Quote(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2FFH13PentagonSign.jpg&hash=41bb6e549cb92bcaeff4209f3e6af91bc43f978f)
You're free to post signs in any way you like in Liberty County, Florida.
Not to mention that the JCT assembly should not have an arrow plaque. Oh yeah, and overlapping signs is sloppy!!!
Quote from: Brian556 on April 06, 2013, 01:18:08 AM
Not to mention that the JCT assembly should not have an arrow plaque.
Tell that to O(hio)DOT. They started doing that recently and it rubs me the wrong way.
Quote from: vtk on April 06, 2013, 08:56:11 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on April 06, 2013, 01:18:08 AM
Not to mention that the JCT assembly should not have an arrow plaque.
Tell that to O(hio)DOT. They started doing that recently and it rubs me the wrong way.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.
The first example that comes to mind, off the top of my head, is US 23 at OH 229. (http://goo.gl/maps/oxluc) At least there it almost makes sense, since the double-arrow highlights that it's an at-grade intersection and not an interchange, but really there are clearer ways that could be indicated.
Quote from: vtk on April 06, 2013, 08:56:11 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on April 06, 2013, 01:18:08 AM
Not to mention that the JCT assembly should not have an arrow plaque.
Tell that to O(hio)DOT. They started doing that recently and it rubs me the wrong way.
Recently??? ODOT has done that for DECADES -- maybe just not in your district. The Cleveland area has done it that way since at least the early 70s!
Quote from: thenetwork on April 06, 2013, 10:49:38 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 06, 2013, 08:56:11 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on April 06, 2013, 01:18:08 AM
Not to mention that the JCT assembly should not have an arrow plaque.
Tell that to O(hio)DOT. They started doing that recently and it rubs me the wrong way.
Recently??? ODOT has done that for DECADES -- maybe just not in your district. The Cleveland area has done it that way since at least the early 70s!
I've observed it in the last 21 months consistently from Portsmouth to Bellevue. I don't recall noticing it in my less-frequent travels before then.
I've noticed it around the state for years, though it's been infrequently enough that it catches my attention every time. I always just assumed it was some kind of mistake; I never considered that there may be some districts that do it consistently and other that don't.
Quote from: thenetwork on April 06, 2013, 10:49:38 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 06, 2013, 08:56:11 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on April 06, 2013, 01:18:08 AM
Not to mention that the JCT assembly should not have an arrow plaque.
Tell that to O(hio)DOT. They started doing that recently and it rubs me the wrong way.
Recently??? ODOT has done that for DECADES -- maybe just not in your district. The Cleveland area has done it that way since at least the early 70s!
Certain areas of Louisiana do this, especially in the central part of the state. Usually with just a 90 degree left or right arrow beneath so that you know which way the junctioning highway will turn.
It's definitely nothing new. It's not like there's another way of saying Route x is both ways at the upcoming junction, without posting twice the signage by adding directional plates (and this assumes the route has a signed direction).
Simply think of it as an assembly saying that there's a junction ahead, and below are the different movements at the junction.
1948 photo (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=OR19260281):
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OR/OR19260281l1.jpg)
Quote from: NE2 on April 07, 2013, 11:23:59 PM
It's definitely nothing new. It's not like there's another way of saying Route x is both ways at the upcoming junction, without posting twice the signage by adding directional plates (and this assumes the route has a signed direction).
Simply think of it as an assembly saying that there's a junction ahead, and below are the different movements at the junction.
1948 photo (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=OR19260281):
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OR/OR19260281l1.jpg)
What does the R sign mean?
R is right turn. there is also L for left turn, and rarely seen LR (I've only seen Tennessee do this) for a T junction.
R and L were replaced in the 1948 MUTCD with up-and-over arrows.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/FL/FL19790105i1.jpg)
before 1948, that blue elbow-arrow would have been an L.
Quote from: NE2 on April 07, 2013, 11:23:59 PM
It's not like there's another way of saying Route x is both ways at the upcoming junction, without posting twice the signage by adding directional plates (and this assumes the route has a signed direction).
Since the presence of an "upcoming junction" sign doesn't preclude the placement of an actual route shield assembly at the intersection, it isn't really "twice the signage" to have a sign with JCT but no arrows, followed by a sign with arrows but no JCT. This is how Illinois handles such intersections.
GMSV is pretty fuzzy at this location, but see the intersection of Cambria Road and IL-149: JCT sign (http://goo.gl/maps/aA4UP) (it is, trust me); arrows at the intersection (http://goo.gl/maps/wDfby).
