AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Traffic Control => Topic started by: deathtopumpkins on April 10, 2013, 02:41:27 PM

Title: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 10, 2013, 02:41:27 PM
Don't think we have a topic yet covering examples of signs that are way bigger than they need to be.

http://goo.gl/maps/thOQw Found these giant chevrons along I-95 near Sebastian, Florida. I think they're just a tad excessive considering they're at least 15 feet tall and there are a lot of them, but the curve doesn't seem that sharp.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: NE2 on April 10, 2013, 04:46:28 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages095%2Fi-095_nb_new_england_thruway.jpg&hash=990ec3eab445fa4c185e4e79ff2e786c9d1d7306)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: xcellntbuy on April 10, 2013, 05:00:14 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 10, 2013, 02:41:27 PM
Don't think we have a topic yet covering examples of signs that are way bigger than they need to be.

http://goo.gl/maps/thOQw Found these giant chevrons along I-95 near Sebastian, Florida. I think they're just a tad excessive considering they're at least 15 feet tall and there are a lot of them, but the curve doesn't seem that sharp.
Could be an area that attracts speeders.  There are only a couple of sections of Interstate 95 with long sections without exits.  But, knowing Florida, anything is possible.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Michael on April 10, 2013, 05:41:09 PM
I posted this in the "What is the largest road sign that you have seen?" thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6364.msg140037#msg140037), but I guess it fits here too:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york600/i-690_wb_exit_013_01.jpg)
Credit: AARoads

It's on I-690 West just before the I-81 interchange in Syracuse.  Since overhead signs on urban interstates have to be 17 feet above the pavement, I'd say this sign is 20 feet tall and 25 feet wide.  I don't know how I'd redesign it to be smaller.

Also, I'll say it to get it out of the way: Arrow-per-Lane Diagrammatics.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Eth on April 10, 2013, 09:44:53 PM
Every exit tab in the state of Maryland.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Alps on April 10, 2013, 09:48:15 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fqc%2Fa-15%2Fsblank.jpg&hash=72fac5757809a20cb94e6f501395e78d84e39a1e)
Actual sign size: 2m x 3.5m? (give or take)
Sign size needed for message and margins: 0m x 0m
% sign bloat: ∞
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: hbelkins on April 10, 2013, 09:50:19 PM
^^^

Is that from one of the overheads at the OH 7 stub?
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Alps on April 10, 2013, 10:16:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 10, 2013, 09:50:19 PM
^^^

Is that from one of the overheads at the OH 7 stub?
Option 1: Right click, view image, check source
Option 2: Hit "quote", check source
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on April 10, 2013, 11:06:06 PM
Quote from: Steve on April 10, 2013, 10:16:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 10, 2013, 09:50:19 PM
^^^

Is that from one of the overheads at the OH 7 stub?
Option 1: Right click, view image, check source
Option 2: Hit "quote", check source

Neither one of your "options" tell us where exactly it is on Autoroute 15.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: elsmere241 on April 11, 2013, 08:53:51 AM
Quote from: Michael on April 10, 2013, 05:41:09 PM
I posted this in the "What is the largest road sign that you have seen?" thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6364.msg140037#msg140037), but I guess it fits here too:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york600/i-690_wb_exit_013_01.jpg)
Credit: AARoads

It's on I-690 West just before the I-81 interchange in Syracuse.  Since overhead signs on urban interstates have to be 17 feet above the pavement, I'd say this sign is 20 feet tall and 25 feet wide.  I don't know how I'd redesign it to be smaller.

Also, I'll say it to get it out of the way: Arrow-per-Lane Diagrammatics.

Delaware could use a sign like that on I-95 north for the mega-interchange with US 202 south, DE 141, I-295 and I-495 (officially Exits 5A-D).  They're going to have to do something anyway with the ramp from DE 1 north to I-95 north splitting to come in on both sides of 95.  (Maybe arrow-per-lane would work better, though.)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: PHLBOS on April 11, 2013, 09:53:06 AM
Quote from: Eth on April 10, 2013, 09:44:53 PM
Every exit tab in the state of Maryland.
Delaware seems to be heading in that direction as well with their newer signage.

The diagrametric BGS (which was recently replaced w/a similar but newer version) in the below-link needlessly (IMHO) places the NORTH 95 SOUTH 3 messages in a side-by-side fashion when the listings could have been done in a stacked manner (NORTH 95 message placed above the SOUTH 3 message) thereby reducing the overall width of the BGS:

http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/MA-128/ (http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/MA-128/)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: kj3400 on April 11, 2013, 11:10:28 AM
Quote from: Eth on April 10, 2013, 09:44:53 PM
Every new exit tab in the state of Maryland.

FTFY.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: 1995hoo on April 11, 2013, 02:10:55 PM
These have been replaced, but I always thought they were absurd. I suppose if you feel strongly about the arrow-per-lane and you're not willing to use the smaller signs New York put up on the Northway, then these were the correct size and were not "oversized," but they always seemed utterly excessive, and the fact that there were so many in a row made it worse.

(Pictures from AARoads.com)

(https://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware050/i-095_sb_exit_004b_03.jpg)


For those unfamiliar with the I-87 reference:

(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york087/i-087_anw_nb_exit_007_01.jpg)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: formulanone on April 11, 2013, 07:57:55 PM
Along US 15/501 in NC (I think; me used bad note-taking on this one)...

