How do most like them signed? Does two destinations work or do you like three?
Also, do you think that it should be the next two sequential cities as the points or the other being the next municipality followed by a consistent control city (ie. the next large communtiy or state line city) if you like the two destinations on off interstate roads?
Also, do you prefer mileage to the city centers or to the entry point?
To me, I think the city center is best, except for NYC that has 5 boroughs and each one its own unique idenity being one New York. I also think that three destinations are the best with one consistent control point as the third mention.
In Illinois, you usually see three destinations. The first is the next exit. It may be a road (i.e. Illinois 113), a city (i.e. Dwight), or an exit (i.e. Lexington EXIT) (all real ones on I-55). The second is usually the secondary control city (i.e. Bloomington), followed by the third, the primary control city (i.e. St Louis). The distances vary. The first line is usually to the exit, the second and third are to the center of town.
Ohio and Kentucky use both the two-line and the three-line system. My only complaint is that the mileages are inaccurate or inconsistent. For example, in Ohio, the distance between Columbus and Wheeling is anywhere from 125-129 miles on I-70. In Kentucky, the Louisville-Nashville mileages are all over the board (distance between the two cities showing anywhere between 165-178 miles). At least the control cities are consistent.
I prefer
1) Next town
2) Optional - Next minor city
3) Next major city
Oklahoma tends to just use two. The first line is sometimes the next exit, sometimes the next minor city.
I prefer next exit or town, minor control city, then major control city.
Indiana has three control cities on their interstate-based signs, the first is the next town and the third is the next major city, the second one is whatever works in its place and can be all over the place, it can be a minor control city, but it could be a small community too. U.S. and state highways usually just do two control cities (the next town and the main control city for that highway, or if it's a short highway then just the next two towns.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 02, 2012, 09:11:49 PM
Oklahoma tends to just use two. The first line is sometimes the next exit, sometimes the next minor city.
I was recently in Oklahoma, traveling along I-35 from the Texas line to OKC and found that most of the milage signs had three destinations, with Okla City being the last one.
For signs after minor exits(small towns, minor roads), 2 lines are enough. 3 lines are good for signs after more important exits. Mileage given should usually be to the center of a city unless otherwise indicated(like with EXIT indicating mileage is to an exit). The bottom line should usually be a consistent control city. Exceptions would be if there is another interstate branching off ahead where a good portion of the traffic will be using that road(particularly on multiplexed portions of interstate) or when there are two major destinations fairly close together(example would be I-80 eastbound in Nebraska where Lincoln and Omaha alternate as the bottom line destination).
On freeways with many major destinations (like I-95 from Richmond, Va. to Portland, Maine) within reasonable distance, I strongly prefer three lines. Especially after a rest area or service plaza.
Quote from: Greybear on September 03, 2012, 12:27:51 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 02, 2012, 09:11:49 PM
Oklahoma tends to just use two. The first line is sometimes the next exit, sometimes the next minor city.
I was recently in Oklahoma, traveling along I-35 from the Texas line to OKC and found that most of the milage signs had three destinations, with Okla City being the last one.
This portion of I-35 was all done as one big sign replacement contract in the early 2000s. The signs in that batch do have three destinations.
Oklahoma: consistently inconsistent!
I always appreciate more information, so three lines is good for me.
- Next exit destination
- 2nd next exit destination
- Next Control City
Last time I was on I-40 in western Arkansas, they had changed to three controls. The next town, the I-430 junction, and Little Rock.
Used to be that all mileage signs were two-city signs, except there was one sign somewhere near Ozark that had Russellville as an intermediate control city.
I like 3 cities/towns usually.
- next one
- 2nd next one
- 3rd next one *or* next major one
Exception: I'd like to see the last city/town/point on a route listed starting off from a terminus as a 3rd (or, WTH, a 4th) listed place; a-la the I-40 pix of Wilmington and Barstow or the US 50 pix of Ocean City and Sacramento (even though some of those examples are singles and not grouped with other control cities on the same sign).
It's very VERY irritating to see a single control city on a mileage sign when you know there are more cities after that to come. What does it hurt to put more than one? If it's the last city/town/point to go, that's different.
I also got annoyed with both WisDOT and IDiOT for there "mileage signs" on I-94 between Milwaukee and Chicago. Heading South (East 94), after Mitchell Airport Exit, there is a single line sign that shows Chicago 96. That's fine but I would also add Racine, Kenosha, Waukegan, or esp O'Hare because of how many people from SE Wisconsin fly out of both O'Hare and Mitchell. I will at least give WisDOT credit for the "Next 3 exits" signs in the median.
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 06, 2012, 03:07:06 PM
I also got annoyed with both WisDOT and IDiOT for there "mileage signs" on I-94 between Milwaukee and Chicago. Heading South (East 94), after Mitchell Airport Exit, there is a single line sign that shows Chicago 96. That's fine but I would also add Racine, Kenosha, Waukegan, or esp O'Hare because of how many people from SE Wisconsin fly out of both O'Hare and Mitchell. I will at least give WisDOT credit for the "Next 3 exits" signs in the median.
Here in Tennessee it is usually just two cities listed on the interstate. By my estimation it is usually the next minor city and then the major control city (i.e. Carthage-Knoxville). On minor highways mileage signs are few and far between.
On another note, I seem to remember on that stretch of I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee that a lot of the county routes in Wisconsin are merely signed EAST-WEST as control cities. I could be wrong, and it was 1996 the last time I rode through those parts, but I always thought that that was kind of lazy on WisDOT, as they should at least put a city on there.
In Michigan it's typically two-lines with three-lines in a handful of spots. The major control city should always be the last line, but for some reason MDOT decided to just list the next three cities going west from Battle Creek on I-94 (Galesburg, Kalamazoo, and Portage). For one thing, it's unnecessary to list Portage on the same distance sign as Kalamazoo because practically every interchange from 74 through 80 easily provides access to both. Hopefully that sign gets corrected on its next replacement, because you should be able to see the distance to Chicago upon leaving Battle Creek.
INDOT's three-line rule gets downright ridiculous on I-69 northbound going around Angola because they seem to want to avoid mentioning Coldwater (of course the Toll Road gets mentioned instead of maybe Fremont, but that's understandable). It's rather superfluous to see the very next interchange on a distance sign immediately before seeing the advance sign for said interchange.
At least Lansing is mentioned from as far south as Huntington County, Indiana. I know very well about the Michigan mileage signs from a recent trip, I was on M-115 east of US 31 in Benzie County and the mileage sign there mentioned the towns of Copemish and Mesick. I kept on thinking...hello...Cadillac?
Quote from: ce929wax on September 06, 2012, 03:20:59 PM
On another note, I seem to remember on that stretch of I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee that a lot of the county routes in Wisconsin are merely signed EAST-WEST as control cities. I could be wrong, and it was 1996 the last time I rode through those parts, but I always thought that that was kind of lazy on WisDOT, as they should at least put a city on there.
WisDOT is still using EAST-WEST, and seems to be keeping it with the I-94 eight laning.
Mississippi uses both two- and three-city/exit signs.
On I-5, Washington most often uses a three-line sign.
#1 - next town
#2 - secondary control city (Everett north of Seattle, Tacoma then Olympia south of Seattle)
#3 - control city (Portland, Seattle, or Vancouver)
I haven't traveled I-90 enough to remember the pattern there, but I'd assume it's more or less the same -- mainly I don't know what the cities for line 2 are there.
Here in PA on I-79 north towards Erie there are two mileage signs that say "Mercer," but the first one points to the exit and says 26 miles and the second one a few miles later points to the town and says 33. To me that's very annoying and confusing! One or the other may have since been replaced. I don't pay attention too much anymore because the dry boring ride on 79 north gets to you after a while...
Quote from: zorb58 on September 09, 2012, 12:26:47 PM
Here in PA on I-79 north towards Erie there are two mileage signs that say "Mercer," but the first one points to the exit and says 26 miles and the second one a few miles later points to the town and says 33. To me that's very annoying and confusing! One or the other may have since been replaced. I don't pay attention too much anymore because the dry boring ride on 79 north gets to you after a while...
NJ had two along US 22 in the same manner. It has a "NEWARK 12" sign east of Mountain Avenue in Watchung, NJ that denotes mileage to the city border just east of North Broad Street in Hillside. Then you have (or had) another one a few miles east in Mountainside, NJ that denoted mileage to Downtown Newark (I do not recall the distance). The former was erected as part of a statewide mileage sign campaign in 1998 that changed criteria to municipal boundaries rather than city or town centers The latter was the original NJ mileage signs that have been in place for decades and used different guidelines then. Nonetheless, the numbers did not jive with each other.
In Florida, you have the same on FL 50 where numbers do not match. You have a sign on EB FL 50 showing that Titusville is 35 miles east of US 441. Then in Titusville at FL 50's eastern terminus you have a sign on the beginning of FL 50 Westbound showing that Orlando is 39 miles. If you examine it closely you will find that both Downtown Orlando and its eastern city limit on FL 50 are both east of US 441! Then Downtown Titusville is located three miles north of FL 50 on US 1. The numbers as they be do not compute either way you look at them.
Then elsewhere on FL 50 you have two signs, one freeway style large and the other a small one both showing that:
Winter Garden 12
Brookesville 49
The large one is located at the intersection of Tampa Avenue and small one is just west of John Young Parkway. How can both be the same distance apart from both Winter Garden and Brookesville when the signs are more than a half a mile apart? One should be 11 miles and 48 miles or the other should be 13 and 50. Then why is a large BGS located on an urban street in a residential area, especially when the next one is located in front of a McDonalds where there is more right away to have a larger sign? Why not remove the first and just leave the second one and serve both needs?
