite goofy over this whole "Ohmigod, if we put the location of an old sign out on the Internet, Podunk DOT will go out and replace it with Clearview" schtick.
That's the same reason why I'm keeping the location of my U.S. 10 unisign secret, if I did give it out, MDOT or the city of Detroit would go out and replace it with a "TO M-10" unisign.
there's about eight or nine of those US-10 unisigns.
Because if there's one thing the city of Detroit is spending money on right now, it's sign replacement?
Quote from: corco on March 19, 2011, 12:09:47 AM
Because if there's one thing the city of Detroit is spending money on right now, it's sign replacement?
California is just as broke, and they dug out every last old porcelain sign at the 5/110 and 101/110 (Four Level) interchanges, just so they can put up new retroreflective signs that say "Parkway".
whoop dee fucking doo.
the old signs were perfectly serviceable.
Quote from: corco on March 19, 2011, 12:09:47 AM
Because if there's one thing the city of Detroit is spending money on right now, it's sign replacement?
Well, considering that there's damn Clearview everywhere now...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 18, 2011, 06:27:59 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 18, 2011, 06:12:13 PM
Really. I think you all are being quite goofy over this whole "Ohmigod, if we put the location of an old sign out on the Internet, Podunk DOT will go out and replace it with Clearview" schtick.
and have the sign melted down into guardrails.
I'd rather have an, ahem, freelance sign harvester get it, because at least that way it lives on.
there are some DOTs and DPWs that are significantly more aggressive at removing old signs than the demand for replacement would dictate.
Namely, down this way....
I don't mind giving the location to most old signs to fellow road sign enthusiasts. You can trust someone like Steve with the signs' location. But like Jake said, I'd rather have someone steal it than have it be replaced.
I kinda feel a bit whipsawed on this one....if i find a sign, i would want to try to get it legally...but as has happened to Alex myself, and others, sometimes alerting in an effort to get a sign for the collection, ends up with no sign and a gem lost forever....
but i wouldnt ever do a wrench discount unless sanctioned by the local garage (did that once, and boy did THAT feel odd as traffic was driving by me as i was cutting)...as tall as i am, i would be too obvious i am afraid....
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 18, 2011, 06:27:59 PM
there are some DOTs and DPWs that are significantly more aggressive at removing old signs than the demand for replacement would dictate.
But it's not like people from their sign shops hang out here or m.t.r. or the Yahoo groups, just looking for people to reveal the location of an old sign so they can go take it down. Adam's right, it is paranoia and it's foolish, IMHO.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 20, 2011, 12:52:01 AM
But it's not like people from their sign shops hang out here or m.t.r. or the Yahoo groups, just looking for people to reveal the location of an old sign so they can go take it down. Adam's right, it is paranoia and it's foolish, IMHO.
I partially agree since one cannot fight a road widening or to a lesser extent, resurfacing....but when there are perfectly functional signs (which may be at least 30 years old) on side roads getting replaced or going missing for no good reason it does make us vintage sign fan folk get all foolishly paranoid.
Edit: Maybe this whole conversation should be split from this thread....?
Wait, ctsignguy, aren't you defeating your own purpose by asking or them to remove a sign for yourself...but you don't want anyone to share the location of other in case someone finds out and takes it down.
It sounds contradictory to me.
No, i would share with you guys....if i could have located my notes, i would have shared where that US 6 was (I did try, but it turned out my location was a bit off...my notes werent quite as good as i thought....)...i dont see many signs in the wild i would want (and some of them are well-known anyway)...the 6 was odd
(some of the wild signs i would have wanted are old-style Connecticut signs that arent route markers, and generally not of as much interest here...)
Topic split from the "Old signs on the internet" thread.
I think the fear is mostly unfounded. I mean, if you've got an old sign sitting right in plain sight out on a state highway, there's no way the DOT doesn't know it's there. And if it's off on a locally maintained side street, the DOT isn't going to take responsibility for it.
Although, I can also see somewhat where it might depend on the DOT. Some states are aggressive about removing old signs and could conceivably make a special order to get one replaced if they heard through the grapevine that it existed. Others don't care and would not expend the effort to replace just one sign.
As for it getting stolen, I will concur that that is far better than it getting scrapped.
After I get my photograph, I don't care what happens to the sign. Be it replaced, retired, or stolen.
This being secretive about locations is a ploy by those to exert power or infleunce on other folks here, other locations where like-minded folks congregate, and (mistakingly) over DOTs and engineer depts.
I'd rather see people do useful activities to draw attention to themselves than what I described above.
Quote from: Adam Smith on April 02, 2011, 12:21:06 PMThis being secretive about locations is a ploy by those to exert power or influence on other folks here, other locations where like-minded folks congregate, and (mistakingly) over DOTs and engineer depts.
I don't think that it is necessarily a power play. I believe there are very good arguments on both sides of this issue. My personal view is that disclosure is always good in the long run, but the short-term costs of disclosing information are often so enormous that I cannot agree there is a moral duty for individual roadgeeks to disclose sign locations or that there should be no censorship whatsoever of sign locations. I just think that if there is to be censorship, it should be done according to guidelines agreed in advance and having broad consensual support--much the way classification works in governmental circles. There should never be a question of gagging through arbitrary action.
Frankly, this whole thread makes me grateful that no-one on this forum has (yet) sought to publicize information which I personally would be uncomfortable seeing aired in public. If (God forbid) such a thing ever happened, my approach would be to write privately to the person publicizing it, explain what I think are the likely negative repercussions of the disclosure, and ask if that person would consider editing his or her post to remove the information.
