AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Traffic Control => Topic started by: flaroads on January 20, 2009, 04:01:44 PM

Title: Erroneous road signs
Post by: flaroads on January 20, 2009, 04:01:44 PM
Okay, we've all seen them and did a double-take when we did.  Yup, I'm talking about sign goofs.  We know they're out there, now let's see how many sign errors the DOT's and sign companies have put up across the country.  Here's one to get it started (which I have already posted on another thread)

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/VA_37.jpg)

A US 37 in Virginia??  No, don't get your hopes up, it's actually suppose to be VA 37.  This is located along southbound I-81 in Virginia.  The other signs at this interchange show the correct VA 37 but whoever crafted this particular sign didn't read the full instructions and decided to make all the numbers with US highway shields...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 04:13:11 PM
some goofs from Montana:

(http://www.artistjake.com/lj/w43545.jpg)
(http://www.artistjake.com/lj/w43559.jpg)
(http://www.artistjake.com/lj/w43630.jpg)

the worst part about that US-47 (should be MT-47) is that I remember when they had an older style US-47 there in Hardin (similar to the 39 with the narrower numbers).  When it came time to replace the shields ... yep, they replaced them all right.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on January 20, 2009, 04:59:32 PM
The Lake Ontario State Parkway at Dewey Avenue says that the exit is for NY 18.  NY 18 is at least a mile away from the exit.  This has even managed to survive a recent sign rehab on that part of the parkway.  Sorry, I don't have a pic of this.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: flaroads on January 20, 2009, 05:04:41 PM
Some more sign goofs...

This sign should be put out of its misery, one for being the wrong shield style and two, it's ugly...
(http://www.southeastroads.com/florida300/cr-393_sb_app_us-090.jpg)

Another Virginia sign goof
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/US_211_eb.jpg)

Suppose to be US 29, but I guess the sign guys had some extra Florida 29 shields in their stockpile...
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/US_29_century.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Darkchylde on January 20, 2009, 05:17:16 PM
(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/8285/exit3qh0.jpg)

It's a bit blurry, but this is from I-59 South in Louisiana. The error is that the exit is listed for LA 1092, which has not existed in about 30 years, and when it did it didn't interchange with I-59. The other signs at that interchange get it right, signing the exit for LA 1090.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 05:24:51 PM
(http://www.artistjake.com/lj/x7388.jpg)

how about this Florida absurdity?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 05:37:59 PM
Acid Shield

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/cr-002_wb_after_cr-181.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 05:41:30 PM
wow, melting Florida Negative Two for the win.

I wonder if they ever blatantly screwed up the Floridachrome - a red US-90, or something?

here's some mucked up Floridachrome (wrong shape for sure, and also wrong tint - should be coral, not orange), as well as a cutout for green sign biffing a state highway into a US.

(http://www.artistjake.com/f/fl/x0084.jpg)
(http://www.artistjake.com/f/fl/x0012.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: flaroads on January 20, 2009, 05:44:33 PM
Were those horrible 41 shields located in Naples??  They look familiar...

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 05:48:21 PM
yes, southern terminus of county road 8XX.  832 maybe?

the 807 is in West Palm Beach.

so we stop picking on Florida, here is a goof from Litchfield, Illinois.

(http://www.artistjake.com/f/ca/x4520.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 05:48:49 PM
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northwest/us-395_sb_after_us-730.jpg)

First 395 shield south of U.S. 730.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 05:50:50 PM
They like messing up Interstate 55 in Illinois

(http://www.interstate-guide.com/ishields/images/i-055_il_03.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 05:57:47 PM
Oregon has so many state/US goofs...

(http://www.artistjake.com/lj/w14963.jpg)

and going the other way:

(http://www.artistjake.com/lj/w14597.jpg)
(http://www.artistjake.com/lj/w14965.jpg)

and here is one from Ohio...
(http://www.artistjake.com/f/c2/x7581.jpg)

and this cutout NJ shield that I found while looking for the Ohio:
(http://www.artistjake.com/f/c2/x7441.jpg)

Ironic since NJ does not use the cutouts on green signs - they have black squares.

speaking of NJ:
(http://www.artistjake.com/f/c2/x7456.jpg)

and just across the river in PA:
(http://www.artistjake.com/f/c2/x7454.jpg)

and further down in PA:
(http://www.artistjake.com/f/c2/x7541.jpg)

the really interesting ones are US/interstate or state/interstate biffs.  Anyone have any photos of those?  I missed out on the I-99, I-152, and I-2 shields in CA.  I can't find my I-52 photo in La Jolla, but it is still there as of last week...

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 05:59:26 PM
(http://www.artistjake.com/lj/x10733.jpg)

here is a 101.  There also were 50 and 1 shields in construction zones...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 20, 2009, 06:13:49 PM
VA 33 at VA 298. The secondary route shield should be a primary one; it's since been fixed.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2323/2522640713_694cd0bb7f.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2522640713/in/set-72157603899722828/)

VA 460 ALT (right behind a correct US 460 ALT shield, to boot):
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2332/2268640726_a28f2418e5.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2268640726/in/set-72157603899722828/)

Creepy mutant VA 10 shield in Hopewell:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2969966023_d1abf4df7b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2969966023/in/set-72157603899722828/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 06:17:58 PM
Virginia also biffs the state/US distinction a lot, as well as the primary/secondary.

do you know of any erroneous cutouts in Virginia?

I don't recall offhand any shields in the wild that are a) old enough to be cutouts, and b) erroneous - they would have had to survive quite a long time in their mistaken form...

I do have, on my wall, a NH/US/102 cutout shield.  I've also seen an embossed 1930s North Dakota state route 85 but alas when it was on eBay, I failed to land it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 06:29:48 PM
The Interstate 50 - http://www.interstate-guide.com/ishields/images/i-050_ca.jpg
Interstate 905 prematurely signed - http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_003_02a.jpg

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/ma-136_nb_after_us-006.jpg)

Several of these circle shields posted along Massachusetts 136.

I've also seen circle shields for U.S. 202 and Pennsylvania 309 signed in the field too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: V'Ger on January 20, 2009, 06:31:11 PM
I had no idea Avenues could be Interstates...  :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 06:37:01 PM
(http://www.artistjake.com/lj/w10786.jpg)

no comment.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: V'Ger on January 20, 2009, 07:18:43 PM
Must be somewhere in Wyoming...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 07:22:31 PM
nope, Tonawanda NY.  it replaced this classic shield (Doug Kerr photo, as seen on alpsroads.net)

(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/i-290/old.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 20, 2009, 07:38:13 PM
Virginia also biffs the state/US distinction a lot, as well as the primary/secondary.

do you know of any erroneous cutouts in Virginia?

I don't recall offhand any shields in the wild that are a) old enough to be cutouts, and b) erroneous - they would have had to survive quite a long time in their mistaken form...

I do have, on my wall, a NH/US/102 cutout shield.  I've also seen an embossed 1930s North Dakota state route 85 but alas when it was on eBay, I failed to land it.

When I think of erroneous cutouts in Virginia, I think of VA 102 (photos from the VA Highways Project (http://www.vahighways.com/errors/va102error.htm)):

(http://www.vahighways.com/errors/i102error.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/mapscans/va102.jpg)

In addition to the weird I-102 cutouts, there are also some strange triangle-shaped ones in the Bluefield area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: V'Ger on January 20, 2009, 07:40:14 PM
(http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/images/carpool_error.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: V'Ger on January 20, 2009, 07:42:04 PM
(http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/images/47w_old_11_close.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 07:43:47 PM
where is that??  I don't know of any CA-11s left in the wild.  they switched over to I-110 and CA-110 in 1980.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: V'Ger on January 20, 2009, 07:45:03 PM
This sign has been replaced since. Used to be near Long Beach.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 07:47:59 PM
where is that??  I don't know of any CA-11s left in the wild.  they switched over to I-110 and CA-110 in 1980.

Joel Windmiller's site - http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Caltrans_Bloopers_Page.html
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: V'Ger on January 20, 2009, 07:49:33 PM
Unfortunately only one of the counties still works.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 20, 2009, 07:51:36 PM
The pages are still there; for the most part you have to change "highwaymanpacb" to "hywaymn" in each URL for each page to work.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 07:52:00 PM
If not try it on the web archive: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Caltrans_Bloopers_Page.html

I got this to come up: http://web.archive.org/web/20070328232406/home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/images/154_sb_white_shield.jpg
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 07:55:27 PM
you gotta manipulate the URLs by hand, and also note that he typoed the page for District 4.

http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-1.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-2.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-3.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-Distirct-4.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-5.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-6.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-7.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-8.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-9.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-10.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-11.html
http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Bloopers-District-12.html

for all the snarking he does about Caltrans errors, he sure makes a lot of them himself ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 07:58:00 PM
for all the snarking he does about Caltrans errors, he sure makes a lot of them himself ;)

He should donate his CHPW's  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: flaroads on January 20, 2009, 07:59:27 PM
(http://www.artistjake.com/lj/w10786.jpg)

no comment.

None needed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 08:27:01 PM
what is a CHPW?  I know what a CHP is ...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: V'Ger on January 20, 2009, 08:34:20 PM
Awww, CA 21...

(http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/images/680Sac1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 20, 2009, 09:10:59 PM
what is a CHPW?  I know what a CHP is ...

Ask Andy, they are an old publication that the state used to produce. I'm not sure of the acronym meaning (California Highway Public Works?), but the magazines have a lot of old highway photos covering infrastructure, signage, etc.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 09:13:29 PM
oh right, that!  I had not remembered it by acronym.

he definitely needs to cough up his supply ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 10:20:07 PM
Wow. Caltrans records their mistakes. :banghead:
no, a guy named Joel does.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: V'Ger on January 20, 2009, 10:23:46 PM
Back on topic...

(http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/images/15-40_Shield_Barstow.jpg)

Well, at least Caltrans is conserving their road signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 20, 2009, 10:37:10 PM
Interesting...  :confused:

The only one I can think of off the top of my head is simply the I-64 East signs for when the highway's actually heading west and vice-versa. Not very exciting, I know.  :-/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 21, 2009, 01:20:28 PM
This one's a bit old, but a classic:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3229/2944727946_3530f9fe78.jpg)

#1: That should be US 270
#2: That should be US 65B
#3: East 270 should be AR 365S  :pan:

Of course, there's this one, as well:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3175/2294014407_82e3c2241f_m.jpg)


BGS errors are rare, if non-existant, in Arkansas. At least, I've not found any.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 21, 2009, 04:07:40 PM
Florida 922 eastbound at Florida 909/915 in North Miami

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/fl-922_eb_app_fl-909_915.jpg)

Photo taken 03/25/06 (since been replaced with correct shields)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 04:13:31 PM
it's almost plausible that a branch of US-15 makes it down that far.  US-9, not so much.  Well, then again, US-2 doesn't get much farther south than upstate New York, and US-202 ends in Delaware, so anything is possible.

Lake Moses, WA biffing the business loop specs.
(http://www.artistjake.com/f/c2/x9028.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on January 21, 2009, 04:46:59 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/3144680511_ab1f85c3e9_o.jpg)
This is at the end of the I-75 South off-ramp to Business Loop I-75 in Valdosta...the business loop is signed with a state name interstate shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: flaroads on January 21, 2009, 04:57:13 PM
Ah, you mean for the virtually dead BL I-75 in Valdosta??  It is scarcely signed along its route, especially on the northern end of the loop.  It pretty much disappears after turning north on US 41 in downtown.  Whether or not it is officially still on the books with GADOT is anyones guess.

Is this pic on the north end of the Business Loop coming from the northbound off ramp off of I-75?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on January 21, 2009, 05:10:55 PM
It is on the north end of the business loop, but the pic is coming from the southbound off-ramp from I-75. I just took this picture on December 27, and it was correctly signed as a business loop on all the BGSs approaching the exit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: flaroads on January 21, 2009, 08:54:39 PM
It is on the north end of the business loop, but the pic is coming from the southbound off-ramp from I-75. I just took this picture on December 27, and it was correctly signed as a business loop on all the BGSs approaching the exit.

Yes, yes, I see that now.  I forgot that this is a loop ramp coming from southbound 75 onto southbound 41.  And I shouldn't have forgotten that since I was just up there in September.  :pan:  But as I said, once off the interstate the BL is not signed very well.  It's a real shame too, as it seems Georgia is letting their Business Loop interstates go by the wayside...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 21, 2009, 10:43:30 PM
Lake Moses, WA biffing the business loop specs.

Still, it's a nice looking sign  :nod:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 10:45:41 PM
abandoned business loops are a good thing - they lead to forgotten old signs.  there are some lovely old Business Loop 5 shields all over California, including one a few blocks from my house.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 21, 2009, 10:53:51 PM
The 807 looks like what Oklahoma sometimes uses for US Business or Alt Routes.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3158/2901060636_9352248f44_m.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 10:57:41 PM
those Oklahomas are very strange indeed.  surface-level shields with no borders always fascinate me.  Texas used to use them back in the day. 

(http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/0/3/1/5/1/1/webimg/215826364_tp.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 21, 2009, 11:01:05 PM
Here's a couple from Missouri
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/2474259299_550392b8f3_m.jpg)

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2062/2233842798_0d7b42c974_m.jpg)

71 is just north of the AR/MO State Line
160 is east of Branson  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 11:06:05 PM
the 71 may have been replaced ... at least, I don't recall seeing it when I was there last May.  Then again I had gone 60+ hours without sleep and had to make a flight in Houston ten hours later, so there's a lot that I may not have remembered.  US-71 in Arkansas, that's a fun route doing 85 around the curves!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 21, 2009, 11:23:48 PM
the 71 may have been replaced ... at least, I don't recall seeing it when I was there last May.  Then again I had gone 60+ hours without sleep and had to make a flight in Houston ten hours later, so there's a lot that I may not have remembered.  US-71 in Arkansas, that's a fun route doing 85 around the curves!

It's long gone. This was 4-5 years ago when 71 was initially 4Laned north of the state line. MoDOT fixed those fairly quickly.

At least now you CAN do 85 on the curves with all the trucks on 540  :clap:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 11:43:20 PM
I mean the part south of Fort Smith, the two-lane road!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 21, 2009, 11:56:17 PM
I mean the part south of Fort Smith, the two-lane road!

Oh, you mean south of Greenwood (it's 4 Lanes to just south of Greenwood, unless you count CR 151 which is old 71 ;-) )
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on January 22, 2009, 06:19:06 AM
Oklahoma has too many errors to count. Oh, wait, I am counting them. Right now, we're up to.... ah.... 42 errors (http://www.denexa.com/roadgeek/errors/). A few of them have been fixed. The missing assurance shield I complained to ODOT about in 2005 has not been posted yet.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: V'Ger on January 22, 2009, 06:22:18 AM
abandoned business loops are a good thing - they lead to forgotten old signs.  there are some lovely old Business Loop 5 shields all over California, including one a few blocks from my house.

Especially in northern California along the old 99-W. There are tons of them that are dissapearing in cities such as Arbuckle and others going north.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 04:32:59 PM
there's an Business 5 shield just south of Orland on southbound old 99W.  A couple in Dunsmuir, which I think is still an active business loop, and some in Weed, which for sure is still active.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 22, 2009, 07:28:21 PM
There's also this glitch where OK 20 meets AR 43:

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2018/2305207634_1d6b55c636.jpg)

Of course, it's merely a juxtoposition of signs. :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 07:33:12 PM
yes, that sounds about right.  It starts four-laning a few miles north of Texarkana from what I remember.

interesting part of Texarkana is the Arkansas-maintained signs on one side of US-71, and the Texas-maintained ones on the other.  I wonder if at any time there were Texas US 71 shields down one side and Arkansas US 71 shields up the other.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 07:34:57 PM
wow, three states on one gantry, excellent.  I've seen some double-reassurance gantries in that area... including one that is clearly in one state and not the other.

(http://www.artistjake.com/f/c2/x1181.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 22, 2009, 07:36:00 PM
Is that pic actually at the border of the three states!? Or is that Missouri one supposed to be an Arkansas one?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 07:41:38 PM
looks to be close to the triple point.  the landscape seems familiar.

my photo was taken while I stood a few inches from the triple point marker and looked southbound down the street with a zoom lens.  The road hugs the state line (first MO/OK and then AR/OK) before curving to the west just south of the triple point and entering solely Oklahoma ...

... where it, peculiarly, continues to be signed as AR-43. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 22, 2009, 07:43:29 PM
Interesting part of Texarkana is the Arkansas-maintained signs on one side of US-71, and the Texas-maintained ones on the other.  I wonder if at any time there were Texas US 71 shields down one side and Arkansas US 71 shields up the other.

Sort of is now on a technicality: Arkansas uses the 60's style square US blanks, but Texas uses the "new improved" 80's style:

Texas:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/3059238332_19bbb35fd5.jpg)

Arkansas:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3228/3058401825_7b9cba9ce5_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 07:45:41 PM
I like the classic shape... the 1980s style just looks bloated.

there are very few classic-shaped shields left in Texas.  I know of a couple US-90s in Houston and that's all I can think of offhand.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 22, 2009, 07:50:25 PM
Is that pic actually at the border of the three states!? Or is that Missouri one supposed to be an Arkansas one?

Missouri is about 5 1/2 miles to the north, actually, which IS a tri-corner (AR/MO/OK). NB from where the signs are it's dually signed OK20/MO 43,  but SB it's OK 20/AR 43
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2009, 07:52:00 PM
wait, I thought that south of Missouri, it was signed exclusively OK-20/AR-43... with the last Missouri shields showing up at the state line.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 22, 2009, 07:59:25 PM
wait, I thought that south of Missouri, it was signed exclusively OK-20/AR-43... with the last Missouri shields showing up at the state line.

It's complicated  :crazy:

Technically, it's OK 20/AR 43 since the road runs (mostly) along the OK/AR State Line. BUT it appears as if someone (Missouri?) has posted MO 43 going north (though the general sign assembly is from Oklahoma).

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3084/2305207852_5e58d9844a_m.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2409/2305208140_ef05146af0_m.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on January 22, 2009, 10:19:34 PM
Here's one from PA:
(http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5826/us51andus65inpakz4.jpg)

And one from Nebraska.  There should also be a "TO" banner for 34.
(http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/9660/ne34forus34withus281hu0.jpg)
EDIT Found a streetview of the assembly on the opposite side of US 281:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.90242,-98.381281&spn=0,359.912109&z=14&layer=c&cbll=40.902315,-98.381266&panoid=9p5uLX8XUEdU3EyPTPtN0w&cbp=12,88.58552835236509,,0,-1.6260962305738462 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.90242,-98.381281&spn=0,359.912109&z=14&layer=c&cbll=40.902315,-98.381266&panoid=9p5uLX8XUEdU3EyPTPtN0w&cbp=12,88.58552835236509,,0,-1.6260962305738462)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: John on January 22, 2009, 10:22:08 PM
I've got a whole bunch of weird ones, even km/h signs around me. I'll try to grab a few pics.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bryant5493 on January 23, 2009, 02:36:07 PM
A road irregularity that I've noticed is on I-75. The exit sign on I-75 North for exit 235 (US 19/41/SR 3) reads "Old Dixie Highway - US 19/41"; however, upon exiting onto the federally numbered highway, a traffic light-mounted street name sign reads, "Old Dixie Road." Further north of the intersection, at I-285, Old Dixie Road and Old Dixie Highway run parallel to one another. Old Dixie Highway is a county maintained highway, and Old Dixie Road carries US 19/41/SR 3. There needs to be some kind of conformity, to cut down on motorist confusion.

Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 23, 2009, 02:50:11 PM
Here's some oddities at Sapulpa, OK:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/2968504470_78052ef97e_m.jpg)

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/2885805969_5b540e479c_m.jpg)

Further down the road, it's posted as Alternate US 75.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bryant5493 on January 23, 2009, 08:20:04 PM
^^ That's a lot of money wasted, when that (route confusion) could've been corrected before being posted.


Good find,

Bryant
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: V'Ger on January 23, 2009, 09:00:01 PM
(http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/images/Odd_Shaped_680.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 23, 2009, 09:13:46 PM
That's actually quite tastefully done  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SimMoonXP on January 23, 2009, 10:13:21 PM
That funny, Voyager...because the 680 font seem too small for Caltrans FHWA font.. should be enlarge FHWA font for "680" to able the driver to see it even better as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: V'Ger on January 23, 2009, 10:15:41 PM
(http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/images/US-20_Mileage_Sign.gif)

Never knew U.S. 20 migrated down to the Clear Lake area of California, I need to get out more!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 23, 2009, 10:16:44 PM
That funny, Voyager...because the 680 font seem too small for Caltrans FHWA font.. should be enlarge FHWA font for "680" to able the driver to see it even better as well.

That's why it's an erroneous road sign.  ;-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: exit322 on January 24, 2009, 09:41:06 AM
I don't have pictures, but Ohio's been recently replacing a number of US signs (30 and 250 in particular, as that's where I'm at) with OH signs.  I know in Wilmot there's a US 250 intersection sign on 62 that's in an Ohio shield (it us US 30 and US 250), and the JCT 30/250 sign on OH 3 northbound near Wooster has both route in Ohio shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on January 24, 2009, 10:57:42 AM
If time and weather allows me next weekend, i'll have to go up and see if i can get a few snaps of the wrong-headed signs
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 24, 2009, 08:49:56 PM
(http://www.artistjake.com/lj/w0670.jpg)
found my "interstate 52" photo.  It's in La Jolla and should be CA-52.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on January 24, 2009, 09:29:45 PM
You would think they could get it right, given that there's a correct sign just nearby. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 24, 2009, 11:22:39 PM
This has been up since 2000 and its still in place as of late December 2008:

(http://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware200/us-202_de-141_nb_exit_001b_01.jpg)

It should be the first U.S. 202 shield, but they got Delaware 141 mixed up on its classification!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 25, 2009, 12:56:24 AM
Now that's just pathetic. Do construction workers for Caltrans even pay attention to what they're doing at all?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 25, 2009, 01:18:44 AM
Don't tell anyone, but US 301's southern terminus is actually in Bowling Green, Virginia. ;)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1406/1427425742_034fb35b3f.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 25, 2009, 01:26:54 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3213/2943867931_63e80bc6c0.jpg)

Someone should tell Arkansas that US 59 is in Oklahoma.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: V'Ger on January 27, 2009, 01:09:31 PM
(http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/images/BR-54-Interstate-Sign.jpg)

Not only does California now have an Interstate 54, but also a business loop!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 27, 2009, 02:12:06 PM
Are everyone of Joel's photos going to get a post?

There are more Business Loop I-54 shields posted here: http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/bl-054_ca.html (http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/bl-054_ca.html) I know that they were still posted in 2005, and I'm sure that there are still some today.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 27, 2009, 04:16:29 PM
there were some around as late as March, 2008.  Have not checked since then.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on January 27, 2009, 09:02:34 PM
Here is just a little goof: http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5296153253093202818 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5296153253093202818)

It says as though you are on I-287 and NY 17 along with I-87 and the NY State Thruway. Though NY 17 and I-287 only JUNCTION ahead. You aren't on I-287 and NY 17 right here, so this would be considered an error. Though about 1/2 mile ahead, there is an I-287/I-87 multiplex.

Also a bit of an error on the New Jersey Turnpike (hope I got the info right)
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewJerseyTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5296155482803826306 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewJerseyTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5296155482803826306)



i.c.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on January 28, 2009, 06:00:07 PM
Also a bit of an error on the New Jersey Turnpike

Okay, so you're not there immediately, but that exit does take you to I-276 and US 130, so it's not incorrect.

And on the topic of "wrong shield", I know I've seen a couple of US 15 shields in Fairfield county, CT (should be CT 15). One on old route 7 ("secret route" 719) and another on route 110. Pretty sure the one on old route 7 isn't still there. As for the one on route 110... dunno, I haven't been there in a while. Now if only I'd had a camera back when I was in high school and noticing these things...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on January 28, 2009, 06:06:00 PM
I don't think this really counts because Wisconsin made an "attempt" to show it's a MN shield, but on the US 8 crossing westbound into MN on the St. Croix River, the "JCT MN 95 shield" is a WI 95 shield with "MINN" inside it. Don't know if it's still there anymore, just thought it would be interesting to note.

Since WI and US shields look annoyingly similar, there are several places where a WI shield is used where a US shield should. Coming westbound on I-90 into MN from WI, I remember the BGSs having "WI 61" shields. I think the US 14 shield was right though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on January 28, 2009, 06:16:38 PM
This has been up since 2000 and its still in place as of late December 2008:

(http://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware200/us-202_de-141_nb_exit_001b_01.jpg)

It should be the first U.S. 202 shield, but they got Delaware 141 mixed up on its classification!

Shouldn't the "bridges ice before highway" be a yellow diamond sign as well instead of a white rectangle?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 28, 2009, 06:19:41 PM
Here's a county road sign that got it wrong in Oklahoma
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/2640111161_f4ee7474cc_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 28, 2009, 08:12:07 PM
In Ashland, Virginia, for some reason there are I-95 trailblazers that lead traffic down Hill Carter Parkway, which is right before I-95 on VA 54. However, the trailblazers on Hill Carter Parkway actually lead traffic right into the parking lot of a Wal-Mart. I've already emailed the mayor about this, because I know her personally and she has a grudge against Wal-Mart. ;)

Interestingly, if you go the OTHER way on Hill Carter Parkway, there are tons of I-95 trailblazers telling you to turn around. You know, in case you missed the big overheads right past the intersection. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on January 28, 2009, 08:14:39 PM
I don't think this really counts because Wisconsin made an "attempt" to show it's a MN shield, but on the US 8 crossing westbound into MN on the St. Croix River, the "JCT MN 95 shield" is a WI 95 shield with "MINN" inside it. Don't know if it's still there anymore, just thought it would be interesting to note.

Since WI and US shields look annoyingly similar, there are several places where a WI shield is used where a US shield should. Coming westbound on I-90 into MN from WI, I remember the BGSs having "WI 61" shields. I think the US 14 shield was right though.
Correct...here is my pic of this sign from July 2005:
(http://www.okroads.com/071205/i90mnexit275_01.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 28, 2009, 08:44:21 PM
In Ashland, Virginia, for some reason there are I-95 trailblazers that lead traffic down Hill Carter Parkway, which is right before I-95 on VA 54. However, the trailblazers on Hill Carter Parkway actually lead traffic right into the parking lot of a Wal-Mart. I've already emailed the mayor about this, because I know her personally and she has a grudge against Wal-Mart. ;)

Interestingly, if you go the OTHER way on Hill Carter Parkway, there are tons of I-95 trailblazers telling you to turn around. You know, in case you missed the big overheads right past the intersection. :P

Lol... that's a good one!  :-D I'll have to look for it next time I'm up that way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 28, 2009, 10:20:38 PM
Street signs along Pennsylvania 10 in Chester County often displayed it as "US 10" when I took the road several times in the 1990s. I'm unsure if they are still there, but I always thought they were an ode to the route's previous existence as U.S. 122.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on January 28, 2009, 10:23:24 PM
I don't think this really counts because Wisconsin made an "attempt" to show it's a MN shield, but on the US 8 crossing westbound into MN on the St. Croix River, the "JCT MN 95 shield" is a WI 95 shield with "MINN" inside it. Don't know if it's still there anymore, just thought it would be interesting to note.

Since WI and US shields look annoyingly similar, there are several places where a WI shield is used where a US shield should. Coming westbound on I-90 into MN from WI, I remember the BGSs having "WI 61" shields. I think the US 14 shield was right though.

Actually the St Croix River Crossing had it right both ways. (last time I saw it that is)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: akotchi on January 28, 2009, 10:36:45 PM
Also a bit of an error on the New Jersey Turnpike (hope I got the info right)
[/quote]

Most motorists do not even realize that the I-276 designation disappears (or starts, depending on direction) on the Delaware River Turnpike Bridge (PA/NJ State Line).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 29, 2009, 09:18:51 AM
really?  there are definitely New Jersey I-276 shields in existence.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on January 29, 2009, 05:21:24 PM
really?  there are definitely New Jersey I-276 shields in existence.

I always thought I-276 continued to the N. J. Turnpike.

But, in a few years it won't matter.  When the I-95/PA Turnpike exit is completed that section will be signed I-95.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on January 29, 2009, 05:25:15 PM
There is no official mileage (Route Log Finder List) within the state of New Jersey, which corroborates the fact that Interstate 276 ends at the Delaware River Bridge. The signs on the N.J. Turnpike that reflect Interstate 276 were newer installs (early 2000s?). They probably included the designation as a convenience as Interstate 276 has gained recognition with replacement of original button copy signs along the PA Turnpike.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ComputerGuy on February 01, 2009, 02:07:39 PM
(http://www.southeastroads.com/blog/southeast/end_us-080.jpg)

US 80 doesn't end in San Deigo anymore. (US 80 east end in Georgia)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: V'Ger on February 01, 2009, 03:27:23 PM
In Sacramento the sign for US 50's other end used to say Ocean City, MD 3073 miles. The sign in MD said Sacramento, CA, 3037 miles. I'm pretty sure the latter was correct and they changed the signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: akotchi on February 01, 2009, 08:22:04 PM
There is no official mileage (Route Log Finder List) within the state of New Jersey, which corroborates the fact that Interstate 276 ends at the Delaware River Bridge. The signs on the N.J. Turnpike that reflect Interstate 276 were newer installs (early 2000s?). They probably included the designation as a convenience as Interstate 276 has gained recognition with replacement of original button copy signs along the PA Turnpike.

The guide signs on the Turnpike that show I-276 went up when the U.S. 130 interchange was rebuilt.  The signs also show U.S. 130 because of the new access ramps.  (Previousloy, they showed only "Penn Turnpike.")Trailblazers along the Turnpike, now pretty old, all show "TO" banners.  The last eastbound mention of I-276 is on the Bristol entrance (last exit/entrance in Pa.), while the first westbound mention (aside from the mainline NJ Turnpike signing) is right out of the first mainline toll plaza in Pa.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 01, 2009, 11:47:46 PM
(http://www.vahighways.com/va-ends/va200/va252_nt.jpg)

VA 252 doesn't end there. Neither would I-252, if it existed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bryant5493 on February 02, 2009, 04:57:43 PM
^^ Yeah, it looks like the folks didn't know whether the sign was supposed to be for an Interstate or for a state route.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 02, 2009, 08:29:55 PM
that is an magnificently terrible sign - can we use it in the AARoads shield gallery?

You'd need to contact Froggie or Mapmikey of the VA Highways Project for that, I didn't take the photo (though I wish I did).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 02, 2009, 11:33:45 PM
Well, on another note, today I noticed that there is a new speed limit sign facing the wrong direction on I-64 eastbound near the US 250 Short Pump exit. I thought I was seeing things until I looked in my rear view mirror and saw "SPEED LIMIT 65". It seems that it was mounted that way; it wasn't hit or otherwise forced into that position like a "Stop Ahead" sign on the off-ramp to VA 197 from I-195 in Richmond (it faces left for some reason, and VDOT hasn't fixed it yet despite doing work on the gantry nearby on several occasions)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mahaasma on February 03, 2009, 11:54:19 PM
Some interesting signs from Wisconsin.

(http://www.weebly.com/uploads/5/7/1/2/571255/5864905.jpg?352x263)

Interesting setup here. . .this is on the north side of Eau Claire.

(http://www.weebly.com/uploads/5/7/1/2/571255/7183377.jpg?330x246)

They made a mistake on this new sign just of US-14 in Janesville.  I-90 is an east-west highway, not north-south.  A few months later I found it corrected; see below.

(http://www.weebly.com/uploads/5/7/1/2/571255/2668981.jpg?330x246)

Below is another interesting sign near Poynette, Wisconsin.

(http://www.weebly.com/uploads/5/7/1/2/571255/8883228.jpg?317x237)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: DanTheMan414 on February 04, 2009, 12:20:14 AM
I don't have pictures, but Ohio's been recently replacing a number of US signs (30 and 250 in particular, as that's where I'm at) with OH signs.  I know in Wilmot there's a US 250 intersection sign on 62 that's in an Ohio shield (it us US 30 and US 250), and the JCT 30/250 sign on OH 3 northbound near Wooster has both route in Ohio shields.

There is a photo of the OH 30/OH 250 signs you alluded to on the Ohio Sign Goofs page I maintain:

http://www.gribblenation.net/ohio/goofs/ (http://www.gribblenation.net/ohio/goofs/)

Note that interchanging US and OH shields is a frequent happenstance throughout the Buckeye State...especially along OH 103.  :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: akotchi on February 04, 2009, 01:04:43 PM
Seems pretty common also to see 3-digit route numbers in 2-digit shields, both interstate and U.S.  Erroneous, perhaps, only to designers like me . . .
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on February 04, 2009, 02:22:26 PM
Seems pretty common also to see 3-digit route numbers in 2-digit shields, both interstate and U.S.  Erroneous, perhaps, only to designers like me . . .


It became the Texas standard up until very recently (from the end of button copy signing until perhaps 2007), to put 3di's within 2di shields and 2di shields within 3di shields. Thankfully they are starting to get it right again.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on February 05, 2009, 11:01:16 AM
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg36/jcm9572/Road%20Trip%20Mar%2008/TOI-44.jpg)
I took this in March 2008.  That should be NORTH US 281/287.  It appears this got fixed a couple of months later:
http://www.aaroads.com/texas/texas080/us-082_wb_281_287_nb_exit_436a_01.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/texas/texas080/us-082_wb_281_287_nb_exit_436a_01.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Marc on February 06, 2009, 01:56:31 AM
There is a sign along I-10 eastbound in Columbus, TX that claims the next exit is "4/10 Miles" away. They didn't even bother to reduce the fraction to 2/5! I wish I had a pic.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 06, 2009, 03:47:44 AM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2378/2267850897_83033bcb0b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2267850897/in/set-72157603903190787/)

VA 239 ends here, not up ahead. If you were to try to proceed from here, you'd likely be explaining your error to some Navy personnel with automatic weapons. It looks like the END tag was put on as an afterthought.

On another note, the American Map street atlas for the Lower Hampton Roads region misidentifies VA 239 between US 17 and VA 337 (near the Jordan Bridge) as part of VA 337.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 06, 2009, 10:50:15 AM
On another note, the American Map street atlas for the Lower Hampton Roads region misidentifies VA 239 between US 17 and VA 337 (near the Jordan Bridge) as part of VA 337.

Really? They usually are fairly accurate around here... Though I've learned to never trust them, and always just check routes myself.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on February 14, 2009, 02:42:50 PM
wait, I thought that south of Missouri, it was signed exclusively OK-20/AR-43... with the last Missouri shields showing up at the state line.

It's complicated  :crazy:

Technically, it's OK 20/AR 43 since the road runs (mostly) along the OK/AR State Line. BUT it appears as if someone (Missouri?) has posted MO 43 going north (though the general sign assembly is from Oklahoma).