Missouri uses 3 destination signs in many places. What's interesting is whereas most of the time the bottom line destination on any mileage sign is a somewhat major destination, in some cases on state and US routes in Missouri, the bottom line destination is not really a major destination. For instance, on the MO 13 expressway between Clinton and Springfield, at some point as one gets close enough to Springfield for it to move up to the 2nd line destination, the town of Crane appears as the bottom line destination. Crane is a small town(pop. 1,462) and is not even a major road junction(incidentally, Crane is not even on MO 13 anymore-it is on the old route of MO 13 south of Springfield which is now MO 413). That seems to me like a situation where they adhere too closely to what appears to be a rule to have 3 line signs at all times. If they need to have a 3rd line destination, Branson would seem to be a better choice considering all of the traffic from Kansas City and points north and west that uses MO 13 to connect with I-44 and US 65 to get to Branson.
Colorado seems to prefer two-city destination signs for I-25 and three-city signs for I-76 and I-70, though there are exceptions on both. (As far as I can remember, you see nothing listed beyond Denver for EB I-70 till you get to Denver). Distance signage along I-25 has almost nothing listed for adjoining states except Cheyenne WY, as you approach Ft. Collins northbound. Southbound, I believe there are only two signs with New Mexico destinations: an errant listing for Albuquerque at Monument (between Castle Rock and Colorado Springs), and both Raton and Las Vegas as you leave Trinidad, last SB Colorado town.
On I-70 west and east of Denver, as well as EB I-76, there are out of state destinations listed numerous times on three-city destination signs.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on September 09, 2012, 11:34:50 PM
Colorado seems to prefer two-city destination signs for I-25 and three-city signs for I-76 and I-70, though there are exceptions on both. (As far as I can remember, you see nothing listed beyond Denver for EB I-70 till you get to Denver). Distance signage along I-25 has almost nothing listed for adjoining states except Cheyenne WY, as you approach Ft. Collins northbound. Southbound, I believe there are only two signs with New Mexico destinations: an errant listing for Albuquerque at Monument (between Castle Rock and Colorado Springs), and both Raton and Las Vegas as you leave Trinidad, last SB Colorado town.
On I-70 west and east of Denver, as well as EB I-76, there are out of state destinations listed numerous times on three-city destination signs.
Florida does the same. I-10 uses 2 control destinations, so does I-95, and I-75 has both. It uses 3 destination signing south of the Hillsborough- Pasco County Line and two north of there except in a few places around Lake City going SB.
I-4 seems to be losing mileage signs over the years as with the construction of many interchanges over time and the roadway going from rural to either urbania or suburbia, they have no place really to put them. In Polk County, though, three destinations are used with next exit followed by the nearest city to the exit and finally either Tampa or Orlando as final destination. Few are left east of US 27 and all the ones in Orange County are all gone with limited signage in Seminole and Volusia Counties and thus being 2 places on them At the western end you see both 1 and 2 mileage destination signs.
Louisiana's definitely just a 2 city signer except for I-49 between Shreveport and Alexandria. Natchitoches is always added to the larger city plus the next exit, seeing as it's about the only exit worth getting off of for those 120 miles
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 06, 2012, 10:33:20 PM
Quote from: ce929wax on September 06, 2012, 03:20:59 PM
On another note, I seem to remember on that stretch of I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee that a lot of the county routes in Wisconsin are merely signed EAST-WEST as control cities. I could be wrong, and it was 1996 the last time I rode through those parts, but I always thought that that was kind of lazy on WisDOT, as they should at least put a city on there.
WisDOT is still using EAST-WEST, and seems to be keeping it with the I-94 eight laning.
Yes and no. In the last year, WisDOT has added Mt Pleasant (Hwy KR) and Caledonia (Hwy G) as control cities to a couple of those exits along 94 in Racine County.
Alabama usually does two cities; the city at the next exit followed by the primary control city. Sometimes, especially along I-20 east of Birmingham, three control cities are used since Anniston isn't a main control city (Atlanta is).
I would prefer three control cities: the one at the next exit, largest city along that interstate in the county, and then the primary control city.
I wouldn't also mind having mileage signs every now and then for major routes. It would be similar to what Arkansas has done along I-40 west of Little Rock, but just with routes. This would be really handy for rural interstates that don't have many large cities on them but do have major junctions. I suppose you could just use the city that the two interstates meet as the control city, but using the route itself would be clearer.
I prefer two lines max. Public Works does this as does SCDOT.
California tends to use a mix of 2 and 3 destinations on mileage signs. Notice I said "destinations" and not "cities". In rural areas where there are not a whole lot of cities (mainly on I-5 through the central valley and CA-99 to a lesser extent), Caltrans uses intersecting state highways on the mileage signs. Kind of like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_sb_exit_305_02a.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_sb_exit_263_01.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_225_05.jpg)
Finally, here's a 3-city mileage sign located in an urban area...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images085/ca-085_sb_exit_016_01.jpg)
All images are from the AARoads Gallery.
When I was on my cross-country road trip back in July, I was annoyed by some of these signs and how some of them failed to mention major cities in the next state over. For instance, I remember driving on westbound I-80 in Wyoming and wondering when I would start seeing Salt Lake City mentioned on the signs. Salt Lake City is a big-enough city that it could have started to be included on signs around Cheyenne or Laramie, but I didn't start seeing it mentioned until we were in the central-western part of Wyoming.
Another example is eastbound I-44 approaching St. Louis. There could have been mention of the distance to Indianapolis and/or Chicago before crossing over into Illinois, but I don't recall seeing any until we actually got to Illinois. It seems reasonable to think that a lot of traffic on eastbound I-44 is just passing through St. Louis to head to a city like Indianapolis or Chicago.
I could probably come up with other examples, but those are the ones I can remember most.
Quote from: hobsini2 on September 06, 2012, 03:07:06 PM
I also got annoyed with both WisDOT and IDiOT for there "mileage signs" on I-94 between Milwaukee and Chicago. Heading South (East 94), after Mitchell Airport Exit, there is a single line sign that shows Chicago 96. That's fine but I would also add Racine, Kenosha, Waukegan, or esp O'Hare because of how many people from SE Wisconsin fly out of both O'Hare and Mitchell. I will at least give WisDOT credit for the "Next 3 exits" signs in the median.
This. However, I'm willing to give the Illinois portion the benefit of some doubt because it's maintained by ISTHA (the Toll Authority) and not by IDOT. WisDOT, however, has no excuse. You have Kenosha and Racine within line of sight of I-94 and could use mention on some of the distance signage.
The reason I give IDOT a pass on this subject? Look at I-80 eastbound, for example. IDOT stays pretty committed to the "three lines" system, and the crew could have easily phoned it in east of Joliet. However, one sign goes as far to mention a control city that's TWO states over (Toledo, OH), and another sign mentions major junctions and points of reference (I-94, Indiana [State], and I-65). I personally like the creativity done there. I would like to have an idea of what's ahead if I am close to leaving a state, as is the case with the examples above.
Indiana's technique is another one I like (control city of next exit, secondary city along the Interstate (with possible multiple exits), and Primary control city). Kentucky could use some work; for the uninhibited, it can be a bit weird that a long distance city is mentioned, then disappears in between (Nashville, in this case. Tennessee's capital city is mentioned when you leave Louisville, then disappears from guidance between Elizabethtown and Bowling Green).
Quote from: roadman65 on September 02, 2012, 11:07:36 AM
do you prefer mileage to the city centers or to the entry point?
I think mileage to the city centers makes the most sense. However, I've often wondered if, for big cities, it would be practical for the DOTs to give a mileage range instead of a precise number on those signs. Something like this (using eastbound I-96 in Michigan as an example):
Portland 10
Lansing 23-37
Detroit 112-128
I'm sure this is not terribly practical, but I think it would be kinda neat. :)
It might work giving ranges out. NYC, LA, and Chicago would be wide ranges though.
Quote from: A.J. Bertin on September 27, 2012, 03:21:58 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 02, 2012, 11:07:36 AM
do you prefer mileage to the city centers or to the entry point?
I think mileage to the city centers makes the most sense. However, I've often wondered if, for big cities, it would be practical for the DOTs to give a mileage range instead of a precise number on those signs. Something like this (using eastbound I-96 in Michigan as an example):
Portland 10
Lansing 23-37
Detroit 112-128
I'm sure this is not terribly practical, but I think it would be kinda neat. :)
If a DOT wanted to look incompetent and stupid in the public eye, this would be the way.
Quote from: Special K on September 28, 2012, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: A.J. Bertin on September 27, 2012, 03:21:58 PM
I think mileage to the city centers makes the most sense. However, I've often wondered if, for big cities, it would be practical for the DOTs to give a mileage range instead of a precise number on those signs. Something like this (using eastbound I-96 in Michigan as an example):
Portland 10
Lansing 23-37
Detroit 112-128
I'm sure this is not terribly practical, but I think it would be kinda neat. :)
If a DOT wanted to look incompetent and stupid in the public eye, this would be the way.
I don't agree with that. Most motorists are smart enough to know that big cities are many miles wide (or long), so they should understand the logic of providing a range. In my example, they'll just know that the mileage to the city depends on which part of the city they are going to. Here's another option:
Portland 10
Lansing (city center) 27
Detroit (city center) 126
This way the motorist knows exactly which part of the city the distance is based on.
Along the Mississippi Gulf Coast, I-10 has three cities listed between Exits 2 and 68 eastbound and Exits 2 and 75 westbound.
There used to be a sign with three cities listed on I-55 South below the Byram exit, but that has disappeared. There was another one listed with three signs southbound below the NORTH Crystal Springs exit, but I didn't see it as of this past weekend. There are many three-city signs on I-55 between Jackson and Memphis.
Quote from: bassoon1986 on September 12, 2012, 03:42:05 PM
Louisiana's definitely just a 2 city signer except for I-49 between Shreveport and Alexandria. Natchitoches is always added to the larger city plus the next exit, seeing as it's about the only exit worth getting off of for those 120 miles
You hit the nail on the head on that one. I drove it just last week and there is total nothing from Opelousas to Shreveport. Only Alexandria and the one Natchitoches exit have anything as the other interchanges are quite barrant.