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3693/19894500395_b3c75862f2_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wj1vRv)

Along I-70 east in Kansas, after it stops being a Turnpike.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7618/16148061374_9e337459be_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qAX34h)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: amroad17 on April 11, 2013, 09:08:47 PM
What about the one on I-40 in Durham at the I-540 interchange?  That is HUGE!!!
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: 1995hoo on April 11, 2013, 09:11:22 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 11, 2013, 07:57:55 PM
Along US 15/501 in NC (I think; me used bad note-taking on this one)...

....

Correct, that's the southbound side at the Hillsborough Road/Durham Freeway/Morreene Road interchange not far from Duke University.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: kurumi on April 11, 2013, 10:57:55 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8374%2F8598682037_f712834b52.jpg&hash=cf07b241ef02e29f46fb38aa1cdea31c9db8ab43) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)
Enormous MA 213 sign, MA 28, Methuen (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 12, 2013, 02:28:10 AM
Quote from: kurumi on April 11, 2013, 10:57:55 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8374%2F8598682037_f712834b52.jpg&hash=cf07b241ef02e29f46fb38aa1cdea31c9db8ab43) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)
Enormous MA 213 sign, MA 28, Methuen (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)

Looks like a standard MA shield. Newly erected ones are generally quite large. I'd say at least 30x24 for a 3-digit rectangle. At least. They usually get 2 poles with directions or arrows mounted on one off-center.

I do agree though, the fact that we use shields this large is a bit excessive.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 12, 2013, 09:51:32 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 12, 2013, 02:28:10 AM
Looks like a standard MA shield. Newly erected ones are generally quite large. I'd say at least 30x24 for a 3-digit rectangle. At least. They usually get 2 poles with directions or arrows mounted on one off-center.

I do agree though, the fact that we use shields this large is a bit excessive.

that shield looks to be 45x36.

30x24 is 1970 standard; that is what most states use for three-digit routes.  the 45x36 should be used only as a freeway reassurance.  since 213 is a freeway, I'll bet they weren't super careful about which shields go where, and used a mainline shield on the approach road by accident.  (because Massachusetts.)

the shield in the background (WEST/213/elbow arrow) appears to be of normal 30x24 size.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: SidS1045 on April 12, 2013, 03:00:47 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 12, 2013, 02:28:10 AM
Quote from: kurumi on April 11, 2013, 10:57:55 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8374%2F8598682037_f712834b52.jpg&hash=cf07b241ef02e29f46fb38aa1cdea31c9db8ab43) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)
Enormous MA 213 sign, MA 28, Methuen (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)

Looks like a standard MA shield. Newly erected ones are generally quite large. I'd say at least 30x24 for a 3-digit rectangle. At least. They usually get 2 poles with directions or arrows mounted on one off-center.

I do agree though, the fact that we use shields this large is a bit excessive.

For a very long time Massachusetts took a lot of flak, especially from visitors, for not marking state roads very well.  In some places it was impossible even for natives to stay on certain numbered state routes (MA-16 from Boston west was particularly bad).  I wonder if they're overcompensating by using such large shields.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: PHLBOS on April 12, 2013, 03:25:04 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on April 12, 2013, 03:00:47 PMFor a very long time Massachusetts took a lot of flak, especially from visitors, for not marking state roads very well.  In some places it was impossible even for natives to stay on certain numbered state routes (MA-16 from Boston west was particularly bad).  I wonder if they're overcompensating by using such large shields.
IMHO, I think the lower/southern ends of MA 38 and MA 99 would definitely fall in that not very well marked category moreso than MA 16 along the Mystic Valley Parkway. 

MA 129 signage through Downtown Lynn completely falls apart after veering west off MA 1A.

With regards to the oversized MA shields along conventional roads.  Of all places, Marblehead has several oversized MA 114 shields at and approaching the Maple St. intersection; erected when a much-needed traffic signal was installed.  At least w/the two approach assemblies along Maple; effectively use the large shield as a means of combining the five signs (the large 114 shield w/the WEST and EAST cardinals mounted above the shield and the two direction arrows mounted below).  The large shield is the only sign that is connected by both posts and is wide enough fill any outer gaps.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: theline on April 12, 2013, 04:01:11 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 11, 2013, 10:57:55 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8374%2F8598682037_f712834b52.jpg&hash=cf07b241ef02e29f46fb38aa1cdea31c9db8ab43) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)
Enormous MA 213 sign, MA 28, Methuen (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)




                                                               Way

                                                            too much

                                                               white

                                                               space.



Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Alps on April 12, 2013, 07:00:21 PM
Quote from: theline on April 12, 2013, 04:01:11 PM





                                                               Way

                                                            too much

                                                               white

                                                               space.