Or here's one with some extra signage thrown into the mix, IL-153 at IL-154: JCT sign (http://goo.gl/maps/vZUYB); END sign (http://goo.gl/maps/NNJh5); extra arrows in between (http://goo.gl/maps/KbZH4) (perhaps this would satisfy your description); arrows at the intersection (http://goo.gl/maps/HmiD9).
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2013, 03:26:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 07, 2013, 11:23:59 PM
It's not like there's another way of saying Route x is both ways at the upcoming junction, without posting twice the signage by adding directional plates (and this assumes the route has a signed direction).
Since the presence of an "upcoming junction" sign doesn't preclude the placement of an actual route shield assembly at the intersection, it isn't really "twice the signage" to have a sign with JCT but no arrows, followed by a sign with arrows but no JCT. This is how Illinois handles such intersections.
Which doesn't provide the same information as early as a JCT with a double arrow. Consider this: you have a T intersection to the right. This is signed with an advance-right arrow and then a normal right arrow. Now the route is extended to the left. The normal right arrow becomes a double arrow. But what does the advance right arrow become? If you remove the arrow and replace it with a JCT, you lose the early information about which way the route goes.
Quote from: NE2 on April 08, 2013, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2013, 03:26:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 07, 2013, 11:23:59 PM
It's not like there's another way of saying Route x is both ways at the upcoming junction, without posting twice the signage by adding directional plates (and this assumes the route has a signed direction).
Since the presence of an "upcoming junction" sign doesn't preclude the placement of an actual route shield assembly at the intersection, it isn't really "twice the signage" to have a sign with JCT but no arrows, followed by a sign with arrows but no JCT. This is how Illinois handles such intersections.
Which doesn't provide the same information as early as a JCT with a double arrow. Consider this: you have a T intersection to the right. This is signed with an advance-right arrow and then a normal right arrow. Now the route is extended to the left. The normal right arrow becomes a double arrow. But what does the advance right arrow become? If you remove the arrow and replace it with a JCT, you lose the early information about which way the route goes.
And then you have states like New Hampshire where you'll get a JUNCTION sign listing the route shields and nothing else before a major intersection, no matter which ways the roads go at it. Arrows would help tremendously, and I agree, JCT + arrow is the best way to go.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 08, 2013, 06:17:46 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 08, 2013, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2013, 03:26:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 07, 2013, 11:23:59 PM
It's not like there's another way of saying Route x is both ways at the upcoming junction, without posting twice the signage by adding directional plates (and this assumes the route has a signed direction).
Since the presence of an "upcoming junction" sign doesn't preclude the placement of an actual route shield assembly at the intersection, it isn't really "twice the signage" to have a sign with JCT but no arrows, followed by a sign with arrows but no JCT. This is how Illinois handles such intersections.
Which doesn't provide the same information as early as a JCT with a double arrow. Consider this: you have a T intersection to the right. This is signed with an advance-right arrow and then a normal right arrow. Now the route is extended to the left. The normal right arrow becomes a double arrow. But what does the advance right arrow become? If you remove the arrow and replace it with a JCT, you lose the early information about which way the route goes.
And then you have states like New Hampshire where you'll get a JUNCTION sign listing the route shields and nothing else before a major intersection, no matter which ways the roads go at it.
And no matter whether you're already on both of the roads at the JUNCTION.
If you've looked at a map, you know which side the intersecting route is on. If you don't read maps, then you're following turn by turn directions or a satnav which tells you which way you need to turn. Either way, the JCT assembly doesn't need to specify left or right.
If there's something about the junction which runs counter to a map reader's expectations, then a small green guide sign with "keep right" or "next left" or appropriate action message is called for, after the JCT assembly (if used) but still before the actual turn.
Quote from: vtk on April 09, 2013, 12:07:36 AM
If you've looked at a map, you know which side the intersecting route is on. If you don't read maps, then you're following turn by turn directions or a satnav which tells you which way you need to turn. Either way, the JCT assembly doesn't need to specify left or right.
What if there's an overlap on one side? Like so:
JCT JCT
99 400
99 400
<-| WTF goes here?
99 400
<- <->
I think it would be reasonable to combine the first and second:
JCT JCT
99 400
<-| <->
The JCT up top should clarify that the intersection is not immediate.
Why not just do this?:
Quote
JCT JCT
99 400
...
99 400
<- <->
I'm not sure an advance "JCT" sign with arrows communicates any additional meaningful information to a driver, compared to an advance sign with arrows but no "JCT" plaque. If the presence of intermediate cross streets or whatever make it necessary to stress that the junction isn't right there, but rather up ahead, then just use elbow arrows, or put a "500 feet" or "ahead" plaque on instead.