(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3108/2873978201_09ed2afed3_o.jpg)

That's what it looked like during the circle era.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on February 14, 2009, 02:50:14 PM
A couple:

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2874809478_f77e5001f7_o.jpg)

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3092/2874809162_f6d3eb716a_o.jpg)

(This sign has been corrected)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on February 14, 2009, 07:07:09 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2123/2249998644_f9cbc0a106.jpg)
This is in Stilwell, OK. Last I looked, it's still there

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/2959197577_384836d753.jpg)
This is in Sulphur Springs, AR just outside Pine Bluff.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on February 14, 2009, 10:15:42 PM
(http://www.alaskaroads.com/I-29-signgoof.jpg)

This is a sign goof I just remembered and wish I could have seen myself. Its from Oscar Voss' website: www.alaskaroads.com//signgoofs.htm (http://www.alaskaroads.com/signgoofs.htm)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on February 14, 2009, 10:31:53 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2299/2474629075_42093eb566.jpg)
Should be US 159
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on February 15, 2009, 08:42:07 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2626742398_0f5c39c84d.jpg)

Along US 169 north of Kansas City
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: AZDude on February 16, 2009, 12:17:44 AM
At one time in Kingman, Arizona at the intersection of Beverly Ave, and Harrison Street there was a trailblazer shield showing a U.S. 40 sheild instead of an Interstate 40 shield!

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/3284014914_d54a4605ef.jpg?v=0)

However this sign has since been corrected.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 18, 2009, 06:55:33 PM
(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq330/nerdlydood/foe_toez/DSC01021.jpg)
 (http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq330/nerdlydood/foe_toez/DSC01021.jpg)
Weird-looking US-11 shield in Roanoke, VA. Photo credits to nerdly_dood on Simtropolis, who says that most US route signs in downtown Roanoke look like that.

Never seen one like it before myself...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on February 18, 2009, 07:02:18 PM
Weird-looking US-11 shield in Roanoke, VA. Photo credits to nerdly_dood on Simtropolis, who says that most US route signs in downtown Roanoke look like that.

That's a 1950's/early-mid 1960's square sign before the black background became standard. So I wouldn't call that "erroneous", but "vintage"  ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 18, 2009, 07:17:36 PM
Thanks for the answer, though he didn't believe the explanation.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on February 18, 2009, 08:17:35 PM
Thanks for the answer, though he didn't believe the explanation.  :rolleyes:

There are many of them still around in Roanoke, and they include state routes as well. I also found a couple more white-box I-581 VA shields of the same vintage.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on February 18, 2009, 08:31:08 PM
There are many of them still around in Roanoke, and they include state routes as well. I also found a couple more white-box I-581 VA shields of the same vintage.

I'll have to get out that way sometime to look.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: algorerhythms on February 19, 2009, 01:15:05 PM
I don't know if this one's come up earlier in the thread, but here's one I stumbled onto in Google Street View:

"Pennsylvania Route 40" (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.011905,-79.865756&spn=0.007034,0.038581&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.011003,-79.867563&panoid=b1zwTk8aGWiYZIrAfmqLig&cbp=11,175.77210659078148,,0,3.387606303410217)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 19, 2009, 08:48:56 PM
More of an oddity than an error, but nonetheless, TO TOLL TO TOLL SOUTH VA 76:

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3361/3293491953_0e83640646_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 23, 2009, 12:17:13 AM
I didn't get a great photo of it, but on Atlee Road (SR 638) westbound near Meadowbridge Road (SR 627) in Hanover County, there is a "TO I-295" trailblazer that actually takes you away from I-295. To get to I-295, you should have turned right at the intersection with Meadowbridge.

The sign on SR 638 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.625287,-77.389272&spn=0,359.990344&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.625111,-77.389247&panoid=pO1BXo0--D3dpfJr1ymSfQ&cbp=12,8.499650327023053,,0,4.646776711226443)

Map of the area (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.626944,-77.385507&spn=0.015601,0.038624&z=15)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on February 25, 2009, 08:29:59 AM
Technically you do get to I-295 by following the sign.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2009, 02:09:48 PM
That you do, it's just the long way around. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: V'Ger on April 11, 2009, 06:37:25 PM
(http://web.archive.org/web/20040518081812/mdo20.0catch.com/route/wa/iwa530.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ComputerGuy on April 11, 2009, 07:18:20 PM
I already showed that on the 'Funny signs' thread...

EDIT: A wrong-way concurrency:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/NB77SB81.JPG)

CG, this is time #6. I though you said you knew how to post images at a custom size? -DTP
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on April 12, 2009, 03:19:57 PM
Several years ago, I-20 was repaved from Simsboro, LA, to Grambling.  I don't know who did it or how, but the milemarkers were put in the wrong places.  This caused the state to renumber Simsboro's exit # from 76 to 77.  Not too long after the project was complete, somebody noticed this, and put the milemarkers back where they belong.  But they have yet to change the exit number back to 76. :confused: 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on April 13, 2009, 09:38:42 AM
A cluster of signs on US 53 south show the approaching junction of US 61, US 14 and WIS 16 and the end of US 53, but there are two instances of JCT US 61 on the cluster and no mention of WIS 16.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 15, 2009, 05:16:56 PM
How is a wrong-way concurrency an error(referring to ComputerGuy's I-77/I-81 and US 11/US 52 image) especially if its correct?? :nod:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 15, 2009, 05:31:22 PM
Re: ComputerGuy's "wrong way" concurrency post

I looked at MapQuest a little while back to check out the I-77/81/US 11/52 multiplex. It actually makes sense, in a strange way, although the routes are going due east/west.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 15, 2009, 05:43:10 PM
Quote
I looked at MapQuest a little while back to check out the I-77/81/US 11/52 multiplex. It actually makes sense, in a strange way, although the routes are going due east/west.

  The multiplex is going east-west there but throughout VA all four roads are signed north-south  throughout their VA stay :nod:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 13, 2009, 03:43:08 PM
Another VA error that I have posted in two other threads this US 33/US 250 sign was actually right when it was put up before US 33 was truncated.  The view is going SB on N Monroe St.  (http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/NMONROESTATUS250.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: signalman on May 13, 2009, 04:36:54 PM
I remember a big goof a few years back by NJDOT.  It was a sign pointing to a NJ state highway, but it was inside PA's keystone.  I first saw it while riding in my friend's car, so I did not have my camera with me.  I went back less than a week later to photograph it, but the sign had already been replaced.  Speaking of NJ, I saw several posts back about a NJ 206 sign, which should be US 206.  There are actually quite a few of those errors along the coridor.  Even though it is incorrect, in NJ's eyes it really isn't because they consider both interstate and US highways state highways.  Meaning, since I-80 is in NJ, they would never make an NJ 80, as an example.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on May 13, 2009, 04:58:21 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2626742398_0f5c39c84d.jpg)Kansas City, MO

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/2474259299_550392b8f3_m.jpg)
Near Jane, MO

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2123/2249998644_f9cbc0a106_m.jpg)
Stilwell, OK

Fixed first image's URL -DTP
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 25, 2009, 01:16:00 AM
I found this one today. It appears to have been here for at least two years, because it's also on Google Street View (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.519138,-77.350917&spn=0,359.980688&z=16&layer=c&cbll=37.519013,-77.350858&panoid=l03RgTK8UlrBbq_9wP8PKg&cbp=12,215.16,,0,-0.3).

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2457/3562154564_a1fa04efe4.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on May 25, 2009, 02:52:00 AM
 :-D

Where is that, around Richmond or Williamsburg? Looks like one of the two.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 25, 2009, 03:29:49 AM
Richmond, it's on Laburnum Avenue southbound. I did a double-take when I saw it. :spin:

I looked at it closely, and I don't think there has EVER been a 5 on that VA shield!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on May 25, 2009, 03:31:08 AM
I remember reading about a sign goof in Massachusetts that was big enough to have a newspaper article written about it. There was a need for a state highway marker to be put up and the guy making it flipped to the state highway section of his sign plan book and made the first sign he saw there.

Apparently his book had all the states' diagrams in it, in alphabetical order, because what got made and put up was an Alabama state route marker!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 25, 2009, 08:55:51 AM
Richmond, it's on Laburnum Avenue southbound. I did a double-take when I saw it. :spin:

I looked at it closely, and I don't think there has EVER been a 5 on that VA shield!
  Well at least this wasn't VDOT's fault but the infamous Henrico County
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 25, 2009, 02:26:44 PM
Richmond, it's on Laburnum Avenue southbound. I did a double-take when I saw it. :spin:

I looked at it closely, and I don't think there has EVER been a 5 on that VA shield!
  Well at least this wasn't VDOT's fault but the infamous Henrico County

Actually, the sign has a VDOT decal on the back of it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on May 25, 2009, 07:52:14 PM
I remember reading about a sign goof in Massachusetts that was big enough to have a newspaper article written about it. There was a need for a state highway marker to be put up and the guy making it flipped to the state highway section of his sign plan book and made the first sign he saw there.

Apparently his book had all the states' diagrams in it, in alphabetical order, because what got made and put up was an Alabama state route marker!

I remembered that well. Fortunately the article that reported the goof (complete with a photo) is still online!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/26/word_to_road_crews_tuscaloosa_is_over_1000_miles_thataway/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/26/word_to_road_crews_tuscaloosa_is_over_1000_miles_thataway/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 25, 2009, 08:38:44 PM
Richmond, it's on Laburnum Avenue southbound. I did a double-take when I saw it. :spin:

I looked at it closely, and I don't think there has EVER been a 5 on that VA shield!
  Well at least this wasn't VDOT's fault but the infamous Henrico County

Actually, the sign has a VDOT decal on the back of it.
  That must be because it seems that VDOT maintains the US Routes in Henrico County(at least the traffic lights :-|)?????
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on May 25, 2009, 11:42:03 PM
I found this today near Idabel, OK
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3386/3564881823_da72c7617c_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 25, 2009, 11:47:40 PM
reminds me of this problem. 

(http://www.artistjake.com/f/det/x1073.jpg)

the sign was once mounted right side up - now it shows the wrong polarity!  Very dangerous at first glance.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on May 26, 2009, 04:34:37 AM
I found this today near Idabel, OK

Idabel is like a nexus of poor signing. Same for Hugo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on May 26, 2009, 07:03:04 PM
I found this today near Idabel, OK

Idabel Oklahoma is like a nexus of poor signing.

fixed
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 01, 2009, 09:28:16 PM

Idabel is like a nexus of poor signing. Same for Hugo.

Well, Arkansas isn't immune
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3229/2944727946_3530f9fe78.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: akotchi on June 01, 2009, 09:42:01 PM
I remember reading about a sign goof in Massachusetts that was big enough to have a newspaper article written about it. There was a need for a state highway marker to be put up and the guy making it flipped to the state highway section of his sign plan book and made the first sign he saw there.

Apparently his book had all the states' diagrams in it, in alphabetical order, because what got made and put up was an Alabama state route marker!

I remembered that well. Fortunately the article that reported the goof (complete with a photo) is still online!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/26/word_to_road_crews_tuscaloosa_is_over_1000_miles_thataway/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/26/word_to_road_crews_tuscaloosa_is_over_1000_miles_thataway/)

The detail for the state highway shield in the Standard Highway Signs book happens to be an Alabama shield.  I suspect that had something to do with it . . .
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 03, 2009, 10:35:23 PM
Christiansburg, VA is a treasure trove of odd signs and goofs.

(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/1085993/121.jpg)

(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/1085993/DepotMain1.jpg)

This one is on the nearby Virginia Tech campus.

(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/1085993/oddva314.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 03, 2009, 10:40:07 PM
Christiansburg, VA is a treasure trove of odd signs and goofs.

Those are downright strange.  :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 03, 2009, 10:41:52 PM
I have a lot more of them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 03, 2009, 10:50:31 PM
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/1085993/w15885.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 03, 2009, 10:51:28 PM
I have a lot more of them.

I have some scattered throughout my Flickr pages, such as the AR 270 pic, a MO 71 and AR 62 among others. Not a lot of state showing as US like the 152 sine in Kansas City, though Mark Roberts has a US V on his cosmos-monitor site: http://www.cosmos-monitor.com/mo/main/us-v-indep.html (http://www.cosmos-monitor.com/mo/main/us-v-indep.html)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 03, 2009, 10:58:06 PM
Sign geeks love Virginia.  :spin:

(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/1085993/us250-11-va254-stauton-summa-2000.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 03, 2009, 11:16:38 PM
Sign geeks love Virginia.  :spin:

(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/1085993/us250-11-va254-stauton-summa-2000.jpg)

EDIT: Never mind, I can't read. Oh well, I guess we know there's an interstate somewhere over there... :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: J N Winkler on June 04, 2009, 06:55:16 AM
Quote
The detail for the state highway shield in the Standard Highway Signs book happens to be an Alabama shield.  I suspect that had something to do with it . . .

From what I recall, that had everything to do with it.

Also, the Alabama route marker is the only example of a state route marker in Standard Highway Signs.  What the fabricator needed to do, but in this case did not, is to refer to a state specification.  MHD now has a selection of traffic design guidance online (which I haven't yet checked in depth to see if there is a specification for state route markers).

IMO it does not help, either, that Massachusetts is one of the states where sign rehabilitation plans lack sign design sheets.  It is actually rare to see dimensioned drawings in a MHD signing plans set except for diagrammatic signs.

Edit:  See the pattern-accurate drawing for the M1-5 state route marker here:

http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/downloads/manuals/1996Mconst.pdf (http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/downloads/manuals/1996Mconst.pdf)

I am pretty sure this specification is duplicated in some other manuals accessible through this page, also:

http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/publicationmanuals&sid=about (http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/publicationmanuals&sid=about)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 06, 2009, 12:02:11 AM
Another oddity in Christiansburg - a VA 111 cutout under a speed limit sign.

(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/1085993/VA111.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 06, 2009, 12:05:24 AM
Between C'burg and Radford - state secondary route              - the road to nowhere.

(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/1085993/va144-toblank-elkins.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 06, 2009, 12:09:09 AM
How weird is this?

(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/1085993/us60-220-i64va-cforge-summa1997.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 06, 2009, 12:24:28 AM
Between C'burg and Radford - state secondary route              - the road to nowhere.

Here's one from Oklahoma
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/2285229536_246c947b8b.jpg)


And a set of weirdness from Texas:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2099/2528163969_f4d36d8177.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/2532480366_24d3c5cdac.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2009, 12:52:05 AM
what's so bad about the Texas?  other than no state name on the I-20 shields?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 06, 2009, 12:55:07 AM
what's so bad about the Texas?  other than no state name on the I-20 shields?

Just 3 different directions to the Interstate... very confusing to people not from the area.   :crazy:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 06, 2009, 01:14:38 AM
Seems pretty common also to see 3-digit route numbers in 2-digit shields, both interstate and U.S.  Erroneous, perhaps, only to designers like me . . .


I don't consider that to be a goof. I hate ... absolutely HATE ... the wide shields that sprang into use in Kentucky in the 1970s. I much prefer the square shields with the smaller numbers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2009, 02:11:37 AM
seems pretty sensible to me ... if the freeway is a bypass of a town, then you'd expect an exit at either end of town, and one down the middle where the perpendicular road goes out to the bypass.

the only thing that would make it confusing is if there were only partial interchanges at some of those, where for example you could only get on I-20 westbound at the westernmost exit.  I've never gotten the hang of those - especially not when the next exit to turn around at isn't for another 18 miles!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 06, 2009, 11:58:05 AM
... I hate ... absolutely HATE ... the wide shields that sprang into use in Kentucky in the 1970s. I much prefer the square shields with the smaller numbers.

You'll see plenty in Arkansas along I-40 between West Memphis and Little Rock  :-D
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2060/2179278710_42db7b8c10.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on June 06, 2009, 02:37:53 PM

I don't consider that to be a goof. I hate ... absolutely HATE ... the wide shields that sprang into use in Kentucky in the 1970s. I much prefer the square shields with the smaller numbers.

Rhode Island has a countably small number of 3-digit shields.  The norm is still 2-digit width for every route.  Which is silly, because it's a rectangle so it's easy to expand.  NH is the same way, but I haven't seen more than 101 in that state.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on June 06, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
... I hate ... absolutely HATE ... the wide shields that sprang into use in Kentucky in the 1970s. I much prefer the square shields with the smaller numbers.

You'll see plenty in Arkansas along I-40 between West Memphis and Little Rock  :-D
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2060/2179278710_42db7b8c10.jpg)

LOVE that spiffy B font!  Dont know why, but i always like B fonts so i prefer square rather than rectangular shields myself
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2009, 04:05:44 PM
I prefer Series A to Series B.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/AZ/AZ19636661i1.jpg)

I don't think anyone uses that anymore - it's been officially deprecated for about 20 years now since it was too thin and hard to read.  That said, I think it's just a more aesthetically pleasing font than B. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 06, 2009, 06:19:23 PM
Between C'burg and Radford - state secondary route              - the road to nowhere.

(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/1085993/va144-toblank-elkins.JPG)

Not only that, but VA 114 doesn't go east here. This is the eastern terminus of the route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on June 06, 2009, 07:46:13 PM
Quote
Not only that, but VA 114 doesn't go east here. This is the eastern terminus of the route.

Officially speaking, VA 114 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va101-120.htm#va114) extends east to the frontage road.  So on the face of it, the VA 114 sign is correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 06, 2009, 08:13:50 PM
I prefer Series A to Series B.

I don't think anyone uses that anymore - it's been officially deprecated for about 20 years now since it was too thin and hard to read.  That said, I think it's just a more aesthetically pleasing font than B. 

Anyone know where I can download Series A ? I'd love to duplicate some stuff in photoshop and use it for my screensaver. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2009, 08:44:57 PM
no idea ... I don't even have it in vector form, alas.  Have never bothered to synthesize it. 

interestingly, it is the one series that is a different width in round than in square fonts.  Round Series A is just a tad bit narrower than Round Series B.  Square Series A is about half as wide as Square Series B!  It may be seen here:

(http://www.artistjake.com/f/ca/x6194.jpg)

you can barely see it on this stop sign, spelling out "THRU TRAFFIC".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: donutbandit on June 06, 2009, 09:55:48 PM
Check out these odd CA state shields. (Probably one of yours, agentsteele.)

(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/1085993/W16658.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 06, 2009, 11:14:50 PM
Is that a non-cutout US 395 shield? Is that setup even in California? :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2009, 11:44:12 PM
it's in Yosemite.  The National Parks Service administers the signs there, and clearly they pulled out a very wonky specification manual.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on June 10, 2009, 04:17:01 PM
Quote
Here's one from Oklahoma
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/2285229536_246c947b8b.jpg)

Funny thing is...those signs have been replaced in the past few years. The blank circle on the background sign was originally an OK 7 shield, back when it went that far east. On the new signs, OK 7 has reappeared.(even though it still ends several miles to the west in Atoka...)

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3191/3087223591_e6fc6c8d48_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: flaroads on June 10, 2009, 08:48:20 PM
I found this on my way down to southwest Florida last week:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/fl-069_jct.jpg)
Sign assembly for Florida 69 and Calhoun County 274. Note the Florida 69 shields are in a non-standard format for Florida state routes. Photo taken 06/04/09.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2009, 08:49:02 PM
at least this way there's no problem if they're hung upside down!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: flaroads on June 10, 2009, 09:03:28 PM
HAHA!! Only you would think of that!! Very cleaver...guess I'd better turn my head right side up now that the blood has rushed to it!!  :colorful:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2009, 10:09:56 PM
HAHA!! Only you would think of that!! Very cleaver...guess I'd better turn my head right side up now that the blood has rushed to it!!  :colorful:
yep that about sums up how 69 works!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on June 11, 2009, 01:33:52 PM
This is an intersection I go through on a regular basis.  I took the picture just for the signs and didn't realize that the sign with the left arrow is to the right of the sign with the right arrow.  What is on the signs is correct though.

Also missing from these signs is that the road here is TN 96.  (However, I don't recall at the moment if those signs are elsewhere.)

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2476/3615373628_19296df255.jpg)
US31 US431 TN96 Franklin, TN by mightyace, on Flickr (http://"http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2476/3615373628_19296df255.jpg")
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: njroadhorse on June 13, 2009, 04:22:34 PM
Here's one in DuBois, PA
(http://www.gribblenation.com/papics/pasubs/PA-US219.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on June 14, 2009, 07:12:51 AM
Yay, an excuse to post this pic again:
(http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u126/bugo348/us72-266.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on June 17, 2009, 02:50:29 AM
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/theodore_dawes_rd_eb_at_us-090_cr-026.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/theodore_dawes_rd_eb_at_us-090_cr-026.jpg)

Found this just yesterday on Theodore Dawes Road eastbound at U.S. 90 and Mobile County 26. When county signing crews added new County Road 26 pentagons, they also extended Alabama 163 west from its southern terminus at Alabama 193! Furthermore, CR 26 shields are not found on either direction of U.S. 90 or on CR 26 itself. That's useful!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on June 18, 2009, 09:17:36 AM
Here are two from the same road, but different states...

(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg36/jcm9572/Virginia%20Signs/20090503OOPSUS301inVA.jpg)

(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg36/jcm9572/Maryland%20Signs/20090503OOPSUS301inMD2.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 18, 2009, 09:32:05 AM
Quote
Here are two from the same road, but different states...
  Wow those sign goofs at VDOT allowed an SR 301(ironically I do live on SR 1301)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 18, 2009, 03:28:43 PM
That's only the second posting of a US highway in a secondary route shield I know of in Virginia, other than the SR 220 shields in Rocky Mount that the Virginia Hwys Project has photos of.

(http://www.vahighways.com/errors/sr220error.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on June 18, 2009, 07:22:18 PM
My avatar is inspired by an instance of a stupid sign error, heading eastbound on the PA Turnpike before the Valley Forge interchange, instead of "East {I-276}", a Jersey Tpke. shield is stuck over that.  See: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-76/ (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-76/), about halfway down the page for the real thing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on June 18, 2009, 08:12:36 PM
This was taken on southbound I-75

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/19/105198746_353e989058_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on June 19, 2009, 10:29:59 AM
Quote
That's only the second posting of a US highway in a secondary route shield I know of in Virginia, other than the SR 220 shields in Rocky Mount that the Virginia Hwys Project has photos of.

There's a set of new "SR 340" shields south of Front Royal, near the Page/Warren County line.  I have photos but haven't gotten to uploading them yet.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 19, 2009, 09:38:39 PM
Here is one from beautiful, downtown Minturn, CO.  This is supposed to be a trailblazer for US-24 and not CO-24.

By the way this is about 3 miles away from the moder-day western terminus of US 24 at I-70...Maybe C-DOT is looking to truncate US-24 even more??  :-D(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3305/3485630980_50c0b97bba.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on June 20, 2009, 09:42:28 AM
This was taken on southbound I-75

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/19/105198746_353e989058_b.jpg)

That is a goof alright...that is supposed to be BUSINESS LOOP 75 on old US 25 there (lived there for a few years back in the late 80s).....
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on June 20, 2009, 11:28:12 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Erroneous_Old_VA_197_Sign_2.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on June 22, 2009, 12:51:15 PM
^^ Wait... What?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hensepens on June 22, 2009, 04:32:34 PM
They told me to put the word EAST on. Nobody told me to remove NORTH. So, I don't   :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on June 29, 2009, 01:34:20 AM
Here's one that been posted all over the new area in Detroit. But why did we change states...

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/3017930404_ef4cab296d_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 29, 2009, 07:56:51 PM
If only M-DOT would have would have erred with  a US Shield, then it would have been a nice nod to the past (when the Lodge Freeway was US 10).

The closest state from Detroit to use a circle shield would be about 250 miles to the south in Kentucky.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on June 29, 2009, 08:11:46 PM
This isn't the only instance. For example, when Oakland County replaces a state highway sign, they do this (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.493982,-83.436077&spn=0.00519,0.027874&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.493981,-83.436079&panoid=tjabumh7aXSTtyuAFAzYHg&cbp=11,21.91,,0,-3.8).

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 29, 2009, 10:16:38 PM
A new one I noticed this morning:  we apparently have a "US 233" in Arlington, VA.  Even has a white border...


Where in Arlington is that one?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 30, 2009, 01:53:15 AM
Nothing very major, but I noticed when stuck in traffic the other day that the Exit 268 sign on I-64 Eastbound in Hampton shows VA-169 EAST, when VA-169 is signed North-South. East should be north.
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z194/deathtopumpkins/06-27-09_1815.jpg)
(sorry for the poor photo quality, this was taken on my phone)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on June 30, 2009, 03:06:05 PM
Here's one, courtesy of rawmustard...

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3228/2717149481_4b9bc7dd9c_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on June 30, 2009, 03:14:32 PM
^^^ doh!

That might look right on 94 between Chicago and Milwaukee though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on June 30, 2009, 04:06:30 PM
and another rawmustard pic...

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2345/2325291760_2069c67c9a_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 30, 2009, 04:21:21 PM
I found a couple on my trip last weekend to OKC. I'll post them as soon as I get them sorted.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on June 30, 2009, 05:16:52 PM
and another rawmustard pic...

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2345/2325291760_2069c67c9a_b.jpg)
from the department of redundancy department :rofl:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rawmustard on June 30, 2009, 06:08:51 PM
and another rawmustard pic...

{gosh, I actually quoted an image in the past? Mere oversight}
from the department of redundancy department :rofl:

That one did get replaced with this one (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawmustard/2717966268), while the errant I-94 shield was replaced with an I-194 shield which was a two-digit blank. Last I knew, that assembly was still knocked down.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on June 30, 2009, 06:43:14 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2429/3624073960_61efc6101b_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 30, 2009, 07:37:01 PM
what is the error on the Candy Mountain sign?  other than that it is aesthetically displeasing, and features a surface-level TO banner nailed up there?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 30, 2009, 07:47:26 PM
what is the error on the Candy Mountain sign?  other than that it is aesthetically displeasing, and features a surface-level TO banner nailed up there?

I think he was going more for the fact that it says Candy Mountain on it. ;)

"It's a magical liopleurodon, Charlie!"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 01, 2009, 12:36:05 AM
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1228/536730219_9e6cdcd0e0_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on July 01, 2009, 12:48:58 PM
I wouldn't call sign that erroneous - I'd call that funny as hell! :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 01, 2009, 01:02:37 PM
I wouldn't call sign that erroneous - I'd call that funny as hell! :-D

Someone might who isn't a roadgeek!   :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on July 04, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
(http://www.doingitwrong.com/wrong/20070924-000448.gif)
I'm confused

(http://www.doingitwrong.com/wrong/no-no.jpg)
Well, so much for the car.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: City on July 05, 2009, 12:40:27 PM
(http://www.doingitwrong.com/wrong/20070924-000448.gif)
I'm confused

(http://www.doingitwrong.com/wrong/no-no.jpg)
Well, so much for the car.

For the first pic: drive slowly in the intersection, stopping and going every 10 feet, and receive a $101 dollar fine!  :pan:

Ok, honestly, that is a weird sign.

For the second sign: That is a lie! Lying sign! Okay.. as I was saying, you need a word with that state's or county's DOT.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 05, 2009, 01:56:53 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2021/2195869871_75e8e6dae0.jpg)

Supposed to be US-202!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on July 05, 2009, 04:07:41 PM
(http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv321/FLroadgeek/IM008921.jpg)

Can a truck route and a mainline route duplex? (US 441 south at CR 19A in Lake County, FL.)

(http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv321/FLroadgeek/IM006520.jpg)

Seems like NJDOT invaded CR 65C in Gadsden County, FL.

(http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv321/FLroadgeek/yep2184.jpg)

Not a road sign, but something is terribly wrong inside this Florida Welcome Station.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 05, 2009, 04:20:25 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3361/3293491953_0e83640646.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 05, 2009, 06:47:08 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3386/3564881823_da72c7617c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 05, 2009, 06:50:02 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3386/3564881823_da72c7617c_b.jpg)

Does Not Compute!  :banghead:

This one has to do with the fonts...

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2659/3679492268_6575724a1e_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on July 05, 2009, 07:22:38 PM
US71's post is pointing out the One-Way signs.  One of them points the wrong way from that vantage point
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on July 05, 2009, 07:30:24 PM
How's about these US-101 shields erected around Port Angeles?

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/101/20to117/1.JPG)

and for that matter, these US-2 shields erected around Monroe

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/2/522to203/1.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 05, 2009, 07:39:35 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2581/3678840046_a2a8066ed9.jpg)

Henryetta, OK
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 05, 2009, 07:43:55 PM
Here's one from Stilwell, OK
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2123/2249998644_f9cbc0a106.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on July 05, 2009, 11:32:16 PM
Moses Lake Washington has that crazed business loop signage anomaly too

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/171/17to90/2.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 05, 2009, 11:47:21 PM
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_vGM7FtU3Pdk/SlEnikCjArI/AAAAAAAAB1k/W66-jg4FRUI/s512/P7040320.JPG)

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_vGM7FtU3Pdk/SlEnhy7wWoI/AAAAAAAAB1g/BrJgw-y2BCE/s512/P7040318.JPG)

The error in this one is that this IS VA 337.

Finally, VA 168 is AWOL:

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_vGM7FtU3Pdk/SlEnr_gwlII/AAAAAAAAB2o/10Qe8MGWAj8/s512/P7040339.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 06, 2009, 09:47:43 AM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3213/2943867931_63e80bc6c0.jpg)

Both should be Ar 59
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on July 06, 2009, 04:08:30 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2021/2195869871_75e8e6dae0.jpg)

Supposed to be US-202!

Unless it's different in that part of NY, isn't US 202 North/South and not East/West?  (At least it is in DE/PA/NJ)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 07, 2009, 11:55:32 AM
I didn't have my camera with me, but I spotted two errors in Port Huron. On M-25 southbound, there's a South M-136 sign and right after that is a Jct M-136 sign. Douh! Also, on Business I-94, there's an East blazer on the west side!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 07, 2009, 12:01:15 PM
Taken in Sulphur Springs, AR
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/2959197577_384836d753.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on July 07, 2009, 03:32:59 PM
Hallett is mispelled on the right BGS at this toll plaza on U.S. 412 East (Cimarron Turnpike) (Click on link below to see the bigger picture)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/3686264092_5e8cecdb11.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/3686264092_5e8cecdb11.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/3686264092_5e8cecdb11.jpg)

This sign uses a mixture of upper & lower case:

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2463/3685492495_d8ffb0a342.jpg)

U.S. 59 is signed "East" here when it should be signed "South":

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3552/3686303828_a61884aa89_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on July 07, 2009, 07:46:49 PM


Unless it's different in that part of NY, isn't US 202 North/South and not East/West?  (At least it is in DE/PA/NJ)

E-W in NY, CT (though it may switch at US 44, I forget), NH, and ME.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on July 07, 2009, 10:15:51 PM
That's the second OK tollbooth that uses a bridge for cover  :-/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 08, 2009, 01:04:47 AM
I just got back from a trip to Yellowstone and southern Montana, and saw several mistakes.  Here are a few of them:

This is on MT 47 just north of I-90 in Hardin, MT
(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/MT47Hardinsigngoof.jpg?t=1247029373)

OR 82 in La Grande
(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/OR82LaGrandesigngoof1.jpg?t=1247029427)

On OR 201 south of Adrian, OR
(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/OR201Adriansigngoof2.jpg?t=1247029319)

One of the infamous US 20-395 goofs in the Burns, OR area:
(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/US20-395Hinessigngoof1.jpg?t=1247029246)

Last from the Department of Redundancy Department on I-15 in Idaho (this was the exit for US 26/BL 15 before those routes were relocated to a new exit 2 miles north):
(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/I15IdahoFallsexit1131.jpg?t=1247029053)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 08, 2009, 01:28:17 AM
excellent, a US-201 error.  Have not seen that one. 

the 47 replaced an older US-47 shield!  Here is a US-39 with the older style.  Note the narrower numbers. 

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/MT/MT19740391i1.jpg)

39 and 47 are notable for never having been US highway numbers. There also was not an 88, and I do not know if 37 or 86 were ever signed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 08, 2009, 02:04:36 AM
I have a photo of another US 39 (actually OR 39), but the error had been fixed the last time I passed the spot.

These kind of mistakes are all over the place in Oregon.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 12, 2009, 04:24:57 PM
What happened to Exit 150B?(there are actually two exits for SR 619 on I-95 SB) (http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/I-95SOUTH1MILENORTHOFSR619EXITS150B.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on July 12, 2009, 06:17:36 PM
OR 82 in La Grande
(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/OR82LaGrandesigngoof1.jpg?t=1247029427)

I'll probably see this one heading out to Lake Wallowa in a couple weeks.

A Jnct. US 224 shield northbound on SE 17th Ave between OR 99E and OR 224 in Milwaukie, OR.

One from a number of years ago: A US 92 East trailblazer just east of I-15 on UT 15.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 12, 2009, 09:18:08 PM
There were a few more US 224 signs down by Barton, but I think I saw they'd been fixed last time I went through.

Be careful you don't miss the US 82 sign.  If you exit the freeway and head east, you'll never see it -- it's on eastbound 82 one block after the highway's start off US 30, posted on a railroad overpass.  It's been there for years, so they don't seem to be in a hurry to fix the mistake.

I could write paragraphs describing all the instances of route mis-signage (is that a word?) in Oregon.  The four I posted earlier are the tip of the iceberg.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on July 12, 2009, 10:58:32 PM
NY's got quite a few US/state route signage errors. I actually remember driving up I-81, and pulling off of the freeway to get gas, and right at the bottom of the ramp, I saw a nice, shiny, sparkly, brand new...NY 11 shield.

The offramp from the other direction? Also had a nice, shiny, sparkly, brand new NY 11 shield.  :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 13, 2009, 12:27:26 AM
Quote
Milwaukie

that is not an error, but it certainly looks like one.  There is also Zilwaukee, Michigan.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on July 13, 2009, 07:20:03 AM
NY's got quite a few US/state route signage errors. I actually remember driving up I-81, and pulling off of the freeway to get gas, and right at the bottom of the ramp, I saw a nice, shiny, sparkly, brand new...NY 11 shield.

The offramp from the other direction? Also had a nice, shiny, sparkly, brand new NY 11 shield.  :D

U.S. 62 is signed as NY 62 a few times in Niagara Falls.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on July 13, 2009, 11:43:48 AM

Be careful you don't miss the US 82 sign.  If you exit the freeway and head east, you'll never see it -- it's on eastbound 82 one block after the highway's start off US 30, posted on a railroad overpass.  It's been there for years, so they don't seem to be in a hurry to fix the mistake.

I probably won't be driving, so we'll probably miss that one. But iirc, there is a standalone US 82 trailblazer further east past OR 207.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on July 13, 2009, 01:54:29 PM
Tennessee has an annoying habit of signing primary state highways as secondary and vice-versa.

However, it doesn't help that there is no apparent criteria for a number being a primary or secondary.

For example, TN 254 is a primary but TN 253 and 255 are secondaries.

Also, the same number is sometimes used for both types, though usually when the grade of highway changes.  For example, Briley Parkway around Nashville is TN primary 155 but the arterial portion of the loop (Whitebridge Rd., Woodmont Blvd., Thompson Lane) is TN secondary 255.  Also, from TN 100 north through Dickson TN 46 is a primary route and signed N-S.  A few miles east of TN Primary 46's southern end is the Western end of TN secondary 46, also at TN 100 near the current terminus of the western stub of TN 840.  And, TN secondary 46 is signed E-W!