Oh hai
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_16%2Fe99.jpg&hash=3ed6418c5108562d36b82113f0ec92f07b313a48)
wut
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_16%2Feblank.jpg&hash=a58ed03ccbf1b21630d2b45061596f09657cd566)
what is this i don't even
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_16%2Feast.jpg&hash=b963c871db39eb39ccde6c0e1f1f09c04ff79e59)
waaay too much black space:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_16%2Fwcircle2.jpg&hash=daf391d23472761ab4b82fb88d79c3844e4a368b)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: NE2 on April 12, 2013, 11:31:25 PM
Huge street name sign: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.246441,-81.43605&spn=0.00862,0.016512&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.246626,-81.436052&panoid=4UfxX0bPcFbCT4WQXdlByg&cbp=12,47.17,,1,0.47
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: kphoger on April 13, 2013, 11:55:12 AM
I don't even know what used to be on this sign....

http://goo.gl/maps/pVKoF (http://goo.gl/maps/pVKoF)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 13, 2013, 12:15:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 12, 2013, 11:31:25 PM
Huge street name sign: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.246441,-81.43605&spn=0.00862,0.016512&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.246626,-81.436052&panoid=4UfxX0bPcFbCT4WQXdlByg&cbp=12,47.17,,1,0.47
Wait till you see the new back lit street signs installed at the John Young Parkway & Orange Blossom Trail with the JYP extension project.  Like the FUN SPOT family park commercial "Itttttttts Huuuuuuuuge!"
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 13, 2013, 05:56:23 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on April 12, 2013, 03:00:47 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 12, 2013, 02:28:10 AM
Quote from: kurumi on April 11, 2013, 10:57:55 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8374%2F8598682037_f712834b52.jpg&hash=cf07b241ef02e29f46fb38aa1cdea31c9db8ab43) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)
Enormous MA 213 sign, MA 28, Methuen (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)

Looks like a standard MA shield. Newly erected ones are generally quite large. I'd say at least 30x24 for a 3-digit rectangle. At least. They usually get 2 poles with directions or arrows mounted on one off-center.

I do agree though, the fact that we use shields this large is a bit excessive.

For a very long time Massachusetts took a lot of flak, especially from visitors, for not marking state roads very well.  In some places it was impossible even for natives to stay on certain numbered state routes (MA-16 from Boston west was particularly bad).  I wonder if they're overcompensating by using such large shields.

Some still aren't, especially on town-maintained roads. I still sometimes get lost in downtown Amesbury looking for 110 or 150. Worcester can also be a bit lacking in signage for state routes: even MA 9 has some spotty signage. For the most part though in eastern, urbanized Mass. the only issues are on town or city roads, and in western Mass. the only issues are on roads that shouldn't really be state highways in the first place (I'm looking at you, 8A and 101).
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: amroad17 on April 13, 2013, 09:38:22 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 13, 2013, 11:55:12 AM
I don't even know what used to be on this sign....

http://goo.gl/maps/pVKoF (http://goo.gl/maps/pVKoF)

                    IF YOU WANT TO ENTER
                      THE UNITED STATES
                 DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK!

                    (in Spanish, of course)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on April 13, 2013, 09:46:51 PM
                         SI QUIERES ENTRAR
                       LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS
                  HACE BAJO SU PROPIO RIESGO!

There's the Spanish translation.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: amroad17 on April 13, 2013, 09:53:58 PM
Thanks, I do not know much Spanish.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: lordsutch on April 14, 2013, 01:07:12 AM
Uh, it's facing in the wrong direction for that.  It probably was directions on Mex 2 (Laredo & Monterrey left, Piedras Negras & Ciudad Acuña etc. right).
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: NE2 on April 14, 2013, 01:20:59 AM
My guess: a fucking billboard.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: vtk on April 14, 2013, 02:04:15 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 12, 2013, 02:28:10 AM
Quote from: kurumi on April 11, 2013, 10:57:55 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8374%2F8598682037_f712834b52.jpg&hash=cf07b241ef02e29f46fb38aa1cdea31c9db8ab43) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)
Enormous MA 213 sign, MA 28, Methuen (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)

Looks like a standard MA shield. Newly erected ones are generally quite large. I'd say at least 30×24 for a 3-digit rectangle.

No no, 30×24 is reasonable if not a bit small by modern standards.  I think Ohio's standard for conventional roads is 37½×30.  To me, that sign looks like 60×48.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 14, 2013, 04:19:52 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 14, 2013, 02:04:15 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 12, 2013, 02:28:10 AM
Quote from: kurumi on April 11, 2013, 10:57:55 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8374%2F8598682037_f712834b52.jpg&hash=cf07b241ef02e29f46fb38aa1cdea31c9db8ab43) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)
Enormous MA 213 sign, MA 28, Methuen (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)

Looks like a standard MA shield. Newly erected ones are generally quite large. I'd say at least 30×24 for a 3-digit rectangle.excessive.

No no, 30×24 is reasonable if not a bit small by modern standards.  I think Ohio's standard for conventional roads is 37½×30.  To me, that sign looks like 60×48.

Yes, yes, we already established that I was wrong upthread - I'm terrible at estimating shield sizes, I know. Need I apologize again?

Also, don't twist my words. I did not call 30x24 excessive, I called the MA large shield size excessive, but you cut that out of your quote.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: vtk on April 14, 2013, 09:37:36 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 14, 2013, 04:19:52 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 14, 2013, 02:04:15 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 12, 2013, 02:28:10 AM
Quote from: kurumi on April 11, 2013, 10:57:55 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8374%2F8598682037_f712834b52.jpg&hash=cf07b241ef02e29f46fb38aa1cdea31c9db8ab43) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)
Enormous MA 213 sign, MA 28, Methuen (http://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/8598682037/)

Looks like a standard MA shield. Newly erected ones are generally quite large. I'd say at least 30×24 for a 3-digit rectangle.excessive.