Since I'm not the type that really looks for old, outdated or unique signs to get pictures of them, I haven't really thought about this issue that much. But it seems to me that some people take this a little too seriously-as if the location of such signs need to be some kind of closely guarded secret lest some DOT finds out about it and ruins everybody's fun. I like seeing old, outdated and unique signs out in the field as much as anybody, but to me as long as its existence has been documented in a photo, it's not the worst thing if a DOT replaces it at some point. I like looking at old sign photos with long replaced signs, and to me just because those signs don't exist anymore doesn't mean they aren't interesting. Besides, do DOT's really scan forums like this looking for such signs just so they can replace them? If you're that concerned about something like that, then you don't have to reveal such locations publically, but I don't see anything wrong with helping out fellow roadgeeks by letting them know privately of the signs' locations.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 02, 2011, 01:16:58 PMthis whole thread makes me grateful that no-one on this forum has (yet) sought to publicize information which I personally would be uncomfortable seeing aired in public.
oh all right, I'll do it. JN Winkler is partial towards goats as his sexual outlet.
there, I said it.
I think the best solution here is for us to commission Jake to build a bunch (1000 or so) old replica signs, post them in random locations around the country, divide them into control groups, and see if there is any kind of correlation between public discussion and disappearance.
Short of that, I have yet to see anything not super-circumstantial that links the online roadgeek community with the disappearance of signs
Quote from: corco on April 02, 2011, 03:27:29 PM
I think the best solution here is for us to commission Jake to build a bunch (1000 or so) old replica signs, post them in random locations around the country, divide them into control groups, and see if there is any kind of correlation between public discussion and disappearance.
Short of that, I have yet to see anything not super-circumstantial that links the online roadgeek community with the disappearance of signs
Jake did that already.....and i can vouch that one of his replicas was still still hanging around as of last summer, just down the road from a Signs and Lines depot...and i think he put it up like 4-5 years ago
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2F2010%2520Get%2520the%2520Hell%2520Out%2520of%2520Town%2520Tour%2FDSCF0054.jpg&hash=6f1183736ee1b96d59f67164b60981540e49e5cc)
....still doing fine....
the only reason that Conn US 5 hasn't been stolen is because it is hideously non-standard. back then I wasn't as familiar with sign standards as I am now ...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 02, 2011, 03:10:52 PMoh all right, I'll do it. JN Winkler is partial towards goats as his sexual outlet.
You mean like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MuseoArchNapoliGSpancapra3122.jpg)?
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 02, 2011, 10:28:09 PM
You mean like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MuseoArchNapoliGSpancapra3122.jpg)?
you're a half-man half-goat being?
Well, I am certainly on the side of disclosure.
Otherwise, we are not doing something good or at least pleasing for the fear that something bad might happen.
Anyway, with tools like Google Streetview, finding a location is getting easier all the time.
So, I have no problem disclosing the location of any of my photos of public property. (i.e. roads and signs)
I will, however, respect others wishes. i.e. If Jake posts a picture and I happen to know where it is, I won't post it's location.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 02, 2011, 01:16:58 PM
Frankly, this whole thread makes me grateful that no-one on this forum has (yet) sought to publicize information which I personally would be uncomfortable seeing aired in public. If (God forbid) such a thing ever happened, my approach would be to write privately to the person publicizing it, explain what I think are the likely negative repercussions of the disclosure, and ask if that person would consider editing his or her post to remove the information.
What types of information would you put into that category?
FWIW (as the risk of going off-topic), I have the same problem on Bridgehunter: there are 2-3 people who refuse to post coordinates in an attempt to "save" the bridge from being found and replaced. If you even attempt to ask where the bridge is, the response is "go find it yourself".
Quote from: hbelkins on April 03, 2011, 10:36:20 PMWhat types of information would you put into that category?
At this point I think it would be risky even to supply an example.
Quote from: US71 on April 03, 2011, 11:27:40 PM
FWIW (as the risk of going off-topic), I have the same problem on Bridgehunter: there are 2-3 people who refuse to post coordinates in an attempt to "save" the bridge from being found and replaced. If you even attempt to ask where the bridge is, the response is "go find it yourself".
That's silly. Bridges can hardly be replaced on a whim.
YES to disclose. Road/Sign fans then can take photos of it in the wild and then acquire the sign by all means necessary. Last year when I walked into the MD state sign shop, they had little interest in the older sign pallet then had. When I was going through the collection, I mentioned that there was a few examples of older shields out in the wild. He asked me, "Why don't you have a ladder?"
Old signs are just scrap metal to governments agencies and contractors
Next time you walk by a signal replacement or sign crew, just ask if you could have what they are about to throw away. Don't put any value to the item and just say it would look great in your garage. You would be amazed.
Before:
(https://files.me.com/parndt/eyjk3s)
After:
(https://files.me.com/parndt/apxi2j)
Before:
(https://files.me.com/parndt/v87fec)
After:
(https://files.me.com/parndt/1060ck)
Quote from: US71 on April 03, 2011, 11:27:40 PM
FWIW (as the risk of going off-topic), I have the same problem on Bridgehunter: there are 2-3 people who refuse to post coordinates in an attempt to "save" the bridge from being found and replaced. If you even attempt to ask where the bridge is, the response is "go find it yourself".
As if DOTs aren't keenly aware of the locations and conditions of bridges. That's even sillier than the paranoia about signs.
Um, is there an official forum policy about whether I can mention the non-neutered I-81 marker I saw (actually on 81) in New York yesterday? Or rather, say where it is? I can't find it on Streetview (the camera car seems to have exited right there), so the if-it's-on-Streetview-it's-not-secret argument wouldn't apply here.... The anyone-really-interested-can-check-my-posts-to-narrow-down-where-I-was-and-become-one-of-the-thousands-of-people-including-DOT-employees-who-pass-it-every-day argument still would. (Which would also indicate my bias.)