I've posted this picture before - but since it fits in with the current discussion I'll throw it out again. Nebraska has some odd-looking junction signs, but I think they do a pretty good job in conveying the information. They just look unlike what you find in other states.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.trainorders.com%2Fandroid%2Fmisc%2FNebraskaJunctionSignUS136NE103A.jpg&hash=9dc362fa7444477dbb9a5d4a430db1466a18533a)
Again, though... What information does the word JUNCTION convey that the arrows alone do not? None, really.
Quote from: kphoger on April 09, 2013, 03:49:24 PM
Again, though... What information does the word JUNCTION convey that the arrows alone do not? None, really.
Well, junction suggests that you are on one numbered route and meeting another, while if there are just arrows you might be on an unnumbered city/county/private road and meeting a numbered route.
WA-513 used to be routed on NE 125th St. in Seattle, to (and past) WA-522. There are no WA-513 signs up there, but there is an out of place "Junction 522" sign on NE 125th St. where it approaches 522.
Quote from: NE2 on April 09, 2013, 03:21:20 AMWTF goes here?
<---+--->
|
|
|
I have never seen a sign like that, but I have seen its older equivalent: "LR" used in Tennessee.
Quote from: kkt on April 09, 2013, 04:04:20 PM
Well, junction suggests that you are on one numbered route and meeting another, while if there are just arrows you might be on an unnumbered city/county/private road and meeting a numbered route.
that depends on the practices of the individual state. Florida, for example, has both JUNCTION and arrow assembly for state/state intersections - or, in their case, former state intersections which are now county, have not been touched since the 60s, and yield all kinds of awesome old sign finds.
a lot of states appear to do things similarly. I cannot think of a state that formally has three levels of assembly: JUNCTION-and-arrows, arrows only, and none. I know some states seemingly randomly omit the JUNCTION a lot of the time (California), and sometimes throw in an JUNCTION-and-arrow assembly, or just an arrow assembly, for a route that was never a state highway but is deemed a significant navigational path... but for the most part, I assume a rogue JUNCTION or arrow assembly indicates a former state highway alignment.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CO/CO19521381i2.jpg)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2013, 04:08:59 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 09, 2013, 04:04:20 PM
Well, junction suggests that you are on one numbered route and meeting another, while if there are just arrows you might be on an unnumbered city/county/private road and meeting a numbered route.
that depends on the practices of the individual state. Florida, for example, has both JUNCTION and arrow assembly for state/state intersections - or, in their case, former state intersections which are now county, have not been touched since the 60s, and yield all kinds of awesome old sign finds.
a lot of states appear to do things similarly. I cannot think of a state that formally has three levels of assembly: JUNCTION-and-arrows, arrows only, and none. I know some states seemingly randomly omit the JUNCTION a lot of the time (California), and sometimes throw in an JUNCTION-and-arrow assembly, or just an arrow assembly, for a route that was never a state highway but is deemed a significant navigational path... but for the most part, I assume a rogue JUNCTION or arrow assembly indicates a former state highway alignment.
And, more to my point, that's useful to a driver...how, exactly? Does already being on a state route or not have any bearing on how a driver will approach a junction or what he will do when he gets there?
Quote from Agentsteel53:
Quote
www.aaroads.com/shields/img/FL/FL19790105i1.jpg
before 1948, that blue elbow-arrow would have been an L.
Before 1948, there were no Interstates. (Duh) Just thought it was odd to use an interstate sign for the example picture. Youre wording suggests that interstates existed before 1948, and that they had "R or L" beneath them
Quote from: Brian556 on April 09, 2013, 04:30:49 PM
Before 1948, there were no Interstates. (Duh) Just thought it was odd to use an interstate sign for the example picture. Youre wording suggests that interstates existed before 1948, and that they had "R or L" beneath them
it was the first photo I dug up which had an elbow arrow.
Quote from: kphoger on April 09, 2013, 04:18:44 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2013, 04:08:59 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 09, 2013, 04:04:20 PM
Well, junction suggests that you are on one numbered route and meeting another, while if there are just arrows you might be on an unnumbered city/county/private road and meeting a numbered route.
that depends on the practices of the individual state. Florida, for example, has both JUNCTION and arrow assembly for state/state intersections - or, in their case, former state intersections which are now county, have not been touched since the 60s, and yield all kinds of awesome old sign finds.
a lot of states appear to do things similarly. I cannot think of a state that formally has three levels of assembly: JUNCTION-and-arrows, arrows only, and none. I know some states seemingly randomly omit the JUNCTION a lot of the time (California), and sometimes throw in an JUNCTION-and-arrow assembly, or just an arrow assembly, for a route that was never a state highway but is deemed a significant navigational path... but for the most part, I assume a rogue JUNCTION or arrow assembly indicates a former state highway alignment.