No no, 30×24 is reasonable if not a bit small by modern standards.  I think Ohio's standard for conventional roads is 37½×30.  To me, that sign looks like 60×48.

Yes, yes, we already established that I was wrong upthread - I'm terrible at estimating shield sizes, I know. Need I apologize again?

Also, don't twist my words. I did not call 30x24 excessive, I called the MA large shield size excessive, but you cut that out of your quote.

Oops, I messed up the quote; the word "excessive" should have been omitted as well.  Though it did seem to me at the time that you were characterizing "at least 30×24" as "quite large".  And another reply seemed to still underestimate the size at 45×36. I guess I just couldn't let it go.

PS – I enjoy that you countered my opening "no no" with an opening "yes yes".  Made me smile.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: kphoger on April 15, 2013, 04:01:29 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on April 13, 2013, 09:46:51 PM
                         SI QUIERES ENTRAR
                       LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS
                  HACE BAJO SU PROPIO RIESGO!

There's the Spanish translation.  :sombrero:

Quote from: amroad17 on April 13, 2013, 09:53:58 PM
Thanks, I do not know much Spanish.

Neither does he, I'm guessing.  Although it isn't super terrible.

Si quiera (subjunctive) entrar en (added preposition) los Estados Unidos, hacerlo (reflexive infinitive, used as polite imperative) bajo su propia responsabilidad (more common vocab).

[EDIT:  quieras to quiera



Quote from: NE2 on April 14, 2013, 01:20:59 AM
My guess: a fucking billboard.

I've thought of that, but the color just keeps screaming highway sign.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 15, 2013, 04:06:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 14, 2013, 01:20:59 AM
My guess: a fucking billboard.

I dunno... fucking is pretty popular as is; does it need its own advertising?
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: kphoger on April 15, 2013, 04:11:09 PM
Greenout due to censorship?
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: formulanone on April 15, 2013, 08:41:42 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 15, 2013, 04:11:09 PM
Greenout due to censorship?

I dunno about you guys, but it clearly says "©2009 Google".
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Alps on April 15, 2013, 11:14:07 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 15, 2013, 04:06:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 14, 2013, 01:20:59 AM
My guess: a fucking billboard.

I dunno... fucking is pretty popular as is; does it need its own advertising?
Yes. Yes it does.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm24digital.com%2Fen%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2Ffucking-austria.jpg&hash=71bc70a26bce9cf7b7f5edcd051545d6a909ade3)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Billy F 1988 on April 15, 2013, 11:32:25 PM
Don't remind me. That is what is known as teabagging!
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Alps on April 16, 2013, 12:44:48 AM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on April 15, 2013, 11:32:25 PM
Don't remind me. That is what is known as teabagging!
No, teabagging is when you dip your scrotum into your partner's/drunk friend's mouth or elsewhere on their face.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: PHLBOS on April 16, 2013, 08:32:42 AM
Guys, can we please keep it somewhat clean here?  Seriously.  The last 3 posts were over-the-top IMHO.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: NE2 on April 16, 2013, 09:00:19 AM
I agree. No teabagging on this forum.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Brandon on April 16, 2013, 09:54:20 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 16, 2013, 08:32:42 AM
Guys, can we please keep it somewhat clean here?  Seriously.  The last 3 posts were over-the-top IMHO.

Agreed.  Let's keep this rated R and not NC-17.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: hbelkins on April 16, 2013, 10:24:57 AM
The sign Steve posted is real, isn't it? Isn't there really a town/village/hamlet with that name somewhere in Europe?
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: InterstateNG on April 16, 2013, 10:28:16 AM
Prudes ITT.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Brandon on April 16, 2013, 10:33:44 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 16, 2013, 10:24:57 AM
The sign Steve posted is real, isn't it? Isn't there really a town/village/hamlet with that name somewhere in Europe?

Yes, there is.  Fucking, Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucking,_Austria).

QuoteThe village is especially popular with British tourists; as a local tour guide explained: "The Germans all want to see Mozart's house in Salzburg; the Americans want to see where The Sound of Music was filmed; the Japanese want Hitler's birthplace in Braunau; but for the British, it's all about Fucking."

Interestingly, it's named for a person, Focko, a Bavarian nobleman; hence "Fucking" means, in German, "place of Focko's people".

How's that to expand one's knowledge for the day!  :rofl:
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: hbelkins on April 16, 2013, 01:45:35 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 16, 2013, 10:33:44 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 16, 2013, 10:24:57 AM
The sign Steve posted is real, isn't it? Isn't there really a town/village/hamlet with that name somewhere in Europe?

Yes, there is.  Fucking, Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucking,_Austria).


Is it sister cities with Intercourse, Pa.?  :-D
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Brandon on April 16, 2013, 02:10:07 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 16, 2013, 01:45:35 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 16, 2013, 10:33:44 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 16, 2013, 10:24:57 AM
The sign Steve posted is real, isn't it? Isn't there really a town/village/hamlet with that name somewhere in Europe?

Yes, there is.  Fucking, Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucking,_Austria).