I'll try and get some pictures to post.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 14, 2009, 12:14:30 AM
U.S. 62 is signed as NY 62 a few times in Niagara Falls.

Ya mean like this?

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/US62NiagaraFalls5.jpg?t=1247544763)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 14, 2009, 12:25:11 AM
I'll have to post the photo later, but I found US 93 near Texarkana  :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on July 16, 2009, 01:52:36 AM
NY's got quite a few US/state route signage errors. I actually remember driving up I-81, and pulling off of the freeway to get gas, and right at the bottom of the ramp, I saw a nice, shiny, sparkly, brand new...NY 11 shield.

The offramp from the other direction? Also had a nice, shiny, sparkly, brand new NY 11 shield.  :D

Where on I-81?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on July 16, 2009, 09:40:45 AM
IIRC, Exit 14 at Tully had that at one point...not sure if that's the location, though...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on July 16, 2009, 09:47:05 AM
I don't exactly remember, but I'm pretty sure it was Exit 41 at Adams (they said TO NY11, since US11 is a short ways from the exit). This was a couple years ago, too, so NYSDOT may have fixed it. Probably not, though. :D

I also saw a NY11 shield ON I-81 northbound a few weeks ago as part of a detour sign assembly...but that was just a temporary sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 16, 2009, 01:54:23 PM
Many errors from the city of Petersburg, VA:
US 1 has never been on any portion of Crater Rd that I know of(http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/VA36WESTNEARUS301ANDUS460BUSINESS.jpg)  YAY Petersburg always reveres VA 36 here as a US Route. Wait I said VA 36  (http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/VA36WESTATFLEETST.jpg)  Someone forgot the "ALT" banner here  (http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/US1NORTHANDUS460BUSINESSEASTNEARUS3.jpg)  VA 36 is not multiplexed with US 460 Business here but this could involve the truck route though  (http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/US460BUSINESSEASTATSJEFFERSONST.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 16, 2009, 06:58:52 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/2963506023_9748e2f2d8_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 16, 2009, 07:20:23 PM
Odd, but not an error. :p
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 16, 2009, 07:36:08 PM
Yeah, that is odd, but it's legit. ;)  But I-81 and I-77 both go the opposite directions as well as US-11 and US-52 between Ft. Chiswell and Wytheville. ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on July 23, 2009, 02:07:54 PM
I'm not too sure if there's any errors here but is it normal for the font to be different in shields on the same gantry? Also the 1 at the bottom of the left sign seems a little small. And finally the black line around white shields, I guess this is just an Iowa thing.

(http://www.speedcam.co.uk/d70/exit239.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on July 23, 2009, 02:12:40 PM
The black line around (US route) shields is also a South Carolina thing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 23, 2009, 02:14:07 PM
The black line around (US route) shields is also a South Carolina thing.

Oklahoma does that, too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 23, 2009, 02:41:18 PM
Another Petersburg sign error as US 460 should be US 460 Business ever since US 460 was put onto Wagner Rd and I-95 but I believe this was right when posted  (http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/US460BUSINESSWESTNEARVA109.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2009, 02:53:22 PM
New Mexico also puts the black outline on their shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Crewdawg on July 23, 2009, 03:50:49 PM
How's about these US-101 shields erected around Port Angeles?

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/101/20to117/1.JPG)

and for that matter, these US-2 shields erected around Monroe

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/2/522to203/1.JPG)

And doses,t US 101 go north/south
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2009, 05:23:37 PM
101 does a hook around the Olympic Peninsula.  It is signed north-south up the Pacific coast, then east-west along the northern shore of the peninsula, and then south-north as it goes inland to its terminus near Olympia.

Along all three segments, the cardinal directions match the physical direction of travel.  So when 101 starts out of Olympia, it is signed 101 north.  Therefore, 101 has two southern termini!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on July 23, 2009, 05:49:52 PM
I'm not too sure if there's any errors here but is it normal for the font to be different in shields on the same gantry? Also the 1 at the bottom of the left sign seems a little small. And finally the black line around white shields, I guess this is just an Iowa thing.

(http://www.speedcam.co.uk/d70/exit239.jpg)

I noticed that the route signs on the left BGS are much smaller than the ones on the right.  (I guess to squeeze them in.)  Does this happen often?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on July 23, 2009, 07:44:02 PM
The black line around (US route) shields is also a South Carolina thing.


Oklahoma does that, too.

...As does Utah & Virginia.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on July 23, 2009, 07:44:52 PM
This here is an error:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5361449651553362242 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5361449651553362242)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on July 25, 2009, 06:31:18 PM
This one in Wisconsin (http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20090724/WDH0101/90724123/1981/WDHopinion) made the news in my area (albeit it was probably stock footage from the local station there)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 25, 2009, 11:51:46 PM
(http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/128928674886416044.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 26, 2009, 12:33:08 AM
Looks like this photo that I found on Flickr a while ago:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/walksonrocks/2735840756/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walksonrocks/2735840756/)

And this photo that I actually took:

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3625/3309039083_4ecb77f0e5.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 26, 2009, 01:40:42 AM
I did not remember CA-266 ended at a *white* Welcome to Nevada sign!  I drove that entire silly loop (NV-266, CA-168, CA-266, NV-264) in 2007.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 26, 2009, 01:50:10 AM
(http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/128928674886416044.jpg)
there is certainly nothing wrong with that sign.  Surely one must get to ... something ... if they take that right turn!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 26, 2009, 02:24:24 AM
But where to?  :-/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on July 26, 2009, 03:05:56 AM
Incorrect BGS on westbound WA 14 entering Washougal, signing for Bus US 14. Saw it and barely missed the photo-op  :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Crewdawg on July 26, 2009, 03:12:38 AM
This one in Wisconsin (http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20090724/WDH0101/90724123/1981/WDHopinion) made the news in my area (albeit it was probably stock footage from the local station there)

This made the local news in Phoenix
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 26, 2009, 03:32:57 AM
Incorrect BGS on westbound WA 14 entering Washougal, signing for Bus US 14. Saw it and barely missed the photo-op  :banghead:

I didn't:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/WA14SignGoof1.jpg?t=1248593525)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on July 26, 2009, 07:58:52 PM
(http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u126/bugo348/nd52.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:04:05 PM
The black line around (US route) shields is also a South Carolina thing.

Oklahoma does that, too.

Used to.  None of the newer Clearview signs that I have seen use the black outline.

ODOT seems to use different designs for a short time then switch to something completely different.  The black outlines, the prison font signage, etc...hopefully Clearview will be just as short lived.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:05:15 PM
I'm not too sure if there's any errors here but is it normal for the font to be different in shields on the same gantry? Also the 1 at the bottom of the left sign seems a little small. And finally the black line around white shields, I guess this is just an Iowa thing.

(http://www.speedcam.co.uk/d70/exit239.jpg)

I noticed that the route signs on the left BGS are much smaller than the ones on the right.  (I guess to squeeze them in.)  Does this happen often?

I'm willing to guess the small shields were added when the silly IA 27 designation was added.  There was room for 2 full sized signs on the right, but not enough room for 3 on the left.  IA 27 is stupid.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: City on July 26, 2009, 08:17:34 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:23:31 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.

Why would you want this to happen?  The roads would be boring if all signage conformed with the standard.  Would I have stopped to take a picture of that ND 52 error had it been a standard US 52 marker?  I wouldn't have even noticed it.  Errors, non-standard signage and other quirks are what make this hobby fun.  If everything looked the same there would be nothing interesting about roads.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on July 26, 2009, 08:41:31 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.

Why would you want this to happen?  The roads would be boring if all signage conformed with the standard.  Would I have stopped to take a picture of that ND 52 error had it been a standard US 52 marker?  I wouldn't have even noticed it.  Errors, non-standard signage and other quirks are what make this hobby fun.  If everything looked the same there would be nothing interesting about roads.

I agree.  Look at anything that people collect.  What are some of the most valuable stamps, baseball cards, dolls, coins, etc.?  The GOOFS!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on July 26, 2009, 08:59:37 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.

Why would you want this to happen?  The roads would be boring if all signage conformed with the standard.  Would I have stopped to take a picture of that ND 52 error had it been a standard US 52 marker?  I wouldn't have even noticed it.  Errors, non-standard signage and other quirks are what make this hobby fun.  If everything looked the same there would be nothing interesting about roads.

I agree.  Look at anything that people collect.  What are some of the most valuable stamps, baseball cards, dolls, coins, etc.?  The GOOFS!

I still feel bad about that pair of OK 82 meatcleavers I inadvertently got removed from US 59 near Sallisaw.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 26, 2009, 10:20:25 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.

Why would you want this to happen?  The roads would be boring if all signage conformed with the standard.  Would I have stopped to take a picture of that ND 52 error had it been a standard US 52 marker?  I wouldn't have even noticed it.  Errors, non-standard signage and other quirks are what make this hobby fun.  If everything looked the same there would be nothing interesting about roads.

I agree.  Look at anything that people collect.  What are some of the most valuable stamps, baseball cards, dolls, coins, etc.?  The GOOFS!

I still feel bad about that pair of OK 82 meatcleavers I inadvertently got removed from US 59 near Sallisaw.

I once got an erroneous "To Exit #351C" tab on a I-95 BGS removed.  However, they had permanently closed that exit in Jacksonville, FL as part of the I-10/I-95 interchange reconstruction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on July 27, 2009, 01:12:10 AM
I did not remember CA-266 ended at a *white* Welcome to Nevada sign!  I drove that entire silly loop (NV-266, CA-168, CA-266, NV-264) in 2007.

How exactly do you know that sign was on CA-266?

Slightly OT: Also, I didn't think CA 168 was part of that loop, but provided the only California state highway link to CA 266
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 27, 2009, 01:24:20 AM
168 came first, several years before 266 did, so it kept its number.  168 has been on that corridor since 1937.  Originally, it went north out of Bishop, but when US-6 came along, it took over that route, so 168 was rerouted.

the image is tagged "CA 266".  I do not know all the CA/NV state lines *that* well!   :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: City on July 27, 2009, 07:04:51 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.

Why would you want this to happen?  The roads would be boring if all signage conformed with the standard.  Would I have stopped to take a picture of that ND 52 error had it been a standard US 52 marker?  I wouldn't have even noticed it.  Errors, non-standard signage and other quirks are what make this hobby fun.  If everything looked the same there would be nothing interesting about roads.

I agree.  Look at anything that people collect.  What are some of the most valuable stamps, baseball cards, dolls, coins, etc.?  The GOOFS!

I still feel bad about that pair of OK 82 meatcleavers I inadvertently got removed from US 59 near Sallisaw.

I once got an erroneous "To Exit #351C" tab on a I-95 BGS removed.  However, they had permanently closed that exit in Jacksonville, FL as part of the I-10/I-95 interchange reconstruction.

Wow, I didn't think that my thought wouldn't have been taken that way.  :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 27, 2009, 07:08:09 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.

Why would you want this to happen?  The roads would be boring if all signage conformed with the standard.  Would I have stopped to take a picture of that ND 52 error had it been a standard US 52 marker?  I wouldn't have even noticed it.  Errors, non-standard signage and other quirks are what make this hobby fun.  If everything looked the same there would be nothing interesting about roads.

I agree.  Look at anything that people collect.  What are some of the most valuable stamps, baseball cards, dolls, coins, etc.?  The GOOFS!

I still feel bad about that pair of OK 82 meatcleavers I inadvertently got removed from US 59 near Sallisaw.

I once got an erroneous "To Exit #351C" tab on a I-95 BGS removed.  However, they had permanently closed that exit in Jacksonville, FL as part of the I-10/I-95 interchange reconstruction.

Wow, I didn't think that my thought wouldn't have been taken that way.  :ded:

There aren't not a not insufficient quantity of negatives not present in the post that is not this one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on July 27, 2009, 07:18:18 PM
AASHTO and FHWA should get onto the makers of those erroneous signs.

Why would you want this to happen?  The roads would be boring if all signage conformed with the standard.  Would I have stopped to take a picture of that ND 52 error had it been a standard US 52 marker?  I wouldn't have even noticed it.  Errors, non-standard signage and other quirks are what make this hobby fun.  If everything looked the same there would be nothing interesting about roads.

I agree.  Look at anything that people collect.  What are some of the most valuable stamps, baseball cards, dolls, coins, etc.?  The GOOFS!

I still feel bad about that pair of OK 82 meatcleavers I inadvertently got removed from US 59 near Sallisaw.

I once got an erroneous "To Exit #351C" tab on a I-95 BGS removed.  However, they had permanently closed that exit in Jacksonville, FL as part of the I-10/I-95 interchange reconstruction.

Wow, I didn't think that my thought wouldn't have been taken that way.  :ded:

There aren't not a not insufficient quantity of negatives not present in the post that is not this one.

Dont use no double negatives....

and dont you not dare use no triple negatives....   :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 28, 2009, 01:23:54 AM
VDOT just put up the relevant signage for the connection between Watkins Centre in Chesterfield County with VA 288.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3543/3764091753_ce71436988.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/3764091753/in/photostream/)

...erm, I mean US 288. There's not even a US 88! :p

Then again, I suppose it could be worse - a lot of locals refer to it as "I-288" in ads.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Chris on July 28, 2009, 06:42:21 AM
Quote
Every Word Except "Exit" Spelled Wrong on Wisconsin Highway Sign

A sign pointing southbound travelers onto Business Highway 51 in Rothschild and Schofield bears an incorrect spelling for every word except “exit.”

David Vieth, director of the bureau of highway operations for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, said the mistake was made by Decker Supply Company of Madison, which printed the sign.

The sign for exit 185 on southbound Highway 51 reads “Buisness 51 Rothschield Schofeild.”

“How do I politely say it shows some incompetence on someone’s part?” said Rothschild Village President Neal Torney.
(http://www.godbitesman.com/storage/bilde-1.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1248619009112)

 :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on July 28, 2009, 08:58:30 AM
Quote
Every Word Except "Exit" Spelled Wrong on Wisconsin Highway Sign

A sign pointing southbound travelers onto Business Highway 51 in Rothschild and Schofield bears an incorrect spelling for every word except “exit.”

David Vieth, director of the bureau of highway operations for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, said the mistake was made by Decker Supply Company of Madison, which printed the sign.

The sign for exit 185 on southbound Highway 51 reads “Buisness 51 Rothschield Schofeild.”

“How do I politely say it shows some incompetence on someone’s part?” said Rothschild Village President Neal Torney.
(http://www.godbitesman.com/storage/bilde-1.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1248619009112)

 :pan:

And where the heck is the exit arrow?!?!? I'm surprised they didn't use a state shield by mistake.  :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Marc on July 29, 2009, 01:51:14 AM
Here's the sign along I-10 in Columbus I mentioned way long ago in the thread.

Take a look at the milage indicated on the sign.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Columbus,+TX&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.77566,56.25&ie=UTF8&ll=29.712358,-96.492233&spn=0.105259,0.109863&z=13&layer=c&cbll=29.712326,-96.491987&panoid=ql8sEhYTiJFaqjIXN2X9Mg&cbp=12,108.33,,0,5 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Columbus,+TX&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.77566,56.25&ie=UTF8&ll=29.712358,-96.492233&spn=0.105259,0.109863&z=13&layer=c&cbll=29.712326,-96.491987&panoid=ql8sEhYTiJFaqjIXN2X9Mg&cbp=12,108.33,,0,5)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on July 30, 2009, 10:27:21 PM
Poor US 40, downgraded to State Route status.

(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg36/jcm9572/Maryland%20Signs/20090628OOPSMD40.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 30, 2009, 10:33:53 PM
Poor US 40, downgraded to State Route status.


Ditto US 62
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2474259353_da7ee29c71.jpg)


(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2259/2283115720_f6dd49d17d.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on July 31, 2009, 12:03:12 AM
(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/signgoofs/ky/southUS57-northKY57goof.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on July 31, 2009, 01:16:23 AM
No respect for U.S. 441 either:

(http://www.southeastroads.com/florida400/fl-429_nb_exit_033_09.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 31, 2009, 06:54:22 AM
Nor for U.S. 77:

(http://www.denexa.com/roadgeek/v_fwy.jpg)

(since corrected)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 31, 2009, 10:00:27 PM
Quote
Every Word Except "Exit" Spelled Wrong on Wisconsin Highway Sign

A sign pointing southbound travelers onto Business Highway 51 in Rothschild and Schofield bears an incorrect spelling for every word except “exit.”

David Vieth, director of the bureau of highway operations for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, said the mistake was made by Decker Supply Company of Madison, which printed the sign.

The sign for exit 185 on southbound Highway 51 reads “Buisness 51 Rothschield Schofeild.”

“How do I politely say it shows some incompetence on someone’s part?” said Rothschild Village President Neal Torney.
(http://www.godbitesman.com/storage/bilde-1.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1248619009112)

 :pan:

And where the heck is the exit arrow?!?!? I'm surprised they didn't use a state shield by mistake.  :banghead:
  This was so bad it was actually shown on Headline News a couple of days before even though it has reportedly been fixed  :-D  Anyway now looking at the access road for US 17 Business SB from US 501 SB  (http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/US501SOUTHAT8THAVENANDUS17BUSINESS.jpg)  I know at one point US 17 Business was US 17 but US 17 was moved onto its "Myrtle Beach Bypass" over 20 years ago  :-o :wow:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on August 01, 2009, 05:48:22 PM
One from years ago, and there was a shopping center that signed U.S. 40 as State 40 on all of its signs at one point.

(http://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware010/us-040_eb_after_de-896b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 01, 2009, 05:56:39 PM
This goes back to sometime in 2002, a couple years after I-530 was created

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3229/2944727946_3530f9fe78.jpg)

1. Should be West US 270

2 Should be US 65B

3 East 270 should be AR 365S

This has long since been corrected
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on August 01, 2009, 07:44:33 PM
More images of "AR 270"
(http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u126/bugo348/i530ar270.jpg)
(http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u126/bugo348/ar270.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 01, 2009, 09:22:35 PM
This one is kind of subtle unless you know the area:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2238/2151172878_c7ba696632.jpg)

You're looking due east into Arkansas from Oklahoma, so why does it show MO 43 going straight?


Two years later, Oklahoma put up the "meat cleaver" signs:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2018/2305207634_1d6b55c636.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2009, 01:34:32 AM
is it in general an error that AR-43 goes into Oklahoma for a bit?  (or is it OK-20 that goes into Arkansas for a bit ... I know they are multiplexed as they cross state lines near the AR-MO-OK tripoint.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 02, 2009, 02:53:09 AM
Not really an error, as the concurrency was intentional, but if you turn left to go northbound it is posted as MO-43 as well, even though it's still a few miles out from the tripoint. But it is AR-43 that goes into Oklahoma. I'm sure the curve in the road is to avoid some problem that ODOT didn't feel was worth paving over.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on August 02, 2009, 04:39:52 AM
Incorrect BGS on westbound WA 14 entering Washougal, signing for Bus US 14. Saw it and barely missed the photo-op  :banghead:

I didn't:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/WA14SignGoof1.jpg?t=1248593525)
That's the one.

The US 82's on OR 82 have been replaced with the correct trailblazer shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 02, 2009, 01:53:21 PM
The US 82's on OR 82 have been replaced with the correct trailblazer shields.

I'm sad to report the US 86 in Halfway and the US 245 near Baker are also gone.  However, the OR 199's in Grant Pass are still there in force, as is the cosignage of OR 99/US 199 through downtown GP (which is not the actual route of 199).  I'm not sure about the US 99 shields on OR 99 in the area; here's one by Gold Hill:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/146.jpg?t=1249235164)(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/134.jpg?t=1249235214)(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/OR99GoldHillSignGoof2-1.jpg?t=1249235646)

So, basically, there are a lot of wrong shields in the Grants Pass area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2009, 02:01:25 PM
yes, 199 is signed very poorly there ...

did you happen to come across any state named I-5 shields?  I've heard there's one supposedly somewhere in Grants Pass but I've never been able to find it.  Similarly, I've heard there's one supposedly somewhere in Ashland.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on August 02, 2009, 02:22:02 PM
White I-80 shield posted on BL-80 in Elko:

(http://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada080/bl-080_nv-535_eb_app_jennings_way_02.jpg)

D.C. has a similar version but used for the wrong route type:

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3547/3781291767_41a1665cdf.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 02, 2009, 02:27:26 PM
This sign goof picture was taken in 2003...as of three weeks ago, it's still there...
(http://www.okroads.com/052403/i44moexit161.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 02, 2009, 02:33:54 PM
did you happen to come across any state named I-5 shields?  I've heard there's one supposedly somewhere in Grants Pass but I've never been able to find it.  Similarly, I've heard there's one supposedly somewhere in Ashland.

I've never seen either, but I haven't been in Ashland in awhile.  I probably will be down there in 2 weeks, so I'll look then.  Any clue exactly where either is?  I haven't seen a state-named shield in Oregon in years (except the I-5/I-105 in Eugene), but I always figure if one does still exist it would be on some obscure side-street.  Ditto state-named US Shields.

I still kick myself for somehow losing a box of old photos I had.  I know I had a photo of the US 20/OR 34/OR 99W triplex through Corvallis where all three shields were old-style.  Arghhhhhhh!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2009, 05:19:49 PM
as of June 2007, there was an 18x18 state named I-5 shield on an old US-99 alignment that is not OR-99. 

I had just heard rumors of the ones in Ashland and Grants Pass; not specific locations. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on August 03, 2009, 05:38:02 AM
White I-80 shield posted on BL-80 in Elko:
(http://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada080/bl-080_nv-535_eb_app_jennings_way_02.jpg)

And, quite possibly, the largest "TO" I've ever seen on a sign  :-o
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 03, 2009, 09:51:26 AM
Not really an error, as the concurrency was intentional, but if you turn left to go northbound it is posted as MO-43 as well, even though it's still a few miles out from the tripoint. But it is AR-43 that goes into Oklahoma. I'm sure the curve in the road is to avoid some problem that ODOT didn't feel was worth paving over.

NB it's posted as MO 43, SB it's AR 43. The signage is all ODOT, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on August 03, 2009, 01:58:03 PM
NOT in Georgia.
(http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv321/FLroadgeek/GA111.jpg)

The error might be hard to spot.
(http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv321/FLroadgeek/IM004232.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 03, 2009, 02:30:27 PM
is the 111 in Florida?

and what is wrong with the 263?  is it supposed to be unsigned there?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on August 03, 2009, 02:35:23 PM
Yeah, the 111 is on US 27 at the Georgia State Line. The older white car is on CR 157, the blue car is heading up the access road for GA 111.

263 doesn't come anywhere close to or being on Adams Street (SR 363). Someone only paid attention to the last two digits.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on August 04, 2009, 10:48:36 PM
And now for some signing goofs in the great state of New York:

(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/ny_17c/96.jpg)

The NY 96 shield is upside down, even though the shield above it is right-side up!

(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/ny_69/mills.jpg)

Same as above.

(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/ny_400/s20a.jpg)

The one on the left should be US 20A. And there's plenty of others in the same area.

(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/i-86/w56.jpg)

Wrong font.

(http://www.gribblenation.net/nypics/regional/erie/northtowns/324-190on190n.jpg)

Same as above.

(http://www.gribblenation.net/nypics/regional/erie/northtowns/265ct1.jpg)

Meet the square I-290 shield's long-lost cousin.

(http://www.gribblenation.net/nypics/regional/steuben/15-21.jpg)

Should be NY 15. (Granted, it might be a remnant from when NY 15 was US 15.)

(http://www.gribblenation.net/nyends/images/farr/245us14a.jpg)

The one on the right should be NY 245.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/NY_246_south_at_US_20A.jpg)

The one on top should be US 20A.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 04, 2009, 11:01:38 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2626742398_0f5c39c84d.jpg)
 Should be MO 152

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/2959197577_384836d753.jpg)
US 54 doesn't exist in Arkansas

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/2474259299_550392b8f3.jpg)
Should be US 71
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 04, 2009, 11:13:28 PM
the 265 is a Connecticut shield.  I wonder if a Conn contractor goofed.

Do you have a higher-resolution version of the US 15 shield?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on August 05, 2009, 07:49:14 AM

Do you have a higher-resolution version of the US 15 shield?

I do and its already posted: http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NY19700151t200150.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NY19700151t200150.jpg)

And FWIW, I remember that being a U.S. 15 shield in the late 1980s. So either it was carbon copied later, or its held up incredibly over the years...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on August 05, 2009, 07:50:14 AM
(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19883901i1.jpg)

And this U.S. 15 shield at Exit 1 of Interstate 390. Not that I mind it, I wish U.S. 15 still traveled to Rochester...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 05, 2009, 01:11:35 PM
that 15 might also be an old shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on August 05, 2009, 01:31:20 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2259/2283115720_f6dd49d17d.jpg)
Route sign fail.

...I wish U.S. 15 still traveled to Rochester...
Me too!

that 15 might also be an old shield.
US 15 was truncated to Painted Post in 1974, and that shield looks too new.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 05, 2009, 01:50:13 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2259/2283115720_f6dd49d17d.jpg)
Route sign fail.


It's the contractor's fault on this one. AHTD would never put up something that ugly
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 05, 2009, 02:27:19 PM
it is the older style with the C numbers and the classic shape.  I wonder if it sat unused as inventory for however many years?  Or if, indeed, it's an error US-15 manufactured in the early 90s or so.  The sign looks like it's been out there for 15 years but not significantly more than that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on August 05, 2009, 05:33:58 PM
And FWIW, I remember that being a U.S. 15 shield in the late 1980s. So either it was carbon copied later, or its held up incredibly over the years...

It must've held up well, for you can see the same shield on Google Maps' street view: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=42.567722,-77.590524&spn=0.000433,0.001725&z=19&layer=c&cbll=42.567709,-77.590651&panoid=6ydbgS5f4M87WFLUnK6qFQ&cbp=11,97.75,,1,-2.06 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=42.567722,-77.590524&spn=0.000433,0.001725&z=19&layer=c&cbll=42.567709,-77.590651&panoid=6ydbgS5f4M87WFLUnK6qFQ&cbp=11,97.75,,1,-2.06)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on August 06, 2009, 07:02:52 PM
Also, I found another one:

(http://www.gribblenation.net/nyends/images/perry/ny20.jpg)

NY 20 should be US 20.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on August 06, 2009, 11:21:44 PM
I just happened to stumble across this one on Google...There are multiple possible answers for this sign...There's your pop quiz for the day ;-)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Great+Falls,+MT&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=47.472007,-111.361182&spn=0.000896,0.001642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&panoid=6z6B27Nom7GlFSzs-FOcSg&cbp=12,41.14,,0,5 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Great+Falls,+MT&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=47.472007,-111.361182&spn=0.000896,0.001642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&panoid=6z6B27Nom7GlFSzs-FOcSg&cbp=12,41.14,,0,5)

(http://<iframe width="425" height="240" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps/sv?cbp=12,41.14,,0,5&amp;cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&amp;panoid=&amp;v=1&amp;hl=en&amp;gl=us"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=embed&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=Great+Falls,+MT&amp;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=34.396866,53.789062&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;ll=47.516621,-111.301718&amp;spn=0.000896,0.001642&amp;t=h&amp;z=14&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&amp;panoid=6z6B27Nom7GlFSzs-FOcSg&amp;cbp=12,41.14,,0,5" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on August 07, 2009, 12:04:37 AM
I just happened to stumble across this one on Google...There are multiple possible answers for this sign...There's your pop quiz for the day ;-)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Great+Falls,+MT&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=47.472007,-111.361182&spn=0.000896,0.001642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&panoid=6z6B27Nom7GlFSzs-FOcSg&cbp=12,41.14,,0,5 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Great+Falls,+MT&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=47.472007,-111.361182&spn=0.000896,0.001642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&panoid=6z6B27Nom7GlFSzs-FOcSg&cbp=12,41.14,,0,5)

(http://<iframe width="425" height="240" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps/sv?cbp=12,41.14,,0,5&amp;cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&amp;panoid=&amp;v=1&amp;hl=en&amp;gl=us"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=embed&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=Great+Falls,+MT&amp;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=34.396866,53.789062&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;ll=47.516621,-111.301718&amp;spn=0.000896,0.001642&amp;t=h&amp;z=14&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=47.472068,-111.361088&amp;panoid=6z6B27Nom7GlFSzs-FOcSg&amp;cbp=12,41.14,,0,5" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>)

Either a Business I-15 or I-315?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 07, 2009, 01:28:55 AM
Either a Business I-15 or I-315?

Probably Business 15, as I-315 isn't signed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on August 07, 2009, 09:13:07 AM
Either a Business I-15 or I-315?

Nailed it.

Probably Business 15, as I-315 isn't signed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: allniter89 on August 13, 2009, 01:30:19 AM
Hmmm,  that hwy 90 photo looks like it could be the intersection of Okaloosa Co 393 and US90?? I've noticed alot  of US90 signs in Okaloosa & Walton counties as being signed as FL90. I thought perhaps the state was "decommisioning" US90 but then I remembered US90's state designation is FL10. It seems I even saw a FL90 sign on the actual row of US90, I'll have to look for that and get a pic.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 14, 2009, 06:59:50 PM
I found this one yesterday
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2649/3821093303_2aed3a12a7.jpg)

It's actually 2 errors   :nod:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2009, 07:14:56 PM
how many directions does north 265 go in again??
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on August 14, 2009, 07:27:05 PM
Speaking of US routes erroneously signed as state routes:

(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/us_219/s39.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on August 14, 2009, 07:30:27 PM
since it IS in Arkansas, 6 i think.....     :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 14, 2009, 09:19:27 PM
In this instance, North 265 goes to the right. Straight ahead is South 265, to the left is somebody's yard.   :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on August 15, 2009, 10:14:16 PM
I seem to remember this being posted before, but...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3424/3825113600_12edcb8002_o.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3424/3825113600_12edcb8002_o.jpg)

WIS 14?

The county is in charge of these signs as the route is under local control.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2009, 02:28:14 AM
I know of a similar WIS 141, as well as a state route shield of that style that says US 8.  I really need to process my photos of my November MI/WI/IL/MN trip!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dougtone on August 16, 2009, 08:16:06 AM
I've been noticing many more NY route shields being posted with US route shields recently.  In Cobleskill, NY, you can go to the intersection of US 10 and US 145.  There is also a bevy of US 10 shields in Delaware County.  Recently, I saw a shield for US 89 on NY 89 near Trumansburg, as well as a shield for US 290 on NY 290 in East Syracuse.  The US 290 shield looks to just be a temporary shield for reconstruction though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 22, 2009, 02:39:18 PM
The error that never ends in Richmond.  US 33 hasn't reached I-95 since 1981.  (http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/I-95SOUTHATUS250WESTEXIT74C.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 22, 2009, 03:24:50 PM
It gets worse on the other side of I-95, with overheads showing US 33 going in BOTH directions on Broad. I emailed VDOT two years ago and they feel that the exit doesn't see enough traffic to warrant them coming out to fix it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 22, 2009, 04:00:10 PM
Quote
It gets worse on the other side of I-95, with overheads showing US 33 going in BOTH directions on Broad. I emailed VDOT two years ago and they feel that the exit doesn't see enough traffic to warrant them coming out to fix it.
  How is there not enough traffic????  That's one of the main exits into downtown which isn't a freeway or toll road   :colorful:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 22, 2009, 07:49:40 PM
Here's the text of the email I got from VDOT when I contacted them two years ago:

Quote
We reviewed the location yesterday, and found your complaint to be
valid; the signs for Rte 250 / 33 will be changed to the Rte 33 state
primary shields whenever our budget allows. Although theses signs have
been inappropriately marked, since they do not directly affect travelers
ability to identify what stretch of road they are located or their
immediate traveling safety, this is not one of our main priorities at
the time. Especially considering the number of improvement and safety
projects we are currently engaged in. Nonetheless, we will address these
concerns as soon as possible.

In other words, never, because given that VDOT's resources are stretched thin due to the economy, it's not likely they'll be fixed any time soon. They do have a point, though, that it doesn't really affect navigation here; it's downtown Richmond. The average driver or tourist will be looking for Broad Street, not necessarily US 33 or 250.

It should also be noted that their intent to change the shields to VA 33 shields would also be wrong, as VA 33 isn't on this part of Broad either (but it used to be).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on September 01, 2009, 09:02:06 PM
Quote
Also, I found another one:

(http://www.gribblenation.net/nyends/images/perry/ny20.jpg)

NY 20 should be US 20.

Just a quick update: I passed by this sign assembly last month and the error has been corrected.

Also:

(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/submit/region-5/HPIM3142.JPG)

So you're telling me I have to go on NY 16 North in order to detour NY 16 North?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 01, 2009, 10:54:51 PM
I noticed this NY 20A shield for US 20A on one of my recent updates:

(http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york020/us-020a_ny-039_eb_split.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 01, 2009, 11:31:05 PM
This is sort of an error;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3254/2890630009_6363f23839.jpg)  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on September 01, 2009, 11:40:23 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2586/3680876196_1e78e58abf.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 02, 2009, 12:03:47 AM
None of those shields is in error, Hellfighter. The I-195 shield looks a little strange, but it's not wrong. :p
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on September 02, 2009, 12:14:26 AM
None of those shields is in error, Hellfighter. The I-195 shield looks a little strange, but it's not wrong. :p

Okay then...

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1331/1306372143_1a48613394.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 02, 2009, 02:11:42 AM
http://www.upstatenyroads.com/submit/region-5/HPIM3142.JPG (http://www.upstatenyroads.com/submit/region-5/HPIM3142.JPG)

So you're telling me I have to go on NY 16 North in order to detour NY 16 North?

I saw something similar on US-17 near I believe it was Hertford, NC. The Business 17 route was closed due to a bridge repair, so the entire length of Business 17 was detoured onto regular US-17 and consistently signed. Wish I had gotten a pic of one of the US 17 NORTH / BUSINESS US 17 NORTH shield assemblies.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on September 02, 2009, 01:30:07 PM
^^^ I've also seen detours that have to go the opposite direction.  For example, when a bridge on NY 31 was being replaced, there was a long detour.  To follow it, people trying to go east on NY 31 east of the start of the detour had to go in the opposite (west) direction to get to the "beginning".  Signs in that area said "NY 31 WEST/DETOUR NY 31 EAST".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 02, 2009, 01:46:56 PM
Quote
I've also seen detours that have to go the opposite direction.  For example, when a bridge on NY 31 was being replaced, there was a long detour.  To follow it, people trying to go east on NY 31 east of the start of the detour had to go in the opposite (west) direction to get to the "beginning".  Signs in that area said "NY 31 WEST/DETOUR NY 31 EAST".

I found such a set-up in Springfield, MO
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2572/3783174302_ea014400a4.jpg)

AND

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3157/3783174094_898163929a.jpg)

This is when the Diverging Diamond Interchange was under construction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on September 02, 2009, 02:09:36 PM
I've also seen detours that have to go the oppositedirection.  For example, when a bridge on NY 31 was being replaced, there was a long detour.  To follow it, people trying to go east on NY 31 east of the start of the detour had to go in the opposite (west) direction to get to the "beginning".  Signs in that area said "NY 31 WEST/DETOUR NY 31 EAST".

The times I've seen it are when entrance ramps are closed for construction.