I seen a sign say that next services are 34 miles at one point, but I did not see them at all after the said mileage. Basically from Natchitoches to Shreveport there is not even a gas station along that long stretch. Makes me wonder if when I-49 is completed from Shreveport to Texarkana is going to be the same. Or even from I-30 to Fort Smith when or if Arkansas gets it built from those two points.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 30, 2012, 10:26:08 AM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on September 12, 2012, 03:42:05 PM
Louisiana's definitely just a 2 city signer except for I-49 between Shreveport and Alexandria. Natchitoches is always added to the larger city plus the next exit, seeing as it's about the only exit worth getting off of for those 120 miles
You hit the nail on the head on that one. I drove it just last week and there is total nothing from Opelousas to Shreveport. Only Alexandria and the one Natchitoches exit have anything as the other interchanges are quite barrant.
I seen a sign say that next services are 34 miles at one point, but I did not see them at all after the said mileage. Basically from Natchitoches to Shreveport there is not even a gas station along that long stretch. Makes me wonder if when I-49 is completed from Shreveport to Texarkana is going to be the same. Or even from I-30 to Fort Smith when or if Arkansas gets it built from those two points.
I-49 from Texarkana to Fort Smith will be even more deserted, but at least it will be scenic.
Quote from: Road Hog on October 05, 2012, 05:15:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 30, 2012, 10:26:08 AM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on September 12, 2012, 03:42:05 PM
Louisiana's definitely just a 2 city signer except for I-49 between Shreveport and Alexandria. Natchitoches is always added to the larger city plus the next exit, seeing as it's about the only exit worth getting off of for those 120 miles
You hit the nail on the head on that one. I drove it just last week and there is total nothing from Opelousas to Shreveport. Only Alexandria and the one Natchitoches exit have anything as the other interchanges are quite barrant.
I seen a sign say that next services are 34 miles at one point, but I did not see them at all after the said mileage. Basically from Natchitoches to Shreveport there is not even a gas station along that long stretch. Makes me wonder if when I-49 is completed from Shreveport to Texarkana is going to be the same. Or even from I-30 to Fort Smith when or if Arkansas gets it built from those two points.
I-49 from Texarkana to Fort Smith will be even more deserted, but at least it will be scenic.
Wawa needs to expand their market to all of I-49.
I believe that there is a mileage sign on the Delaware side of the Cape May Ferry that has over 5 destinations. I cannot be sure, though, cause the google car did a lousy job in capturing the sign. If you virtually follow US 9 WB past the sign it zooms past it and you cannot see the details of the sign.
If it is a mileage sign, it would be the largest as far as destinations go.
NYSDOT uses mostly two-line mileage signs, next town / next major city. There is a paragraph in the 2009 NYSDOT supplement to the MUTCD where these signs should not appear more than every 10 miles, though that isn't strictly adhered to.
The Thruway authority uses three lines (for the most part) New York to Rochester and then two lines Rochester to the Pa. Line. Eastbound the Thruway uses three lines and then southbound one-line to Exit 17, where they use two lines.
Personally, I like this approach:
Control City at Next Exit
Next Control City
Furthest Control City in the state
ie
Pulaski 5
Syracuse 40
Binghamton 117
When the furthest control city becomes the next control city, then the control city after that in the next state becomes the bottom line destination.
Whitney Point 3
Binghamton 25
Scranton Pa 68
I think that the Thruway southbound between Albany and New York misses the boat and should be showing destinations such as Poughkeepsie, Interstate 84 and NY Route 17 (Interstate 86).
Quote from: roadman65 on September 09, 2012, 06:16:58 PM
Quote from: zorb58 on September 09, 2012, 12:26:47 PM
Here in PA on I-79 north towards Erie there are two mileage signs that say "Mercer," but the first one points to the exit and says 26 miles and the second one a few miles later points to the town and says 33. To me that's very annoying and confusing! One or the other may have since been replaced. I don't pay attention too much anymore because the dry boring ride on 79 north gets to you after a while...
NJ had two along US 22 in the same manner. It has a "NEWARK 12" sign east of Mountain Avenue in Watchung, NJ that denotes mileage to the city border just east of North Broad Street in Hillside. Then you have (or had) another one a few miles east in Mountainside, NJ that denoted mileage to Downtown Newark (I do not recall the distance). The former was erected as part of a statewide mileage sign campaign in 1998 that changed criteria to municipal boundaries rather than city or town centers The latter was the original NJ mileage signs that have been in place for decades and used different guidelines then. Nonetheless, the numbers did not jive with each other.
In Florida, you have the same on FL 50 where numbers do not match. You have a sign on EB FL 50 showing that Titusville is 35 miles east of US 441. Then in Titusville at FL 50's eastern terminus you have a sign on the beginning of FL 50 Westbound showing that Orlando is 39 miles. If you examine it closely you will find that both Downtown Orlando and its eastern city limit on FL 50 are both east of US 441! Then Downtown Titusville is located three miles north of FL 50 on US 1. The numbers as they be do not compute either way you look at them.
Then elsewhere on FL 50 you have two signs, one freeway style large and the other a small one both showing that:
Winter Garden 12
Brookesville 49
The large one is located at the intersection of Tampa Avenue and small one is just west of John Young Parkway. How can both be the same distance apart from both Winter Garden and Brookesville when the signs are more than a half a mile apart? One should be 11 miles and 48 miles or the other should be 13 and 50. Then why is a large BGS located on an urban street in a residential area, especially when the next one is located in front of a McDonalds where there is more right away to have a larger sign? Why not remove the first and just leave the second one and serve both needs?
I-78 East at the NJ/PA state line has a sign that reads 17 Clinton, 36 Bedminster and 58 Newark, but US-22 East in Pburg,NJ has 17 Clinton, 34 Somerville, and 58 Newark, but NJDOT needs to sign New York on US-22 and I-78 East out of Phillipsburg, NJ
Quote
Pulaski 5
Syracuse 40
Binghamton 117
When the furthest control city becomes the next control city, then the control city after that in the next state becomes the bottom line destination.
Whitney Point 3
Binghamton 25
Scranton Pa 68
I like this, and Virginia does it for the most part. Approaching Richmond, I-95 South begins showing distances to Petersburg. Similarly, I-64 West shows distances to Charlottesville well before Williamsburg, much less Richmond.
I-81 does this NB, showing Winchester well before Roanoke...and Martinsburg well before Winchester. I-81 SB shows Bristol before reaching Roanoke...and Knoxville before reaching Bristol.
However, I-64 EB doesn't show distances to Norfolk until after passing through Richmond, nor does I-95 show distances to Baltimore until after making its way onto the Beltway.
So the "show the next control city once the current one gets close" method isn't quite done everywhere, but when it is done, I know that this "new" city I'm being guided to has already been alluded to on my current travel route.
The three Canadian western provinces (BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan) usually use three line distance signs, with some two liners sprinked in. Alberta seems to be a little more unique in their distance signs in that they put the unit of measurement (i.e "km") after the numbers, for example:
Leduc 14 km
Red Deer 137 km
Calgary 275 km
Alberta also will use four line distance signs for some longer distance routes like Hwy 43 outside of Edmonton, http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Onoway,+AB&hl=en&ll=53.716012,-114.242663&spn=0.000051,0.045276&sll=53.731197,-114.348578&sspn=0.01607,0.045276&oq=Onow&hnear=Onoway,+Division+No.+13,+Alberta&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=53.716024,-114.251074&panoid=mO5Niipi-ww1nHtoo9oEmw&cbp=12,270,,0,0:
Gunn 7 km
Whitecourt 105 km
Valleyview 265 km
Grande Prairie 387 km
They have also used a five line sign (Hwy 1A west of Calgary), however it's excesive and busy, http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Cochrane,+AB&hl=en&ll=51.224733,-114.601479&spn=0.00043,0.362206&sll=53.395178,-113.510399&sspn=0.016199,0.045276&oq=cochrane&gl=ca&hnear=Cochrane,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&t=m&z=12&layer=c&cbll=51.224776,-114.667058&panoid=Ldfeq8kg7UVDwnG8rMJ4BQ&cbp=12,315,,0,0
Morley 15 km
Seebe 37 km
Exshaw 45 km
Canmore 64 km
Banff 101 km
Realistically it could be reduced to a three line sign with Morley, Canmore, and Banff as most of those places are very sparsly populated.
BC has the odd four line signs (I've seen one when you enter the province along Hwy 3 from Alberta), but they are much less frequent than Alberta.
Quote from: A.J. Bertin on September 27, 2012, 03:11:23 PM
When I was on my cross-country road trip back in July, I was annoyed by some of these signs and how some of them failed to mention major cities in the next state over.
California is usually good about this. they will even sign Salt Lake City on I-15, which is three states away.
the only thing they will never, ever, ever do is sign Tijuana.
there is one guide sign which mentions San Felipe on CA-86 (old US-99) and one which mentions Ensenada on I-805... but I have not seen a sign of more recent vintage than the 1930s which mentions Tijuana.
Quote from: dmuzika on October 31, 2012, 01:37:33 PM
The three Canadian western provinces (BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan) usually use three line distance signs, with some two liners sprinked in. Alberta seems to be a little more unique in their distance signs in that they put the unit of measurement (i.e "km") after the numbers, for example:
Leduc 14 km
Red Deer 137 km
Calgary 275 km
Virginia DOT, on its non-Interstate/non-freeway network, likes to post similar signs in U.S. customary (e.g.
obsolete) units (example below), with reassurance route marker(s) over it.
I don't always agree with everything that VDOT does, but this is a practice (which goes back
many decades) that I find especially driver-friendly, and I wish more states would emulate Virginia (though it would be nice to scrap the
obsolete units of measurement).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fus301va2.jpg&hash=eb205faab3d1d02ae4b194e91a17517e0de58730)
I wish more states would not just do the mileage signs, but also the reassurance shields over them. That is one of the few VDOT practices I miss from when I lived there.