Is it sister cities with Intercourse, Pa.?  :-D

Sure as hell wouldn't be with Blue Ball, PA.  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: kphoger on April 16, 2013, 02:53:30 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 16, 2013, 09:54:20 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 16, 2013, 08:32:42 AM
Guys, can we please keep it somewhat clean here?  Seriously.  The last 3 posts were over-the-top IMHO.

Agreed.  Let's keep this rated R and not NC-17.

Rated R for Roads.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Big John on April 16, 2013, 03:12:15 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 16, 2013, 02:53:30 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 16, 2013, 09:54:20 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 16, 2013, 08:32:42 AM
Guys, can we please keep it somewhat clean here?  Seriously.  The last 3 posts were over-the-top IMHO.

Agreed.  Let's keep this rated R and not NC-17.

Rated R for Roads.
And there is no North Carolina route 17.  17 is a US highway there though.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 16, 2013, 03:22:22 PM
there is, however, a route PG-13 in Puerto Guam (a jointly held subsidiary of Alanland Alanworks and Tamaribuchi Heavy Manufacturing Concern)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: 1995hoo on April 16, 2013, 05:25:15 PM
If NC-17 is the newfangled politically-correct version of X, does than mean a XXX flick would now be NC-51?

(Yes, I know the answer is "no" because the MPAA owns the NC-17 rating.)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: kphoger on April 16, 2013, 05:26:33 PM
NC-4913, actually.  Which really needs to be a North Carolina state highway.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Alps on April 16, 2013, 06:16:25 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 16, 2013, 05:26:33 PM
NC-4913, actually.  Which really needs to be a North Carolina state highway.
I'm bizarrely inspired to split off from this thread, "MPAA ratings, sexuality, and road numbering." Or write a scholarly research paper.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: formulanone on April 17, 2013, 07:52:05 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 16, 2013, 03:22:22 PM
there is, however, a route PG-13 in Puerto Guam (a jointly held subsidiary of Alanland Alanworks and Tamaribuchi Heavy Manufacturing Concern)

No love for Matsumura Fish Works?

(hmmm...T-shirts exist)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 17, 2013, 08:29:02 AM
Quote from: Steve on April 16, 2013, 06:16:25 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 16, 2013, 05:26:33 PM
NC-4913, actually.  Which really needs to be a North Carolina state highway.
I'm bizarrely inspired to split off from this thread, "MPAA ratings, sexuality, and road numbering." Or write a scholarly research paper.

If you want to expaned your paper to include license plates...

On occasion, I'll see a car with the license plate HOT 69X.  This is a standard issued NJ Tag (with the little state silhouette between HOT & 69X).  The woman driving it appears to be in her post-hot days, to put it nicely.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: roadman on April 25, 2013, 04:18:41 PM
One of the southern states (South Carolina) no longer issues standard plates with the letter combination OMG.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: kkt on April 25, 2013, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 25, 2013, 04:18:41 PM
One of the southern states (South Carolina) no longer issues standard plates with the letter combination OMG.

How about LOL or WTF?
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 25, 2013, 05:32:10 PM
POO is not used in California, simply because it conflicts with the number 00 for the commercial pattern (1A23456).  I believe 1P00234 is issued to commercial runs.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Brandon on April 25, 2013, 05:41:38 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 25, 2013, 05:32:10 PM
POO is not used in California, simply because it conflicts with the number 00 for the commercial pattern (1A23456).  I believe 1P00234 is issued to commercial runs.

Is the P00 series issued to trucks for cleaning our septic tanks?  :-P
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: ap70621 on April 25, 2013, 08:36:35 PM
There are some really huge speed limit 45 signs on NJ 23 near I-287 in Riverdale, NJ. Can't post a picture though since Streetview was taken before they were put up.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on April 25, 2013, 09:26:59 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 25, 2013, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 25, 2013, 04:18:41 PM
One of the southern states (South Carolina) no longer issues standard plates with the letter combination OMG.

How about LOL or WTF?

North Carolina once issued plates in the WTF-0000 series. These were on the short-lived red-die plates, sometime between 2007 and 2009.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: OracleUsr on April 25, 2013, 11:21:35 PM
Quote from: ap70621 on April 25, 2013, 08:36:35 PM
There are some really huge speed limit 45 signs on NJ 23 near I-287 in Riverdale, NJ. Can't post a picture though since Streetview was taken before they were put up.

I-64 west of Williamsburg used to have a huge SPEED LIMIT 55 sign going towards Richmond.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2013, 01:41:32 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on April 25, 2013, 11:21:35 PM
Quote from: ap70621 on April 25, 2013, 08:36:35 PM
There are some really huge speed limit 45 signs on NJ 23 near I-287 in Riverdale, NJ. Can't post a picture though since Streetview was taken before they were put up.

I-64 west of Williamsburg used to have a huge SPEED LIMIT 55 sign going towards Richmond.

There were similar signs on I-95 northbound near Dumfries, Prince William County, Va.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Alex on April 26, 2013, 05:06:18 PM
The winner for me of excessively oversized signs was this panel on DE 1/7 south after I-95 (long gone now, but was there throughout most of the 1990s):

(https://www.aaroads.com/delaware/vidcaps/de-001_007_sb_exit_164a_03.jpg)

Oddly enough, this sign might qualify as an early example of a OAPL sign.  :coffee:
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: OracleUsr on April 27, 2013, 01:53:55 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2013, 01:41:32 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on April 25, 2013, 11:21:35 PM
Quote from: ap70621 on April 25, 2013, 08:36:35 PM
There are some really huge speed limit 45 signs on NJ 23 near I-287 in Riverdale, NJ. Can't post a picture though since Streetview was taken before they were put up.