For a hypothetical example, on HWY 123 only the WB entrance ramp to I-999 is open.  Traffic for I-999 East is told to get on I-999 West, get off at the next exit and then enter on I-999 east.  In such a situation you would see, I-999 West, DETOUR I-999 East after getting on that exit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on September 02, 2009, 02:17:05 PM
That's it!  I was having a hard time describing it.  US71's first picture has exactly what I was talking about, only with I-44.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on September 02, 2009, 07:42:55 PM
I noticed this NY 20A shield for US 20A on one of my recent updates:

(http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york020/us-020a_ny-039_eb_split.jpg)

It looks like the 20A shield in the background is also erroneously signed as a state route rather than a US route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 02, 2009, 08:29:58 PM
In NY, you never know what you'll find:

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3433/3728303938_f7eaff0178_b.jpg)

Puerto Rico much?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 02, 2009, 08:36:58 PM
I saw a lower res version of that goof once. Never ceases to amaze me. You ought to have this added to the AARoads Shield Gallery. :p
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 02, 2009, 10:30:43 PM
cause Steve Alpert has a copy as well. I found it and got my own
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on September 03, 2009, 03:08:51 PM
Would that be on US 1 in NYC?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 03, 2009, 04:14:47 PM
Yep.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on September 08, 2009, 12:38:53 PM
Here is a sign goof I snapped this weekend:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2444/3891389954_03875b288a_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on September 08, 2009, 08:51:54 PM
What's the goof?

Not being familiar with the area, the only thing that seems odd in that photo is "Trfwy" (which I assume means "trafficway").
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on September 08, 2009, 10:39:53 PM
U.S. 269 is supposed to be Missouri 269. The sign is on I-35 South in North Kansas City, MO.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 09, 2009, 01:53:58 AM
I found US 15 in Oklahoma this past weekend ;)

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2663/3902998310_20171f5af1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on September 09, 2009, 01:06:59 PM
^^^
I found US 15 in Oklahoma this past weekend ;)

Man, wrong state and wrong direction.  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 09, 2009, 03:28:50 PM
there was a US-11 error somewhere in Oklahoma in late 2006.  I cannot remember where, but it was part of a construction zone.  I'd love to say I have a photo of it on the shield gallery, but I appear to be some sort of a demon slug so I do not.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 09, 2009, 03:37:45 PM
Quote
there was a US-11 error somewhere in Oklahoma in late 2006.  I cannot remember where, but it was part of a construction zone.  I'd love to say I have a photo of it on the shield gallery, but I appear to be some sort of a demon slug so I do not.

There's a US 51 sign near Stilwell and an OK 64 circle shield near Tulsa.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 09, 2009, 03:41:11 PM
There's a US 51 sign near Stilwell and an OK 64 circle shield near Tulsa.

I always like "state routes signed with a US shield" errors more than their converse, for some reason.  Could you get me photos of each, especially the US 51?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on September 09, 2009, 05:17:10 PM
Quote
there was a US-11 error somewhere in Oklahoma in late 2006.  I cannot remember where, but it was part of a construction zone.  I'd love to say I have a photo of it on the shield gallery, but I appear to be some sort of a demon slug so I do not.

It was at I-35 & OK 11 (Exit 222):

(http://www.okroads.com/060907/i35exit222_02.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 09, 2009, 05:20:34 PM
I definitely remember how that road was closed.  I got off the freeway there to get gas, and at 4am the layout of the construction zone was not intuitive, so I think at one point I drove down some new concrete I was not supposed to!

here is my photo.  trust me, it's an 11 pair.

(http://www.artistjake.com/lj/x5983.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 09, 2009, 08:52:35 PM
Not sure if this is "erroneous" or not

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2656/3904782623_f5084ed748.jpg)

To read it literally, it's NO "No U Turn"  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 09, 2009, 08:56:56 PM
Quote
I always like "state routes signed with a US shield" errors more than their converse, for some reason.  Could you get me photos of each, especially the US 51?

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2123/2249998644_f9cbc0a106_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 09, 2009, 09:35:38 PM
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/MaineTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5377391089234192162 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/MaineTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5377391089234192162)

Here is an "error". It is for US 1 Business in Damariscotta, Maine. It is a US 1B shield. Its not US 1B Business, its just plain US 1 Business. Its Maine's way by mixing 1 and Business in one shield. I haven't seen another like it, so thats why I call it an error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 09, 2009, 11:02:36 PM
Quote
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/MaineTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5377391089234192162

That's how Arkansas does it. Business routes are xxB, often posted with a Business Banner
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2086/2474628403_e4b0398008.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on September 10, 2009, 04:21:30 PM
I always like "state routes signed with a US shield" errors more than their converse, for some reason.

Then this will be right up your alley:

(http://www.gribblenation.net/nyends/images/nitzman/us-62a.jpg)

US 62A should be NY 62A. (Note that NY 62A has since been redesignated as Business US 62.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on September 10, 2009, 04:31:27 PM
I always like "state routes signed with a US shield" errors more than their converse, for some reason.

Then this will be right up your alley:

(http://www.gribblenation.net/nyends/images/nitzman/us-62a.jpg)

US 62A should be NY 62A. (Note that NY 62A has since been redesignated as Business US 62.)

At least this sign was in an area near the actual US 62!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 10, 2009, 05:13:54 PM
sweet, can we put that on the gallery?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on September 10, 2009, 05:33:14 PM
Here's a gantry in Sacramento that was correct when it was posted, but since 1982 has not been:

(http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs172.snc1/6449_775547584293_3216777_44338135_996046_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 10, 2009, 05:50:01 PM
what's wrong with it?  is it referring to Business 80 with the regular 80 shield?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on September 10, 2009, 11:32:22 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2456/3847074744_e397e93e2c.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on September 11, 2009, 12:25:21 AM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2456/3847074744_e397e93e2c.jpg)

I had to look at a map to figure that one out as there actually is a TN Sec 79, but it's nowhere near US 70A and, not surprisingly, the 79 sign should be a US route.

Talk about disrespect!  Not only downgrading US 79 to a state route but a secondary one at that!  :thumbdown:

BTW Where exactly was that sign found?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on September 11, 2009, 12:30:21 AM
BTW Where exactly was that sign found?

I forgot, I was surfing flickr. Here's one from Synthetic Dreamer...

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3434/3891886482_576bcde05a.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wandering drive on September 11, 2009, 01:59:04 AM
RE: Master son (I can't get the quote button to work)
This was the "WIS" 14 error (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2543/3909050182_f033e58788_b.jpg) that was posted before.  I had to go out and find it myself. (almost easier than finding it in the forums  :ded:  )

That WIS 14 error (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/3909051090_f68a5db3ab_b.jpg) is part of old City US 14, now Business US 14, north of Janesville.  Three assemblies (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/3909074214_5b0e0b0ddf_b.jpg) along Bus 14 north of Janesville city limits have this error.  This one (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/3908269437_8e9c5f3e1d_b.jpg) doesn't even have the "Business" sign.

Bonus WIS 14 errors:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2600/3879793255_89ffd215b3_o.jpg)

Found in Janesville, not on City US 14.  The design is relatively new and the traffic is usually heavy, but I suppose it costs too much to fix it right now.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2665/3879793465_0dec190013.jpg)

This one was in Middleton while some entrance ramps along the beltline were closed.  Also should be US 14. 
Another construction sign (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2604/3880590192_b6901c8eed_o.jpg) shows state 12 instead of US.  This kind of error is fairly common with DOT construction signs; I recall seeing TO WIS-14 shields along 39/90 when the road east of Janesville was closed, and there were probably plenty around the Marquette interchange in Milwaukee.  I also saw WIS-43 on some side road in south Milwaukee, didn't occur to take a picture then.  I bet there will be more once the construction on 94 gets underway south of Milwaukee.

The rest of the ones I found and took pictures on are in my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wandering_drive/tags/error/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wandering_drive/tags/error/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on September 11, 2009, 03:24:37 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/2673790014_57868d6c5f_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on September 11, 2009, 04:50:12 PM
^^^

OK, I give up.  What's wrong with that sign?  :confused:

(As having never been to that part of Virginia, it's not obvious to me.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on September 11, 2009, 05:23:24 PM
What's listed as ALT US 1 is really mainline US 1...the sign on the left lists mainline 1/17 when they're both business routes (on the road to the left at the traffic light).  And VA 2 doesn't begin until downtown Fredericksburg.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on September 11, 2009, 06:30:04 PM
RE: Master son (I can't get the quote button to work)
This was the "WIS" 14 error (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2543/3909050182_f033e58788_b.jpg) that was posted before.  I had to go out and find it myself. (almost easier than finding it in the forums  :ded:  )

That WIS 14 error (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/3909051090_f68a5db3ab_b.jpg) is part of old City US 14, now Business US 14, north of Janesville.  Three assemblies (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/3909074214_5b0e0b0ddf_b.jpg) along Bus 14 north of Janesville city limits have this error.  This one (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/3908269437_8e9c5f3e1d_b.jpg) doesn't even have the "Business" sign.

Bonus WIS 14 errors:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2600/3879793255_89ffd215b3_o.jpg)

Found in Janesville, not on City US 14.  The design is relatively new and the traffic is usually heavy, but I suppose it costs too much to fix it right now.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2665/3879793465_0dec190013.jpg)

This one was in Middleton while some entrance ramps along the beltline were closed.  Also should be US 14. 
Another construction sign (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2604/3880590192_b6901c8eed_o.jpg) shows state 12 instead of US.  This kind of error is fairly common with DOT construction signs; I recall seeing TO WIS-14 shields along 39/90 when the road east of Janesville was closed, and there were probably plenty around the Marquette interchange in Milwaukee.  I also saw WIS-43 on some side road in south Milwaukee, didn't occur to take a picture then.  I bet there will be more once the construction on 94 gets underway south of Milwaukee.

The rest of the ones I found and took pictures on are in my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wandering_drive/tags/error/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wandering_drive/tags/error/)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/3910911088/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/3910911088/) <-- A WIS 18 shield (County TT in Waukesha)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/3910174427/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/3910174427/) <-- a wide US 151 sign - you don't see these in any official Wis specs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 11, 2009, 07:03:31 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2598/3692669005_8e6f1832b7.jpg)

There's no longer a VA 305 here.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2447/3562154848_835af3de32.jpg)

Not an error, but rather VDOT testing your reading skills.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on September 11, 2009, 09:32:39 PM
Quote
There's no longer a VA 305 here.

There hasn't been a VA 305 here in almost 50 years.  It was decommissioned back when this was still Princess Anne County, but VA Beach never did get the memo...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 11, 2009, 11:28:45 PM
sweet, can we put that on the gallery?

This one?

http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york100/ny-104_wb_app_us-062a.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york100/ny-104_wb_app_us-062a.jpg)

I need to rescan it at some point...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 11, 2009, 11:55:55 PM
Here's one from Synthetic Dreamer...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3434/3891886482_576bcde05a.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3434/3891886482_576bcde05a.jpg)

I can't figure out what's wrong with that one...  :confused: I-64 is north of US-60 and VA 5 is south of US-60. Though that might be more evident if I knew where exactly the sign was.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 11, 2009, 11:57:33 PM
(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/whitewyo.jpg)

Here's a WHITE Wyoming highway shield on SB 287/789 between WYO 220 and Rawlins
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on September 12, 2009, 03:05:56 AM
agentsteel53: Correct, that shield should be Business 80 and not I-80 (though before 1982, it was correct).  It's on Stockton Boulevard at US 50.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 12, 2009, 08:21:55 AM
Here's one from Synthetic Dreamer...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3434/3891886482_576bcde05a.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3434/3891886482_576bcde05a.jpg)

I can't figure out what's wrong with that one...  :confused: I-64 is north of US-60 and VA 5 is south of US-60. Though that might be more evident if I knew where exactly the sign was.

The VA 5 shield is too wide; it's a 3-digit shield for a 1-digit route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2009, 10:42:41 AM
very nice!  I will get a picture of it next week when I am in the area. 

now, the real question is, are there any 880 remnants anywhere?  I believe there is an 880 paddle on current 80, and some of the signs show evidence of a wider shield having been scraped off, but I have never seen an actual 880 shield in Sacramento.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 12, 2009, 12:42:39 PM
very nice!  I will get a picture of it next week when I am in the area. 

now, the real question is, are there any 880 remnants anywhere?  I believe there is an 880 paddle on current 80, and some of the signs show evidence of a wider shield having been scraped off, but I have never seen an actual 880 shield in Sacramento.

There is at least one IR 880 paddle on Interstate 80 eastbound north of Sacramento. I half-saw it as it whizzed by, so no photo...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2009, 12:53:12 PM
that's the paddle I saw too.  Eastbound.  I'll have to get a photo.

I remember the scraped off 880 shield being westbound, at the eastern 80/880 split, but there may be one in the other direction too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 12, 2009, 02:49:32 PM
Quote
^^^ I've also seen detours that have to go the opposite direction.  For example, when a bridge on NY 31 was being replaced, there was a long detour.  To follow it, people trying to go east on NY 31 east of the start of the detour had to go in the opposite (west) direction to get to the "beginning".  Signs in that area said "NY 31 WEST/DETOUR NY 31 EAST".

As a matter of fact I bumped into this in Nebraska a couple weeks ago on N-2

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/7.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on September 12, 2009, 06:20:11 PM
Admittedly, it might be a remnant of when NY 104 was US 104, but still:

(http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york999/2nd_st_nb_at_us-062_sb.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2009, 06:36:08 PM
that one is indeed an old US-104 sign.  A couple float around.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on September 13, 2009, 12:39:18 AM
U.S. 121?? It should say VA 121...

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3471/3737535944_093d172d6a_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 13, 2009, 12:47:31 AM
that one is indeed an old US-104 sign.  A couple float around.

Yes it was quite old, the shield facing was more worn than the photo suggests. I remember walking up to that assembly and shooting it, puzzling three people sitting on a front step nearby.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on September 14, 2009, 02:16:22 PM
agentsteel53: The signage at the Business 80/I-80 split in Foothill Farms has been replaced in the last couple of years with the reflective signs of this era, so I'm not sure any old button copy-era signs are left in the vicinity.

One example of a scraped sign - for I think I-80 - exists on 65th Street northbound right before the ramp to westbound US 50, where Tahoe Park and East Sacramento border.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on September 14, 2009, 02:53:31 PM
I confirm TheStranger's first comment seeing that first hand two Fridays ago.  I didn't notice (wasn't paying attention) on the second comment.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on September 16, 2009, 01:27:01 AM
Q: What do you do when you need to replace a green arrow panel on a shield assembly, but you're just fresh out of them in the sign shop?

A: you use one of those blue ones that you ordered too many of and have a million of lying around, figuring no one will ever notice.
(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8374/dscn5771f.jpg)

Well, someone noticed. ;-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 16, 2009, 08:33:54 AM
I was on 70A/79 3-4 years ago and there were 2-3 glitches like that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on September 16, 2009, 01:36:10 PM
Q: What do you do when you need to replace a green arrow panel on a shield assembly, but you're just fresh out of them in the sign shop?

A: you use one of those blue ones that you ordered too many of and have a million of lying around, figuring no one will ever notice.

Either that or the DOT employee that replaced it is blue-green colorblind.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: nerdly_dood on September 16, 2009, 07:11:03 PM
throughout Roanoke, VA, there are several US-11 signs that are white with the shield outline, not black with the white shield in it... Like this:
(and with the width=800)
(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq330/nerdlydood/foe_toez/DSC01021.jpg)
Is that entirely wrong? The signs are all reflective, and they aren't particularly old - some are only a year or two old.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 16, 2009, 07:50:24 PM
throughout Roanoke, VA, there are several US-11 signs that are white with the shield outline, not black with the white shield in it... Like this:
(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq330/nerdlydood/foe_toez/DSC01021.jpg)
Is that entirely wrong? The signs are all reflective, and they aren't particularly old - some are only a year or two old.

They're probably city-installed, not VDOT installed. As mentioned elsewhere, there are lots of those types of signs around for US 220, US 221 and some of the state routes as well in Roanoke.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 16, 2009, 07:53:30 PM
The white-border signs aren't errors. That's how many (though not most) signs in Virginia looked a few decades ago when they weren't cutouts.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on September 17, 2009, 09:43:20 AM
At one point, this used to be a normal US 1.  Then the sign got knocked down and replaced with this abomination.

(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg36/jcm9572/Maryland%20Signs/20090826US1error.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on September 17, 2009, 10:02:03 AM
It must have happened since the Google Street View car made a trip down 32.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.141416,-76.817159&spn=0,359.780273&z=13&layer=c&cbll=39.141416,-76.817159&panoid=pmLkIniShmplaj056u2N1w&cbp=12,134.16,,0,7.53 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.141416,-76.817159&spn=0,359.780273&z=13&layer=c&cbll=39.141416,-76.817159&panoid=pmLkIniShmplaj056u2N1w&cbp=12,134.16,,0,7.53)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wisp2007 on September 22, 2009, 02:25:11 PM
I'm surprised no one's put this sign up yet. Or maybe they have and I just missed it. :)  :confused:
( It's not US 99 - it's SR 99 )

(http://i36.tinypic.com/2utrkom.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on September 22, 2009, 02:34:50 PM
If that's the Alsakan Way Viaduct...it was once US 99 so it's more a case of the route decomissioning changing the accuracy of the sign.

Speaking of which, in midtown Sacramento this morning, I saw a "Route 80" postmile paddle on the N Street ramp off of Business 80, a route which is now hidden Route 51...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 22, 2009, 06:21:28 PM
That US-99 sign has been around since the viaduct was built. When the viaduct was built, the highway was still US-99, so it's not erroneous
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Tom on September 22, 2009, 08:31:49 PM
Actually, I like seeing a US-99 sign, because it's another way of keeping the memory of US-99 alive. :coffee:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 04, 2009, 07:05:19 PM
US 93 near Texarkana

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2597/3738879591_8dcc2dc325.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on October 04, 2009, 11:02:45 PM
US 93 near Texarkana

At first, I was thinking "there's nothing wrong with using a temporary construction exit tab" before I realized it was US 93 signed next to a Texas FM route. I assume that should be Texas SH 93?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on October 04, 2009, 11:13:13 PM
Actually, I like seeing a US-99 sign, because it's another way of keeping the memory of US-99 alive. :coffee:

Well, here's Oregon's last vestige of US 99 in Corvallis.  If you look carefully, you can see in the upper part of the sign, there is a patch, but on the bottom part it's either fallen off or was never covered up.  Like the Seattle sign, this one isn't an error, as it dates back to when US 99W was still around.  There are some US 99 shields in southern Oregon, but they're all more recent mistakes and should be OR 99 shields.  Enjoy!

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/OR34-99WUS202.jpg?t=1254712157)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 04, 2009, 11:18:42 PM
well I'll be damned, I always thought that was a recent error sign! 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 05, 2009, 09:23:15 AM

At first, I was thinking "there's nothing wrong with using a temporary construction exit tab" before I realized it was US 93 signed next to a Texas FM route. I assume that should be Texas SH 93?

Yes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on October 05, 2009, 08:15:14 PM
Poor US 40, downgraded to State Route status.


Ditto US 62
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2474259353_da7ee29c71.jpg)


(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2259/2283115720_f6dd49d17d.jpg)

US-89 in Utah can't even be spared the same fate, at the north end of UT-165 where it meets US-89/91:

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3036/2860686056_5ec9211b74.jpg)  :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 05, 2009, 09:05:04 PM
I got downgraded, too  :-(

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/2474259299_550392b8f3.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 07, 2009, 05:38:33 PM

Uh...an infamous one is my avatar. Check it out!

(It was taken down, the last time I checked.)

Yeah... it only lasted a few months. It was after the road was 4 Laned.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on October 07, 2009, 06:05:50 PM
U.S. 60 North? It should be U.S. 60 East...
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2586/3970941018_c3b6e235f3_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 07, 2009, 06:36:11 PM
the same error exists in the other direction too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 07, 2009, 06:53:04 PM
This one is wrong, too (though it does run more N-S than E-W)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3147/2974925292_0e3c9ec1d9.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on October 09, 2009, 01:16:11 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3996085434_3aa374e81d.jpg)

There's no BL-I-29 in Fargo, this should be I-29
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on October 10, 2009, 12:10:21 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3996085434_3aa374e81d.jpg)

There's no BL-I-29 in Fargo, this should be I-29

You'd think they could've spent a little more money to make the shields and text as legible as the big honkin' arrows! :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Sykotyk on October 10, 2009, 06:21:38 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=rawlins,+wy&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&gl=us&ei=jAfRSuT7K5WntgehtYiDBA&ved=0CBEQ8gEwAA&layer=c&cbll=41.59205,-109.187159&panoid=96_EtOrDdzOPSHzixK30dw&cbp=12,251.31,,0,-16.96&hq=&hnear=Rawlins,+Carbon,+Wyoming&ll=41.592049,-109.187279&spn=0.015342,0.037894&z=15 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=rawlins,+wy&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&gl=us&ei=jAfRSuT7K5WntgehtYiDBA&ved=0CBEQ8gEwAA&layer=c&cbll=41.59205,-109.187159&panoid=96_EtOrDdzOPSHzixK30dw&cbp=12,251.31,,0,-16.96&hq=&hnear=Rawlins,+Carbon,+Wyoming&ll=41.592049,-109.187279&spn=0.015342,0.037894&z=15)

There's nothing currently wrong with the Google Streetview of the sign now. But once construction was finished, they replaced the green Business I-80 shield with an erroneous regular blue I-80 shield for the BL. Unless Wyoming corrects it, the next time Google's through you should see it. I probably won't be out that way for a while to get a photo of it.

Sykotyk
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on October 11, 2009, 10:44:58 PM
Sad news from my eastern Oregon/southeastern Washington trip this weekend:  the long-standing US 82 shield in La Grande is gone, replaced with the correct OR 82 shield.  However, I saw a US 127 and another WA 12 from Washington to make up for it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 11, 2009, 10:59:23 PM
was that the OR-82 on the railroad overpass?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on October 12, 2009, 12:14:04 AM
was that the OR-82 on the railroad overpass?

Yup.  Here's the before and after shots.  You can actually see the discolored spot from the old shield in the picture of the new, plus the "shadow" of an even earlier shield.

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/OR82LaGrandesigngoof1-1.jpg?t=1255320581)(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/OR82LaGrandeRROverpass1.jpg?t=1255320617)

Here's the US 127 extension to Washington state:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/050.jpg?t=1255320820)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 12, 2009, 01:48:33 AM
alas, the oldest shadow is not that of a cutout ... just looks to be a larger square.

as for US-127, there is a US-123 as well in Washington.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/WA/WA19861231i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on October 12, 2009, 02:07:26 AM
And a US 21 in Florida.
(http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv321/FLroadgeek/Picture1043.jpg)

It's pretty sad when a correct one is hidden underneath trees, just feet away.
(http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv321/FLroadgeek/Picture485.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on October 12, 2009, 10:19:03 AM
That stoplight ahead sign in the background is also mounted upside down
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on October 12, 2009, 10:48:31 AM
That stoplight ahead sign in the background is also mounted upside down

It's not the only time I've seen it.  The entrance to the inbound Ike (I-290) from westbound St Charles Rd has one for the ramp meter that's also upside down.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=41.889839,-87.921599&spn=0,359.993042&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.889839,-87.92171&panoid=iQNfLrMLNTUgZzyW0KRHOw&cbp=12,327.78,,0,6.46 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=41.889839,-87.921599&spn=0,359.993042&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.889839,-87.92171&panoid=iQNfLrMLNTUgZzyW0KRHOw&cbp=12,327.78,,0,6.46)

How hard is it to put the red on top and the green on bottom?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on October 12, 2009, 11:29:47 AM
That stoplight ahead sign in the background is also mounted upside down

Just the fact that the correct one is hidden by trees, then another one was mounted feet away, upside-down, is ridiculous. :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on October 12, 2009, 06:15:42 PM
'nother one, from Ogden, UT:

UT-79's east end at "US-203":

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3035/2383196719_074a35b53b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on October 12, 2009, 06:28:21 PM
US 25 in Oklahoma ;)

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/2640111161_f4ee7474cc.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CL on October 12, 2009, 06:53:31 PM
'nother one, from Ogden, UT:

UT-79's east end at "US-203":

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3035/2383196719_074a35b53b.jpg)

This is only one of two US-shield-when-it's-really-an-SR errors I've seen in Utah - the other is approaching SR-210's northern terminus (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.617805,-111.789225&spn=0,359.986267&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.617653,-111.789174&panoid=eZhdKPPeZMm0UsRGmnr9oA&cbp=12,33.65,,0,4.65 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.617805,-111.789225&spn=0,359.986267&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.617653,-111.789174&panoid=eZhdKPPeZMm0UsRGmnr9oA&cbp=12,33.65,,0,4.65))
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on October 12, 2009, 08:45:53 PM
alas, the oldest shadow is not that of a cutout ... just looks to be a larger square.

as for US-127, there is a US-123 as well in Washington.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/WA/WA19861231i1.jpg)

Mt Rainier National Park should be served by a US Highway!  It once was, when US 410 was around, although I guess US 12 passes close enough to count.  That US 123 must be fairly new, since I didn't see it the last time I went through those parts.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on October 19, 2009, 01:18:30 AM
This one's been in place for a good 20 years at least:
(http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/470/dscn5972.jpg)

The "TO" should go with 295, not 695.

Also, it's a diagrammatic on a major freeway... in button copy.

Yup, it's a real die hard all right!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 19, 2009, 08:08:00 AM
I showed you that US 52 sign on Pasco CR 583 & Florida SR 52, and those incorrect cardinal direction banners on I-75 at Exit 309. Now I'm going to show you one of many signs placed southbound along I-75 and the Suncoast Parkway.

(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3706/suncoastpkwyerroneousde.jpg)

There's no way in hell that you'll reach St. Petersburg before you reach Tampa.




Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Terry Shea on October 19, 2009, 09:32:26 AM
I showed you that US 52 sign on Pasco CR 583 & Florida SR 52, and those incorrect cardinal direction banners on I-75 at Exit 309. Now I'm going to show you one of many signs placed southbound along I-75 and the Suncoast Parkway.

(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3706/suncoastpkwyerroneousde.jpg)

There's no way in hell that you'll reach St. Petersburg before you reach Tampa.





Ah, but the sign is telling us that it's 52 miles to I-275 (which takes us to St Pete) not to St Pete itself.  Probably would have been better to leave any city designation off from that part of the sign though to avoid any confusion.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on October 19, 2009, 09:43:11 AM
This one's been in place for a good 20 years at least:
(http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/470/dscn5972.jpg)

The "TO" should go with 295, not 695.

Also, it's a diagrammatic on a major freeway... in button copy.

Yup, it's a real die hard all right!
What's wrong with that? :hmmm:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rawmustard on October 19, 2009, 09:53:10 AM
Ah, but the sign is telling us that it's 52 miles to I-275 (which takes us to St Pete) not to St Pete itself.  Probably would have been better to leave any city designation off from that part of the sign though to avoid any confusion.

But you don't reach the airport before reaching I-275 (as that route is what gets you to TPA). This is only an educated guess, but they may have calculated the distance to Tampa via I-4, which is silly since I-275 is more direct. The difference between the airport and St. Pete looks to be correct given the length of the Howard Frankland Bridge.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 19, 2009, 11:06:52 AM
nice reuse of the exit tab!  :-D

I am assuming the sign is on 95 SB, at the 95/695 split - if so, the intent of the sign is really not a bad one.  695 is a very brief spur that connects 95 to 295.  I don't believe there is even a direct connection between 95SB and 295 - the whole point of 695 is to cut off the triangle. 

to omit the "TO" on 295 isn't too significant of an error - the average driver does not care that he is on 695 and is going to be on 295 for a mile, since no average driver thinks of 695 as going anywhere... there are no exits to the street off 695 so it may as well be an unsigned freeway, signed "TO 295" in one direction and "TO 95" in the other.

(alternately, 278 should continue to remain 278 until hit hits 295, and 695 should just be 295, thereby transferring the 295 designation one branch over)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Terry Shea on October 19, 2009, 04:29:29 PM
Ah, but the sign is telling us that it's 52 miles to I-275 (which takes us to St Pete) not to St Pete itself.  Probably would have been better to leave any city designation off from that part of the sign though to avoid any confusion.

But you don't reach the airport before reaching I-275 (as that route is what gets you to TPA). This is only an educated guess, but they may have calculated the distance to Tampa via I-4, which is silly since I-275 is more direct. The difference between the airport and St. Pete looks to be correct given the length of the Howard Frankland Bridge.
Ah, but the sign is telling us that it's 52 miles to I-275 (which takes us to St Pete) not to St Pete itself.  Probably would have been better to leave any city designation off from that part of the sign though to avoid any confusion.

But you don't reach the airport before reaching I-275 (as that route is what gets you to TPA). This is only an educated guess, but they may have calculated the distance to Tampa via I-4, which is silly since I-275 is more direct. The difference between the airport and St. Pete looks to be correct given the length of the Howard Frankland Bridge.
Unless otherwise noted these signs usually indicate the mileage using the most direct route, but after consulting my trusty Rand McNally Atlas I don't see any route that is going to get you to the Tampa airport before you reach I-275, so something with the sign does indeed seem to be amiss.   :hmmm:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rarnold on October 19, 2009, 06:52:31 PM
There is also a sign error on I-435 northbound on the east side of Kansas City. They have placed a US 210 shield on the sign, where a MO 210 shield should have been. With the US 269 error at Vivion Rd, MoDOT must have had no Missouri state cutouts the day they produced those signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on October 19, 2009, 08:46:01 PM
it's a diagrammatic on a major freeway
What's wrong with that? :hmmm:

Nothing. Just makes it surprising that such a sign has lasted with an error for so long.

nice reuse of the exit tab!  :-D

There's no exit tab being reused. The green area around the 695 shield is another sign on the side of the highway (seen here on street view (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.849909,-73.82746&spn=0,359.992543&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.849997,-73.827456&panoid=kwgg1JJjwr_QIjapnvwECg&cbp=12,234.26,,1,-2.9)) which, by coincidence due to the angle the photo was taken from, appears right behind it.
The shield is supplementarily mounted atop the sign, as this shot from behind demonstrates:
(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9418/dscn5968.jpg)

Quote
I am assuming the sign is on 95 SB, at the 95/695 split

Well, the 1 mile advance sign for it, but yes. At the split, newer signage gets it right (street view) (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.838392,-73.825722&spn=0,359.970174&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.838218,-73.825679&panoid=z5l_cbZVdXcDyZzbxH3QYg&cbp=12,184.86,,0,-23.62).

Quote
I don't believe there is even a direct connection between 95SB and 295 - the whole point of 695 is to cut off the triangle. 

Correct.

Quote
to omit the "TO" on 295 isn't too significant of an error

But to put it on 695 is...

Quote
no average driver thinks of 695 as going anywhere... there are no exits to the street off 695

Actually, there is one unnumbered interchange (Lafayette Avenue/Randall Avenue).

True enough, though, no driver thinks of 695 as going anywhere.... in fact, no driver even thinks of 695 as existing. Everybody in New York (City) refers to highways by their names, never by their numbers. So it's not I-695, it's "The Throgs Neck Expressway" (along with the short bit of 295 between the merge and the bridge).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xcellntbuy on October 19, 2009, 09:55:40 PM
It is amazing there is no graffiti on the back of that sign. :clap:

[Fixed/removed excess quoting. -S.]
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on October 21, 2009, 01:38:13 AM
alas, the oldest shadow is not that of a cutout ... just looks to be a larger square.

as for US-127, there is a US-123 as well in Washington.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/WA/WA19861231i1.jpg)

First start in Greenville, SC, loop around behind downtown, go to Clemson (GO TIGERS) end at US 23 in GA, then...REAPPEAR IN OREGON.

Yeah, makes perfect sense.

Sorry, as a '95 CU grad, I had to comment.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on November 12, 2009, 09:33:33 AM
During my stay in Ohio last week I strayed into Kentucky where I saw the US shields are a little different with the bottoms being pointy compared to the one in the picture above.

(http://www.speedcam.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/kentucky23.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 12, 2009, 08:42:11 PM
(http://i37.tinypic.com/5oxkk0.png)

Can somebody please tell me how the hell NYSDOT screwed this up?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dougtone on November 12, 2009, 09:11:00 PM

Can somebody please tell me how the hell NYSDOT screwed this up?

I can understand screwing up the shields for NY 69 or NY 96, and those shields have been screwed up in the past, but you would think that even with New York State's fiscal woes, they would implement some quality control.  But then again, displaying  I passed by this area (Hamburg, NY) again last week, and I think the NY 391 shield error has been corrected.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on November 12, 2009, 09:22:52 PM
I just saw this one yesterday in Stayton, OR.  I'll have to go back under better lighting and less traffic to get a better shot one of these days.

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/OR22StaytonSignGoof1.jpg?t=1258078906)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on November 13, 2009, 07:56:45 AM
(http://i37.tinypic.com/5oxkk0.png)

Can somebody please tell me how the hell NYSDOT screwed this up?

Upside down signs can often be seen here in the UK. This one shows a yield sign which should have the flat edge of the triangle on the top.

(http://sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10163/normal_0%7E1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 13, 2009, 08:08:27 AM
I found this one yesterday:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2542/4099367459_3eb6aa3e74.jpg)

Here's what it should be:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2488/4099367461_6237d14333.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on November 13, 2009, 03:11:13 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2705/4076233319_38cc4b2146_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on November 13, 2009, 06:24:00 PM
This one I found 2 weeks ago:

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/100_0291.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 13, 2009, 11:37:49 PM
During my stay in Ohio last week I strayed into Kentucky where I saw the US shields are a little different with the bottoms being pointy compared to the one in the picture above.

(http://www.speedcam.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/kentucky23.jpg)

Kentucky has been using those fugly-shaped shields for a few years now. Of course the biggest error in that photo is the error that the voters of this state made in electing the governor whose name adorns that Welcome to Kentucky sign.  :angry:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 14, 2009, 12:27:14 AM
that or the awkwardly long domain name.  What, was ky.gov.us too easy to remember?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 14, 2009, 09:02:32 PM
that or the awkwardly long domain name.  What, was ky.gov.us too easy to remember?

Look closely and you'll see a "blueout" for the governor's name. The previous administration used the Kentucky Unbridled Spirit logo to "brand" the state for marketing purposes. I'm not sure if the KUS.com domain redirects to the main state site or not.

That being said, I prefer that fugly shield to the ones West Virginia uses that don't even seem to have a point at the bottom.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on November 14, 2009, 10:22:07 PM
So, H.B., why don't you have the email of the coworker of yours that's putting up fugly shields? :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 24, 2009, 08:20:21 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/394-430.jpg)

Wait, so which way do I go to get to I-86\NY 17?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 24, 2009, 10:48:43 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/394-430.jpg)

Wait, so which way do I go to get to I-86\NY 17?

do all three possibilities work?  in Baker, CA, I-15 is a bypass and there are three exits: one at each end, one in the middle.  At the junction between the business loop (old US-91/466) and the cutoff road in the middle, approaching from the fourth prong, this gantry would be correct.  Somewhat senseless but correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on November 24, 2009, 11:27:16 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3469/3738706237_109007b6ec_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 12:02:50 AM
what is the error in that sign pair?  Is that the DC beltway, aka I-495?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on November 25, 2009, 12:52:21 AM
what is the error in that sign pair?  Is that the DC beltway, aka I-495?