And, more to my point, that's useful to a driver...how, exactly? Does already being on a state route or not have any bearing on how a driver will approach a junction or what he will do when he gets there?
Some areas are very bad about posting signs. Drivers unfamiliar with the area might be unsure whether they got off a state route at the last turn. Seeing a junction sign reassures them that they didn't, or not seeing a junction sign confirms their suspicion that they did.
Maybe, possibly, but I doubt it. It had never occurred to me until now that a JCT plaque might mean I was on a state route and not a local road, and I'm a roadgeek (in fact, I remain unconvinced that an assembly with arrows but no "JCT" means you're not on a state route, whereas an assembly with arrows and "JCT" means you're on one). Joe Driver, I'm certain, would have no clue that's what it meant. And, either way, if he were worried about having gotten off his intended route, then he would be reassured by either (a) the straight-ahead route on the assembly or (b) the reassurance sign that would presumably follow the junction.
Quote from: kkt on April 09, 2013, 04:51:40 PM
Some areas are very bad about posting signs. Drivers unfamiliar with the area might be unsure whether they got off a state route at the last turn. Seeing a junction sign reassures them that they didn't, or not seeing a junction sign confirms their suspicion that they did.
or, not seeing a junction, in that case, means it is one of those state highways with poor posting frequency.
Quote from: Android on April 09, 2013, 03:09:06 PM
Nebraska has some odd-looking junction signs, but I think they do a pretty good job in conveying the information. They just look unlike what you find in other states.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.trainorders.com%2Fandroid%2Fmisc%2FNebraskaJunctionSignUS136NE103A.jpg&hash=9dc362fa7444477dbb9a5d4a430db1466a18533a)
Kansas used to have that type of junction sign, too as well as another version that said "Routes Divide" that was used where co-signed routes split at an intersection.
Quote from: route29 on April 09, 2013, 07:19:45 PM
Kansas used to have that type of junction sign, too as well as another version that said "Routes Divide" that was used where co-signed routes split at an intersection.
I would love to see photos. the closest I have seen is this, which is a DOT mockup with what appear to be colored route markers
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/KS/KS19630691i1.jpg)
Here's the classic ODOT District 6 treatment I'm used to, with images taken from Google Maps Street View:
Hilliard–Rome Rd northbound approaching I-70 (not on state highway system):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fjct-classic-1.jpg&hash=205133cc476a3624854d44754d41d781246e5898)
US 42 northbound approaching OH 29 (simple junction, both sides):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fjct-classic-2.jpg&hash=b2ae8cd76310ab2803877222791e4a26d21c9527)
OH 38 northbound approaching OH 736 (simple junction, intersecting route terminates):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fjct-classic-3.jpg&hash=8262160eced3ba148dc524d53e8e1a5c8048c07f)
US 40 and OH 142 eastbound approaching and just beyond the start of their overlap:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fjct-classic-4.jpg&hash=cb0925b2f7d89858bedaa45091bb46cb6876e31e)
US 40 and OH 142 westbound approaching and just beyond the start of their overlap:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fjct-classic-5.jpg&hash=a1c8f987c2982bc2e7100b3e51a1b5f55d56dcc7)
JCT assemblies are not present
on the US 40 / OH 142 overlap.
Conclusions:
- ODOT uses JCT assemblies to alert the driver he is approaching a state highway he is not already on, even if he's not already on a state highway if the junction ahead is an interchange.
- In District 6's classic usage, up-and-over arrows before the turn are only used to indicate the driver must turn to stay on a route he's currently on, (or TO trailblazers, apparently), and that route-following-guidance assembly is not posted at the same location as the junction assembly for the intersecting route.
- ODOT District 6 doesn't seem to like using cardinal directions except on reassurance marker assemblies, and even then only sometimes.
Here are a couple of examples of the style with arrows on the JCT assemblies:
OH 4 northbound approaching OH 162 (simple junction, both sides)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fjct-witharrow-1.jpg&hash=eb76a0e7df32c91d302688389dafa134cef78c2e)
And there's that up-and-leftright arrow NE2 was looking for.
US 23 northbound approaching OH 348 / OH 728 (simple junction, one intersecting route terminates on each side)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fjct-witharrow-2.jpg&hash=d997c04c242095d350f56559d8c5eb564cc07cbc)
Looking for examples of these, there was at least one intersection where GMSV shows an arrowless JCT assembly where I seem to remember one with arrows.