I-64 west of Williamsburg used to have a huge SPEED LIMIT 55 sign going towards Richmond.

There were similar signs on I-95 northbound near Dumfries, Prince William County, Va.

Any pictures of these around?  I only knew about the I-64 one because in 1982 I took an overnight class trip to Williamsburg and we returned on I-64 to I-95.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 27, 2013, 09:51:07 AM
Quote from: OracleUsr on April 27, 2013, 01:53:55 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2013, 01:41:32 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on April 25, 2013, 11:21:35 PM
Quote from: ap70621 on April 25, 2013, 08:36:35 PM
There are some really huge speed limit 45 signs on NJ 23 near I-287 in Riverdale, NJ. Can't post a picture though since Streetview was taken before they were put up.

I-64 west of Williamsburg used to have a huge SPEED LIMIT 55 sign going towards Richmond.

There were similar signs on I-95 northbound near Dumfries, Prince William County, Va.

Any pictures of these around?  I only knew about the I-64 one because in 1982 I took an overnight class trip to Williamsburg and we returned on I-64 to I-95.

I never took one, and I they are gone now (according to GSV) - they were posted someplace between Exit 148, MCB Quantico (Russell Road) and Exit 152, Va. 234 (Dumfries Road).

The speed limit along that part of I-95 was raised in the last several years, and the signs would have had to be modified or removed for that reason.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: OracleUsr on April 27, 2013, 12:50:10 PM
Wait, I remember those now that you mention it.  There were many in VA like that, had a fairly large space above the word "SPEED"  I used to live in Gaithersburg, MD, so I sometimes used I-95 to go from my parents' house in Greensboro, NC, to my apartment (81 to 66 or 70 was my preferred route, though)

The I-64 one I'm thinking about was about the size of a large BGS...maybe I remember incorrectly.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: amroad17 on April 27, 2013, 09:18:21 PM
There are large "Speed Limit 55" signs before each end of the Big Walker Tunnel entrances as well as before the south entrance of the East River Tunnel.  They are not as large as the one I saw on I-64 westbound between Williamsburg and Richmond in 1990.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: OracleUsr on April 27, 2013, 11:31:10 PM
Ahh, okay, so I didn't dream it.

I had a 110 camera with me on the bus, shoulda grabbed a pic of it.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Duke87 on April 28, 2013, 06:38:31 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 25, 2013, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 25, 2013, 04:18:41 PM
One of the southern states (South Carolina) no longer issues standard plates with the letter combination OMG.

How about LOL or WTF?

Connecticut let WTF slip:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg21.imageshack.us%2Fimg21%2F8647%2Fimg4725g.jpg&hash=85a0def04e2e2ed8cca0d05d030a112f986905c2)

And New York issued plates with FAP:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg543.imageshack.us%2Fimg543%2F6923%2Fimg4998v.jpg&hash=e3ed0de76355f335456e4a30f898b216deaf024c)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Brandon on April 28, 2013, 07:09:45 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 28, 2013, 06:38:31 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 25, 2013, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 25, 2013, 04:18:41 PM
One of the southern states (South Carolina) no longer issues standard plates with the letter combination OMG.

How about LOL or WTF?
And New York issued plates with FAP:

FAP - Federal Aid Primary?  That's one designation for route in Illinois (as in FAP-407 aka IL-336).
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Duke87 on April 28, 2013, 09:13:53 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 28, 2013, 07:09:45 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 28, 2013, 06:38:31 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 25, 2013, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 25, 2013, 04:18:41 PM
One of the southern states (South Carolina) no longer issues standard plates with the letter combination OMG.

How about LOL or WTF?
And New York issued plates with FAP:

FAP - Federal Aid Primary?  That's one designation for route in Illinois (as in FAP-407 aka IL-336).

Nope. This.
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fap)
It's kind of an internet thing, I suppose. Most people I mention it to have not heard the term before. Which I guess is why the DMV didn't catch it.

Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: hbelkins on April 28, 2013, 09:28:46 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 28, 2013, 09:13:53 PM
It's kind of an internet thing, I suppose. Most people I mention it to have not heard the term before. Which I guess is why the DMV didn't catch it.

I had certainly never heard it until now.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Takumi on April 28, 2013, 10:35:45 PM
The internet is a terrible place.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: vtk on April 28, 2013, 11:37:52 PM
The Internet is really really great.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: vdeane on April 29, 2013, 12:19:01 PM
And someday, NY will probably issue WTF plates too.  My calc professor said you can always hear students say that doing word problems and that it means "what to find".  Given my experience with word problems, I don't think that's what they were trying to say.  Not when you get problems like "Bobby has ten apples.  What is the distance to the moon?".
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2013, 03:39:54 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 29, 2013, 12:19:01 PM
And someday, NY will probably issue WTF plates too.  My calc professor said you can always hear students say that doing word problems and that it means "what to find".  Given my experience with word problems, I don't think that's what they were trying to say.  Not when you get problems like "Bobby has ten apples.  What is the distance to the moon?".