I assumed that there were supposed to be Control Cities instead of the Freeway Name
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 01:17:56 AM

I assumed that there were supposed to be Control Cities instead of the Freeway Name

having the freeway name instead of the cities is an old California tradition that DC seems to have picked up on.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on November 25, 2009, 09:01:53 AM
Probably because everyone refers to it as the Beltway and, especially on the I-95 portion, it's pretty clear where north and south go.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on November 25, 2009, 10:00:30 AM
I noticed the to loops around Louisville have their freeway name (Gene Snyder (265) or Watterson (264) used on BGS's referring to those particular highways instead of any sort of control city.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on November 25, 2009, 10:06:08 AM
do all three possibilities work?

Sure do, though taking a right onto 430 West (as shown by the TO NY17 sign) is a longer and slightly less direct way to go.  430 East goes down the east side of Chautauqua Lake towards Bemus Point and 394 East goes down the west side of the lake.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 25, 2009, 02:21:44 PM

here is a goof from Litchfield, Illinois.

(http://www.artistjake.com/f/ca/x4520.jpg)

A second one, eh? I got one about 3-4 years ago in Litchfield
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 02:48:24 PM
A second one, eh? I got one about 3-4 years ago in Litchfield

there were indeed two in 2006, about two blocks apart.

Litchfield also signed this well after the road was decommissioned:

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/IL/IL19700662i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 25, 2009, 07:03:03 PM
A second one, eh? I got one about 3-4 years ago in Litchfield

there were indeed two in 2006, about two blocks apart.

Litchfield also signed this well after the road was decommissioned:

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/IL/IL19700662i1.jpg)

Let us hope that sign never gets removed. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on November 25, 2009, 09:09:42 PM
^^

Is the North on the US 66 wrong as well or was it signed as NORTH-SOUTH in that part of the country?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bryant5493 on November 25, 2009, 09:48:33 PM
I've seen U.S. 41 signed as Georgia State Route 41 along Old Dixie Rd. and just north of the Barnesville city limits. I had a photo of the error near Barnesville, but deleted it by mistake. :-(

In the near future, I'm planning a day trip down U.S. 19 from I-75 and the S.R. 3 Connector to Albany. So, when I do that, I'll try to get the U.S. 41/Ga. 41 error, if it's still there. The one on Old Dixie Rd. (U.S. 19/41/S.R. 3) has been corrected.

U.S. 41 was signed as Ga. 41 on the I-75 access road from I-285 East a few years back, but I contacted GDOT and they fixed it. This was before I started roadgeeking -- before I knew what the term was. ;-)


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 11:30:17 PM
I believe the NORTH is an error.

I have seen it signed in Illinois as CHICAGO and ST. LOUIS. 

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/IL/IL19600661i1.jpg)

but generally it was EAST and WEST.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 26, 2009, 08:15:45 AM
I believe the NORTH is an error.

I have seen it signed in Illinois as CHICAGO and ST. LOUIS. 

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/IL/IL19600661i1.jpg)


In Illinois, I believe it was often posted as North-South, but I can ask on the Route 66 list to be sure ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on November 26, 2009, 10:28:43 AM
(http://i37.tinypic.com/5oxkk0.png)

Can somebody please tell me how the hell NYSDOT screwed this up?

Ummm, Australian at work? 

Or maybe a guy who played the center position on a football team? (Those guys see EVERYTHING upside down and backwards!)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on November 26, 2009, 12:11:50 PM
Quote
what is the error in that sign pair?  Is that the DC beltway, aka I-495?

Not an error per se...but techically missing some information, since VDOT considers that stretch of the Beltway to include I-495 (for some reason, FHWA's Interstate route log does not), and they sign the other Beltway interchanges as both I-95 and I-495.

Quote
But since SR's do not exist in Virginia Beach or any other independent city not named Suffolk

...any other independent city, period.  Suffolk's SR's officially went bye-bye when they took over maintenance from VDOT a couple years ago.

Quote
having the freeway name instead of the cities is an old California tradition that DC seems to have picked up on.

DC proper has had it for decades, but aside from the Beltway, it isn't really used elsewhere in the region.  And even with that, there are some locations where you'll see I-95's control cities or Tyson's Corner as control cities for the Beltway and not "Capitol Beltway".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 26, 2009, 03:35:37 PM

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/IL/IL19700662i1.jpg)

Also, the sign in the back says "end CONSTRUCTION"....when was the last time you saw that!?!?  Most signs say ROAD WORK!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on November 26, 2009, 04:13:47 PM

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/IL/IL19700662i1.jpg)

Also, the sign in the back says "end CONSTRUCTION"....when was the last time you saw that!?!?  Most signs say ROAD WORK!
In California, "END CONSTRUCTION" signs are still commonly used to mark the end of a construction/road work zone.  "ROAD CONSTRUCTION AHEAD" signs are also still common in California.  Given all that, I am starting to see more and more signs that say "ROAD WORK" instead of "ROAD CONSTRUCTION".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 26, 2009, 05:19:44 PM

--

Also, the sign in the back says "end CONSTRUCTION"....when was the last time you saw that!?!?  Most signs say ROAD WORK!
In California, "END CONSTRUCTION" signs are still commonly used to mark the end of a construction/road work zone.  "ROAD CONSTRUCTION AHEAD" signs are also still common in California.  Given all that, I am starting to see more and more signs that say "ROAD WORK" instead of "ROAD CONSTRUCTION".

PennDOT also loves to use the "End Construction" signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on November 26, 2009, 05:27:50 PM
(http://i37.tinypic.com/5oxkk0.png)

Can somebody please tell me how the hell NYSDOT screwed this up?

Ummm, Australian at work? 

Or maybe a guy who played the center position on a football team? (Those guys see EVERYTHING upside down and backwards!)
Hey Im the center for my football team...
 BigMatt
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 28, 2009, 12:47:16 PM
I moved the entire discussion on VA routes in independent cities to its own thread under Mid-Atlantic.  That includes the photo that prompted the whole discussion, as I had no idea how to duplicate it.  Here is the photo in question.

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_vGM7FtU3Pdk/SwzAwuQxwGI/AAAAAAAAC2Y/KCnpQyRFrgk/s512/IMGP6249.jpg)

posted by SyntheticDreamer.

here is the new discussion thread relating to that sign:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2038.0

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: City on November 28, 2009, 12:56:26 PM
(http://i37.tinypic.com/5oxkk0.png)

Can somebody please tell me how the hell NYSDOT screwed this up?

Ummm, Australian at work? 

Or maybe a guy who played the center position on a football team? (Those guys see EVERYTHING upside down and backwards!)

Actually, I think that is a printing error. As you can see, the numbers are right side up, but the shield design is upside down. The installer probably didn't care about the design and just wanted the sign numbers to look right-side-up (or the route is actually called l6E :sombrero:).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Riverside Frwy on November 28, 2009, 07:39:34 PM
A second one, eh? I got one about 3-4 years ago in Litchfield

there were indeed two in 2006, about two blocks apart.

Litchfield also signed this well after the road was decommissioned:

<Snip>




So this how US 66 would have looked like using a modern sign if it wasn't decommissioned.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 28, 2009, 08:20:16 PM
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/us_15/nroch.jpg)

Since when was I-390 an east\west route?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on November 29, 2009, 04:20:53 AM
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/us_15/nroch.jpg)

Since when was I-390 an east\west route?

A sign-design error is evident as well. The MUTCD does either discourages or flat out disallows the use of independent-use directional banners on a guide sign like this (i.e. the west banners underneath the I-86 & NY 17 shields should be a printed in white directly on the green area of the sign above/next to the shields).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on November 29, 2009, 02:01:29 PM
(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/IL/IL19700662i1.jpg)

I've asked around and appears to be a contractor error. No one remembers North-South on 66, even in Illinois
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: City on November 29, 2009, 02:07:14 PM
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/us_15/nroch.jpg)

Since when was I-390 an east\west route?

A sign-design error is evident as well. The MUTCD does either discourages or flat out disallows the use of independent-use directional banners on a guide sign like this (i.e. the west banners underneath the I-86 & NY 17 shields should be a printed in white directly on the green area of the sign above/next to the shields).
The way the sign is worded seems funky to me. I think that the sign could be rephrased. How does "TO Rochester, USE Interstate 86/NY 17 WEST TO Interstate 390 NORTH" sound?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on November 29, 2009, 07:45:03 PM
Here's a good one:

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/100_0628.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 29, 2009, 07:49:03 PM
I've always wondered if that "extra large initial capital letter" style was ever a federal spec, because it pops up more often than expected.  It was a California state spec ... before 1958!

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/CA/CA19550151i1.jpg)

the style pops up in California every so often, but to see it in another state is odd.  I've seen it somewhere else, but cannot remember where - neither California nor Alabama though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on November 29, 2009, 08:15:43 PM

(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/us_15/nroch.jpg)

A sign-design error is evident as well. The MUTCD does either discourages or flat out disallows the use of independent-use directional banners on a guide sign like this (i.e. the west banners underneath the I-86 & NY 17 shields should be a printed in white directly on the green area of the sign above/next to the shields).

I am willing to bet that that BGS is a sign that was around during the pre-I-86 days, and there was probably a larger NY-17 shield which was where the current 86 & 17 shields are now. 

And as far as the wording, I would think that saying "Rochester via I-390" would be sufficient for the first half of the BGS, no?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on November 29, 2009, 09:14:14 PM
I've always wondered if that "extra large initial capital letter" style was ever a federal spec, because it pops up more often than expected.  It was a California state spec ... before 1958!

J.N. Winkler and I have had a discussion on this, and he theorized that it results from newbie sign designers misinterpreting some particular section of the MUTCD (something about the lowercase loop height being misconstrued as requiring adjustment of the uppercase loop height).

My idea was that it results from a DOT that uses some form of demountable copy (either retroreflective like KS did up till a few years ago, or button copy) running out of some particular letter needed to complete the message at the desired size, so they bump the lowercase letters down to the next smaller size to hurry up and get the sign out. J.N. noted that a good many of that type of sign in Kansas appear to be emergency quick & dirty replacements.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: City on November 29, 2009, 09:25:27 PM
Here's a good one:

(Interstate 65/CR 17)

Epic spacing fail.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on November 30, 2009, 12:21:21 AM
Here's Another one:

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/100_0342.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on November 30, 2009, 06:36:01 AM

(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/us_15/nroch.jpg)

A sign-design error is evident as well. The MUTCD does either discourages or flat out disallows the use of independent-use directional banners on a guide sign like this (i.e. the west banners underneath the I-86 & NY 17 shields should be a printed in white directly on the green area of the sign above/next to the shields).

I am willing to bet that that BGS is a sign that was around during the pre-I-86 days, and there was probably a larger NY-17 shield which was where the current 86 & 17 shields are now. 

And as far as the wording, I would think that saying "Rochester via I-390" would be sufficient for the first half of the BGS, no?

Ah, on closer inspection I see evidence of where a larger shield may have been placed where the I-86 shield is now.  They probably could have done without the I-390 shield or used some greenout to make the "via I-390" legend a bit clearer.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on November 30, 2009, 12:23:56 PM
I've always wondered if that "extra large initial capital letter" style was ever a federal spec, because it pops up more often than expected.  It was a California state spec ... before 1958!

(Image removed - see quoted post)

the style pops up in California every so often, but to see it in another state is odd.  I've seen it somewhere else, but cannot remember where - neither California nor Alabama though.

The Illinois Tollway (ISTHA) uses it quite often on minor signage.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on November 30, 2009, 04:15:03 PM
On WB I-76 east of Denver, there are several mile markers that use a US 76 shield instead of an I-76 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 30, 2009, 04:29:21 PM
This is also on Alps' site but here is the infamous US-route triplex in Colonial Heights, VA between US 1, US 301, and US 144, wait actually it's VA 144.  (http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/VA144NORTHATUS1ANDUS301SOUTH2.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on November 30, 2009, 06:27:20 PM

Ah, on closer inspection I see evidence of where a larger shield may have been placed where the I-86 shield is now.  They probably could have done without the I-390 shield or used some greenout to make the "via I-390" legend a bit clearer.
It looks like the I-390 shield was tacked on after the fact as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wytout on December 14, 2009, 02:47:54 PM
Someone at the sign shop didn't realize that Big-cap/Little-caps wording is reserved for cardinal directions on signage I guess.

(http://www.wytout.com/personal/annuccello.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 14, 2009, 03:54:13 PM
I showed you that US 52 sign on Pasco CR 583 & Florida SR 52, and those incorrect cardinal direction banners on I-75 at Exit 309. Now I'm going to show you one of many signs placed southbound along I-75 and the Suncoast Parkway.



(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3706/suncoastpkwyerroneousde.jpg)

There's no way in hell that you'll reach St. Petersburg before you reach Tampa.





Ah, but the sign is telling us that it's 52 miles to I-275 (which takes us to St Pete) not to St Pete itself.  Probably would have been better to leave any city designation off from that part of the sign though to avoid any confusion.
Ah, yes. Some of them have the word "TO" placed in them.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on December 14, 2009, 05:35:38 PM
^^^

That mix of Clearview and FHWA on the EXIT 49 sign doesn't help much either.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on December 14, 2009, 05:40:34 PM
^^^

That mix of Clearview and FHWA on the EXIT 49 sign doesn't help much either.

At least it's a tab versus the main part of the sign.  The Illinois Tollway has a few signs along eastbound I-88 that transition from Highway Gothic to Clearview fromt he top to the bottom of the sign.  There's at least 3 separate signs, all for the 22nd Street exit, that do this.  They are as follows:

[Highway Gothic]
22nd Street
TO {83}
[Clearview]
1/2 MILE (or 1 MILE or 1/4 MILE)

I seriously need to get pictures of those mutants one day.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: wytout on December 14, 2009, 06:30:27 PM
I think the sign is all Highway Gothic, but just a mix of type heaviness, etc... I do remember when the sign was Ann St, High St. only a few years ago.  The sign changed in 2007 I think?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on December 14, 2009, 06:53:19 PM
I think the sign is all Highway Gothic, but just a mix of type heaviness, etc... I do remember when the sign was Ann St, High St. only a few years ago.  The sign changed in 2007 I think?

I'm sorry, I just assumed since the Exit 49 sign was ugly that it was Clearview!  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 15, 2009, 12:53:07 AM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2662/4186296591_c817b160c2.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4186296591/)

The error here is that this isn't where US 60 ends. US 60 ends on Atlantic Avenue at Rudee Inlet (Virginia Beach), just to the east. It's never been where this sign is (near the northern end of General Booth Boulevard).

This is where the actual endpoint is (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=36.83055,-75.970244&spn=0,359.994319&z=18&layer=c&cbll=36.830452,-75.970277&panoid=BFQ6lWoZqwdLw8NkaDmFjg&cbp=12,164.65,,0,8.31).

(If anyone wants to use this for some reason I do have a watermark-free version that's the same size.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 15, 2009, 01:29:13 PM
(If anyone wants to use this for some reason I do have a watermark-free version that's the same size.)

So, then, how far along is your "Operation Watermark?"  :-D :-D :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on December 15, 2009, 01:34:06 PM
(If anyone wants to use this for some reason I do have a watermark-free version that's the same size.)

So, then, how far along is your "Operation Watermark?"  :-D :-D :-D

It's easy to remove such a watermark. Just look at this picture where I've completely removed all the light poles :wow:

(http://sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10163/normal_m6qu.jpg) (http://sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10163/m6qu.jpg)
(http://sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10163/normal_wai2304.jpg) (http://sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10163/wai2304.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on December 15, 2009, 03:02:59 PM
How on Earth did you do that?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on December 15, 2009, 03:13:38 PM
How on Earth did you do that?

In Windows Paint using the copy and paste tools. Just grab a section of vegetation and copy it somewhere else.

Look at the full size pictures and notice the phone number on the back of the white truck and the licence plate numbers on the cars :colorful:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2009, 03:24:43 PM
wow you did the cloning in Paint???  that's hardcore  :sombrero:

I've been known to remove cars (especially SUVs) from my road photos.  

(http://shields.aaroads.com/blog/photos/073345.jpg)

find three cars: win a prize

usually I also take out power lines, as those are distracting as Hell... in this case I left them in as they added to the composition by giving one more item heading toward the vanishing point.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on December 15, 2009, 03:28:49 PM
Unfortunately that picture is too small to see the tell tale artifacts of a doctored image.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2009, 03:34:42 PM
Unfortunately that picture is too small to see the tell tale artifacts of a doctored image.

mine?  here, have a bigger version:

http://shields.aaroads.com/blog/photos/DSC_073345A.jpg

I do not know if you can find the vehicles, but you will definitely able to see where I set the boundary between "ground" and "sky" and exposed the two halves of the image differently. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on January 09, 2010, 09:05:23 PM
I was driving around the Columbus area today, and I found some erroneous signage right in our local neck o' the woods.  Thought I'd post:

I-270 Exit 27 - Cleveland Avenue (OH-710)

1) Approaching the intersection from the west, we see that the exit is marked as Ohio State Route 710 at the one-mile advance sign.

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S0kxQ-H84LI/AAAAAAAABHI/mGSCA1uTSPs/s1152/IMG_9256.JPG)

2) At 1/2 mile prior to the gore point, the exit sign is still marked the same, but denotes the right-hand lane as "Exit Only"

(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S0kxRTDP_kI/AAAAAAAABHM/pqeYDpaAfHM/s576/IMG_9257.JPG)

3) At the gore point from I-270, the sign shows exit only in two lanes, and notates Ohio State Route 710 as 'North-South'.

(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S0kxSEyM67I/AAAAAAAABHQ/PuaFs818T0Y/s800/IMG_9258.JPG)

4) However, further on the exit ramp at the C/D split for the cloverleaf, it seems that only North Cleveland Avenue is marked as Ohio State Route 710, not South?  The Advance Signs don't match this sign.

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S0kxSkCfSKI/AAAAAAAABHU/VKnKm0Bim6s/s1024/IMG_9259.JPG)

5) To further complicate the matter, it looks like Google Maps shows the section of Cleveland Avenue SOUTH of I-270 as OH-710, not the North Section?  Which is correct?

Google Maps Link --> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=westerville,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.37814,108.544922&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Westerville,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=40.105649,-82.947915&spn=0.011981,0.0265&z=16 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=westerville,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.37814,108.544922&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Westerville,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=40.105649,-82.947915&spn=0.011981,0.0265&z=16)

Eastbound OH-16/37 Expressway near Granville, OH

1) This exit must have been reconfigured recently because they seem to have left an extra exit sign hanging around  :sombrero:.  I wouldn't follow the arrow here...it would not be a happy place.

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S0kvvscEWsI/AAAAAAAABGw/66GiwqqMbOE/s912/IMG_9304.JPG)

2) The actual exit is about 1/2 mile further down the road....mounted on a sign bridge :)

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S0k1dgaYyFI/AAAAAAAABIA/cvvwtDKaRPk/s720/IMG_9305.JPG)

Google Maps Link --> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=granville,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.37814,108.544922&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Granville,+Licking,+Ohio&ll=40.059795,-82.523203&spn=0.011989,0.0265&z=16 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=granville,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.37814,108.544922&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Granville,+Licking,+Ohio&ll=40.059795,-82.523203&spn=0.011989,0.0265&z=16)




Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 10, 2010, 12:21:58 AM
shoptb1, the first two images in your post above are the same. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: joseph1723 on January 10, 2010, 12:24:15 AM
I found this one online:
(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/165/70708576.jpg)
To Highyway 10 :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on January 10, 2010, 12:24:59 AM
shoptb1, the first two images in your post above are the same. :P

Doh!  Corrected it, thanks!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on January 10, 2010, 09:24:55 PM
Another interesting sighting driving around today....not sure which shield is correct...look a little further down the street.   :-D

North Nelson Rd (US-62 East or North) at Broad Street (US-40 / OH-16)

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S0qLFaNhf3I/AAAAAAAABOg/VN48Gwk9qEo/s800/IMG_9400.JPG)

Google Maps Link --> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.418008,101.953125&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=39.967939,-82.950536&spn=0.001573,0.003111&t=h&z=19 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.418008,101.953125&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=39.967939,-82.950536&spn=0.001573,0.003111&t=h&z=19)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on January 14, 2010, 12:10:39 AM
Lets see if anyone can figure this one out:

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/100_0365.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mapman on January 14, 2010, 01:35:05 AM
Hmm.... this answer must be subtle.  I've been able to pinpoint this picture as northbound I-65 just south of Birmingham, AL, and the street names and exit numbers appear correct.  Any further hints?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on January 14, 2010, 01:36:44 AM
Is it the lack of an exit only plaque?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 14, 2010, 05:47:31 AM
Is it the truck parked on the shoulder with the sign saying lane closed (with arrows instead of text)?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on January 14, 2010, 07:59:56 AM
It's not an error, per se, but one could arguably put a "TO AL 149" on either exit panel.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: codyg1985 on January 14, 2010, 11:52:28 AM
Exit number should be 254?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on January 14, 2010, 01:19:22 PM
Exit 254 is Alford Ave.  It's not that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on January 14, 2010, 02:40:46 PM
Is it the lack of an exit only plaque?

I would say that you're right, but apparently Exit Only signs are optional if the lane exiting isn't considered part of the mainline.  At least that's what I've been told from ODOT in the past.  I'm not convinced, but what can ya do.  :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on January 14, 2010, 05:16:44 PM
Actually, the error is that Exit 255 is not for Lakeshore Drive.  The exit is actually for Lakeshore Parkway.  Lakeshore Drive begins about a half-mile east of here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bryant5493 on January 14, 2010, 10:33:51 PM
Lets see if anyone can figure this one out:

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/100_0365.jpg)

I think that ALDOT could've spelled out "Drive," since it was on a line by itself. Personal preference, I guess.

But, very subtle. ;-)


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on January 15, 2010, 07:03:06 AM
Another interesting sighting driving around today....not sure which shield is correct...look a little further down the street.   :-D

North Nelson Rd (US-62 East or North) at Broad Street (US-40 / OH-16)


Google Maps Link --> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.418008,101.953125&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=39.967939,-82.950536&spn=0.001573,0.003111&t=h&z=19 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.418008,101.953125&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=39.967939,-82.950536&spn=0.001573,0.003111&t=h&z=19)



Honestly, neither is ODOT.  The old north-east/south-west/etc. routes are very inconsistently signed as one or the other, so this doesn't surprise me.  US 33 is another example, which I think switched from N-S to E-W.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on January 15, 2010, 11:30:25 PM
Actually, the error is that Exit 255 is not for Lakeshore Drive.  The exit is actually for Lakeshore Parkway.  Lakeshore Drive begins about a half-mile east of here.

OK, can we stop these hunt-and-peck guess-the-error games for stuff that we cannot possibly know from the picture unless we're from the area? Unless it's blazingly obvious, just state the error, please!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on January 17, 2010, 02:02:15 AM
I was driving around the Columbus area today, and I found some erroneous signage right in our local neck o' the woods.  Thought I'd post:


3) At the gore point from I-270, the sign shows exit only in two lanes, and notates Ohio State Route 710 as 'North-South'.

(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S0kxSEyM67I/AAAAAAAABHQ/PuaFs818T0Y/s800/IMG_9258.JPG)

4) However, further on the exit ramp at the C/D split for the cloverleaf, it seems that only North Cleveland Avenue is marked as Ohio State Route 710, not South?  The Advance Signs don't match this sign.

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S0kxSkCfSKI/AAAAAAAABHU/VKnKm0Bim6s/s1024/IMG_9259.JPG)


Ohio 710 north actually ends at the I-270 intersection, but is unsigned as such...the last North 710 is an indicated south turn on Cleveland Ave toward I-270....but it is not marked that the route actually ends, so you could drive a long while wondering about that....

the other end of 710 is clearly marked as an endpoint...why, i do not know...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on January 17, 2010, 02:09:18 AM
Another interesting sighting driving around today....not sure which shield is correct...look a little further down the street.   :-D

North Nelson Rd (US-62 East or North) at Broad Street (US-40 / OH-16)


Google Maps Link --> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.418008,101.953125&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=39.967939,-82.950536&spn=0.001573,0.003111&t=h&z=19 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.418008,101.953125&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=39.967939,-82.950536&spn=0.001573,0.003111&t=h&z=19)



Honestly, neither is ODOT.  The old north-east/south-west/etc. routes are very inconsistently signed as one or the other, so this doesn't surprise me.  US 33 is another example, which I think switched from N-S to E-W.

In the old days prior to the late 80s-early 90s, US 62 was marked as N-East/S-West (US 33 was marked as N-West and S-East).   

The explanation I got from an ODOT worker was that most of the time, the routes are signed in the general direction they are headed at that moment by the locals who control the signs (In Columbus, the city is responsible for signing and maintenance of Interstate, state and US routes). Officially, Ohio considers US 33 and US 35 to be more E-W as both routes travel in more of those directions than N-S.  US 62 is officially N-S, as it's meandering pathway through Ohio is more north-south than east-west (even though nationally, US 62 is deemed E-W)....
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on January 17, 2010, 03:08:57 AM
Caught one in downtown Eugene today, courtesy of ODOT (what a shock...). Surprisingly, it wasn't a reassurance shield botch-up like usual. It was worse:

Approaching the I-105/OR126 ramps in downtown heading north on OR99/west on Bus OR126, a BGS reads, "To Freeways I-5 I-105 [with shields, natch]".

Uhhhh...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on January 17, 2010, 11:24:27 PM
The explanation I got from an ODOT worker was that most of the time, the routes are signed in the general direction they are headed at that moment by the locals who control the signs (In Columbus, the city is responsible for signing and maintenance of Interstate, state and US routes). Officially, Ohio considers US 33 and US 35 to be more E-W as both routes travel in more of those directions than N-S.  US 62 is officially N-S, as it's meandering pathway through Ohio is more north-south than east-west (even though nationally, US 62 is deemed E-W)....

I actually wish they would still be able to sign the routes as NE, NW, SE, and SW considering that 33, 35, and 62 all move primarily in these directions in the state of Ohio vs. N, S, E, or W.  It would be nice, however, if they would pick a ordinal and go with it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on January 18, 2010, 10:49:51 AM

I actually wish they would still be able to sign the routes as NE, NW, SE, and SW considering that 33, 35, and 62 all move primarily in these directions in the state of Ohio vs. N, S, E, or W.  It would be nice, however, if they would pick a ordinal and go with it.

Add to the list of former "dual-direction" routes that were signed as such:  US-42 and SR-3.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on January 18, 2010, 10:55:16 PM
US 62 is officially N-S, as it's meandering pathway through Ohio is more north-south than east-west (even though nationally, US 62 is deemed E-W)....

Actually, everywhere I can recall seeing US 62 signed in Ohio, it's E-W. I know it certainly is after it crosses from Kentucky into Ohio. In Kentucky, both US 62 and US 68 are E-W routes. Upon crossing into the Worthless Nut State, 62 remains E-W but 68 becomes N-S.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 18, 2010, 11:12:42 PM
This isn't VA 147 duplexing with itself; Richmond forgot a "to".

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/4284300360_2697fc6a50.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on January 18, 2010, 11:42:20 PM
Actually, everywhere I can recall seeing US 62 signed in Ohio, it's E-W. I know it certainly is after it crosses from Kentucky into Ohio. In Kentucky, both US 62 and US 68 are E-W routes. Upon crossing into the Worthless Nut State, 62 remains E-W but 68 becomes N-S.

There are quite a few North-South US-62 signs scattered throughout the Columbus metro.  Again, it seems to be done this way on a localized direction basis, and probably up to the individual engineer's discretion.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on February 07, 2010, 01:00:35 PM
I found this gem while trolling around Casper yesterday

(http://davidjcorcoran.com/what58.jpg)

Now, this route only lasts for another block (to 20/26/87), so it seems a tad ridiculous to mark it so well, but that's not the error.

The problem is that this is Wyoming Highway 258. WYO 158 is a lonely spur from WYO 92 to some dirt roads along the Nebraska state line. I checked just to make sure, but following this sign did not teleport me there, so I can only assume it's an error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on February 07, 2010, 01:29:08 PM
I found this gem while trolling around Casper yesterday

Now, this route only lasts for another block (to 20/26/87), so it seems a tad ridiculous to mark it so well, but that's not the error.

In a similar vein, ODOT recently put up this sign bridge on northbound I-5 in Eugene (OR 569 was only signed on Belt Line Rd in Nov. 2007, so these are the first BGS's on I-5 noting the route).  There's another sign bridge in the distance with basically the same info.  No problem with 569 west, but if you exit onto eastbound you will quickly (half a block) pass under a sign bridge with an "END 569" sign, so why bother to inform you it's 569 east?

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Oregon%20State%20Routes/OR569Springfield1.jpg?t=1268695827)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on February 07, 2010, 06:45:51 PM
I found this gem while trolling around Casper yesterday

(http://davidjcorcoran.com/what58.jpg)

What is the brand of the fuel station in the background of this photo? I ask because Kroger uses the same logo in this area.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on February 07, 2010, 07:31:32 PM
Loaf 'n Jug- it's also a Kroger product. Out here that logo can be found on Loaf 'n Jug, King Soopers, City Market, Fred Meyer, and Smith's gas stations. Then there's a few others (Kwik Stop, I think, or something along those lines, and then Turkey Hill out in Pennsylvania, and then a couple others).

A few years ago Kroger bought a bunch of regional gas station chains and commonized them all with that logo and you can buy Kroger branded products in the store
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on February 08, 2010, 12:40:50 PM
Loaf 'n Jug- it's also a Kroger product. Out here that logo can be found on Loaf 'n Jug, King Soopers, City Market, Fred Meyer, and Smith's gas stations. Then there's a few others (Kwik Stop, I think, or something along those lines, and then Turkey Hill out in Pennsylvania, and then a couple others).

A few years ago Kroger bought a bunch of regional gas station chains and commonized them all with that logo and you can buy Kroger branded products in the store

The Tom Thumb chain in the southeast also uses the same logo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on February 08, 2010, 01:05:49 PM
The Tom Thumb chain in the southeast also uses the same logo.

Interesting, considering that they are owned by Safeway (just as Dominick's is).  The Food 4 Lesses here in Chicagoland use it due to their Kroger ownership.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on February 08, 2010, 02:26:08 PM
The Tom Thumb chain in the southeast also uses the same logo.

Interesting, considering that they are owned by Safeway (just as Dominick's is).  The Food 4 Lesses here in Chicagoland use it due to their Kroger ownership.

There are two different Tom Thumb chains.  This is what is causing confusion here. 

1) Tom Thumb convenience stores, which has about 116 locations in Southern Alabama and in Northwest Florida.  Dillon Companies acquired the Tom Thumb Food Stores in 1984. Dillon Companies is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Kroger Company. 

(http://www.tomt.com/images/logo_tom-thumb.gif)

2) Tom Thumb Food & Pharmacy is a chain of supermarkets in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex.  Tom Thumb and Randall's Food Markets make up the 112-store Texas division of Safeway Inc. 

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_njeD0zyqdIY/ShasQLwKZcI/AAAAAAAAAF0/zwjrGd3Mjps/s400/tomthumbLogo.gif)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on February 08, 2010, 11:22:48 PM
The Tom Thumb chain in the southeast also uses the same logo.

Interesting, considering that they are owned by Safeway (just as Dominick's is).  The Food 4 Lesses here in Chicagoland use it due to their Kroger ownership.

Doesn't Kroger own Safeway?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on February 08, 2010, 11:39:19 PM
The Tom Thumb chain in the southeast also uses the same logo.

Interesting, considering that they are owned by Safeway (just as Dominick's is).  The Food 4 Lesses here in Chicagoland use it due to their Kroger ownership.

Doesn't Kroger own Safeway?

No, they are competitors.  From Wikipedia...so ya know it's true  :sombrero:

1) Safeway Inc. (NYSE: SWY), a Fortune 500 company, is North America's third largest supermarket chain, with, as of December 29, 2007, 1743 stores located throughout the western and central United States and western Canada. It also operates some stores in the Mid-Atlantic region of the Eastern Seaboard. The company is headquartered in Pleasanton, California. Supermarket News ranked Safeway No. 4 in the 2007 "Top 75 North American Food Retailers" based on 2006 fiscal year estimated sales of $40.5 billion. Based on 2005 revenue, Safeway is the tenth-largest retailer in the United States.

2) The Kroger Co. (NYSE: KR) is an American retail supermarket chain and parent company, founded by Bernard Kroger in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio. It reported US$76 billion in sales during fiscal year 2008. It is the country's largest grocery store chain and its second-largest grocery retailer by volume and second-place general retailer in the country, with Wal-Mart being the largest. As of the first quarter of 2009, Kroger operated, either directly or through its subsidiaries, 2,475 supermarkets, and had 798 fuel centers.  Kroger's headquarters are centralized in Downtown Cincinnati, but it spans many states with store formats that include supermarkets, hypermarkets, department stores, convenience stores and mall jewelry stores. Kroger-branded grocery stores are located throughout the Midwestern and Southern United States.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on February 09, 2010, 12:54:53 AM
I wasn't able to get a good picture because I didn't notice it, but I just caught a glimpse of it out of the margins of one of the pictures I took- here we have a circular highway shield on a stoplight street name panel designating WYO 220. Check out the upper right:

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/wy/220/487to258/4.jpg)

The google street view image is slightly better:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=casper+wy&sll=35.576917,-95.421753&sspn=1.796013,5.410767&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Casper,+Natrona,+Wyoming&ll=42.808426,-106.413713&spn=0.012657,0.042272&z=15&layer=c&cbll=42.808406,-106.413846&panoid=fa7X2VFzP4H6a3rl5l0DkA&cbp=12,153.28,,0,-9.98
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on February 09, 2010, 10:38:15 AM
Shoptb1, I initially thought you were talking about the grocery chain.  Thanks, I did not know there were two different Tom Thumb chains.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on February 09, 2010, 02:35:35 PM
I just found a US 222 that should be NY 222 in Groton on Google Street View (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&sll=42.591795,-76.366739&sspn=0.022906,0.055747&ie=UTF8&ll=42.591783,-76.366718&spn=0.001331,0.006968&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.591782,-76.366719&panoid=X72db__6xksuceu1cUVzEw&cbp=11,264.56,,0,2.3).

On a side note, the bridge behind the sign is for a private residence.  I think it'd be cool to live in a house with a bridge in the driveway, until it needed to be repaired or replaced.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on February 10, 2010, 10:06:39 AM
Yeah... when it gets to the point it needs repaired or replaced, then it probably isn't so cool.  (Occasionally there are articles in the paper or where ever about people who can't afford it and are worried they'll be "stuck")

That said, if I had to have a bridge as part of my driveway, I'd try to make it some sort of drawbridge.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on March 15, 2010, 02:17:16 PM
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2mzi8m8.jpg)

404- NY shields not found.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on March 15, 2010, 03:39:43 PM
^^^
I put that in the "plausible error" category as, theoretically, a US 404 could exist in NY.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on March 15, 2010, 04:44:44 PM
^^^ It does meet NY 104, which was once US 104.