However, miles aren't quite obsolete yet. You can't call something that's still used by millions of people obsolete, no matter how cumbersome and outdated it is.
Quote from: Steve on November 01, 2012, 10:15:54 PM
this is the guy who thinks tollroadsblog is a worthy news source
Not familiar with a "tollroadsblog."
AR also posts the shields over the mileage sign. I'm fine with it, though I could see how it could be argued that posting everything at once like that could overwhelm the reader.
Why won't CA sign Tijuana? Signing Ensenada over it seems especially dumb...before I read posts about your trips down there, I'd never heard of Ensenada, and probably would have guessed it was some suburb in CA, but I definitely knew Tijuana was in Mexico!
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 02, 2012, 10:24:10 AM
AR also posts the shields over the mileage sign. I'm fine with it, though I could see how it could be argued that posting everything at once like that could overwhelm the reader.
That's a fair comment, but I've never had a problem comprehending the combination of reassurance marker(s) and the three "control cities" that VDOT so routinely posts. Would someone less interested in such matters have a problem with "TMI?"
I have never heard any complaints (but then I don't work for VDOT).
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 02, 2012, 10:24:10 AM
Why won't CA sign Tijuana? Signing Ensenada over it seems especially dumb...before I read posts about your trips down there, I'd never heard of Ensenada, and probably would have guessed it was some suburb in CA, but I definitely knew Tijuana was in Mexico!
Caltrans seems to want to post "International Border" instead of Tijuana (with
one exception that was pointed out on this forum to me). I
really dislike the country name instead of a city being posted on signs (such as "Bridge to Canada" or "Bridge to USA," or,
even worse, "International Border" (and I usually
like Caltrans signing practices)).
Compare and contrast those practices with Denmark on the E20 motorway as it approaches the Øresund Bridge-Tunnel. No mention at all that the motorist is leaving Denmark for Sweden, just that the control city is Malmø (
Malmö in Swedish) and that the motorist is entering a toll road (GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=kastrup,+denmark&hl=en&ll=55.631182,12.648718&spn=0.00682,0.014591&sll=39.28351,-76.553378&sspn=0.009351,0.014591&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Kastrup,+Denmark&z=16&layer=c&cbll=55.631128,12.648279&panoid=6E3Q6jZ38fTrrq-DjIUF-Q&cbp=12,80.27,,1,-0.26))
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 02, 2012, 10:48:19 AM
Caltrans seems to want to post "International Border" instead of Tijuana (with one exception that was pointed out on this forum to me).
where is that exception?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 02, 2012, 11:12:01 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 02, 2012, 10:48:19 AM
Caltrans seems to want to post "International Border" instead of Tijuana (with one exception that was pointed out on this forum to me).
where is that exception?
I don't know.
I mentioned that in my travels (not especially recent) from Los Angeles south to Baja California, the mileage signs on southbound I-5 through San Diego invariably read
International Border.
Someone else pointed out that there is one sign on I-5 that actually reads
Tijuana (I don't recall ever seeing it myself, but again, it has been quite a few years since I was out that way).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fca%2Fi-5%2Fsdist2.jpg&hash=5e262901b9d39397e2783e04a52a6511deb961a5)
Quote from: Steve on November 02, 2012, 07:20:32 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fca%2Fi-5%2Fsdist2.jpg&hash=5e262901b9d39397e2783e04a52a6511deb961a5)
Thank you. Wonder how I missed that sign? It does not look to be especially new.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 03, 2012, 02:34:42 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 02, 2012, 07:20:32 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fca%2Fi-5%2Fsdist2.jpg&hash=5e262901b9d39397e2783e04a52a6511deb961a5)
Thank you. Wonder how I missed that sign? It does not look to be especially new.
I only take photos of button copy, so, yeah.
There has been much speculation upthread about various rules that can be used to select destinations for post-interchange confirmation signs, as well as debate about whether these rules are in fact applied in practice. So, as an exercise, I used photologging data to extract destinations and distances for what I believe are all the confirmation signs on I-15 northbound in Utah.
In the following list each line represents one sign, and each comma represents a line break. The word "ruled" in brackets means that each line of legend on the sign is enclosed by one or more horizontal ruled lines. Capitalization and punctuation is reproduced exactly as shown on the actual sign (hence "JCT" versus "Jct."). (UDOT does not use route shields on confirmation signs, so the issue of how to render route shields did not arise.) The photologging imagery dates from 2007-08. I have made no attempt to account for signs which might temporarily have been removed during a construction project, had been withdrawn for repair or replacement, etc. The list does not include interchange sequence signs or community interchanges signs, both of which UDOT uses (there is some overlapping provision of confirmation signs on lengths of I-15 for which interchange sequence signs are provided). I believe the list is complete, but I cannot completely rule out the possibilities of truck obscuration of shoulder-mounted signs, or median-mounted signs being missed because they were too indistinct to read properly and were therefore confused with interchange sequence signs. Styles and ages of signs span the gamut from UDOT gaptooth, early UDOT modern (fresh-looking sheeting, moderate padding), and late UDOT modern (fresh-looking sheeting, thick border, chunky padding), but I have not attempted dating since image quality and resolution is not consistently high enough for that purpose.
Two signs have Boise as a forward destination, owing to the I-84 overlap.
Leeds 10, Cedar City 45, Salt Lake 296
Leeds 5, Parowan 57, Salt Lake 291
Kanarraville 20, Beaver 84, Salt Lake 283
Cedar City 28, Fillmore 137, Salt Lake 280
Cedar City 12, Parowan 29, Salt Lake 263
Cedar City 8, Parowan 26 [ruled]
Summit 8, Parowan 15
Parowan 6, Beaver 40 [ruled]
Paragonah 6, Beaver 35, Salt Lake 235 [ruled]
Beaver 32, Jct. I-70 54 [ruled]
Beaver 26, Nephi 139, Salt Lake City 225
Beaver 15, Fillmore 72, Salt Lake City 214
Beaver 10, JCT I-70 33, Salt Lake City 208
Jct. I-70 22, Fillmore 57 [ruled]
Fillmore 54, Salt Lake 198 [ruled]
Jct. I-70 11, Fillmore 46, Salt Lake City 187
Jct. I-70 6, Fillmore 41, Salt Lake City 182
Meadow 25, Fillmore 30, Salt Lake City 175
Meadow 19, Nephi 83, Salt Lake City 169
Fillmore 4, Provo 107, Salt Lake 149
Holden 6, Nephi 54, Salt Lake 140
Scipio 9, Provo 87, Salt Lake 129
Nephi 36, Provo 76, Salt Lake 118
Levan 13, Nephi 22, Salt Lake 104
Nephi 17, Provo 58, Salt Lake 100
Mona 4, Provo 35, Salt Lake 79
Mona 3, Provo 35, Salt Lake 77
Santaquin 10, Provo 30, Salt Lake 72
Payson 8, Provo 22, Salt Lake 64
Payson 6, Provo 20, Salt Lake 62
Spanish Fork 5, Provo 13, Salt Lake 55
Springville 5, Provo 10, Salt Lake City 52
Provo 7, Orem 13, Salt Lake 49
Orem 11, Salt Lake 47
Orem 3, Salt Lake 40
Lehi 2, Salt Lake 30
Bluffdale 3, Salt Lake 23
Farmington 2, Layton 9, Ogden 21
Kaysville 4, Ogden 17
Roy 2, Ogden 6, Brigham City 27
Ogden 3, Brigham City 24, Tremonton 37
Willard 5, Brigham City 9, Pocatello 113
Honeyville 6, Pocatello 104, Boise 284
Snowville 38, Twin Falls 162, Boise 275
Riverside 3, Malad 28, Pocatello 89
Plymouth 6, Malad 24, Pocatello 85
Portage 7, Malad 18, Pocatello 79
Malad 13, Pocatello 68
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 27, 2012, 02:00:25 PM
California tends to use a mix of 2 and 3 destinations on mileage signs. Notice I said "destinations" and not "cities". In rural areas where there are not a whole lot of cities (mainly on I-5 through the central valley and CA-99 to a lesser extent), Caltrans uses intersecting state highways on the mileage signs. Kind of like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_sb_exit_305_02a.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_sb_exit_263_01.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_225_05.jpg)
Finally, here's a 3-city mileage sign located in an urban area...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images085/ca-085_sb_exit_016_01.jpg)
All images are from the AARoads Gallery.
You are right about this and in southern California Caltrans signs 2 cites or sometimes 3 cites on the mileage signs https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_073_04.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_073_04.jpg) or https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_sb_exit_195_01.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_sb_exit_195_01.jpg)
These are confirmation signs on Utah I-70 in both directions. Caveats are, mutatis mutandis, as outlined upthread for Utah I-15 northbound.
I-70 eastbound:
Joseph 23, Richfield 34, Denver 507
Fremont Indian [state park symbol] State Park 17, Capitol Reef Nat'l Park 120 [ruled; brown background]
Richfield 15, Salina 34, Grand Jct. 254
Salina 17, Green River 122
GREEN RIVER 108, CRESCENT JCT. 125, GRAND JUNCTION 205
Jct. SR-10 29, Green River 96, Grand Junction 198
Fremont Jct. 15, Green River 85
Green River 67, Denver 413
Green River 61, Denver 404
Green River 51, Denver 395
Green River 38, Denver 382
Green River 28, Denver 372
Green River 18, Denver 361
GREEN RIVER 14, DENVER 358
Green River 12, Denver 355
Crescent Jct. 16, Denver 339
MOAB 48, GRAND JUNCTION 97
ARCHES NATIONAL PARK 41, CANYONLANDS 49 [brown background; each line on own panel]
Thompson Springs 5, Grand Jct. 79
Grand Junction 73, Denver 317
Fruita 55, Grand Jct 68
Fruita 46, Grand Jct. 57
Fruita 45, Denver 295
Fruita 35, Grand Jct. 47
Grand Jct. 42, Denver 282
Grand Jct. 34, Denver 277
I-70 westbound:
Crescent Jct. 43, Green River 62
Crescent Jct. 38, Green River 56
Thompson Springs 25, Green River 51
Thompson 21, Green River 47
Thompson 16, Green River 41
Thompson Springs 5, Green River 30, Jct I-15 190
Crescent Jct 3, Green River 23, Jct I-15 184
Green River 20, Jct. I-15 178
Green River 13
Green River 3, JCT U.S. 6 6
Salina 100, Jct. I-15 154
Salina 92, Richfield 108
Richfield 101, Jct. I-15 140
Salina 74, Richfield 90
Salina 35, Jct. I-15 92
Salina 16, Richfield 31, Jct. I-15 71
SALINA 6, RICHFIELD 24, JCT I-15 62
Sigurd 7, Richfield 16
I-15 36, St. George 162, Las Vegas 279
Jct. I-15 21
Here in Florida we do not use "JCT" on mileage signs except on I-4 heading west of Orlando (along with control cities of other highway that intersects). Most signs use the route shield and on the FL Turnpike the shield and control city of the exit (for example FL 70 & Ft. Pierce are used starting at the Osceola Parkway near Kissimmee). Not too much of route junctions as supposed to routes themselves.