X=Clock.  Squared.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Alps on April 29, 2013, 07:32:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 29, 2013, 12:19:01 PM
"Bobby has ten apples.  What is the distance to the moon?".
"Approximately 238,900 miles, and can I have an apple?"
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: TXtoNJ on April 29, 2013, 07:36:59 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 28, 2013, 11:37:52 PM
The Internet is really really great.

Trekkie Monster approves.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on April 29, 2013, 08:10:53 PM
I don't think that Québec has skipped a single 3-letter combination except for ABC which is "reserved."

Back on topic, https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Pont+Laviolette,+B%C3%A9cancour,+QC&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&ll=46.299457,-72.547783&spn=0.002591,0.006539&sll=53.796105,-68.44248&sspn=36.71342,107.138672&hnear=Pont+Laviolette,+B%C3%A9cancour,+Qu%C3%A9bec&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=46.299234,-72.547391&panoid=OZ6qWGLOFdE4xcBL4vr4gw&cbp=12,306.49,,1,-2.03
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 29, 2013, 09:44:00 PM
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on April 29, 2013, 08:10:53 PM
I don't think that Québec has skipped a single 3-letter combination except for ABC which is "reserved."

Back on topic, https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Pont+Laviolette,+B%C3%A9cancour,+QC&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&ll=46.299457,-72.547783&spn=0.002591,0.006539&sll=53.796105,-68.44248&sspn=36.71342,107.138672&hnear=Pont+Laviolette,+B%C3%A9cancour,+Qu%C3%A9bec&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=46.299234,-72.547391&panoid=OZ6qWGLOFdE4xcBL4vr4gw&cbp=12,306.49,,1,-2.03

Frank, I think the "we're not kidding" 80 k/h sign there is appropriate (I've been in Quebec, but not over that span).

Looks like a pretty steep grade to the crest, with  narrower-than-normal travel lanes.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: vtk on April 30, 2013, 09:46:25 PM
Here's how that should have gone:

Quote from: somebody on April 29, 2013, 07:36:59 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 28, 2013, 11:37:52 PM
The Internet is really really great.

...for porn!

It's a song from Avenue Q.  Guess it didn't have as much visibility as I thought.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on April 30, 2013, 10:04:57 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 30, 2013, 09:46:25 PM
Here's how that should have gone:

Quote from: somebody on April 29, 2013, 07:36:59 PM
Quote from: vtk on April 28, 2013, 11:37:52 PM
The Internet is really really great.

...for porn!

It's a song from Avenue Q.  Guess it didn't have as much visibility as I thought.

Sorry to let you down. :( Guess I hadn't checked this thread recently.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: formulanone on April 30, 2013, 11:17:46 PM
Are all the Penn Turnpike signs this huge? No cutout sign should ever be this big. That arrow is a as wide as a pickup bed, and that's just kind of wrong.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7340/27419816240_187b4cd615_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HLZJ5q)

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7736/27663768936_565109349e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J9y3Ho)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: KEK Inc. on May 01, 2013, 03:14:10 AM
^ That's actually awesome.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Roadsguy on May 01, 2013, 08:25:02 AM
That's what the Turnpike always does, even on expressways. (Though I wish they'd have proper MUTCD overhead BGSes at the exit in addition to these signs replacing the "EXIT -->" signs.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: kphoger on May 02, 2013, 08:00:11 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 28, 2013, 09:13:53 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 28, 2013, 07:09:45 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 28, 2013, 06:38:31 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 25, 2013, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 25, 2013, 04:18:41 PM
One of the southern states (South Carolina) no longer issues standard plates with the letter combination OMG.

How about LOL or WTF?
And New York issued plates with FAP:

FAP - Federal Aid Primary?  That's one designation for route in Illinois (as in FAP-407 aka IL-336).

Nope. This.
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fap)
It's kind of an internet thing, I suppose. Most people I mention it to have not heard the term before. Which I guess is why the DMV didn't catch it.

So I just read this post mid-morning today.  And what do I see on my way home from doing some percussion instrument maintenance at church this afternoon?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Ffap_zpsb9581b80.png&hash=ebcc65b5fd07ec8fcc2f9890a2713f34730514fd)

The damage to my mind cannot be undone!  AAGGGHHH!!
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Sanctimoniously on May 05, 2013, 08:29:06 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-3P-ApRfXnNc%2FUN5T3RFjToI%2FAAAAAAAABK4%2FiBM_vokSp4c%2Fs1600%2FDSC_0564.JPG&hash=70cb76a80350fc435ddb0da9b726eea2165075be)

This made me do a bit of a double-take when I saw it for the first time.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: PHLBOS on May 06, 2013, 09:18:08 AM
Quote from: Sanctimoniously on May 05, 2013, 08:29:06 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-3P-ApRfXnNc%2FUN5T3RFjToI%2FAAAAAAAABK4%2FiBM_vokSp4c%2Fs1600%2FDSC_0564.JPG&hash=70cb76a80350fc435ddb0da9b726eea2165075be)

This made me do a bit of a double-take when I saw it for the first time.
Other than the oddly-shaped US 58 shield (unless it's due to a distortion in the photo); I don't see anything really wrong nor oversized with that BGS and/or its message contents.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: Ian on May 06, 2013, 10:13:46 AM
This sign (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8229/8596868422_917c06d76f_h.jpg) is pretty intimidating in person.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: J N Winkler on May 06, 2013, 11:32:02 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2013, 09:18:08 AMOther than the oddly-shaped US 58 shield (unless it's due to a distortion in the photo); I don't see anything really wrong nor oversized with that BGS and/or its message contents.