P.S.: I was all ready to say "Shopped!" until I did a minimal amount of research (translation: Wikipedia and Google). ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on March 16, 2010, 12:02:31 PM
Here is an error I saw this past weekend:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4433375067_ca4f2e74d0_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on March 16, 2010, 12:55:20 PM
Here is an error I saw this past weekend:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4433375067_ca4f2e74d0_b.jpg)

How nice of them to give you 1/2 mile advance notice of the upside-down sign :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on March 16, 2010, 03:17:53 PM
Here's the same sign, used properly before Tipperary Hill's upside-down traffic light in Syracuse:
(http://www.gribblenation.net/nypics/tipperary/tip3.jpg)
Credit: Gribblenation
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on March 16, 2010, 04:40:48 PM
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/augsta_sign_waycross.jpg)

As if it was not odd enough that Augusta is a control city for U.S. 1 way down in Waycross, this sign directs drivers to "AUGSTA"!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on March 17, 2010, 12:37:22 PM
Is there just nothing between Waycross and Augusta on US 1?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 17, 2010, 12:49:22 PM
no major cities, no.  just a bunch of mid-size towns of similar size to Waycross.  And the small town of Santa Claus, it looks like! 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on March 17, 2010, 02:55:18 PM
^^^ Complete with Candy Cane Street and Rudolph Way!

Google Maps link (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=32.170563,-82.328196&spn=0.013604,0.027874&z=16)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: joseph1723 on March 18, 2010, 12:49:08 AM
Here's another one:
(http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/8686/on401407.jpg)

Who ever decided that 407 ETR was a King's Highway and should use a crown shield like ON 401 and using helvetica for shield is a big no no.

 :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CL on March 18, 2010, 07:17:25 PM
Here's another one:
(http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/8686/on401407.jpg)

Who ever decided that 407 ETR was a King's Highway and should use a crown shield like ON 401 and using helvetica for shield is a big no no.

 :banghead:

And unfortunately, the font on those shields is worse than Helvetica: it's Arial! Check out that horrible one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: joseph1723 on March 18, 2010, 11:48:22 PM
And unfortunately, the font on those shields is worse than Helvetica: it's Arial! Check out that horrible one.

Yeah I didn't notice that the font was Arial. I believe that shield a actually a product of the city of Mississauga and not the MTO which explains the weirdness of it. Imho I'll take a clearview shield over this one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 19, 2010, 11:25:31 AM
Nearly several years ago, I suggested new CR shields on Interstate 75 at Exit 309 in southern Sumter County, Florida to FDOT District #5. Unfortunatley, they screwed them up.

(http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/6470/exit309errors.jpg) (http://img704.imageshack.us/i/exit309errors.jpg/)


Sumter County Road 673 goes east and west, and Sumter County Road 476B goes north and south.

Yes, that's my hairy arm in the side-view mirror.  :-P


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on March 19, 2010, 01:42:36 PM
Way wrong and way too good!

(http://epicwinftw.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/129133520522393318.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 19, 2010, 02:02:03 PM
Way wrong and way too good!

(http://epicwinftw.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/129133520522393318.jpg)


.. I don't get it?

and I'm fairly well-versed with roads.  The average audience of the failblog and related sites will have an even harder time figuring out whatever needs to be figured out here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on March 19, 2010, 02:31:25 PM
Might have something to do with the guy who looks like he's gonna nunchuck Hoboken...

(not to mention where Hoboken and Secaucus are in relation to I-76....in other words, not even close...)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rawmustard on March 19, 2010, 02:50:14 PM
Might have something to do with the guy who looks like he's gonna nunchuck Hoboken...

(not to mention where Hoboken and Secaucus are in relation to I-76....in other words, not even close...)

Nunchuck? Looks more like he's about to release a hadouken. :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on March 19, 2010, 03:37:55 PM
EpicWinFTW (http://epicwinftw.com) and FailBlog (http://failblog.org) are both Cheezburger (http://cheezburger.com) sites.  I go to many of their sites on a regular basis.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on March 20, 2010, 12:41:55 AM
.. I don't get it?

It's a video game joke. Street Fighter and other similar games, specifically (or Megaman X).

"Hoboken" is only a few letters away from "Hadouken" (often misspelled "Hadoken", which is even closer). They're also pronounced somewhat similarly.
As for the arrows and the icon, those are the buttons you press to perform the move. Down, down-forward, Forward+Punch.


Although, I have no idea why that gantry in particular was photoshopped. The actual sign (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=39.902938,-75.116422&spn=0,359.98071&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.902957,-75.116543&panoid=LU4Hqa1LOnhwvAdz9pbzeA&cbp=12,110.61,,0,-11.57) says "Atlantic City", not "Secaucus    Hoboken".


 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 20, 2010, 12:51:44 AM
and here I had been starting to think (yes, I thought about this way too much) that down, diagonal, over, and fist was standard New Jersey merging behavior, to be executed in the three miles before the off-ramp!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on March 20, 2010, 01:46:09 AM
Here's a directional error on 30 East as you exit off I-86 to head into West Pocatello. This should be US-30 EAST towards Pokie

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/not30west.jpg)

30 second later edit: Whoa- just realized it probably means "30" to "West Pocatello." Still- that's spaced weird.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on March 20, 2010, 02:48:42 AM
Although, I have no idea why that gantry in particular was photoshopped. The actual sign (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=39.902938,-75.116422&spn=0,359.98071&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.902957,-75.116543&panoid=LU4Hqa1LOnhwvAdz9pbzeA&cbp=12,110.61,,0,-11.57) says "Atlantic City", not "Secaucus    Hoboken".

OBTopic: Why does a New Jersey exit have a Pennsylvania number?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on March 20, 2010, 11:02:43 AM
Although, I have no idea why that gantry in particular was photoshopped. The actual sign (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=39.902938,-75.116422&spn=0,359.98071&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.902957,-75.116543&panoid=LU4Hqa1LOnhwvAdz9pbzeA&cbp=12,110.61,,0,-11.57) says "Atlantic City", not "Secaucus    Hoboken".

OBTopic: Why does a New Jersey exit have a Pennsylvania number?
The actual exit doesn't.  The sign was erected by the bridge commission.  Blame them for inventing it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on March 20, 2010, 11:28:57 AM
Way wrong and way too good!

(http://epicwinftw.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/129133520522393318.jpg)


And the original (http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania075/i-076_eb_exit_354_11.jpg) was taken by AARoads.


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hellfighter on March 20, 2010, 11:33:56 AM
Way wrong and way too good!

(http://epicwinftw.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/129133520522393318.jpg)


And the original (http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania075/i-076_eb_exit_354_11.jpg) was taken by AARoads.




...and it looks like it was photoshopped! Damn, way too good to be true...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on March 21, 2010, 09:56:39 PM
and here I had been starting to think (yes, I thought about this way too much) that down, diagonal, over, and fist was standard New Jersey merging behavior, to be executed in the three miles before the off-ramp!
Yeah, I have to admit that sign had me fooled.  When I read your post, I started to think that sequence of arrows and symbols meant to...

1) duck down (down)
2) blindly change lanes (diagonal)
3) pull all the way over to the shoulder (right)
4) get into a fist fight with the guy you cut off when you made your move (fist)

and do it all over the next 3 miles. :biggrin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on March 21, 2010, 11:29:32 PM
Either that, or the guy on the left is from the NJ DOT and is cursing the bad Exit # (which isn't even the highest on a PA interstate, thanks to I-276)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on March 31, 2010, 10:45:31 AM
U.S. 22 in Arkansas?
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4470885055_7ceed60311_b.jpg)

U.S. 59 shield instead of AR 59
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4034/4471338686_d0b16e7af1_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on March 31, 2010, 12:42:26 PM
U.S. 22 in Arkansas?
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4470885055_7ceed60311_b.jpg)

Wow, while we weren't looking AHTD extended US-22 from Cincinnati, OH down to Greenwood, AR!   :-D

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on March 31, 2010, 07:33:48 PM
Then it got extended further west to Stayton, OR:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR22StaytonSignGoof1.jpg?t=1270078369)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on March 31, 2010, 10:32:25 PM
Then it got extended further west to Stayton, OR:


Newark, NJ to Cincinnati, OH to Greenwood, AR to Stayton, OR....that would be a rather interesting route.  LOL
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on April 01, 2010, 11:29:39 AM
Visited Gettysburg National Battlefield Park this past weekend.  Most of the signs in the parking area were correct but more than one featured these shields:

(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg36/jcm9572/DSCF0046.jpg)

Of course, they should be PA 97 and PA 134.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on April 04, 2010, 11:42:09 PM
I wasn't able to get a good picture because I didn't notice it, but I just caught a glimpse of it out of the margins of one of the pictures I took- here we have a circular highway shield on a stoplight street name panel designating WYO 220. Check out the upper right:

The google street view image is slightly better:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=casper+wy&sll=35.576917,-95.421753&sspn=1.796013,5.410767&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Casper,+Natrona,+Wyoming&ll=42.808426,-106.413713&spn=0.012657,0.042272&z=15&layer=c&cbll=42.808406,-106.413846&panoid=fa7X2VFzP4H6a3rl5l0DkA&cbp=12,153.28,,0,-9.98

I got back up and got a picture of it- the only circle/oval sign I know of in Wyoming

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/images/aaroadsforum/weirdwy.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 09, 2010, 02:59:22 AM
This one's fairly new...

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_vGM7FtU3Pdk/S-ZcmAE6LvI/AAAAAAAADUg/iPRPn_bzzcw/s576/IMGP1337.jpg)

...and so is this, thanks to the major wind we've been having in Richmond over the past couple weeks.

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_vGM7FtU3Pdk/S-Zc2M8wstI/AAAAAAAADXI/G4clUvJ3CV4/s512/IMGP1408.jpg)

11 was the original exit number for the I-64 EB exit on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on May 09, 2010, 03:53:34 PM
These fine boxes of rocks have popped up along 5 miles or so of I-76 heading into Denver
(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/us76.jpg)
(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/us762.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on May 09, 2010, 08:57:29 PM
^^

And for all this time I thought US 76 ended in Chattanooga, TN. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on May 10, 2010, 03:45:54 PM
You were wrong.

Don't worry -- I already knew that US/BC 97 was already an impressive route, but I didn't know it was showing I-99 how it was done by jumping to PA as well!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on May 16, 2010, 12:32:45 PM
Here's a goof that has been driven by dozens of times but may have gone unnoticed (I didn't notice until I looked at the high res photo just now and I've driven by it several times)- AARoads doesn't mention it in their photo caption of the gantry- this is I-76 WB at I-270. I guess it's just a leftover and not so much an error.

(http://davidjcorcoran.com/future270.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on May 17, 2010, 09:56:17 AM
Here's a goof that has been driven by dozens of times but may have gone unnoticed (I didn't notice until I looked at the high res photo just now and I've driven by it several times)- AARoads doesn't mention it in their photo caption of the gantry- this is I-76 WB at I-270. I guess it's just a leftover and not so much an error.

(http://davidjcorcoran.com/future270.jpg)

Theoretically, IF C-DOT & the NIMBY's ever do a Northwest extension linking I-70/C-470 to the Northwest Parkway, then upgrade the entire C-470/E-470/NWP loop to interstate standards, then renaming the whole loop as I-470, then upgrade the Boulder Turnpike (US 36) to interstate standards, then consider renaming the Boulder Turnpike a western extension of I-270, THEN the sign is technically correct.

Otherwise, just drop the FUTURE 270 bubble shield and just go with "TO" US-36 West.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 31, 2010, 12:06:08 AM
Another entry in the "US routes signed as VA state routes" category... Richmond perpetuates the US 33/VA 33 enigma with this sign at VA 161:

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/4654821808_0743e971d2_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4654821808/)

VA 33 doesn't begin until about a mile east of this intersection, where US 33 ends along its useless multiplex on US 250. VA 33 goes up Harrison Street, then turns on Leigh Street and heads east (passing a ton more US 33 shields). US 33 needs to be truncated to US 250 already, since Richmond doesn't seem interested in fixing this despite sending me numerous forwarded emails of discussions with VDOT about improving the signage of this oddity - an email in March 2008 had Richmond Public Works telling VDOT it would install begin/end signage for US and VA 33 within 90 days. Two years later...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on May 31, 2010, 09:03:44 PM
I spotted this (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=41.51976,-73.422918&spn=0,0.077162&z=14&layer=c&cbll=41.519639,-73.42291&panoid=E8tbI0zhml0XKKKybJK96A&cbp=12,213.24,,1,-3.11) when I was out galavanting around on Saturday. US 202 randomly gets demoted to a state route. :spin:
Other reassurance markers up and down the road from it which were presumably installed in the same project are all correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on June 02, 2010, 10:37:13 PM
Not sure whether this falls under "Damaged Signs" or Erroneous road signs" so I'll put it here, cause it could be fixed but it hasn't been.
BGS in San Antonio is missing the I-10 shield.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_WYYeXvkUoUE/S-iX0mRys-I/AAAAAAAAFGs/mDnYd0FjMWA/s800/SANY0785.JPG)
 BigMatt
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 03, 2010, 01:27:54 AM
It'd be awesome if you saw it fall in the middle of the night and could recover it. :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on June 03, 2010, 01:45:43 AM
Heck yeah, I'd be "protecting" it from getting run over by cars. I think of interstate shields as little metal humans, I care about humans, so why not care about the shield? Haha. :-D
 BigMatt
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on June 03, 2010, 01:59:37 AM
Question: How do the shields fall off?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 03, 2010, 12:57:05 PM
Question: How do the shields fall off?

I guess the rivets come loose. That's one of the problems with "demountable" shields that you don't get with ones that are directly applied to the reflective sheeting, but it's easier to replace them without needing a "greenout."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on June 03, 2010, 01:45:48 PM
Spotted this Mississippi 278 error (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=tupelo,+ms&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.983628,106.787109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Tupelo,+Lee,+Mississippi&ll=34.115375,-88.699815&spn=0.011352,0.034246&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.115294,-88.699862&panoid=c3GA-QmHKFhV80VenEQ7Bg&cbp=12,40.58,,0,-0.75) yesterday along the U.S. 45 Alt off-ramp to U.S. 45 & 278.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 03, 2010, 02:06:05 PM
Spotted this Mississippi 278 error (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=tupelo,+ms&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.983628,106.787109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Tupelo,+Lee,+Mississippi&ll=34.115375,-88.699815&spn=0.011352,0.034246&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.115294,-88.699862&panoid=c3GA-QmHKFhV80VenEQ7Bg&cbp=12,40.58,,0,-0.75) yesterday along the U.S. 45 Alt off-ramp to U.S. 45 & 278.

hah, at the same intersection, Brent and I found a US-145.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on June 04, 2010, 02:32:34 AM
Not sure whether this falls under "Damaged Signs" or Erroneous road signs" so I'll put it here, cause it could be fixed but it hasn't been.
BGS in San Antonio is missing the I-10 shield.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_WYYeXvkUoUE/S-iX0mRys-I/AAAAAAAAFGs/mDnYd0FjMWA/s800/SANY0785.JPG)
 BigMatt
Question: How do the shields fall off?

I guess the rivets come loose. That's one of the problems with "demountable" shields that you don't get with ones that are directly applied to the reflective sheeting, but it's easier to replace them without needing a "greenout."
In this case:
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/hi/hi_99/w78.jpg)
From Hawaii http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/hi/hi_99/ (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/hi/hi_99/)
The HI 99 shield fell off.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on June 04, 2010, 11:49:47 AM
U.S. 265 in Utah?! (taken 5/27/10)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4646866834_f825a8a077_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CL on June 05, 2010, 02:30:09 AM
U.S. 265 in Utah?! (taken 5/27/10)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4646866834_f825a8a077_b.jpg)

I wish contractors would get their act together.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 05, 2010, 10:03:00 AM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3285/2905665281_dfdb9420a4.jpg)
Ok 59 and Ok 271
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 10, 2010, 01:51:57 AM
There actually is an OK-59... it's much farther west, however.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on June 10, 2010, 02:05:12 PM
U.S. 265 in Utah?! (taken 5/27/10)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4646866834_f825a8a077_b.jpg)


I wish contractors would get their act together.

Well, we do have US-163. Why not?  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on June 10, 2010, 09:23:21 PM
I've no idea if it's still there, but I've seen UT 92 signed as US 92.

changed some quoting issues by getting rid of the entire quoted text. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on June 10, 2010, 09:26:25 PM
That makes three states with US-92!

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/ne/26/l62ato92/4.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2010, 09:31:10 PM
That makes three states with US-92!


dang discontinuous routes  :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Crewdawg on June 20, 2010, 12:46:18 AM
Didn't get a photo but saw a US 89 off of US 93 southbound the other day.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on June 20, 2010, 11:46:08 PM
US 32?

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/TB7gOFT58hI/AAAAAAAAB2c/qY7L3jNq_E0/s912/IMG_0878.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on June 20, 2010, 11:47:24 PM
Also, does anyone know what the original Ohio shield was that was covered up (and not very well) by the US-33 shield in this picture?

(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/TB7gPS_uSeI/AAAAAAAAB2g/dl8qKaulIN0/s912/IMG_0875.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on June 21, 2010, 12:03:10 AM
I would assume it was an OH-33 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 21, 2010, 12:47:32 AM
Didn't get a photo but saw a US 89 off of US 93 southbound the other day.

is that in Arizona?  If so, is that an error, or - could it be? - a remnant of old US-89?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Crewdawg on June 21, 2010, 07:35:00 PM
Didn't get a photo but saw a US 89 off of US 93 southbound the other day.

is that in Arizona?  If so, is that an error, or - could it be? - a remnant of old US-89?

yes that is in Arizona. No it isn't a remnant it is a new sign have driven on that stretch of US93 a lot and haven't seen it before.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on June 22, 2010, 04:47:40 PM
Here's a recent one (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=712&sid=1985886).  It'll be fixed by tomorrow, so no photo opportunity.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 22, 2010, 04:54:02 PM
Here's a recent one (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=712&sid=1985886).  It'll be fixed by tomorrow, so no photo opportunity.


damn Maryland neutering its shields; I'd have rather liked to add a Maryland I-85 sign to the shield gallery.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on June 22, 2010, 05:10:45 PM
The I-85 shield doesn't appear to be the only error on that sign...I spot at least two more...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 22, 2010, 05:22:08 PM
The I-85 shield doesn't appear to be the only error on that sign...I spot at least two more...

I note the problematic "K" at the end of Patrick, but cannot tell if that is really uppercase, or just an artifact of the small image.

what is the third?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on June 22, 2010, 06:23:51 PM
The lowercase "k" at the end of Frederick.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 22, 2010, 08:21:21 PM
Looks like the "PatricK" K and the "FREDERICk" K's need to be swapped.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 23, 2010, 10:17:57 AM
One of the TollRoadsNews people found the sign for I-85 on I-70 in Frederick, MD http://tollroadsnews.com/node/4806 (http://tollroadsnews.com/node/4806)

EDIT: Sorry Froggie, I didn't realize when I posted this that you already had until today.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 23, 2010, 10:28:50 AM
yep, this photo is much better quality.  I wonder if they'll let us use it on the shield gallery.

indeed, the two K's need to be swapped!  Wonder how that happens on a retroreflective sign - a button copy sign I could understand, if one person selects the set of letters that need to be applied to a given sign, and another actually rivets them in place.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rawmustard on June 23, 2010, 10:37:07 AM
yep, this photo is much better quality.  I wonder if they'll let us use it on the shield gallery.

The photo belongs to the Frederick News-Post, which was also used (albeit in reduced form) in the WTOP article (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1985886) Froggie tweeted yesterday.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on June 23, 2010, 11:08:07 AM
I didn't (and won't) have a chance to get up there, but I believe Michael Pruett (of mdroads.com) got a photo of it...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 23, 2010, 02:33:05 PM
yep, this photo is much better quality.  I wonder if they'll let us use it on the shield gallery.

indeed, the two K's need to be swapped!  Wonder how that happens on a retroreflective sign - a button copy sign I could understand, if one person selects the set of letters that need to be applied to a given sign, and another actually rivets them in place.

I believe Maryland uses demountable copy. Certainly seemed that way whenever I was there in 2007.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 23, 2010, 02:34:28 PM

I believe Maryland uses demountable copy. Certainly seemed that way whenever I was there in 2007.

here I thought many states had switched over to monolithic signs because they are less expensive to make using computers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on June 23, 2010, 06:46:43 PM
All this time FL 417 is a free highway? We've been robbed!

(http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv321/FLroadgeek/jetblue250.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 23, 2010, 09:19:24 PM
Also, does anyone know what the original Ohio shield was that was covered up (and not very well) by the US-33 shield in this picture?
This (as of January 2004)
(http://www.roadfan.com/athen33.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on June 24, 2010, 09:45:22 AM
This (as of January 2004)

Thanks!  I'm surprised that they did such a crappy job of correcting it, and that they haven't done the opposite correction down on the following sign with "US-32". 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 25, 2010, 12:39:30 PM
Anybody remember that erroneous US 27 sign placed on Sunrise Highway several years ago? Well somebody who made this bumper sticker stuck to that error despite the correction by NYSDOT #10.

(http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/7539/us27montaukbumpersticke.jpg) (http://img716.imageshack.us/i/us27montaukbumpersticke.jpg/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: florida on June 25, 2010, 12:55:00 PM
That's cool! I would buy one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 29, 2010, 10:46:23 AM
That's cool! I would buy one.

Design it and sell it on Cafe Press ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: InterstateNG on July 10, 2010, 09:31:48 PM
No photo, but both the 1-mile and 1/2-mile BGS's eastbound on the new US-24 expressway have OH-127 shields instead of US-127.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 10, 2010, 11:55:16 PM
(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2009_Fort_to_Port/Images/180.jpg)

(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2009_Fort_to_Port/Images/181.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on July 11, 2010, 11:38:14 PM
This BGS on I-95 northbound in Providence, RI is supposed to have a US 1A shield, not a US 1 shield...

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ZkmN2RrOJxw/TDp4cL-JlzI/AAAAAAAAfVc/T14Jtos61pc/s640/IMG_7788.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on July 12, 2010, 12:59:22 AM
This one in downtown Sacramento on westbound US 50/Business 80 - installed in October or so of last year - annoys me to no end:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4753645599/in/set-72157624279252253/

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/4753645599_26fecb986a_z.jpg)

Interstate 80 west doesn't begin for another four miles!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 12, 2010, 01:01:40 AM
hm, I actually find it more palatable than that damn green-shielded freeway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on July 12, 2010, 01:14:16 AM
hm, I actually find it more palatable than that damn green-shielded freeway.

Would be better if it were signed as US 50 though!  I don't think US 50 has ever been properly signed westbound from I-80 to Oak Park, except for one TO US 50 sign along former Route 275 in West Sacramento.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 12, 2010, 01:36:08 AM
Would be better if it were signed as US 50 though!

I thought 50 ended at 51 (the other segment of business 80) and the eastbound signs were wrong.  Does 50 go all the way through to the western junction of 80 and business 80?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on July 12, 2010, 02:59:52 AM
Would be better if it were signed as US 50 though!

I thought 50 ended at 51 (the other segment of business 80) and the eastbound signs were wrong.  Does 50 go all the way through to the western junction of 80 and business 80?

Yes:

http://www.cahighways.org/049-056.html#050

Quote
As defined in 1963, Route 50 was the route from Route 80 in Sacramento to the Nevada state line near Lake Tahoe via Placerville. The "Route 80" referred to in this routing is what is now Route 51, i.e., Business Route 80.

In 1981, Chapter 292 changed Route 50 to run from "Route 80 in West of Sacramento". The Route 80 referred to in this definition was the new definition of Route 80 that was the bypass around Sacramento, so this effectively added the former portion of Route 80 between Route 51 and the new junction with Route 80 to Route 50. The segment added is FAI 305, meaning it is acually interstate milage, but isn't signed as interstate milage. Note that the added segment is signed as Business Route 80 ("Capitol City Freeway").

Business 80 does not exist as a legislative definition, but is the first six miles of post-1982 US 50 including pre-1964 US 40/99W west of Route 275, and the entirety of post-1982 Route 51/pre-1964 US 99E to Foothill Farms.  (The mileposts on US 50 east of Route 99 have not been updated though, but the exit numbers reflect the West Sacramento terminus).

Basically, pre-1964, the western terminus for 50 was in San Francisco at US 101, then from 1964-1972, when the western terminus was at the Oak Park junction officially (where 99/80 split, and where 51 begins today), 50 and 99 were still sporadically co-signed to Stockton.  In terms of signage, the Oak Park terminus only lasted for about 10 years.

One of the several examples of correct US 50/Business 80 signage eastbound, on a gantry atop the Pioneer Bridge:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4756049497/in/set-72157624279252253/
This signbridge likely dates to the 1982 renumbering.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kurumi on July 12, 2010, 11:27:47 AM
hm, I actually find it more palatable than that damn green-shielded freeway.

Seconded. "Green 80" needs to go. Just split it up between 50 and 51.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on July 12, 2010, 11:37:43 AM
hm, I actually find it more palatable than that damn green-shielded freeway.

Seconded. "Green 80" needs to go. Just split it up between 50 and 51.

The amazing thing is, the pre-1964 numbering for today's 51/Business 80 was more logical (as 99E)!

I've always wondered what the insistence on maintaining a "Route 80" in downtown Sacramento was for, rather than simply signing 50 on both directions between I-80 and Oak Park, and giving the substandard portion a new number.  (Or for that matter, why switch the designations out at all since even considering the stillborn nature of the realignment project, the Route 51 segment is far from the worst freeway to have been signed an Interstate?)

This is one reason I wish there were many more 1970s photos of the freeway system here, to provide a narrative link between the US highway era and the post-1982 designations.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on July 12, 2010, 01:37:05 PM
Finally got around to this.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2020/4511057505_318d6c6041.jpg)
A county route sign on a freeway BGS in Illinois??? they never do it - oh wait, it's ISTHA  :eyebrow: :hmmm:  (NOTE: clearview not judged :P)

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4058/4511760752_1c09870762.jpg)
Are we in Connecticut or Illinois?  - again ISTHA. :pan:

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2779/4511668888_7cffc068d5.jpg)
I don't think the arrows are MUTCD standard, but its funny nonetheless - IDOT in Chicago.  I've seen instances of this on US 12 and 45 as well.

here are the links to make Flickr happy:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/4511057505/sizes/m/in/set-72157622486538821/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/4511057505/sizes/m/in/set-72157622486538821/)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/4511760752/sizes/m/in/set-72157622486538821/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/4511760752/sizes/m/in/set-72157622486538821/)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/4511668888/sizes/m/in/set-72157622486538821/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/4511668888/sizes/m/in/set-72157622486538821/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 12, 2010, 02:10:33 PM
^^ As to why some ISTHA signs can appear so weird, they have their own sign shop over in Naperville that makes all their signage.  I think they like to experiment from time to time.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on July 12, 2010, 04:23:28 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2779/4511668888_7cffc068d5.jpg)
I don't think the arrows are MUTCD standard, but its funny nonetheless - IDOT in Chicago.  I've seen instances of this on US 12 and 45 as well.

The diagonal arrows *is* a MUTCD standard sign (M6-6 is the sign designation in the 2009 MUTCD), although it's granted that this particular arrangement probably doesn't get much use.

There is also a standard sign that uses a straight ahead and and angled arrow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: DorkOfNerky on July 12, 2010, 07:24:59 PM
I'm not sure if they're still there, but it seems so according to Google Maps. Back when I lived southeast of Downtown Houston, I noticed the I-45 frontage road has some signs that are a little bit off.

Over at Broad/Myrtle, someone though Texas 75 still runs with I-45.
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/__MytsOoJD0I/TDui4pXRKfI/AAAAAAAALh8/iiB_1DXOGug/s800/Texas75-Broad.jpg)
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/__MytsOoJD0I/TDui4k_yruI/AAAAAAAALiA/bQFEcMR4Xxs/s800/Texas75-Broad-2.jpg)

Then over at Wayside/90A, someone can't make up their mind what highway you're crossing. Is it still US75? Is it Texas 75? Who knows! (Okay... it's probably neither now.)
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/__MytsOoJD0I/TDui47SSnqI/AAAAAAAALiE/Y14gdULLab0/s800/Texas75-Wayside.jpg)
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/__MytsOoJD0I/TDui5Cax_7I/AAAAAAAALiI/7LkpcV5zSXg/s800/Texas75-Wayside-2.jpg)
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/__MytsOoJD0I/TDui5TjHQlI/AAAAAAAALiM/8YfC77VcWIE/s800/Texas75-Wayside-3.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on July 13, 2010, 07:06:11 AM
Those GMSV views are almost impossible to see...any better photos?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on July 13, 2010, 09:30:57 AM
<image removed for bandwitdh's sake
I don't think the arrows are MUTCD standard, but its funny nonetheless - IDOT in Chicago.  I've seen instances of this on US 12 and 45 as well.

The diagonal arrows *is* a MUTCD standard sign (M6-6 is the sign designation in the 2009 MUTCD), although it's granted that this particular arrangement probably doesn't get much use.

There is also a standard sign that uses a straight ahead and and angled arrow.
O. i c :-D

I guess I'm just too used to Wisconsin's cookie cutter system (they did have in Sun Prairie arrows that would go up and diagonally down for WIS 19, but those were removed when 151 was rerouted in favor of the standard all "arrows use a square" method.

EDIT: BTW - I've seen Arial font on a US 51 sign in Rockford on State Street at the I-90 toll road (ewww)

I gotta snap that when I do my next IL clinching trip.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on July 13, 2010, 10:28:09 AM
Those GMSV views are almost impossible to see...any better photos?

Jeff Royston found a set in 2009 as well: http://shields.aaroads.com/show.php?image=TX19830452
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Revive 755 on July 14, 2010, 09:09:57 PM
A few erroneous ones in Springfield, IL now that IL 97 has been cut back to end at BL 55, as would be seen in GSV if the photos were more recent.  None of the BGS's on I-55 and I-72 have had the IL 97 shields greened out or had "TO" installed around the shield as has been done with some shields on the now decommissioned section of IL 97.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on July 17, 2010, 05:08:26 PM
Interstate I-25?

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/4654238313_d0b2806942_b.jpg)

And a couple of interstate shields posted where Business Loops should be:

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/4647054564_9acc282fee_b.jpg)

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3390/4643868688_bb34a1f657_b.jpg)

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4009/4654083989_9ace098923_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 23, 2010, 03:07:16 PM
Just got back from a road trip from Oregon to North Texas and back.  For the first 10 days, I saw only these glaring road sign errors: first from Boise City, OK, an attempt by OkDOT to add another misplaced offspring for US 25 (besides US 425)?

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OK325BoiseCitySignGoof1.jpg?t=1279911114)

and a few days later, from US 191 west of Moab, UT:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/US191MoabSignGoof1.jpg?t=1279911283)

Then to my shame, on the last day when I was driving across my home state, I tripled that number of erroneous shields:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR201Adriansigngoof1.jpg?t=1279911371)

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR245HerefordSignGoof1.jpg?t=1279911415)

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR245HerefordSignGoof2.jpg?t=1279911441)

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/US26-395MtVernonSignGoof1.jpg?t=1279911654)

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR19DayvilleSignGoof1.jpg?t=1279911549)

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR19DayvilleSignGoof2.jpg?t=1279911602)

I don't know why this problem has become so prevalent in Oregon, but it's getting silly.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 23, 2010, 09:04:03 PM
Didn't realize it at the time, possibly because at highway speeds the shields look similar in shape, but I photographed a "Wisconsin 61" sign on my recent trip. It'll be posted when I get the other 5,410 photos from my recent trips uploaded. (Take that, Calrog!)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on July 24, 2010, 09:43:56 AM
This one? (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/wi/i090/i090w-wi61signgoof.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on July 24, 2010, 07:06:33 PM
You know ODOT's subtly trying to stick it to AASHTO, xonhulu ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 24, 2010, 10:19:48 PM
So, VDOT finally fixed the "Exit 11" error on an exit tab on I-95 in Richmond!

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_vGM7FtU3Pdk/TEaJ4WIxTgI/AAAAAAAAEtg/DtLtO-e7XY4/IMG_0300.jpg)

...sort of. Right exit number, just nearly impossible to read.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 25, 2010, 01:26:18 AM
This one? (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/wi/i090/i090w-wi61signgoof.jpg)


Link says "forbidden."
 
Anyway, here's the one I captured:

http://www.millenniumhwy.net/loose_pics/PICT0768.JPG
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on July 25, 2010, 07:15:20 AM
Quote
Link says "forbidden."

Hit refresh.  I've disabled direct hot-linking to my site, but hitting refresh usually works.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 25, 2010, 09:29:49 AM
Quote
Link says "forbidden."

Hit refresh.  I've disabled direct hot-linking to my site, but hitting refresh usually works.

STILL 403
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on July 25, 2010, 10:03:34 AM
Quote
Link says "forbidden."

Hit refresh.  I've disabled direct hot-linking to my site, but hitting refresh usually works.

STILL 403

Copy the URL into a new browser window and it will work.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 25, 2010, 10:10:25 AM

Copy the URL into a new browser window and it will work.

OK, worked that time. :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: The Premier on July 25, 2010, 11:17:55 AM
So, VDOT finally fixed the "Exit 11" error on an exit tab on I-95 in Richmond!

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_vGM7FtU3Pdk/TEaJ4WIxTgI/AAAAAAAAEtg/DtLtO-e7XY4/IMG_0300.jpg)

...sort of. Right exit number, just nearly impossible to read.

That number "75" would be very hard to read if I traveled on that freeway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 25, 2010, 11:25:57 AM

OK, worked that time. :banghead:

yeah, it's pretty stupid how browsers cannot differentiate between a page automatically wanting a hotlinked image and the user manually clicking to go to the site.  

it's not exactly a tough situation to design a workaround for - seeing as one can do it by hand without difficulty.

a smart browser would, in the case of a 403 return on a click to a link, retry the HTTP GET with the referer set to blank.  If it's still 403 then something else has gone wrong, but if it works the second time, it's just the anti-hotlinking feature being invoked in the wrong situation.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 25, 2010, 10:50:18 PM
Quote
Link says "forbidden."

Hit refresh.  I've disabled direct hot-linking to my site, but hitting refresh usually works.

It's not the one I shot. Where was your pic taken? Westbound on I-90 in Wisconsin approaching the first exit in Minnesota?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 26, 2010, 12:24:21 AM
It must take a lot of Harley owners to adopt a highway (in this case US 17 BUSINESS) for an indefinite distance! (Surfside Beach, SC. There's lots of other signs in the area with indefinite distances listed.)

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/4829040899_53bd88fa21.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on July 26, 2010, 07:20:00 AM
Quote
It's not the one I shot. Where was your pic taken? Westbound on I-90 in Wisconsin approaching the first exit in Minnesota?