In Texas I saw IH 10 (Texas way of saying I-10) for the upcoming junction on mileage signs. One in particular along the TX 87 corridor along the Bolivar Peninsula that uses it. Anyway, no junction mentioned just the text of the route.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 18, 2012, 01:34:49 PM
These are confirmation signs on Utah I-70 in both directions. Caveats are, mutatis mutandis, as outlined upthread for Utah I-15 northbound.
I-70 eastbound:
Joseph 23, Richfield 34, Denver 507
Fremont Indian [state park symbol] State Park 17, Capitol Reef Nat'l Park 120 [ruled; brown background]
Richfield 15, Salina 34, Grand Jct. 254
Salina 17, Green River 122
GREEN RIVER 108, CRESCENT JCT. 125, GRAND JUNCTION 205
Jct. SR-10 29, Green River 96, Grand Junction 198
Fremont Jct. 15, Green River 85
Green River 67, Denver 413
Green River 61, Denver 404
Green River 51, Denver 395
Green River 38, Denver 382
Green River 28, Denver 372
Green River 18, Denver 361
GREEN RIVER 14, DENVER 358
Green River 12, Denver 355
Crescent Jct. 16, Denver 339
MOAB 48, GRAND JUNCTION 97
ARCHES NATIONAL PARK 41, CANYONLANDS 49 [brown background; each line on own panel]
Thompson Springs 5, Grand Jct. 79
Grand Junction 73, Denver 317
Fruita 55, Grand Jct 68
Fruita 46, Grand Jct. 57
Fruita 45, Denver 295
Fruita 35, Grand Jct. 47
Grand Jct. 42, Denver 282
Grand Jct. 34, Denver 277
I-70 westbound:
Crescent Jct. 43, Green River 62
Crescent Jct. 38, Green River 56
Thompson Springs 25, Green River 51
Thompson 21, Green River 47
Thompson 16, Green River 41
Thompson Springs 5, Green River 30, Jct I-15 190
Crescent Jct 3, Green River 23, Jct I-15 184
Green River 20, Jct. I-15 178
Green River 13
Green River 3, JCT U.S. 6 6
Salina 100, Jct. I-15 154
Salina 92, Richfield 108
Richfield 101, Jct. I-15 140
Salina 74, Richfield 90
Salina 35, Jct. I-15 92
Salina 16, Richfield 31, Jct. I-15 71
SALINA 6, RICHFIELD 24, JCT I-15 62
Sigurd 7, Richfield 16
I-15 36, St. George 162, Las Vegas 279
Jct. I-15 21
How do you get these? Can you get the one's for I-70 in Colorado, East and West Bound?
Quote from: Interstate Trav on November 18, 2012, 09:11:43 PMHow do you get these? Can you get the ones for I-70 in Colorado, East and West Bound?
I do it by downloading photologging imagery for a given length of Interstate (in this case, I-15 and I-70 border-to-border), flipping through the images at high speed using the smooth-scrolling function of my mouse, extracting the images that have mileage signs in them, and then typing out the sign messages in a Notepad file. I can do it for I-70 in Colorado since CDOT has photologging online--it will just take some time since I have imagery already downloaded only for I-70 eastbound from MP 100 to MP 280.
The only states I know of which have online photologs good enough for this approach are CO, UT, and WA.
More lists for Utah Interstates--this time I-80 in both directions and I-84 westbound only. Again, caveats are as described upthread, mutatis mutandis. As an aside, the list for I-80 westbound gives an idea of why transcontinental travelers on I-80 encounter Wendover with a feeling of resentment. Thirteen mentions in 103 miles, in spite of a population of just 1,500 (about 6,000 combined with its neighbor in Nevada, which is larger partly because gambling is permitted there), pump up expectations to a level which virtually guarantees anticlimax and disappointment.
I-80 eastbound:
Knolls 38, Salt Lake 114
Knolls 32, Salt Lake City 111 [ruled]
Knolls 22, Salt Lake City 101 [ruled]
Knolls 10, Tooele 79, Salt Lake City 90
Delle 27, Tooele 68, Salt Lake City 79
Grantsville 35, Salt Lake 64
Delle 8, Salt Lake 59 [ruled]
Lake Pt. Jct. 28, Salt Lake City 51
Grantsville 17, Salt Lake City 44
Great Salt Lake 25, Salt Lake City 37
Great Salt Lake 21, Salt Lake City 33
S.L. Int'l Airport 10, Jct. I-215 11, Salt Lake City 16 [destinations are centered]
Park City 20, Coalville 33, Cheyenne 447
Wanship 18, Coalville 26, Evanston 61
Wanship 7, Coalville 15, Cheyenne 427
Coalville 7, Echo 12, Cheyenne 420
Jct I-84 4, Evanston 38, Cheyenne 412
Evanston 31, Cheyenne 404
Evanston 22, Cheyenne 395
Evanston 10, Cheyenne 383
I-80 westbound:
Echo 21, Park City 50, Salt Lake City 70
Coalville 4, Wanship 11, Salt Lake 49
Wanship 6, Park City 24, Salt Lake 44
U S 40 7, Park City 17, Salt Lake 37
Salt Lake 26, Reno 551
Salt Lake 21, Reno 546
Wendover 110, Reno 511 [ruled]
Tooele 17, Wendover 103, Elko 212 [destinations are centered]
Grantsville 16, Wendover 98, Reno 504
Delle 19, Wendover 88, Reno 494
Delle 14, Wendover 83, Reno 489
Delle 6, Wendover 75
Knolls 28, Wendover 69
Knolls 20, Wendover 61
Knolls 12, Wendover 54, Reno 460
Knolls 5, Wendover 47, Reno 453
Wendover 40, Reno 446
Wendover 30, Elko 140, Reno 436
Wendover 20, Elko 130, Reno 426
Wendover 9, Reno 415
I-84 westbound:
Henefer 4, Morgan 16, Ogden 36
Henefer 2, Ogden 35
Morgan 12, Ogden 32
Morgan 7, Ogden 25, Tremonton 65
Morgan 4, Ogden 23, Twin Falls 216
Morgan 1, Ogden 20, Tremonton 60
Ogden 17, Tremonton 57, Twin Falls 210
Ogden 8, Brigham City 31, Tremonton 46
Riverdale 5, Boise 310
Riverdale 2, Jct. I-15 3 [ruled]
Snowville 18, Burley 91, Boise 250
Snowville 8, Twin Falls 122, Boise 240
Snowville 4, Twin Falls 118, Boise 236
Burley 72, Boise 227
Moving on to Colorado, I now have post-interchange confirmation signs for what I believe is the entirety of I-70 eastbound. The source is CDOT's photologging (primarily "front" images), which dates from 2011.
CDOT's photologging differs from that of UDOT in a number of respects. CDOT uses a two-camera ("front" and "right") setup, instead of a single-camera one. Both state DOTs also use cameras which are designed to mimic the normal human visual field (which corresponds to a 50-mm lens for a 35-mm camera), unlike Google StreetView, which uses an extreme wide-angle field of view. However, CDOT's equivalent focal length is significantly longer than UDOT's, and probably corresponds to a mild telephoto. This means that on right-hand curves of sufficiently high degree, CDOT's "front" camera will not sweep the full right-of-way and therefore will miss signs on the inside of the curve, either partially or in their entirety. It is frequently not possible to check for missing signs using "front" imagery taken from the tangent upstream of the curve since CDOT allows brush to grow quite close to the back of the shoulder, especially on slopes protected by guardrail. The imagery is fairly noisy, the high focal length tends to magnify the effects of motion jitter, and mileage signs are allowed to have a fairly small letter height, so in a few cases the signs could not be read with certainty from the "front" images and I had to cross-check against the "right" images.
Edit: In the case of I-70 (increasing-milepost direction), CDOT also has incomplete milepost cross-referencing between MP 285 and MP 305 (just east of Denver). This results in a number of "drop-outs," the longest of which is about half a mile. I do not think there are any mileage signs in the lengths of I-70 covered by these drop-outs, but of course I cannot be sure.
Caveats (such as exclusion of interchange sequence signs and community interchanges signs) are otherwise as for the UDOT lists. In some cases CDOT combines the distance to a crossroad with distances to cities, thus creating a hybrid between a post-interchange confirmation sign and an interchange sequence sign; I opted to include these borderline cases.