There is one thing wrong--no exit tab and no word "EXIT" on the main sign panel.  (The MUTCD also deprecates periods, so "Va. Beach" runs afoul of that particular provision, but I regard the use of periods as a disfavored style choice rather than as an outright error.)
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: PHLBOS on May 06, 2013, 11:40:09 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 06, 2013, 11:32:02 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2013, 09:18:08 AMOther than the oddly-shaped US 58 shield (unless it's due to a distortion in the photo); I don't see anything really wrong nor oversized with that BGS and/or its message contents.

There is one thing wrong--no exit tab and no word "EXIT" on the main sign panel.  (The MUTCD also deprecates periods, so "Va. Beach" runs afoul of that particular provision, but I regard the use of periods as a disfavored style choice rather than as an outright error.)
Fair enough, but since this thread topic only involves oversize signage as opposed to non-compliant MUTCD issues (there are tons of other threads for those); my earlier quote was only directed towards why Sanctimoniously included it in this thread.   It certainly isn't oversized by any stretch of the imagination.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: kphoger on May 06, 2013, 03:33:34 PM
Quote from: Ian on May 06, 2013, 10:13:46 AM
This sign (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8229/8596868422_917c06d76f_h.jpg) is pretty intimidating in person.

Interesting how no arrow points to points.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: OracleUsr on May 06, 2013, 09:40:49 PM
I saw several oversized diamond signs on I-95 south of Providence, RI.  Also a couple on I-581 in Roanoke, VA.

No pics though.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: amroad17 on May 08, 2013, 01:45:19 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2013, 09:18:08 AM
Quote from: Sanctimoniously on May 05, 2013, 08:29:06 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-3P-ApRfXnNc%2FUN5T3RFjToI%2FAAAAAAAABK4%2FiBM_vokSp4c%2Fs1600%2FDSC_0564.JPG&hash=70cb76a80350fc435ddb0da9b726eea2165075be)

This made me do a bit of a double-take when I saw it for the first time.
Other than the oddly-shaped US 58 shield (unless it's due to a distortion in the photo); I don't see anything really wrong nor oversized with that BGS and/or its message contents.
Isn't that sign on the mainline going eastbound where the Suffolk Bypass meets the US 58/US 460 original section on the east side of downtown Suffolk?  To me, this is the highway you are already on.  I also see US 13 is omitted.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2013, 09:21:05 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2013, 09:18:08 AM
Other than the oddly-shaped US 58 shield (unless it's due to a distortion in the photo); I don't see anything really wrong nor oversized with that BGS and/or its message contents.

the 58 shield looks like someone took a '70 spec three-digit shield and compressed it to two-digit width.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: J N Winkler on May 08, 2013, 10:44:47 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2013, 11:40:09 AMFair enough, but since this thread topic only involves oversize signage as opposed to non-compliant MUTCD issues (there are tons of other threads for those); my earlier quote was only directed towards why Sanctimoniously included it in this thread.   It certainly isn't oversized by any stretch of the imagination.

I think this sign is, if anything, undersized--the shields seem quite large in comparison to the primary destination legend, so I suspect the use of 13.3" UC/10" LC instead of the more usual 16" UC/12" LC.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: roadman on May 09, 2013, 04:37:11 PM
If the cardinal directions are 12 inch (with 15 inch inital letter), then the destinations are indeed 13.33/10 inch.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: myosh_tino on May 11, 2013, 03:26:59 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 08, 2013, 10:44:47 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2013, 11:40:09 AMFair enough, but since this thread topic only involves oversize signage as opposed to non-compliant MUTCD issues (there are tons of other threads for those); my earlier quote was only directed towards why Sanctimoniously included it in this thread.   It certainly isn't oversized by any stretch of the imagination.

I think this sign is, if anything, undersized--the shields seem quite large in comparison to the primary destination legend, so I suspect the use of 13.3" UC/10" LC instead of the more usual 16" UC/12" LC.
Assuming that the cardinal directions are 15/12 (first letter is 15", rest are 12"), then the main legend is definitely 16 UC/12 LC.  What throws everything off is the fact that the shields are 48" tall instead of the more standard 36".  Here's my "proof"...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FUS58-460_size.jpg&hash=9d7a880797f18ccc7d246747f5b8da29387c7acc)

Notice the 4 T's next to the US 58 shield.  If the "T" is 12 inches, then the US route shield has to be 48 inches (4 x 12 = 48).  For completeness, I also clipped the 15-inch "E" in "EAST" and placed it next to "Norfolk" and you'll notice the E is smaller than the "N" in Norfolk.
Title: Re: Excessively Oversized Signs
Post by: vtk on May 11, 2013, 07:41:03 AM
That's what I suspected. 48" shields indeed look huge in person. And I concur, the 58 is a compressed 70-spec 3-digit shield.