Indeed.  First one that came to mind when you commented on a "Wisconsin 61".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 26, 2010, 08:00:46 AM
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1425/4731848134_d6ef36a458_d.jpg)

Must be a contractor sign (near Republic, MO). The border is too narrow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on July 26, 2010, 03:57:36 PM
^^^

I had to look at it twice.  The first time it put me to sleep!  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on July 29, 2010, 01:48:05 AM
(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/101_0268.jpg)

Contrary to what the sign says, US 78 does not run through this area of Jasper anymore.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Troubleshooter on July 29, 2010, 03:50:14 AM
I don't have photos, but I have seen many errors in road signs over the years:

Missing and moved letters committed by the sign shop:

NO TROUGH TRAFFIC

10 TON BRIDE AHEAD

SOTP

DRISCOll AVENUE (should be Driscoll)

NO BALL PLAYING AND PICNICKING DOGS


And the ones where vandals modified the signs:

F_AGGER AHEAD

DO NOT USE HORN EXCEPT IN CASE OF _ANGER

SPENDING MAX $1000

NO PORKING

NO PARKING
29 AM - 35 PM

NO WAY ->

MEN WORKING?


Then there are the ones that can be read in multiple ways:

SLOW CONSTRUCTION AHEAD

RADAR CONTROLLED SLOW PEDESTRIAN ZONE

BUMP HANDICAPPED PEDESTRIANS 5 MPH

WHEN THIS SIGN IS UNDERWATER THE ROAD IS IMPASSABLE

NO LEFT TURN - TO TURN LEFT MAKE THREE RIGHT TURNS


And the ones that were put there to get your attention NOW:

20 MPH CURVE WE ARE NOT FOOLING

CITY HALL PARKING ONLY
ALL OTHER CARS WILL BE DONATED
TO THE SCRAP METAL ARTS PROJECT

SPEED LIMIT 19.5

DUCK XING

ONE WAY ->    <- ONE WAY   (across the street from each other)

UNEVEN LANES NEXT MILE

LARGE DUMPSTER IN THE ROAD AHEAD

OBEY PADDLERS AHEAD

GOLF XING

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on July 29, 2010, 05:12:59 PM
ONE WAY ->    <- ONE WAY   (across the street from each other)

I know of one intersection like that in my home town of Bloomsburg, PA at the intersection of Main and West Streets.  South of Main, West St. is one way northbound.  North of Main, it is one way southbound.  This leads to a situation where if you're on west street, you must turn onto Main.  And, you can't turn onto West St. from Main.

Here's Google Streetview:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bloomsburg,+PA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.15347,52.998047&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Bloomsburg,+Columbia,+Pennsylvania&ll=41.00118,-76.461035&spn=0.005644,0.006469&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.001222,-76.460926&panoid=0EleUJ-gdJFFpBQUK_J2tA&cbp=12,68.89,,0,11.12

You can see the "NO TURNS" sign on Main St. at the light and if you look to the left and right, you can see the one way signs pointing at each other.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 29, 2010, 06:36:33 PM
ONE WAY ->    <- ONE WAY   (across the street from each other)

it could be worse.  I have seen the fabled "ONE WAY" pointing down a dead-end street.  In Cleveland and in Kansas City. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on July 29, 2010, 06:59:34 PM
I have seen the fabled "ONE WAY" pointing down a dead-end street.  In Cleveland and in Kansas City. 

It figures that Cleveland would be one of them.  There's so much about the town that's dead end.  :sombrero:
(And as I live near Cleveland for 10 years and worked in it for 5, I think I'm allowed to make Cleveland jokes.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on July 29, 2010, 07:05:25 PM
Here's a huge one that's all over the States' this sign is supposed to be in Highway Gothic along with all the Clearview signs in Angelo ;)
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_WYYeXvkUoUE/S-iYl5e4HnI/AAAAAAAAFMQ/oNMXeFP0T1E/s800/SANY0548.JPG)
 BigMatt
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on July 29, 2010, 10:03:55 PM
ONE WAY ->    <- ONE WAY   (across the street from each other)

I know of one intersection like that in my home town of Bloomsburg, PA at the intersection of Main and West Streets.  South of Main, West St. is one way northbound.  North of Main, it is one way southbound.  This leads to a situation where if you're on west street, you must turn onto Main.  And, you can't turn onto West St. from Main.

You can see the "NO TURNS" sign on Main St. at the light and if you look to the left and right, you can see the one way signs pointing at each other.

Same thing happens on Market Street (U.S. 13 Business) southbound at 40th Street in Wilmington, DE:

(http://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware010/us-013b_sb_at_40th_st.jpg)

and two blocks further south at 38th, the same thing again (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=wilmington,+de&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.624204,78.662109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wilmington,+New+Castle,+Delaware&ll=39.759596,-75.524611&spn=0,0.01369&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.759554,-75.524698&panoid=GCTsWJDdpbJEJ6urhobbSA&cbp=12,51.59,,0,11.14)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 29, 2010, 10:35:47 PM
I have seen the fabled "ONE WAY" pointing down a dead-end street.  In Cleveland and in Kansas City. 

It figures that Cleveland would be one of them.  There's so much about the town that's dead end.  :sombrero:
(And as I live near Cleveland for 10 years and worked in it for 5, I think I'm allowed to make Cleveland jokes.)

Ok LeBron.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shadyjay on July 29, 2010, 10:48:09 PM
The big one in Vermont, which I called VTrans out on and it has since been corrected, was I-91 NB Exit 5.  The signs previously said "US 5 TO VT 121 / Bellows Falls".  While the exit doesn't dump you directly onto US 5, it does dump you on a road called "Interstate Access Road" which is a connector to US 5.  When the signs were replaced in the mid 1990s, they read "VT 121 TO US 5 & VT 123 / Westminster / Bellows Falls".  This gave motorists the impression that the road at the end of the ramp is VT 121, while in reality, VT 121 is several miles up US 5.  Signage off the exit and on US 5 barely advertised VT 121.  See the sign here:

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_LdJssxlEuTQ/TFI7s-JSaiI/AAAAAAAALMk/8eRVUz3PqGM/s640/Exit%2005-NB-old%20signs.jpg)

A couple of years ago, after I sent an e-mail to VTrans about it, the sign has since been corrected and now reads:
"TO US 5, VT 123, VT 121 / Westminster / Bellows Falls".  And even better, the SB sign, which only had "US 5" for the routes was changed to "TO US 5/VT 123".  


Then there is the strange case of Exit 28 on I-91 NB in Connecticut.  During the 1980s, the signs for this exit, and Exit 29, only advertised "CT 15" - leaving out US 5 completely.  When the signs were replaced in the early 90s, US 5 was added.  And again, when Exit 28's signs were replaced, US 5 was omitted, but remains on the last button copy sign.   See these pics (not mine):

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_LdJssxlEuTQ/TFI7szWZJQI/AAAAAAAALMo/rFgGMb4mchM/s640/Exit%2027-2-NB.jpg)

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_LdJssxlEuTQ/TFI7tINos8I/AAAAAAAALMs/5KtipHmcMIw/Exit%2028-NB.jpg)

Then again, Connecticut does have a problem with putting US shields on signs when they are multiplexed with other routes.  Just look at I-84 from Farmington to Manchester.  US 6 is paired with I-84 the entire length, but you'll have to look for the occasional reassurance markers to list US 6, but not one BGS in that distance makes note of US 6.  
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on July 29, 2010, 10:50:10 PM
Then again, Connecticut does have a problem with putting US shields on signs when they are multiplexed with other routes.  Just look at I-84 from Farmington to Manchester.  US 6 is paired with I-84 the entire length, but you'll have to look for the occasional reassurance markers to list US 6, but not one BGS in that distance makes note of US 6. 
Generally somewhat better signed from intersecting roads than on the mainline, so I've found at least.  US 6 does NOT need to be multiplexed with 84 nearly as long as it is in CT, especially the first time in the Exits low-teens when the old road is continuous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Troubleshooter on July 29, 2010, 11:06:59 PM
More:

CLARENCE 13' 8"

DO NOT ENTER BOX UNLESS YOUR EXIT IS CLEAR

CALENDAR PARKING IS IN EFFECT
ALTERNATE DAILY

CAREFULLY SLIDE OFF THE ROAD

DON'T LET SKIES FALL DOWN (on ski lift)

CROSS SCHOOL WALK

DO NOT DISTRUB GRASS

DON'T BURN THE FIRE CHIEF

ENTRANCE ONLY DO NOT ENTER

FORM 1 PLANET (2 letters added by vandals)

BE CAREFUL WITH THE TRAIN (standard Mexico railroad crossing sign translated)

NO PARKING ABOVE THIS SIGN

PARKING $2
GET PUNCHED AT WINDOW

SLOW SCHOOL CROSSING AHEAD

WATCH FOR VEHICLE MIRRORS

ROAD CONSTRICTION AHEAD (vandal changed a letter)

CAUTION WATER ON ROAD DURING RAIN

CAUTION PEDESTRIANS SLIPPERY WHEN WET

THIS IS NOT US 40

NO TRESPASSING
SURVIVORS WILL BE PROSECUTED

ALL MUD MUST TURN LEFT

FREE SNOW - YOU HAUL

SAFETY FIRST
DOLLY GOOD
HERNIA BAD

TOUCHING WIRES CAUSES INSTANT DEATH $200 FINE

UNATTENDED CHILDREN WILL BE GIVEN AN ESPRESSO AND A PUPPY

DONT'T DRINK AND DRIVE

MY BOSS TOLD ME TO CHANGE THE STUPID SIGN SO I DID (movable letter sign on business)

PLEASE SET CELL PHONES AND SMALL CHILDREN ON 'VIBRATE'

TURN OFF STEREOS BEFORE ENTERING TUNNEL

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Troubleshooter on July 29, 2010, 11:18:59 PM
One more - my favorite. Can anyone guess what it means?

It is on a chain-link fence.

GO OUTSIDE FENCE TO GET SHOT

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on July 30, 2010, 08:26:02 AM
Quote
US 6 does NOT need to be multiplexed with 84 nearly as long as it is in CT, especially the first time in the Exits low-teens when the old road is continuous.

If one goes with a strict interpretation of AASHTO's US route policies, where the US route system's purpose is "to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best roads" (emphasis mine), then one should figure we need more Interstate/US route multiplexing, not less, since it'd be a hard sell to argue that the old road is "the best road" when there's a nearby parallel Interstate.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on July 30, 2010, 01:15:04 PM
Generally somewhat better signed from intersecting roads than on the mainline, so I've found at least.  US 6 does NOT need to be multiplexed with 84 nearly as long as it is in CT, especially the first time in the Exits low-teens when the old road is continuous.

For that matter, it doesn't need to be multiplexed with CT 8, either.

Some acknowledgment of it westbound would be helpful. I didn't see any signs saying you had to get on 8 south to continue on 6 west... 6 instead seems to just meet 8 and then disappear. :-/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on July 30, 2010, 10:21:43 PM
One of my favorites was back in the late '80s on the Ambassador Bridge, Canada-Bound:

The sign originally said: 
MEN WORKING ABOVE (referring to cable inspectors or bridge painters),

but someone (Probably one of the workers)  added the words:
SO FLASH 'EM.

 :wow:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 30, 2010, 11:50:12 PM
One of my favorites was back in the late '80s on the Ambassador Bridge, Canada-Bound:

The sign originally said: 
MEN WORKING ABOVE (referring to cable inspectors or bridge painters),

but someone (Probably one of the workers)  added the words:
SO FLASH 'EM.

 :wow:

There was a message board outside a beauty salon a few years back where the letters were rearranged to read "special sperm" (should have been special perms)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 02, 2010, 10:30:42 AM
U.S. 265 in Utah?! (taken 5/27/10)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4646866834_f825a8a077_b.jpg)

I was back in Provo this past weekend, and this sign goof has been corrected. :(
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on August 08, 2010, 03:11:16 PM
With all of the summer work on southbound OH-315 in Columbus, I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later...315 has become a US highway!   :)

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/TF8A29qkIGI/AAAAAAAAB5w/vSfm65XRcRE/s720/IMG_2109.JPG)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 08, 2010, 03:55:35 PM
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4389880548_5be8b881fb_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 08, 2010, 11:03:45 PM
With all of the summer work on southbound OH-315 in Columbus, I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later...315 has become a US highway!   :)

I like the size of the text on the orange tape jobs through the construction zone there.

CLOSED
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: The Premier on August 09, 2010, 07:37:39 PM
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/TF8A29qkIGI/AAAAAAAAB5w/vSfm65XRcRE/s720/IMG_2109.JPG)

I'm disappointed that SR 315 didn't get exit numbers compared to what they did with SR 8 in Akron. :-o
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Bickendan on August 10, 2010, 12:54:31 AM
IMO, every state should follow California's lead and number ALL exits. For all practical purposes, Oregon's done this as I've noted exit numbers on OR 34. OR 126 in Springfield's a special case.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 10, 2010, 01:08:53 AM
IMO, every state should follow California's lead and number ALL exits.

California's about the last state to feature exit numbers!  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 10, 2010, 02:04:42 AM
IMO, every state should follow California's lead and number ALL exits.

California's about the last state to feature exit numbers!  :-D

They may be, but then they're numbering every state-maintained freeway in response, which many other jurisdictions still won't do!

(Now if they'd just add exit numbers to Route 1 north of I-280...which isn't officially a "freeway" despite two interchanges!)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on August 10, 2010, 02:32:49 PM
U.S. 265 in Utah?! (taken 5/27/10)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4646866834_f825a8a077_b.jpg)

I was back in Provo this past weekend, and this sign goof has been corrected. :(

Well, I did let the signing engineer know about this, so I guess I'm to blame on this one, right? :/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 10, 2010, 04:07:34 PM
U.S. 265 in Utah?! (taken 5/27/10)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4646866834_f825a8a077_b.jpg)

I was back in Provo this past weekend, and this sign goof has been corrected. :(

Well, I did let the signing engineer know about this, so I guess I'm to blame on this one, right? :/

I guess so... :)

I'm glad I got a picture of it while it was up, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on August 11, 2010, 01:04:39 PM
This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10936604) isn't an erroneous sign but an erroneous pavement marking.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 11, 2010, 02:26:57 PM
I encountered these signs on the Oregon coast yesterday.  Due to a bridge replacement project on OR 53 just south of US 26, through traffic is detoured on US 101 and US 26.  The detour is extensively signed along these routes, but they are a goofy shape that I have seen on a few contractor-posted detours; here's an example:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR53NehalemGoofyShield1.jpg?t=1281550532)

The real fun came at the US 101/26 junction, where these two warning signs are confused as to what route types 26 and 101 are:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR53CannonBeachJctSignGoof1.jpg?t=1281550645)(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR53CannonBeachJctSignGoof2.jpg?t=1281550680)

So naturally, at the same intersection:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR53CannonBeachJctSignGoof3.jpg?t=1281550719)(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR53CannonBeachJctSignGoof4.jpg?t=1281550789)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CL on August 11, 2010, 07:45:20 PM
Oh, my eyes. If there's anything worse than Helvetica on a shield, it's that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 11, 2010, 07:54:48 PM
That's really, really ugly. What font IS that?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: joseph1723 on August 11, 2010, 07:57:45 PM
Whoa, that's even worse than the Arial shields I posted a while ago, what font did they use?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 11, 2010, 08:51:29 PM
that's way better than Helvetica.  It vaguely resembles old Maryland.  Significantly uglier of course, but not nearly as bad as Helvetica.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CL on August 11, 2010, 10:29:22 PM
that's way better than Helvetica.  It vaguely resembles old Maryland.  Significantly uglier of course, but not nearly as bad as Helvetica.

Helvetica has class (though it doesn't belong on any road, I agree). That awful font doesn't. Not one penny.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 11, 2010, 11:38:28 PM
Helvetica has been overused.  That font, if they could keep their stroke width constant, would look decent.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on August 11, 2010, 11:45:01 PM
That is Franklin Gothic. I have only seen it on one road sign before, naturally furnished by our friends at OTA:
(http://www.denexa.com/roadgeek/road-photos/main.php?cmd=image&var1=ok%2Fwagoner%2Ffgothic.jpg&var2=500_85)

As far as "fonts that aren't the correct ones" go, I'd say it's pretty classy. Classier than Arial and Times New Roman, at least. It used to be used in the logo for "The Late Late Show", and when I was growing up as a kid they used to use it on much of the signage at the grocery store we shopped at.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: RustyK on August 13, 2010, 12:59:11 PM
I don't have pictures, but I saw 2 while I was in NJ last week:
1. The long-standing black-and-white, Interstate-shaped, route 9 symbol at Exit 29 on the Parkway north.
2. Work on US 1 near New Brunswick routes one of the thru lanes onto an exit, using the parallel frontage road -- the detour signs show NJ 1, in both the north and south directions.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 01:04:34 PM
1. The long-standing black-and-white, Interstate-shaped, route 9 symbol at Exit 29 on the Parkway north.


can anyone get a really good detailed closeup of this for the shield gallery?  I once attempted to get a photo but I was driving southbound and the rearward facing shot failed in every way imaginable.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on August 13, 2010, 01:12:02 PM

can anyone get a really good detailed closeup of this for the shield gallery?  I once attempted to get a photo but I was driving southbound and the rearward facing shot failed in every way imaginable.

I have a halfway decent shot of it, taken back in June. I haven't uploaded my hundreds of pictures from my travels this summer, but once I get them up you are welcome to make use of it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 01:15:24 PM

I have a halfway decent shot of it, taken back in June. I haven't uploaded my hundreds of pictures from my travels this summer, but once I get them up you are welcome to make use of it.

that would be great; thanks!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 13, 2010, 02:02:58 PM
One more - my favorite. Can anyone guess what it means?

It is on a chain-link fence.

GO OUTSIDE FENCE TO GET SHOT


Did you see my image of the sign at the mini-golf course on Portion Road boasting of "F***king For All Ages?"

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on August 13, 2010, 02:53:09 PM
1. The long-standing black-and-white, Interstate-shaped, route 9 symbol at Exit 29 on the Parkway north.


can anyone get a really good detailed closeup of this for the shield gallery?  I once attempted to get a photo but I was driving southbound and the rearward facing shot failed in every way imaginable.

Not really erroneous, but definitely not standard, and probably long gone was this wooden sign I video taped in 1997:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/oldus9sign.jpg)

Note the two span wire supported light bulbs above the sign too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 13, 2010, 03:39:27 PM
I don't have pictures, but I saw 2 while I was in NJ last week:
1. The long-standing black-and-white, Interstate-shaped, route 9 symbol at Exit 29 on the Parkway north.

This one? (taken by me on 8/4/03)

(http://www.okroads.com/080403/gspexit29.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 13, 2010, 04:09:08 PM
^^ My eyes!  How they burn!  :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 13, 2010, 05:13:29 PM
This one? (taken by me on 8/4/03)
(http://www.okroads.com/080403/gspexit29.JPG)

Apparently Bud Shuster wasn't finished after I-99...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on August 13, 2010, 06:23:17 PM
^^^

 :hmmm: I'm not so sure.  I-99 may break the grid, but its signs are within spec.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 13, 2010, 06:26:02 PM

 :hmmm: I'm not so sure.  I-99 may break the grid, but its signs are within spec.

would be nice if they had the state name, though... which is, indeed, back in the specs as of 2003.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: joseph1723 on August 14, 2010, 01:12:37 AM
Here's one I found on Onthighways.com (http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_10-19_images/16_shield_401assembly.jpg) of a now removed US 37 sign that's supposed to be NY 37 on the ON 401 offramp:
(http://a.imageshack.us/img820/3706/16shield401assembly.jpg)

The one on the other ramp is still there in streetview though:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=44.755739,-75.479808&spn=0.010819,0.019119&z=16&layer=c&cbll=44.755835,-75.479676&panoid=ml56BE_QNkjSs0TRJ56qgw&cbp=12,230.79,,2,5.05
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on August 14, 2010, 01:58:14 PM
Here's one I found on Onthighways.com (http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_10-19_images/16_shield_401assembly.jpg) of a now removed US 37 sign that's supposed to be NY 37 on the ON 401 offramp:
*ON 16/416/US 37 assembly*

The directional sign on the 37 sign is wrong, too...37 runs east/west, not north/south.

Quote
The one on the other ramp is still there in streetview though:
*GSV link*

That's actually surprising, considering that all of the BGS's for Exit 721B on 401 (along with LGS's along 16 for the bridge, and the LGS off of the WB ramp) used to have incorrect US 37 shields as well...they've since been overlaid with NY 37 shields, complete with black background. The BGS assembly for 401 westbound doesn't show 37 at all!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on August 15, 2010, 08:46:57 AM
I like the size of the text on the orange tape jobs through the construction zone there.

CLOSED

you mean, like this?  Sorry kids, Ohio State is closed now.  LOL

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/TGfgynqhCpI/AAAAAAAAB6o/1Ws_stXdtzs/s640/IMG_2103.JPG)


Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 15, 2010, 09:35:05 AM
Not a major error, but an error nonetheless ;)

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2152/2504296060_5cd0224500_z_d.jpg)




This one you'd have to see the location to understand why it's an error:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4059/4235836068_4895856488_z_d.jpg)

Here's the
streetview  (http://maps.google.com/maps?client=opera&q=lavaca,+AR&oe=utf-8&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Lavaca,+Sebastian,+Arkansas&gl=us&ei=m-tnTPi3OsP98Abgpd2zBA&ved=0CBQQ8gEwAA&ll=35.335188,-94.180641&spn=0.005251,0.012317&z=17&layer=c&cbll=35.336026,-94.179763&panoid=pK-8_Yv_v1yYJ4gOS050AQ&cbp=12,54.27,,0,10.85 /)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on August 15, 2010, 05:25:46 PM
Here's a succession of signs (hint, it's the same direction of I-40)

View 1 (http://a.imageshack.us/img8/2531/img3165p.jpg)

View 2 (http://a.imageshack.us/img822/2899/img3166pk.jpg)

This has been fixed since, but back in April, 2010 it was like this.

[ - Please resize your images manually down to 800 width.  You're making some Internet browsers stutter badly.  Thanks. -rmf67]
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2010, 05:33:58 PM
I thought we had an auto-resize script as a stopgap, or did we knock it out since it was masking the problem, and not solving it?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 15, 2010, 05:35:04 PM
I thought we had an auto-resize script as a stopgap, or did we knock it out since it was masking the problem, and not solving it?

Well, one of his images somehow bypassed it and was full size in the forums.  The other one had javascript resizing and was freaking out my browser.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2010, 05:36:00 PM


Well, one of his images somehow bypassed it and was full size in the forums.  The other one had javascript resizing and was freaking out my browser.

I noticed the one, that is why I was wondering if our countermeasure had been taken away.  The other one was not freaking out the browser for me.  I'm running firefox 3.5.3.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 15, 2010, 05:41:23 PM
I noticed the one, that is why I was wondering if our countermeasure had been taken away.  The other one was not freaking out the browser for me.  I'm running firefox 3.5.3.

I don't know if the countermeasure has been.  As for the browser freakout, it does it in IE.  Yes, I use IE because it has a x64 version that I don't have to worry about flash in it. :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on August 15, 2010, 05:47:36 PM
Serves me right for directly linking imageshack to this forum.

Let me see if I can resize it in IS and post it again.

[EDIT] Apparently not.  Okay, here's the gist of the two images.  One is a BGS with a left-handed tab, which is correct.  The second is a gore sign with a right-handed arrow, which is wrong.

RMF67, does the image linking code allow resizing in the image tag?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2010, 05:54:38 PM
I have a firefox add-on called FlashBlock that disables all flash apps unless explicitly requested. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 15, 2010, 06:18:57 PM
RMF67, does the image linking code allow resizing in the image tag?

Here, yes.  However with very large images that are resized by them, some browser sutter very badly when moving over them.  I could resize the images for you and then you re-upload them to your imagesack account and repost. ;)  Let me know if you want me to and what e-mail address to send them to.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on August 22, 2010, 09:26:26 PM
Poor weather sorta got in the way here, but:
(http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8423/nj202.jpg)

I actually didn't notice this error until I was looking through the pictures I'd taken and loading them onto my computer. I thought I was just snapping a picture of an old button copy sign!


(in case you can't figure it out, NJ 202 should be US 202)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on August 28, 2010, 11:47:03 PM
Here's a new one. No buckinghorse, no "ming," just WYO 59.

On 59 on the godforsaken stretch of road halfway between Gillette and the Montana line
(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/wyo59.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on August 29, 2010, 12:42:23 PM
Not too much of an error, but DelDOT messed up the colors for the E-ZPass logo! The text is supposed to be white and the background is supposed to be purple. I-95 southbound approaching the Newark toll plaza.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ZkmN2RrOJxw/THqKDF2KShI/AAAAAAAAhq8/9LCXX6h5iPc/s640/IMG_1332.JPG)

(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ZkmN2RrOJxw/THqKEnUZ06I/AAAAAAAAhrU/h7C3SUK2Wic/s640/IMG_1335.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 29, 2010, 02:59:14 PM
I found an I-95 trailblazer on westbound RI 138 a few miles east of the interstate that had "I-95" in a 3-digit shield, but was unable to get a picture or find it on streetview afterward.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2010, 03:31:23 PM
Rhode Island does that sometimes.  This one is on the mainline.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/RI/RI19881951i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on August 29, 2010, 03:32:45 PM
Savannah, GA has a few I-I-16 shields...
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ZkmN2RrOJxw/S8uEQE0cg9I/AAAAAAAAadY/sMHX7h907yk/s640/IMG_3118.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on August 29, 2010, 04:01:57 PM
Not too much of an error, but DelDOT messed up the colors for the E-ZPass logo! The text is supposed to be white and the background is supposed to be purple. I-95 southbound approaching the Newark toll plaza.

Meh, that logo doesn't look too bad. Those signs are hideous, but not because of the reverse-colored E-ZPass logo.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2010, 04:07:07 PM
Denver likes to do this:

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/CO/CO19880702i1.jpg)

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/CO/CO19950251i1.jpg)

I think there might be a state-named one on the mainline.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on August 29, 2010, 04:09:40 PM
This one is subtle:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/4867117017_1b0c55506f_z_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 29, 2010, 05:00:46 PM
Not too much of an error, but DelDOT messed up the colors for the E-ZPass logo! The text is supposed to be white and the background is supposed to be purple. I-95 southbound approaching the Newark toll plaza.

Actually, purple-on-white is an alternate logo scheme for the E-ZPass logo; some of the state E-ZPass websites use that version, and that's how it appears on most transponders. It's just not common on actual signage. The Peace Bridge (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=peace+bridge&sll=42.904907,-78.891535&sspn=0.00932,0.022724&ie=UTF8&split=1&rq=1&ev=zi&radius=0.69&hq=peace+bridge&hnear=&ll=42.903429,-78.892522&spn=0.009321,0.022724&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.902695,-78.898088&panoid=JM0Or4m5kargQstvS1IRcA&cbp=12,94.84,,0,-1.8) uses that, though, among others.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: nyratk1 on August 29, 2010, 09:28:41 PM
This one is subtle:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/4867117017_1b0c55506f_z_d.jpg)

should be 1-5?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2010, 10:03:45 PM


should be 1-5?

not that I know... the error I found is subtle and can be detected in the mirror.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on August 29, 2010, 10:03:57 PM
Quote
should be 1-5?

.melborp eht si taht tbuod I
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tchafe1978 on August 31, 2010, 01:38:46 PM
WISDOT can't even get it right on their own website. This page is about WIS 33. There is no US 33 in Wisconsin, mind you.

http://www.dot.wi.gov/projects/swregion/wis33corridorpas/index.htm
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:42:44 PM
I thought I posted this already, but I can't find it...

Anyway, several signs on I-405 in CA refer to a junction with State Route 42. This was true... A long, long time ago. State Route 42 was deleted entirely at least 20 years ago, yet signage continues to this very day.

And until very recently, there was signage on CA-14 for a junction with CA-126, which was truncated west at I-5 also many years back.

But the presser is that the opposite is also true. For example, you won't find signage in Weed for when I-5 and CA-265 intersect, because the latter isn't signed, despite the fact it is fully funded and exists.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 01:45:41 PM
Anyway, several signs on I-405 in CA refer to a junction with State Route 42. This was true... A long, long time ago. State Route 42 was deleted entirely at least 20 years ago, yet signage continues to this very day.

there is one sign on 5 left that has the 42 shield.  And there is one stand-alone trailblazer, if you know where to look...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:48:02 PM
I thought I posted this already, but I can't find it...

Anyway, several signs on I-405 in CA refer to a junction with State Route 42. This was true... A long, long time ago. State Route 42 was deleted entirely at least 20 years ago, yet signage continues to this very day.

Aren't there 42 references on other freeways as well?  42 actually was deleted way before that - in 1968!!!  (the west portion becoming I-105, east portion becoming part of Route 90) - but remained signed while its replacement (I-105) was under construction, and for some years afterward.

Likewise, I-405 still refers to Route 91 on Artesia Boulevard, which I'm not sure is still part of the state highway.

Quote from: Quillz

But the presser is that the opposite is also true. For example, you won't find signage in Weed for when I-5 and CA-265 intersect, because the latter isn't signed, despite the fact it is fully funded and exists.

Supposedly a Route 265 sign has been added in recent years though I haven't seen it.  
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 31, 2010, 01:48:43 PM
WISDOT can't even get it right on their own website. This page is about WIS 33. There is no US 33 in Wisconsin, mind you.

http://www.dot.wi.gov/projects/swregion/wis33corridorpas/index.htm

That's what happens when you refer to everything as simply "Highway" as they do behind the Cheddar Curtain.  :rofl:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:52:00 PM
I thought I posted this already, but I can't find it...

Anyway, several signs on I-405 in CA refer to a junction with State Route 42. This was true... A long, long time ago. State Route 42 was deleted entirely at least 20 years ago, yet signage continues to this very day.

Aren't there 42 references on other freeways as well?  42 actually was deleted way before that - in 1968!!!  (the west portion becoming I-105, east portion becoming part of Route 90) - but remained signed while its replacement (I-105) was under construction, and for some years afterward.

Likewise, I-405 still refers to Route 91 on Artesia Boulevard, which I'm not sure is still part of the state highway.

Quote from: Quillz

But the presser is that the opposite is also true. For example, you won't find signage in Weed for when I-5 and CA-265 intersect, because the latter isn't signed, despite the fact it is fully funded and exists.

Supposedly a Route 265 sign has been added in recent years though I haven't seen it. 
I drove through Weed in August 2009, and I didn't see any signs on I-5. I even went down Weed Boulevard and didn't see one, although it may have been added in the past year.

And yes, CalTRANS redefined Route 91 a few years back so that it no longer officially connects to I-405. It just ends at the Gardena city limits, I think, or is the Artesia city limits? There a few other routes like that, CA-2 comes to mind, that have been officially defined to end at city limits, rather than at other state highways. (CA-91 and CA-2 used to end at state highways, they don't anymore.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 01:55:00 PM

That's what happens when you refer to everything as simply "Highway" as they do behind the Cheddar Curtain.  :rofl:

that and your US and state markers look identical from a distance.

and then there is ... this.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/WI/WI19700083i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 01:55:23 PM

Supposedly a Route 265 sign has been added in recent years though I haven't seen it.  

northbound, a mile or two north of downtown on old 99.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:56:40 PM
And yes, CalTRANS redefined Route 91 a few years back so that it no longer officially connects to I-405. It just ends at the Gardena city limits, I think, or is the Artesia city limits? There a few other routes like that, CA-2 comes to mind, that have been officially defined to end at city limits, rather than at other state highways. (CA-91 and CA-2 used to end at state highways, they don't anymore.)

Yeah, this is a major drawback of the legislative route-assignment system: in almost all cases, route signing is not based on what is navigationally logical, but whether a city or county or the state maintains a stretch of road.  Some legislative definitions now specify that truncated segments must still be signed, but this is not true for all of them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:59:20 PM
And yes, CalTRANS redefined Route 91 a few years back so that it no longer officially connects to I-405. It just ends at the Gardena city limits, I think, or is the Artesia city limits? There a few other routes like that, CA-2 comes to mind, that have been officially defined to end at city limits, rather than at other state highways. (CA-91 and CA-2 used to end at state highways, they don't anymore.)

Yeah, this is a major drawback of the legislative route-assignment system: in almost all cases, route signing is not based on what is navigationally logical, but whether a city or county or the state maintains a stretch of road.  Some legislative definitions now specify that truncated segments must still be signed, but this is not true for all of them.
I know that for many years, signage continued for CA-126 between I-5 and CA-14, although this has finally been removed in recent years.

However, almost all signage continues to exist for CA-2, Santa Monica Boulevard, west of the Los Angeles city limits where the route is supposed to officially terminate. This is most likely done because CA-2 used to end at CA-1 and the signage, though wrong, just makes things easier for motorists. But in the case of CA-91, the same was not done... You won't too many CA-91 shields west of Gardena or Artesia nowadays.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:01:53 PM

However, almost all signage continues to exist for CA-2, Santa Monica Boulevard, west of the Los Angeles city limits where the route is supposed to officially terminate. This is most likely done because CA-2 used to end at CA-1 and the signage, though wrong, just makes things easier for motorists. But in the case of CA-91, the same was not done... You won't too many CA-91 shields west of Gardena or Artesia nowadays.

I actually don't recall finding any Route 2 shields left in Santa Monica in February - definitely tried to look around for them the two times I went down that street.  Both trips were at night though so I could have missed seeing them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 02:03:25 PM
I believe there are some 1/2 green signs at the western terminus.  No stand-alones, though.  That would be a highly tempting gantry to steal!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:04:56 PM
I believe there are some 1/2 green signs at the western terminus.  No stand-alones, though.  That would be a highly tempting gantry to steal!

Is there any mention of 2 off of Interstate 10?

I think 2 is still signed from 405, but that's in the Los Angeles city limits - even there, the shield count is rather scant.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 02:11:19 PM

However, almost all signage continues to exist for CA-2, Santa Monica Boulevard, west of the Los Angeles city limits where the route is supposed to officially terminate. This is most likely done because CA-2 used to end at CA-1 and the signage, though wrong, just makes things easier for motorists. But in the case of CA-91, the same was not done... You won't too many CA-91 shields west of Gardena or Artesia nowadays.

I actually don't recall finding any Route 2 shields left in Santa Monica in February - definitely tried to look around for them the two times I went down that street.  Both trips were at night though so I could have missed seeing them.
Well, "fully signed" was probably too strong a word. I have definitely seen some CA-2 shields on Santa Monica Blvd. quite recently, though. It's possible they'll be removed eventually, but I think the idea is to imply that CA-2/SMB leads to CA-1, even if the former is not legally true anymore.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 02:15:35 PM

Is there any mention of 2 off of Interstate 10?

don't remember - have not driven 10 in that area in a while.

the fact that we're having this debate on where the route is signed and where it isn't ... that just makes it eminently clear how hosed California's system is.  of course it should be signed!  2 should go down that boulevard, regardless of who maintains it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 02:17:44 PM

Is there any mention of 2 off of Interstate 10?

don't remember - have not driven 10 in that area in a while.

the fact that we're having this debate on where the route is signed and where it isn't ... that just makes it eminently clear how hosed California's system is.  of course it should be signed!  2 should go down that boulevard, regardless of who maintains it.
Couldn't agree more. The way I see it, a state route, especially a valuable single- or two-digit one, should always clearly terminate at another numbered highway, not at some artificial city limit. I still wish CA-126 continued east along Magic Mountain Parkway to CA-14, and I also wish some of the planned state route extensions, such as the eastern CA-118 extension, would be built or signed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:28:20 PM
Quote from: Quillz
Couldn't agree more. The way I see it, a state route, especially a valuable single- or two-digit one, should always clearly terminate at another numbered highway, not at some artificial city limit. I still wish CA-126 continued east along Magic Mountain Parkway to CA-14, and I also wish some of the planned state route extensions, such as the eastern CA-118 extension, would be built or signed.