I-70 eastbound:
Mack 10, Grand Jct 30, Denver 273
LOMA 3, FRUITA 8, GRAND JUNCTION 19
Fruita 4, Grand Jct 16, Denver 260
Grand Jct 11, Denver 256
Horizon Dr 3, Clifton 8, Palisade 13
Palisade 6, Rifle 54, Denver 240
DeBeque 14, Rifle 45, Denver 230
Parachute 13, Glenwood Spgs 54, Denver 206
Rulison 7, Eagle 67, Denver 195
Rifle 9, Glenwood Springs 30, Denver 188
New Castle 7, Glenwood Springs 18, Denver 178
Glenwood Spgs 7, Denver 167
Gypsum 24, Denver 158
Gypsum 5, Eagle 13, Denver 138
Wolcott 9, Vail 31, Denver 126
Edwards 6, Denver 118
Silverthorne 28, Denver 100
Frisco 21, Dillon 25, Denver 94
Frisco 6, Silverthorne 10, Denver 75
Georgetown 21, Idaho Springs 33, Denver 67
Jct US 40 4, Idaho Spgs 11, Denver 44
Manila Road 3, Limon 65
Bennett 4, Limon 61
Strasburg 4, Limon 55
Byers 4, Limon 50
Deer Trail 11, Limon 44
Agate 12, Limon 33
Agate 2, Limon 23
Limon 21, Hugo 36
Limon 8, Burlington 84, Salina 351
Genoa 8, Burlington 73, Salina 341
Bovina 4, Burlington 66, Salina 333
Arriba 6, Burlington 60, Salina 327
Flagler 10, Burlington 53, Salina 320
Seibert 10, Burlington 42, Salina 309
Vona 6, Burlington 31, Salina 298
Stratton 7, Burlington 23, Salina 291
Bethune 6, Burlington 16, Salina 284
Burlington 7, Salina 274
Kanorado 12, Salina 265
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 18, 2012, 11:23:49 PM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on November 18, 2012, 09:11:43 PMHow do you get these? Can you get the ones for I-70 in Colorado, East and West Bound?
I do it by downloading photologging imagery for a given length of Interstate (in this case, I-15 and I-70 border-to-border), flipping through the images at high speed using the smooth-scrolling function of my mouse, extracting the images that have mileage signs in them, and then typing out the sign messages in a Notepad file. I can do it for I-70 in Colorado since CDOT has photologging online--it will just take some time since I have imagery already downloaded only for I-70 eastbound from MP 100 to MP 280.
The only states I know of which have online photologs good enough for this approach are CO, UT, and WA.
Thanks for letting me know how you did this. Very much appreiciated!
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 20, 2012, 06:06:53 PM
Moving on to Colorado, I now have post-interchange confirmation signs for what I believe is the entirety of I-70 eastbound. The source is CDOT's photologging (primarily "front" images), which dates from 2011.
CDOT's photologging differs from that of UDOT in a number of respects. CDOT uses a two-camera ("front" and "right") setup, instead of a single-camera one. Both state DOTs also use cameras which are designed to mimic the normal human visual field (which corresponds to a 50-mm lens for a 35-mm camera), unlike Google StreetView, which uses an extreme wide-angle field of view. However, CDOT's equivalent focal length is significantly longer than UDOT's, and probably corresponds to a mild telephoto. This means that on right-hand curves of sufficiently high degree, CDOT's "front" camera will not sweep the full right-of-way and therefore will miss signs on the inside of the curve, either partially or in their entirety. It is frequently not possible to check for missing signs using "front" imagery taken from the tangent upstream of the curve since CDOT allows brush to grow quite close to the back of the shoulder, especially on slopes protected by guardrail. The imagery is fairly noisy, the high focal length tends to magnify the effects of motion jitter, and mileage signs are allowed to have a fairly small letter height, so in a few cases the signs could not be read with certainty from the "front" images and I had to cross-check against the "right" images.
Edit: In the case of I-70 (increasing-milepost direction), CDOT also has incomplete milepost cross-referencing between MP 285 and MP 305 (just east of Denver). This results in a number of "drop-outs," the longest of which is about half a mile. I do not think there are any mileage signs in the lengths of I-70 covered by these drop-outs, but of course I cannot be sure.
Caveats (such as exclusion of interchange sequence signs and community interchanges signs) are otherwise as for the UDOT lists. In some cases CDOT combines the distance to a crossroad with distances to cities, thus creating a hybrid between a post-interchange confirmation sign and an interchange sequence sign; I opted to include these borderline cases.
I-70 eastbound:
Mack 10, Grand Jct 30, Denver 273
LOMA 3, FRUITA 8, GRAND JUNCTION 19
Fruita 4, Grand Jct 16, Denver 260
Grand Jct 11, Denver 256
Horizon Dr 3, Clifton 8, Palisade 13
Palisade 6, Rifle 54, Denver 240
DeBeque 14, Rifle 45, Denver 230
Parachute 13, Glenwood Spgs 54, Denver 206
Rulison 7, Eagle 67, Denver 195
Rifle 9, Glenwood Springs 30, Denver 188
New Castle 7, Glenwood Springs 18, Denver 178
Glenwood Spgs 7, Denver 167
Gypsum 24, Denver 158
Gypsum 5, Eagle 13, Denver 138
Wolcott 9, Vail 31, Denver 126
Edwards 6, Denver 118
Silverthorne 28, Denver 100
Frisco 21, Dillon 25, Denver 94
Frisco 6, Silverthorne 10, Denver 75
Georgetown 21, Idaho Springs 33, Denver 67
Jct US 40 4, Idaho Spgs 11, Denver 44
Manila Road 3, Limon 65
Bennett 4, Limon 61
Strasburg 4, Limon 55
Byers 4, Limon 50
Deer Trail 11, Limon 44
Agate 12, Limon 33
Agate 2, Limon 23
Limon 21, Hugo 36
Limon 8, Burlington 84, Salina 351
Genoa 8, Burlington 73, Salina 341
Bovina 4, Burlington 66, Salina 333
Arriba 6, Burlington 60, Salina 327
Flagler 10, Burlington 53, Salina 320
Seibert 10, Burlington 42, Salina 309
Vona 6, Burlington 31, Salina 298
Stratton 7, Burlington 23, Salina 291
Bethune 6, Burlington 16, Salina 284
Burlington 7, Salina 274
Kanorado 12, Salina 265
This is a cool one, and I had wondered how long Limon was a control city on I-70 eastbound, and then which city took over after, so it is Salina that takes over. I always heard it was Hays. I wonder when Denver is first mentioned on I-70 westbound.
Thank You again for posting these. I always enjoy learning more about Highways from signs to control city placement to distanct between each sign.
Oh and also, your not kidding Wendover gets mentioned a lot on I-80 westbound.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on November 22, 2012, 03:25:07 AMThis is a cool one, and I had wondered how long Limon was a control city on I-70 eastbound, and then which city took over after, so it is Salina that takes over. I always heard it was Hays. I wonder when Denver is first mentioned on I-70 westbound.
I was mildly surprised to discover that Hays (the next control city after Limon on the old list, and after Denver on the current list) was not mentioned in Colorado at all. Traditionally the first mention of Denver on eastbound I-70 has been at 560 miles out on the Kansas Turnpike between Topeka and Kansas City, but I am not sure that is still the case.
Unfortunately Kansas DOT does not have photologging data online (though I understand an online photolog is currently under development), but I have been able to reconstruct the mileage signs for Kansas I-70 in both directions, from the Colorado state line to the eastern edge of Russell County (MP 0 to roughly MP 205), using construction plans for sign replacement jobs. Although KDOT has replaced some signs as part of interchange reconstruction jobs in western Kansas, most of the signs on I-70 in western Kansas were replaced in a major signing job in 1999 (KDOT project number 106 K-5927-99), and some of these signs were in turn replaced in a smaller signing job in 2011 (KDOT project number 106 KA-1892-01). The later job replaced mentions of Limon on some signs with mentions of Denver, presumably to reflect the dropping of Limon as an AASHTO control city.
In the following lists, the signs are transcribed exactly as they appear on the plan sheets (which are pattern-accurate), down to one spelling error ("Lavant" instead of "Levant"). Kansas seems to use a two-layer approach to mileage signs, with most mileage signs having distance to the next city or next exit as the first line, while a select few mileage signs--which I think are located at the exits from rest areas since they appear close to rest area signing in the plans--have much longer distances, including to multiple AASHTO control cities.
Sign messages which do not appear in parentheses are from 106 K-5927-99 (the 1999 job), while ones in parentheses are from 106 KA-1892-01 (the 2011 job). The mileage discrepancies are surprisingly large in some cases, and the middle capital in "WaKeeney" seems to have been dropped.
I-70 eastbound:
Hays 163, Salina 256, Topeka 368
Goodland 15, Colby 52, Hays 157
Edson 8, Colby 34, Hays 143
Brewster 8, Colby 28, Hays 129
Hays 113, Salina 206, Topeka 318
Lavant 8, Colby 19, Hays 103
Colby 7, Oakley 23, Hays 112
Oakley 18, WaKeeney 71, Hays 103
(Oakley 18, Wakeeney 71, Hays 103)
US-40 5, WaKeeney 59, Hays 91
(US-40 5, Wakeeney 56, Hays 88)
Grinnell 10, WaKeeney 51, Hays 80
(Grinnell 10, Wakeeney 51, Hays 83)
Grainfield 8, WaKeeney 47, Hays 76
Park 4, WaKeeney 31, Hays 62
Quinter 8, Hays 60, Salina 154
Collyer 8, WaKeeney 20, Hays 53
WaKeeney 12, Hays 46, Salina 136
Hays 36, Salina 129, Topeka 241
Ogallah 7, Hays 33, Salina 126
Ellis 10, Hays 26, Salina 119
Hays 16, Russell 40, Salina 108
Victoria 10, Russell 27, Salina 94
(Victoria 10, Russell 26, Salina 93)
Gorham 7, Russell 17, Salina 85
Russell 10, Wilson 31, Salina 78
Bunker Hill 8, Dorrance 15, Salina 69
Bunker Hill 4, Dorrance 11, Salina 65
Wilson 8, Salina 54
Salina 36, Topeka 129, Kansas City 241
I-70 westbound:
Bunker Hill 7, Russell 16, Hays 41
Gorham 14, Victoria 21, Hays 31
Hays 29, Limon 278, Denver 364
Gorham 10, Victoria 17, Hays 27
Victoria 9, Hays 18, Limon 267
Hays 11, Oakley 94, Limon 260
Ellis 12, WaKeeney 30, Limon 249
Ogallah 9, WaKeeney 19, Limon 236
WaKeeney 8, Oakley 63, Limon 226
Limon 224, Denver 310
Collyer 12, Oakley 54, Limon 218
Quinter 8, Oakley 41, Limon 206
Park 8, Oakley 35, Limon 199
Grainfield 5, Oakley 26, Limon 190
Grinnell 8, Oakley 20, Limon 184
Oakley 12, Colby 34, Limon 176
(US-83 5, Goodland 56, Denver 244)
Colby 18, Goodland 51, Limon 160
(Colby 16, Goodland 51, Denver 239)
Levant 7, Goodland 34, Limon 144
(Levant 7, Goodland 34, Denver 223)
Limon 140, Denver 226
Brewster 9, Goodland 26, Limon 136
Edson 9, Goodland 19, Limon 125
Goodland 10, Limon 118
Limon 97, Denver 183
Burlington 13, Limon 90
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 22, 2012, 11:33:19 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on November 22, 2012, 03:25:07 AMThis is a cool one, and I had wondered how long Limon was a control city on I-70 eastbound, and then which city took over after, so it is Salina that takes over. I always heard it was Hays. I wonder when Denver is first mentioned on I-70 westbound.