This suggests to me that the style of JCT assembly with up-and-over arrows is more prevalent now than it was a few years ago. But I think I was just remembering wrong. It's probably a district-by-district thing, though my home District 6 may have recently started doing JCT with arrows.
Quote from: vtk on April 09, 2013, 07:49:36 PM
OH 4 northbound at OH 162 (simple junction, both sides)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fjct-witharrow-1.jpg&hash=eb76a0e7df32c91d302688389dafa134cef78c2e)
And there's that up-and-leftright arrow NE2 was looking for.
US 23 northbound at OH 348 / OH 728 (simple junction, one intersecting route terminates on each side)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fjct-witharrow-2.jpg&hash=d997c04c242095d350f56559d8c5eb564cc07cbc)
My mind translates these signs to mean...
* A junction with OH-162 may be reached by turning either left or right ahead.
* Turn left ahead to reach a junction with OH-348, or right to reach one with OH-728.
...
not that the road you turn on in either case
is the route in question.
Quote from: kphoger on April 09, 2013, 09:02:50 PM
My mind translates these signs to mean...
* A junction with OH-162 may be reached by turning either left or right ahead.
* Turn left ahead to reach a junction with OH-348, or right to reach one with OH-728.
If that was the intended message, then they should say TO instead of JCT. But, as I don't like this use of arrows on JCT assemblies, I like your misinterpretation.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2013, 07:43:38 PM
Quote from: route29 on April 09, 2013, 07:19:45 PM
Kansas used to have that type of junction sign, too as well as another version that said "Routes Divide" that was used where co-signed routes split at an intersection.
I would love to see photos. the closest I have seen is this, which is a DOT mockup with what appear to be colored route markers
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/KS/KS19630691i1.jpg)
And even if I had the opportunity to see that sign in color, I'd still think it was absolutely awful.
My gut tells me that 69/7 go straight ahead (which cardinal direction?), west 166 goes left, and east 166 goes right. But it's extremely hard to parse that information given the shield placement. I could easily see someone interpreting it as west 69/166 to the left, east 7/166 to the right. Or maybe just west 69 to the left, east 7 to the right, and being baffled by the extra 166 shields on the bottom.
I have it in my head that if a movement requires a turn ahead (that is, the the sign is posted in advance of the intersection), an elbow arrow is used, while if a movement requires an immediate turn (the sign is posted at the intersection itself), a straight arrow is used.
That, more than anything, is why I object to the normal double-arrow being used beneath a JCT assembly. It seems contradictory to me, because JCT means "this route is ahead" while the double-arrow implies "this route is to your immediate left and right."
So, personally, I guess I'd consider that T-shaped left-and-also-right arrow (http://vidthekid.info/imghost/jct-witharrow-1.jpg) posted earlier a decent compromise, but really...if it's just a run-of-the-mill four-way crossroads that's ahead, I kinda have to wonder why it's worth including arrows on the JCT assembly at all. Keep it simple, IMO.
Quote from: Central Avenue on April 10, 2013, 01:07:45 AM
I have it in my head that if a movement requires a turn ahead (that is, the the sign is posted in advance of the intersection), an elbow arrow is used, while if a movement requires an immediate turn (the sign is posted at the intersection itself), a straight arrow is used.
That, more than anything, is why I object to the normal double-arrow being used beneath a JCT assembly. It seems contradictory to me, because JCT means "this route is ahead" while the double-arrow implies "this route is to your immediate left and right."
So, personally, I guess I'd consider that T-shaped left-and-also-right arrow (http://vidthekid.info/imghost/jct-witharrow-1.jpg) posted earlier a decent compromise, but really...if it's just a run-of-the-mill four-way crossroads that's ahead, I kinda have to wonder why it's worth including arrows on the JCT assembly at all. Keep it simple, IMO.
The T-shaped arrow was used decades ago by many states, and may have been in an MUTCD for that matter, but is not supposed to be used anymore, so that would limit you to the JCT plaque.
Quote from: Steve on April 10, 2013, 09:45:14 PM
The T-shaped arrow was used decades ago by many states, and may have been in an MUTCD for that matter, but is not supposed to be used anymore, so that would limit you to the JCT plaque.
Well, yeah, if you're sticking strictly with the current MUTCD. But I figured we were talking more about what we think the standards
should be than what they already are.
Incidentally, I can't seem to find the T-shaped arrow plaque in my copy (Oct 2007 version) of ODOT's Sign Design Manual.