I was mildly surprised to discover that Hays (the next control city after Limon on the old list, and after Denver on the current list) was not mentioned in Colorado at all. Traditionally the first mention of Denver on eastbound I-70 has been at 560 miles out on the Kansas Turnpike between Topeka and Kansas City, but I am not sure that is still the case.
Unfortunately Kansas DOT does not have photologging data online (though I understand an online photolog is currently under development), but I have been able to reconstruct the mileage signs for Kansas I-70 in both directions, from the Colorado state line to the eastern edge of Russell County (MP 0 to roughly MP 205), using construction plans for sign replacement jobs. Although KDOT has replaced some signs as part of interchange reconstruction jobs in western Kansas, most of the signs on I-70 in western Kansas were replaced in a major signing job in 1999 (KDOT project number 106 K-5927-99), and some of these signs were in turn replaced in a smaller signing job in 2011 (KDOT project number 106 KA-1892-01). The later job replaced mentions of Limon on some signs with mentions of Denver, presumably to reflect the dropping of Limon as an AASHTO control city.
In the following lists, the signs are transcribed exactly as they appear on the plan sheets (which are pattern-accurate), down to one spelling error ("Lavant" instead of "Levant"). Kansas seems to use a two-layer approach to mileage signs, with most mileage signs having distance to the next city or next exit as the first line, while a select few mileage signs--which I think are located at the exits from rest areas since they appear close to rest area signing in the plans--have much longer distances, including to multiple AASHTO control cities.
Sign messages which do not appear in parentheses are from 106 K-5927-99 (the 1999 job), while ones in parentheses are from 106 KA-1892-01 (the 2011 job). The mileage discrepancies are surprisingly large in some cases, and the middle capital in "WaKeeney" seems to have been dropped.
I-70 eastbound:
Hays 163, Salina 256, Topeka 368
Goodland 15, Colby 52, Hays 157
Edson 8, Colby 34, Hays 143
Brewster 8, Colby 28, Hays 129
Hays 113, Salina 206, Topeka 318
Lavant 8, Colby 19, Hays 103
Colby 7, Oakley 23, Hays 112
Oakley 18, WaKeeney 71, Hays 103
(Oakley 18, Wakeeney 71, Hays 103)
US-40 5, WaKeeney 59, Hays 91
(US-40 5, Wakeeney 56, Hays 88)
Grinnell 10, WaKeeney 51, Hays 80
(Grinnell 10, Wakeeney 51, Hays 83)
Grainfield 8, WaKeeney 47, Hays 76
Park 4, WaKeeney 31, Hays 62
Quinter 8, Hays 60, Salina 154
Collyer 8, WaKeeney 20, Hays 53
WaKeeney 12, Hays 46, Salina 136
Hays 36, Salina 129, Topeka 241
Ogallah 7, Hays 33, Salina 126
Ellis 10, Hays 26, Salina 119
Hays 16, Russell 40, Salina 108
Victoria 10, Russell 27, Salina 94
(Victoria 10, Russell 26, Salina 93)
Gorham 7, Russell 17, Salina 85
Russell 10, Wilson 31, Salina 78
Bunker Hill 8, Dorrance 15, Salina 69
Bunker Hill 4, Dorrance 11, Salina 65
Wilson 8, Salina 54
Salina 36, Topeka 129, Kansas City 241
I-70 westbound:
Bunker Hill 7, Russell 16, Hays 41
Gorham 14, Victoria 21, Hays 31
Hays 29, Limon 278, Denver 364
Gorham 10, Victoria 17, Hays 27
Victoria 9, Hays 18, Limon 267
Hays 11, Oakley 94, Limon 260
Ellis 12, WaKeeney 30, Limon 249
Ogallah 9, WaKeeney 19, Limon 236
WaKeeney 8, Oakley 63, Limon 226
Limon 224, Denver 310
Collyer 12, Oakley 54, Limon 218
Quinter 8, Oakley 41, Limon 206
Park 8, Oakley 35, Limon 199
Grainfield 5, Oakley 26, Limon 190
Grinnell 8, Oakley 20, Limon 184
Oakley 12, Colby 34, Limon 176
(US-83 5, Goodland 56, Denver 244)
Colby 18, Goodland 51, Limon 160
(Colby 16, Goodland 51, Denver 239)
Levant 7, Goodland 34, Limon 144
(Levant 7, Goodland 34, Denver 223)
Limon 140, Denver 226
Brewster 9, Goodland 26, Limon 136
Edson 9, Goodland 19, Limon 125
Goodland 10, Limon 118
Limon 97, Denver 183
Burlington 13, Limon 90
Thanks for posting these too!! I was wondering about Kansas for I-70 eastbound and westbound as well. I was wondering do you have I-70 westbound in Colorado?
I'm posting a couple of additional mileage sign lists. One is for I-25 northbound in Colorado, while the other is an experiment in transcribing mileage signs on a non-Interstate route--US 101 on the Olympic peninsula in Washington state in this case. Some of the destinations in the latter will be familiar to Twilight fans.
A new addition to the convention: a line group followed by a colon (:) means the preceding line of legend is separated from the rest of the sign message by a border-to-border horizontal ruled line. As before, obvious interchange sequence signs and community interchanges signs are ignored.
Colorado I-25 northbound:
Aguilar 18, Walsenburg 32, Pueblo 77
Colo City 21, Pueblo 47, Denver 157
Pueblo 26, Colo Spgs 65, Denver 138
Pueblo 3, Colorado Springs 51
Colo Spgs 37, Denver 105
Colo Spgs 34, Denver 102
Colo Spgs 8, Denver 74
[blank line], Castle Rock 30, Denver 60
Monument 4, Denver 54
Castle Rock 19, Denver 48
Castle Rock 6, Denver 35
Longmont 22, Ft Collins 49, Cheyenne 89
SH 119 4, FT COLLINS 37, CHEYENNE 77
SH 66 2, Ft Collins 32, Cheyenne 72
Loveland 16, Ft Collins 29, Cheyenne 69
Loveland 6, Ft Collins 21, Cheyenne 59
Crossroads Blvd 1, Ft Collins 16, Cheyenne 50
Harmony Rd 2, Prospect Rd 6, Jct SH-14 7 [marginal: an interchange sequence sign?]
WELLINGTON 7, CHEYENNE 38
WYO STATE LINE 20, CHEYENNE 32
Wyo State Line 10, Cheyenne 21
Wyo State Line 5, Cheyenne 16
US 101 initially northbound, then eastbound and southbound (around Olympic peninsula):
STATION CAMP 1 1/2, FT COLUMBIA 2, CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT 11 [brown background]
Ilwaco 2, Long Beach 5
Raymond 43, Aberdeen 68, Longview 73
South Bend 25, Raymond 30, Aberdeen 55
Aberdeen 24, Hoquiam 28
Cosmopolis 13, Aberdeen 16
Cosmopolis 4, Aberdeen 7
Quinault Rain Forest 36, Queets Rain Forest 63, Hoh Rain Forest 89 [brown background]
Lake Quinault 35, Forks 99, Port Angeles 156
Lake Quinault 17, Forks 82, Port Angeles 138
Quinault Rec Area: South Shore Rd 1/2, North Shore Rd 3 1/2
Amanda Park 3/4, Forks 66, Port Angeles 123
Forks 53, Port Angeles 109
Hoh Rain Forest 26, Forks 37, Port Angeles 94
Hoh Rain Forest 12, Forks 24, Port Angeles 80
Hoh Rain Forest 3, Forks 15
Forks 10, Port Angeles 67
Port Angeles 57
Port Angeles 44
Port Angeles 30
Port Angeles 13
Sequim 15, Pt. Townsend 46, Olympia 120
Shelton 80, Olympia 100
Quilcene 11, Shelton 62, Olympia 82
Shelton 54, Olympia 76
Shelton 33, Olympia 55
Shelton 10, Olympia 33
Tumwater 5, Olympia 6
^Colorado's seeming reluctance to list destinations on I-25 far beyond the state line - not evident on I-70 or I-76 - may be relaxing somewhat. Recently revised distance signage on SB I-25, which formerly showed nothing beyond Raton (only 6 miles inside NM), now lists Las Vegas when leaving Trinidad, the last town in Colorado; and a very recently updated sign has Albuquerque in place of Walsenburg on a sign just south of Fountain. Also on that same replacement sign, Pueblo moved three miles closer, from 28 to 25 miles.
Maybe future NB sign replacements approaching Wyoming will list Douglas or Casper.
The PA Turnpike usually lists distances to the next two interchanges. However, there are a few signs westbound (one just past Somerset) that list the distance to Pittsburgh and the Ohio Line. There is also one sign on I-276 west of Fort Washington that lists the distance to Harrisburg.
I would prefer three. Washington Highway Mileage Signs usually list three cities. Oregon typically does two but I dig that they put the reassurance markers on their signs. California typically does three cities.
Quote from: MASTERNC on December 18, 2012, 10:07:26 PM
The PA Turnpike usually lists distances to the next two interchanges. However, there are a few signs westbound (one just past Somerset) that list the distance to Pittsburgh and the Ohio Line. There is also one sign on I-276 west of Fort Washington that lists the distance to Harrisburg.
There was a very small sign west of Carlisle that did have distance to Pittsburgh. It was separate from the ones you mentioned and a sign you would typically not find on a freeway, but on a two lane road. I do not know if it still exists or not.
I've always thought that knowing the distance to the state line wasn't very useful for a driver. Give me an actual town or route number on the sign instead, not some arbitrary line on the map.
EDIT to add:
Of course, a few readers here are interested to know where the state line is while driving, for roadgeek and maybe other purposes. I should have said, knowing the distance to the state line isn't very useful for 98% of the drivers on the road.
In my experience, it is pretty uncommon to sign the distance to the state line. Kansas does it on some routes, but not on others, and I have not been able to identify (or guess at) a decision rule for determining which routes get state-line distance signing.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 23, 2012, 07:09:05 PMThere was a very small sign west of Carlisle that did have distance to Pittsburgh. It was separate from the ones you mentioned and a sign you would typically not find on a freeway, but on a two lane road. I do not know if it still exists or not.
The Turnpike also has a "LGS" sign westbound listing Harrisburg & Philly just after the Monroeville interchange.
Quote from: bassoon1986 on September 12, 2012, 03:42:05 PM
Louisiana's definitely just a 2 city signer except for I-49 between Shreveport and Alexandria. Natchitoches is always added to the larger city plus the next exit, seeing as it's about the only exit worth getting off of for those 120 miles
US 190 at its' interchange with I-49 shows Port Barre, Krotz Springs, and Baton Rouge as the three control cities. Between Alexandria and I-10, you have the next interchange, Opelousas, and Lafayette. After Opelousas (US 190), you have the next exit and Lafayette.
I believe that I-12 eastbound has next exit, Hammond, and Slidell.
I would like to see a 3-city (or destination) standard, with (in rural areas) the next exit or town, next control city, next major city/Interstate Junction/control city.
For example:
I-70 EB, east of E-470, have the following sign in place:
Airpark Rd 2
Limon 73
Salina 414
Or:
Watkins 6
Limon 73
Salina 414
I-70 WB, west of C-470:
Morrison Exit/CR 93 1
Idaho Springs 20
Grand Jct 231
I-25 SB, south of C-470/E-470:
(Lincoln Ave should already be noted as next exit, less than a mile.)
Ridgegate Pkwy 1 3/4
Castle Rock 13
Colorado Springs 53
I-25 NB, north of E-470/NW Pkwy:
(Again, next exit, Colorado 7, is less than a mile away.)
Erie 3 3/4
Longmont 20
Fort Collins 46
I-76 EB, east of E-470:
(136th Ave is less than a mile.)
Eagle Blvd 2
Fort Morgan 62
North Platte 244
This way, you know the next exit, the next decent-sized town where you are likely to have some choice in services, and the next major town (where you're likely to have a choice in lodging).
Having the next exit listed along with the next town confuses the difference between interchange sequence signs and mileage signs...
Quote from: roadfro on December 24, 2012, 04:10:21 AMHaving the next exit listed along with the next town confuses the difference between interchange sequence signs and mileage signs...
Yup, the result is a fusion of the two sign types. Without endorsing this particular suggestion, I'd note that it is an occasional Colorado practice, with examples such as "Horizon Dr 3, Clifton 8, Palisade 13" on I-70 eastbound in the Western Slope and "Crossroads Blvd 1, Ft Collins 16, Cheyenne 50" on I-25 northbound near Loveland.
I also don't think there is enough consistency in line count on mileage signs in any given state to characterize that state as consistently three-line, two-line, or one-line. Look at the examples I posted above--every state has plenty of examples of three-line and two-line signs with neither type having a clear dominance over the other. Washington state is in fact the outlier in having a large number of one-line signs on US 101, but all of the one-line signs are on an unusual stretch of that highway--the narrow and twisty length between Forks and Port Angeles that is essentially on the side of a cliff between Lake Crescent and the Olympic Mountains.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 23, 2012, 07:09:05 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on December 18, 2012, 10:07:26 PM
The PA Turnpike usually lists distances to the next two interchanges. However, there are a few signs westbound (one just past Somerset) that list the distance to Pittsburgh and the Ohio Line. There is also one sign on I-276 west of Fort Washington that lists the distance to Harrisburg.
There was a very small sign west of Carlisle that did have distance to Pittsburgh. It was separate from the ones you mentioned and a sign you would typically not find on a freeway, but on a two lane road. I do not know if it still exists or not.
The one west of the Carlisle interchange hasn't been posted for nearly 10 years. The distance to Pittsburgh should be listed after the Carlisle interchange and after the Breezewood interchange ( 180 mi. @ the 223 mm, 117 mi. @ the 160 mm).
Quote from: amroad17 on December 24, 2012, 06:37:40 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 23, 2012, 07:09:05 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on December 18, 2012, 10:07:26 PM
The PA Turnpike usually lists distances to the next two interchanges. However, there are a few signs westbound (one just past Somerset) that list the distance to Pittsburgh and the Ohio Line. There is also one sign on I-276 west of Fort Washington that lists the distance to Harrisburg.
There was a very small sign west of Carlisle that did have distance to Pittsburgh. It was separate from the ones you mentioned and a sign you would typically not find on a freeway, but on a two lane road. I do not know if it still exists or not.
The one west of the Carlisle interchange hasn't been posted for nearly 10 years. The distance to Pittsburgh should be listed after the Carlisle interchange and after the Breezewood interchange ( 180 mi. @ the 223 mm, 117 mi. @ the 160 mm).
You are right and I-476 PA turnpike Ne Extension uses the same format as the I-76/I-276 tunpike and distances are Leigh Valley 18 Quakertown 27 at Mahoning Valley interchange, but at Leigh Valley Quakertown 18 and Lansdale at 27 :D
At least the PA Turnpike has mileage signs. I know plenty of roads that do not. Take for instance, the Long Island Expressway. There is only one mileage sign for "Riverhead 52" after the Nassau County Line, and that was back in 1988, and being the LIE is sequential in exit numbering, having frequent mileage control signs and other places along the way are great reference tools that would be welcome for non NY residents.
Even the Garden State Parkway could use them, although the latest 63 to 80 widening has added one sign near Beachwood, NJ, according to one user on this forum.
The NJ Turnpike use to have them every 10 miles on the 10 miles, but only few are left. It used to have New York for all signs north and Trenton- Camden- Delaware Memorial Bridge for all signs south depending on location. The signs have been slowly vanishing and only few remain left.
The Orlando area has none left on I-4, or at least from the Osceola/ Polk Line to Longwood. What were once there between those two points were removed in the 1990's when more interchanges were added that closed the gaps between the original 1964 interchanges. Even when Disney first opened there was signs between US 192 and FL 535 and those were removed when Disney World expanded in the 1980's with Epcot. The Conroy Road Interchange was built where a sign for Orlando 6- Daytona Beach 60 once stood and for some reason the Tampa 72 sign was removed in the mid 2000's within the I-4 & FL 528 Interchange. They did though add a sign for Interstates 75 & 275 at Central Florida Parkway, but I do not know if that is considered a mileage control sign as far as this topic goes.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 25, 2012, 02:34:41 AM
At least the PA Turnpike has mileage signs. I know plenty of roads that do not. Take for instance, the Long Island Expressway. There is only one mileage sign for "Riverhead 52" after the Nassau County Line, and that was back in 1988, and being the LIE is sequential in exit numbering, having frequent mileage control signs and other places along the way are great reference tools that would be welcome for non NY residents.
Even the Garden State Parkway could use them, although the latest 63 to 80 widening has added one sign near Beachwood, NJ, according to one user on this forum.
The NJ Turnpike use to have them every 10 miles on the 10 miles, but only few are left. It used to have New York for all signs north and Trenton- Camden- Delaware Memorial Bridge for all signs south depending on location. The signs have been slowly vanishing and only few remain left.
The Orlando area has none left on I-4, or at least from the Osceola/ Polk Line to Longwood. What were once there between those two points were removed in the 1990's when more interchanges were added that closed the gaps between the original 1964 interchanges. Even when Disney first opened there was signs between US 192 and FL 535 and those were removed when Disney World expanded in the 1980's with Epcot. The Conroy Road Interchange was built where a sign for Orlando 6- Daytona Beach 60 once stood and for some reason the Tampa 72 sign was removed in the mid 2000's within the I-4 & FL 528 Interchange. They did though add a sign for Interstates 75 & 275 at Central Florida Parkway, but I do not know if that is considered a mileage control sign as far as this topic goes.
You are right about I-4 but GSP from exit 125 lists Atlantic City Expressway 89 miles, but at exit 83 toms river toll plaza ACY is 45 miles, but if NJ Turnpike authority puts ACY at Exit 142 (I-78) and 159 (i-80) then are ACE 104 miles and ACE at 121 miles, but I-78 East at the NJ/PA stateline says 27 Bedminster 36 Watchung, and 58 Newark, but US-22 East at the same location lists 17 Clinton, 34 Somerville, and 58 Newark.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 22, 2012, 11:33:19 AMThe later job replaced mentions of Limon on some signs with mentions of Denver, presumably to reflect the dropping of Limon as an AASHTO control city.
Are you saying that Limon was removed from the list of AASHTO-approved control cities? If so, when did this happen?