118 east of 210 would need to be built first! :-D  (which is basically dependent on if 249 is ever constructed between Sunland and Palmdale)


I know that the surface road between I-5 and Route 14 along the 126 corridor was recently built to arterial standards - logically, this should be 126!

I wonder how many DOTs actually do sign routes based on navigation only, as opposed to maintenance (I want to say Massachussetts is one of them).  Prior to the 1964 renumbering (actually, prior to the 1950s), the auto clubs were the ones who did this in California - were they the ones who came up with the route numbers?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 04:50:40 PM
Quote from: Quillz
Couldn't agree more. The way I see it, a state route, especially a valuable single- or two-digit one, should always clearly terminate at another numbered highway, not at some artificial city limit. I still wish CA-126 continued east along Magic Mountain Parkway to CA-14, and I also wish some of the planned state route extensions, such as the eastern CA-118 extension, would be built or signed.

118 east of 210 would need to be built first! :-D  (which is basically dependent on if 249 is ever constructed between Sunland and Palmdale)


I know that the surface road between I-5 and Route 14 along the 126 corridor was recently built to arterial standards - logically, this should be 126!

I wonder how many DOTs actually do sign routes based on navigation only, as opposed to maintenance (I want to say Massachussetts is one of them).  Prior to the 1964 renumbering (actually, prior to the 1950s), the auto clubs were the ones who did this in California - were they the ones who came up with the route numbers?
I think they were, yeah. There was one in NorCal and one in SoCal. Numbers were assigned in pairs in NorCal and SoCal. Someone had a really good post not too long ago explaining the numbering scheme.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 04:58:26 PM
I think they were, yeah. There was one in NorCal and one in SoCal. Numbers were assigned in pairs in NorCal and SoCal. Someone had a really good post not too long ago explaining the numbering scheme.

I'm pretty familiar with all that (the number assignments, the number scheme, and the existence of the CSAA in NorCal and the ACSC in SoCal as the two organizations responsible for putting up route markers) - not so much who, if anyone, at those auto clubs - or if it was elsewhere - created the numbers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:15:19 PM
Massachusetts indeed signs routes based on navigation, as does Vermont.  I think VT even has a few town-maintained stretches of interstate freeway!

as for who came up with California's route numbers - one of the old articles (August '34 or Sept '34) might have that info.

the thing is, California already has a near-useless set of internal route designations (the LRNs... shudder) so implicitly they recognize that the signed routes are for navigation - so then sign the damn things!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 05:24:04 PM

as for who came up with California's route numbers - one of the old articles (August '34 or Sept '34) might have that info.

I'll check and see.  It's kinda interesting that whoever was in an office deciding those numbers back then decided the identity of some of the roads we still have today (namely, major state routes like 1, 49, and plenty of the San Diego-area numbers)!


the thing is, California already has a near-useless set of internal route designations (the LRNs... shudder) so implicitly they recognize that the signed routes are for navigation - so then sign the damn things!

a short form history of the convoluted nature of California route numbering:

1910s - LRNs created, useful in navigation to absolutely nobody
1926 - US routes created, auto clubs start signing them in the next few years
1934 - state routes numbered, auto clubs sign them
1956 - interstates created, I think these were always signed by DOH/CalTrans
1964 - renumbering removes any duplicate US/Interstate situations, theoretically makes state sign routes their legislative #, but introduces such great situations as:

242 (built as 24, signed as 24 until the late 1980s)
260, 112 (signed as 61 thereafter)
164 (built as 19, signed as 19 to present day)

and others over time where a perfectly serviceable road exists on the corridor, but since it is not state-maintained or state-constructed, remains unsigned:

93 (Richmond Parkway/San Pablo Dam Road)
148 (Cosumnes River Boulevard)
258 (Western Avenue)
77 (a myriad of streets from Walnut Creek to Oakland)
87 between 101 and 237
251 (Sir Francis Drake Boulevard)
128 between I-505 and Davis
the north-south segment of 84 between Livermore and Rio Vista

And let's not forget the Route 39 gap between Fullerton and I-10 - in existence in the 1940s, seemingly corrected by 1964, but then reintroduced by the late 1980s AFTER a new improved road was built!?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 05:27:04 PM

as for who came up with California's route numbers - one of the old articles (August '34 or Sept '34) might have that info.

I'll check and see.  It's kinda interesting that whoever was in an office deciding those numbers back then decided the identity of some of the roads we still have today (namely, major state routes like 1, 49, and plenty of the San Diego-area numbers)!


the thing is, California already has a near-useless set of internal route designations (the LRNs... shudder) so implicitly they recognize that the signed routes are for navigation - so then sign the damn things!

a short form history of the convoluted nature of California route numbering:

1910s - LRNs created, useful in navigation to absolutely nobody
1926 - US routes created, auto clubs start signing them in the next few years
1934 - state routes numbered, auto clubs sign them
1956 - interstates created, I think these were always signed by DOH/CalTrans
1964 - renumbering removes any duplicate US/Interstate situations, theoretically makes state sign routes their legislative #, but introduces such great situations as:

242 (built as 24, signed as 24 until the late 1980s)
260, 112 (signed as 61 thereafter)
164 (built as 19, signed as 19 to present day)

and others over time where a perfectly serviceable road exists on the corridor, but since it is not state-maintained or state-constructed, remains unsigned:

93 (Richmond Parkway/San Pablo Dam Road)
148 (Cosumnes River Boulevard)
258 (Western Avenue)
77 (a myriad of streets from Walnut Creek to Oakland)
87 between 101 and 237
251 (Sir Francis Drake Boulevard)
128 between I-505 and Davis
the north-south segment of 84 between Livermore and Rio Vista

And let's not forget the Route 39 gap between Fullerton and I-10 - in existence in the 1940s, seemingly corrected by 1964, but then reintroduced by the late 1980s AFTER a new improved road was built!?
That's the single most annoying thing about California's route system... All the gaps that will likely never be filled in. I hate that Routes 39, 65, 178, 190, etc. are all incomplete.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:35:20 PM
1934 - state routes numbered, auto clubs sign them
1956 - interstates created, I think these were always signed by DOH/CalTrans

the Auto Clubs stopped signing state highways in 1947.  so yes, the interstates were always done by CDOH.

there are no interstate shields with a logo, as the logo was taken away in March '57 and the interstate shield approved in July ... unless someone came up with a prototype using the preliminary-approved 1956 spec.  I'll put together a mockup tonight of what that would look like.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:07:59 PM
That's the single most annoying thing about California's route system... All the gaps that will likely never be filled in. I hate that Routes 39, 65, 178, 190, etc. are all incomplete.

65 is still slated to be finished...some time 30 or so years from now.  (Seriously!)

There also has been talk about reopening 39's north end eventually, but not sure why that middle section from Fullerton to Azusa remains unsigned when there is a navigable road there!

For routes like 178, 190...honestly the two segments of such should be entirely different routes.  (For that matter, now that the two segments of Route 16 are seperated by a 30 mile gap, why should this be one numbered route if the implied concurrencies with I-5 and US 50 will not be signed?)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:28:30 PM

For routes like 178, 190...honestly the two segments of such should be entirely different routes.  (For that matter, now that the two segments of Route 16 are seperated by a 30 mile gap, why should this be one numbered route if the implied concurrencies with I-5 and US 50 will not be signed?)

178 and 190 can be connected.  178 through Death Valley and 190 across Sherman Pass.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:32:13 PM

For routes like 178, 190...honestly the two segments of such should be entirely different routes.  (For that matter, now that the two segments of Route 16 are seperated by a 30 mile gap, why should this be one numbered route if the implied concurrencies with I-5 and US 50 will not be signed?)

178 and 190 can be connected.  178 through Death Valley and 190 across Sherman Pass.

Ah, you're right, forgot about Sherman Pass!  (It's what, the only non-state highway Sierra pass?)

178...the direct routing through Death Valley isn't buildable because of the national park boundaries, though one can reconnect both segments using part of 190 (albeit a very indirect connection).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:45:12 PM
Ah, you're right, forgot about Sherman Pass!  (It's what, the only non-state highway Sierra pass?)

that's built, yes.  168 is a tough one to reconnect because that road was literally never built.

Quote
178...the direct routing through Death Valley isn't buildable because of the national park boundaries, though one can reconnect both segments using part of 190 (albeit a very indirect connection).

yep, up Trona-Wildrose Rd and down Badwater Rd.  I've driven that road in pitch black wondering just why the Hell they can't bother to throw me a bone and a 178 reassurance.  There, I would argue that the lack of guide signage is dangerous - to have 178 clearly labeled on either side of the gap on the map, and then to lead the driver through about 100 miles of completely uncertain navigational features... the road is labeled as a gray line, but after about 40 miles of absolutely no reassurance, one does start to wonder if they've made a bad turn.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:49:35 PM

Quote
178...the direct routing through Death Valley isn't buildable because of the national park boundaries, though one can reconnect both segments using part of 190 (albeit a very indirect connection).

yep, up Trona-Wildrose Rd and down Badwater Rd.  I've driven that road in pitch black wondering just why the Hell they can't bother to throw me a bone and a 178 reassurance.  There, I would argue that the lack of guide signage is dangerous - to have 178 clearly labeled on either side of the gap on the map, and then to lead the driver through about 100 miles of completely uncertain navigational features... the road is labeled as a gray line, but after about 40 miles of absolutely no reassurance, one does start to wonder if they've made a bad turn.

I just think that, why not number the part going back to 190 on the west end as 178 (instead of an unnumbered road with no clue where to go), and use one of the currently unusued three digit numbers on the east half, like 212 or 214?

Knowing CalTrans, if they were to use another number, it'll be 21. :p
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:50:48 PM

I just think that, why not number the part going back to 190 on the west end as 178 (instead of an unnumbered road with no clue where to go), and use one of the currently unusued three digit numbers on the east half, like 212 or 214?

Knowing CalTrans, if they were to use another number, it'll be 21. :p

the way it is right now, with a big old-fashioned gap in the middle is utterly senseless.  I know people are supposed to exercise caution in Death Valley but really would a few competent sets of 178/190 guide signs in the Badwater area, and a reassurance marker oh about every 10 miles, be that bad an idea??
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:55:56 PM

I just think that, why not number the part going back to 190 on the west end as 178 (instead of an unnumbered road with no clue where to go), and use one of the currently unusued three digit numbers on the east half, like 212 or 214?

Knowing CalTrans, if they were to use another number, it'll be 21. :p

the way it is right now, with a big old-fashioned gap in the middle is utterly senseless.  I know people are supposed to exercise caution in Death Valley but really would a few competent sets of 178/190 guide signs in the Badwater area, and a reassurance marker oh about every 10 miles, be that bad an idea??

Reassurance markers!? 

For one extreme example...between Winters and Route 121, Route 128 has almost NO reassurance markers whatsoever - the only way one remembers they're on a state highway is to check out the postmiles!  And this is supposed to be a fully-acknowledged, fully-signed state route in this segment!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:57:18 PM

Reassurance markers!? 

For one extreme example...between Winters and Route 121, Route 128 has almost NO reassurance markers whatsoever - the only way one remembers they're on a state highway is to check out the postmiles!  And this is supposed to be a fully-acknowledged, fully-signed state route in this segment!

I'm pretty sure that one does not go more than 40 miles between reassurance markers anywhere in California.

and, besides, between Winters and Route 121, you're not nervously eyeing your gas gauge even in the worst of darkness...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 31, 2010, 09:08:27 PM
I found another one in Google Images of the interchange with US 6 & NY 293 in Harriman State Park

(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3333/us6ny293signerror.jpg) (http://img411.imageshack.us/i/us6ny293signerror.jpg/)

I really have to drive on the Long Mountain Parkway, and all the other roads of Bear Mountain/Harriman State Parks.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 10:23:24 PM

Reassurance markers!? 

For one extreme example...between Winters and Route 121, Route 128 has almost NO reassurance markers whatsoever - the only way one remembers they're on a state highway is to check out the postmiles!  And this is supposed to be a fully-acknowledged, fully-signed state route in this segment!

I'm pretty sure that one does not go more than 40 miles between reassurance markers anywhere in California.


128 is probably not that bad but I would say there are good 15-20 mile stretches between reassurance markers from what I remember.  It's been many months since I've been down that road though...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 10:46:59 PM

Reassurance markers!? 

For one extreme example...between Winters and Route 121, Route 128 has almost NO reassurance markers whatsoever - the only way one remembers they're on a state highway is to check out the postmiles!  And this is supposed to be a fully-acknowledged, fully-signed state route in this segment!

I'm pretty sure that one does not go more than 40 miles between reassurance markers anywhere in California.

and, besides, between Winters and Route 121, you're not nervously eyeing your gas gauge even in the worst of darkness...
Even on Route 62? That just might be the loneliest road in California.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 10:49:22 PM
and, besides, between Winters and Route 121, you're not nervously eyeing your gas gauge even in the worst of darkness...
Even on Route 62? That just might be the loneliest road in California.
[/quote]

that one at least is well-signed: next services, 100 miles. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on August 31, 2010, 11:36:39 PM
I believe there are some 1/2 green signs at the western terminus.  No stand-alones, though.  That would be a highly tempting gantry to steal!

Is there any mention of 2 off of Interstate 10?

I think 2 is still signed from 405, but that's in the Los Angeles city limits - even there, the shield count is rather scant.

I was just in Santa Monica about a month ago, and I believe I do remember seeing a CA 2 trailblazer at the end of the first exit ramp from I-10 eastbound.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: architect77 on September 01, 2010, 12:34:54 AM
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/31/1658010/misspelled-sign-on-i-277-will.html
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on September 01, 2010, 05:36:36 PM
I found another one in Google Images of the interchange with US 6 & NY 293 in Harriman State Park

The US/NY shield error is (unfortunately) common in New York...

The 293 shield looks off, too...it's too short. The 6 looks better (despite being wrong), but appears to be of the crappy new standard (which is better than some of the other newer shields I've seen, but still bad compared to the old standard).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 01, 2010, 05:42:10 PM
Speaking of US/NY shield errors, I spotted this shield error on Ernst Road in Gansevoort for US 9:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=saratoga+springs&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.764224,78.662109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Saratoga+Springs,+Saratoga,+New+York&ll=43.1683,-73.752379&spn=0,0.019205&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.168217,-73.752367&panoid=USfHK636z5R-VjzxRC96xg&cbp=12,5.41,,0,2.89
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 02, 2010, 03:30:13 PM
PA 322 shield errors on PA 261 at its northern terminus at US 322 in Bethel Township, PA...
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ZkmN2RrOJxw/TH_4136Q8PI/AAAAAAAAiJM/efdWIhym_VA/s640/IMG_1878.JPG)

(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ZkmN2RrOJxw/TH_42cR9zKI/AAAAAAAAiJU/I8_1bW_XK7I/s640/IMG_1879.JPG)

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ZkmN2RrOJxw/TH_43AhtgJI/AAAAAAAAiJc/XN1QX0NalHY/s640/IMG_1880.JPG)

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ZkmN2RrOJxw/TH_434tsnJI/AAAAAAAAiJk/J1pcyU6pEaM/s640/IMG_1881.JPG)

(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ZkmN2RrOJxw/TH_44rtUxVI/AAAAAAAAiJs/i0Eku3BnZd0/s640/IMG_1882.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 04, 2010, 02:11:36 AM
PA 322 shield errors on PA 261 at its northern terminus at US 322 in Bethel Township, PA...


I saw those several years ago, lame that they are still wrong. What is even sadder, they were correct in 2001:
http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania200/pa-261_nb_end.jpg
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 04, 2010, 07:26:34 AM
PA 322 shield errors on PA 261 at its northern terminus at US 322 in Bethel Township, PA...


I saw those several years ago, lame that they are still wrong. What is even sadder, they were correct in 2001:
http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania200/pa-261_nb_end.jpg

And PennDOT (or whatever contractor) did not see a different shield design when replacing them??
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on September 04, 2010, 08:35:04 AM
There are several PA 119 shields in and around Point Marion along US 119.

(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg36/jcm9572/Maryland%20Signs/April%202010/20100422OOPSPA1192.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 06, 2010, 02:02:44 AM
More US/state route error madness. Bad things come in threes, apparently:

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4087/4963027362_e81463c84f_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4963027362/)
Not VA 407: Bad Things Come in Threes (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4963027362/) by Will Weaver (http://www.flickr.com/people/coredesatchikai/), on Flickr

1. Non-cutout shields for I-264 and I-464
2. This should be a VA 407 shield, not a US 407 shield (it's also the wrong width but I'll ignore that)
3. Number 2 doesn't apply because this isn't part of VA 407! (VA 407 runs from VA 168 to the Norfolk/VA Beach line...it ended about half a mile before here)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 06, 2010, 09:50:14 AM
I saw one yesterday (didn't get photos, but maybe Bugo has some)

US70B in North Little Rock is posted as "mainline" US 70
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 06, 2010, 11:35:35 AM
Not a really big error, but the reference marker next to the old I-787 shield is supposed to have an "I" at the end of "787" on the top line. Just plain "787" means that the road is state route 787, rather than I-787.
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ZkmN2RrOJxw/S1ooX6DcXqI/AAAAAAAATEQ/pyq482jrte0/s640/IMG_0959.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael in Philly on September 06, 2010, 11:48:29 AM
Massachusetts indeed signs routes based on navigation, as does Vermont.  I think VT even has a few town-maintained stretches of interstate freeway!

Talking of, I think I saw somewhere that town-maintained state highways in Vermont continue to use Boring Circles instead of Bitchen Green.  Is that true, to your (or anyone's) knowledge?  I haven't been up there myself in a few years and it's not happening this side of October.  If then.  I don't remember noticing significant numbers of circles, although if I did I might just have dismissed them as old signs.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on September 06, 2010, 02:45:47 PM
This should be a U.S. 59 shield...

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/4962261625_4c089a1005.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on September 06, 2010, 04:17:17 PM
Talking of, I think I saw somewhere that town-maintained state highways in Vermont continue to use Boring Circles instead of Bitchen Green.  Is that true, to your (or anyone's) knowledge?  I haven't been up there myself in a few years and it's not happening this side of October.  If then.  I don't remember noticing significant numbers of circles, although if I did I might just have dismissed them as old signs.

The circle is used for numbered routes that are entirely town-maintained. If it's mixed, the green shield is used throughout for continuity's sake.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 06, 2010, 04:43:34 PM
Was up in Gloucester today and noticed that most of the shields around US 17 Business STILL don't have banners. The shields from VA 3/14 still refer to the business route as mainline 17, the shields from southbound 17 refer to it as just "17", no directional banner either, and there is one reassurance shield west of the courthouse circle that lacks a "Business" banner.

Come on VDOT, the bypass has only been there for how many decades now?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on September 07, 2010, 08:17:32 AM
Quote
Massachusetts indeed signs routes based on navigation, as does Vermont.  I think VT even has a few town-maintained stretches of interstate freeway!

They don't.  Plenty of US route segments that are town-maintained (among them are US 2 and US 7 in Burlington, and US 4 in Woodstock).  But the Interstates are all VTrans.

Quote
The circle is used for numbered routes that are entirely town-maintained. If it's mixed, the green shield is used throughout for continuity's sake.

Not completely.  Some towns have taken to using the circle shield for ALL the town-maintained routes within their jurisdiction, even if the route is state-maintained elsewhere within that town.  A good example would be Manchester.  Only recently (about 2 years ago) has the town posted a green shield (on west/northbound VT 30).  All the other VT 7A/11/30 shields within town are circles.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 07, 2010, 08:33:12 PM
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4112/4969417496_076fdd6de9_z_d.jpg)

AHTD rides again!  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on September 07, 2010, 11:06:23 PM
^^^ Geez, how hard is it to add the FUTURE banner to the sign on the far left??? :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on September 09, 2010, 01:49:35 PM
An ugly photo for an ugly sign.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4126/4974003761_cf83899907.jpg)
Ohio 158 NB between Lancaster and Baltimore. There were about three or four of these I spotted along the way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael in Philly on September 09, 2010, 03:35:37 PM
An ugly photo for an ugly sign.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4126/4974003761_cf83899907.jpg)
Ohio 158 NB between Lancaster and Baltimore. There were about three or four of these I spotted along the way.

Mmm.  One has to wonder what ODOT has against Ashtabula and Conneaut.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on September 09, 2010, 05:35:16 PM
Mmm.  One has to wonder what ODOT has against Ashtabula and Conneaut.

They're tired of clearing out all that lake effect snow they get.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 09, 2010, 07:57:26 PM
No photos, but I spotted several US 291 (should be PA 291) shields along PA 291 in Chester today.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: RustyK on September 09, 2010, 10:18:55 PM
No photo, but every workday I pass the exit from WA 522 EB for WA 202 either East or South.  The bgs at the exit reads east, the bgs near the intersection at the end of the ramp reads south.  The road does go SouthEast... but that's kind of loony.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: TheStranger on September 09, 2010, 10:24:13 PM
No photo, but every workday I pass the exit from WA 522 EB for WA 202 either East or South.  The bgs at the exit reads east, the bgs near the intersection at the end of the ramp reads south.  The road does go SouthEast... but that's kind of loony.

Interestingly, I can think of one distinct California example of this: Route 91 in Riverside, where some signs point to it going "SOUTH" and others "WEST."  (91 has not had a true north-south segment since the portion north of Riverside was dropped in favor of I-15 and US 395, later I-215.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on September 09, 2010, 11:15:52 PM
No photo, but every workday I pass the exit from WA 522 EB for WA 202 either East or South.  The bgs at the exit reads east, the bgs near the intersection at the end of the ramp reads south.  The road does go SouthEast... but that's kind of loony.

Interestingly, I can think of one distinct California example of this: Route 91 in Riverside, where some signs point to it going "SOUTH" and others "WEST."  (91 has not had a true north-south segment since the portion north of Riverside was dropped in favor of I-15 and US 395, later I-215.)

Maryland splits the difference -- the Pennsylvania Avenue exit on I-95/495 is signed for MD 4 "SOUTH/EAST" and "NORTH/WEST".  I'm not sure how it's signed along MD 4 itself, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 10, 2010, 12:37:36 PM
The route number should be Hawaii 65, yet they swapped out a Highway Gothic sign for a Clearview sign and did not bother to correct it!

http://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii003/i-h003_eb_exit_014_03.jpg - new
http://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii003/h3e-advkailua.jpg - old

Did not dawn on them that the next guide sign shows a different number: http://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii003/i-h003_eb_exit_014_04.jpg

Another carbon copy error:
http://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii050/hi-061_sb_at_pacific_hts_lookout.jpg - should include "Junction" or "Ahead" or "1/2 Mile" or something that alludes to the fact that one is not on I-H1, but actually on HI-61 south ahead of I-H1. They had it wrong before, but at least kept the state-name in the funky looking shield: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=honolulu,+hi&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.528905,107.138672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Honolulu,+Hawaii&ll=21.323359,-157.84637&spn=0.012553,0.034332&z=16&layer=c&cbll=21.32347,-157.846156&panoid=t67GjDUJPNSUua28OJ5H4g&cbp=12,212.41,,0,9.61
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 10, 2010, 01:13:55 PM
damn, too bad that state-named shield on the green sign on 61 is gone!  somewhere I have a photo of it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on September 10, 2010, 03:33:19 PM
Quote
Maryland splits the difference -- the Pennsylvania Avenue exit on I-95/495 is signed for MD 4 "SOUTH/EAST" and "NORTH/WEST".  I'm not sure how it's signed along MD 4 itself, though.

North-south.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on September 11, 2010, 06:29:02 PM
Another carbon copy error:
http://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii050/hi-061_sb_at_pacific_hts_lookout.jpg - should include "Junction" or "Ahead" or "1/2 Mile" or something that alludes to the fact that one is not on I-H1, but actually on HI-61 south ahead of I-H1. They had it wrong before, but at least kept the state-name in the funky looking shield: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=honolulu,+hi&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.528905,107.138672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Honolulu,+Hawaii&ll=21.323359,-157.84637&spn=0.012553,0.034332&z=16&layer=c&cbll=21.32347,-157.846156&panoid=t67GjDUJPNSUua28OJ5H4g&cbp=12,212.41,,0,9.61

The signage on O'ahu is about the most haphazard and non-standard as it comes, but come on, how can anyone complain....you're in Hawaii!  I remember this sign on the Pali Hwy and it would eerk me from time to time, but it was the Pali Hwy, so I was happy anyway.  :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on September 12, 2010, 12:58:09 AM
Another carbon copy error:
http://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii050/hi-061_sb_at_pacific_hts_lookout.jpg - should include "Junction" or "Ahead" or "1/2 Mile" or something that alludes to the fact that one is not on I-H1, but actually on HI-61 south ahead of I-H1. They had it wrong before, but at least kept the state-name in the funky looking shield: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=honolulu,+hi&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.528905,107.138672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Honolulu,+Hawaii&ll=21.323359,-157.84637&spn=0.012553,0.034332&z=16&layer=c&cbll=21.32347,-157.846156&panoid=t67GjDUJPNSUua28OJ5H4g&cbp=12,212.41,,0,9.61

The signage on O'ahu is about the most haphazard and non-standard as it comes, but come on, how can anyone complain....you're in Hawaii!  I remember this sign on the Pali Hwy and it would eerk me from time to time, but it was the Pali Hwy, so I was happy anyway.  :)


I have yet to go there (it is planned), but had a slew of photos taken to me by a contributor that I am adding, and noticed the errors when comparing them to Kevin's photos from 2004. I likely won't care when I am there either.  :) But for now, the errors have made me wonder.   :hmmm:

Found even more weirdness when seeing that HI-750 is signed as HI-76 at the north end along HI-99. Was HI-750 originally HI-76 and they just never got around to changing the signs?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shoptb1 on September 12, 2010, 05:56:33 PM
Another carbon copy error:
http://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii050/hi-061_sb_at_pacific_hts_lookout.jpg - should include "Junction" or "Ahead" or "1/2 Mile" or something that alludes to the fact that one is not on I-H1, but actually on HI-61 south ahead of I-H1. They had it wrong before, but at least kept the state-name in the funky looking shield: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=honolulu,+hi&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.528905,107.138672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Honolulu,+Hawaii&ll=21.323359,-157.84637&spn=0.012553,0.034332&z=16&layer=c&cbll=21.32347,-157.846156&panoid=t67GjDUJPNSUua28OJ5H4g&cbp=12,212.41,,0,9.61

The signage on O'ahu is about the most haphazard and non-standard as it comes, but come on, how can anyone complain....you're in Hawaii!  I remember this sign on the Pali Hwy and it would eerk me from time to time, but it was the Pali Hwy, so I was happy anyway.  :)


I have yet to go there (it is planned), but had a slew of photos taken to me by a contributor that I am adding, and noticed the errors when comparing them to Kevin's photos from 2004. I likely won't care when I am there either.  :) But for now, the errors have made me wonder.   :hmmm:

Found even more weirdness when seeing that HI-750 is signed as HI-76 at the north end along HI-99. Was HI-750 originally HI-76 and they just never got around to changing the signs?

That's always been my understanding.  This is a place where HI-78, H-201, H201, and The Moanalua Freeway are all signed in different variations in a 4 mile stretch.  Honolulu can be one of the most confusing places to drive...it's taken me almost 10 years of visiting to get used to driving there. But again, it's a nice problem to have :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 22, 2010, 09:23:40 PM
Good to see that US-91 has been re-extended, this time into Nebraska

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/us91nebraskaJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Sykotyk on September 22, 2010, 11:15:56 PM
I don't have a picture of this, but I've seen it several times. This abortion of a sign is just west of the US322-PA18 intersection in Hartstown, PA

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hartstown+pa&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartstown,+Crawford,+Pennsylvania&gl=us&ei=OMOaTIzxGML_lge998jMCg&ved=0CBgQ8gEwAA&ll=41.552514,-80.379962&spn=0.001186,0.004292&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.552472,-80.380205&panoid=LUe106Q97hNOmPWJsTHFcQ&cbp=12,314.96,,0,-2.2

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hartstown+pa&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartstown,+Crawford,+Pennsylvania&gl=us&ei=OMOaTIzxGML_lge998jMCg&ved=0CBgQ8gEwAA&ll=41.552474,-80.380193&spn=0.001186,0.004292&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.552494,-80.380077&panoid=FP-0hjBnapOuCk4z3iVNxg&cbp=12,271.2,,0,6.13

It's hard to see, but it looks a lot like the "NFL" shield that curves the top points out to the sides.

Next time I'm there I'll definitely take a picture.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr_Northside on September 23, 2010, 12:50:35 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hartstown+pa&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartstown,+Crawford,+Pennsylvania&gl=us&ei=OMOaTIzxGML_lge998jMCg&ved=0CBgQ8gEwAA&ll=41.552474,-80.380193&spn=0.001186,0.004292&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.552494,-80.380077&panoid=FP-0hjBnapOuCk4z3iVNxg&cbp=12,271.2,,0,6.13


Also of note... you go "down the street", there is a LGS (or M(edium)GS) sign with mileage for  Jamestown & Cleveland that also looks pretty atrocious.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: LeftyJR on September 23, 2010, 03:46:35 PM
I don't have a picture of this, but I've seen it several times. This abortion of a sign is just west of the US322-PA18 intersection in Hartstown, PA

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hartstown+pa&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartstown,+Crawford,+Pennsylvania&gl=us&ei=OMOaTIzxGML_lge998jMCg&ved=0CBgQ8gEwAA&ll=41.552514,-80.379962&spn=0.001186,0.004292&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.552472,-80.380205&panoid=LUe106Q97hNOmPWJsTHFcQ&cbp=12,314.96,,0,-2.2

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hartstown+pa&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hartstown,+Crawford,+Pennsylvania&gl=us&ei=OMOaTIzxGML_lge998jMCg&ved=0CBgQ8gEwAA&ll=41.552474,-80.380193&spn=0.001186,0.004292&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.552494,-80.380077&panoid=FP-0hjBnapOuCk4z3iVNxg&cbp=12,271.2,,0,6.13

It's hard to see, but it looks a lot like the "NFL" shield that curves the top points out to the sides.

Next time I'm there I'll definitely take a picture.

There is a similar sign near Beaver Staduim in State College for US 322.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 23, 2010, 08:26:42 PM
(http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3897/168circleshield.jpg) (http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3897/168circleshield.jpg)

It was only a matter of time, Norfolk, VA. Of Norfolk's portion of VA 168, which I drove this afternoon, I counted *TWO* correctly done shields. Almost all were the ugly interstate-esque ones, and then there was this shield, and 6 other circle ones southbound approaching VA 247.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on September 23, 2010, 08:36:54 PM
Used to be normal shields at the 168/247 junction.  Norfolk must've felt they needed to replace them.  Surprised they didn't make them US shields.  But then again, they only have jurisdiction over "US 165"...

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 23, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
Where was a US 165 shield? All the ones I've found from VA 337 or VA 168 have been correct, even if misshapen.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 23, 2010, 10:46:13 PM
Where was a US 165 shield? All the ones I've found from VA 337 or VA 168 have been correct, even if misshapen.

There are at least two (both of which are on the VA Hwys Project error page), one of which is this one (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=norfolk,+va&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.184175,93.076172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Norfolk,+Virginia&ll=36.875372,-76.210259&spn=0.004841,0.011362&z=17&layer=c&cbll=36.876267,-76.21076&panoid=L9SSpgNXIYqPs5TzPMcXdg&cbp=12,221.59,,0,2.88) at the intersection with VA 166 and US 13. There's also a US 166 shield at this intersection.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on September 24, 2010, 10:24:08 AM
There are three I'm aware of.  Besides the two on the VHP error page, there is a third on SB Military Hwy at Norview Ave.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 25, 2010, 02:18:23 PM
Hmm... I'll have to go check those out next time I'm down that way.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 03, 2010, 04:25:52 PM
(http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/US11NORTHNEARUS220ALTSOUTHANDUS220NORTH.jpg)  I posted this here because I'm not sure if this is technically an error or not as the view is from US 11 NB but there the "TO" for the I-81 is missing and there should at least be a "TO US 220 NORTH" signed posted along with that especially with the fact that it is posted as "US 220 NORTH to I-81" from US 220 ALT NB heading into the intersection.  (http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/US220ALTNORTHATUS11ANDUS220.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on November 03, 2010, 05:36:24 PM
Nothing wrong with the first photo...it's correct, except for missing the "TO" above I-81 as you mentioned.  By the book, the second photo is in error for missing the ALT with 220, though I can understand VDOT's intent there since I-81 is just beyond (the overpass in the background) and mainline US 220 picks up the roadway right there.

Coincidentally, I was through that same intersection last Saturday, though heading southbound.


(EDIT: clarified first sentence)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 03, 2010, 06:49:40 PM
Nothing wrong with the first photo is correct, except for missing the "TO" above I-81 as you mentioned.  By the book, the second photo is in error for missing the ALT with 220, though I can understand VDOT's intent there since I-81 is just beyond (the overpass in the background) and mainline US 220 picks up the roadway right there.

Coincidentally, I was through that same intersection last Saturday, though heading southbound.

  Thanks for the verification. I get to go through that intersection all the time now whenever I am going to/leaving Blacksburg as I take US 460 most of the way since I'm from the Petersburg area.  I was actually through there last Sunday but I was on the way back from Lynchburg that time.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 04, 2010, 10:32:56 AM
Nothing wrong with the first photo...it's correct, except for missing the "TO" above I-81 as you mentioned.  By the book, the second photo is in error for missing the ALT with 220, though I can understand VDOT's intent there since I-81 is just beyond (the overpass in the background) and mainline US 220 picks up the roadway right there.

I thought the route in question is actually VA Alternate 220 but is signed as a US route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 04, 2010, 11:03:35 AM
Nothing wrong with the first photo...it's correct, except for missing the "TO" above I-81 as you mentioned.  By the book, the second photo is in error for missing the ALT with 220, though I can understand VDOT's intent there since I-81 is just beyond (the overpass in the background) and mainline US 220 picks up the roadway right there.

I thought the route in question is actually VA Alternate 220 but is signed as a US route.
Technically yes but that is obviously not even the point of why I posted that  :nod: ;-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 09, 2010, 08:49:24 PM
SW of Mt. Vernon at the intersection of Columbus Rd (Old 3-C) and Harcourt Rd (present day Oh 3/US 36)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1206/5162405031_d959029367_b.jpg)
I don't understand Eastern Ohio's ODOT districts fascination with 3 digit wide shields for 2 (or 1) digit routes either.
Example #2, just up the road...
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1219/5163011956_e28f273faf_b.jpg)
(at least they got designation for US 36 correct here) Harcourt Rd (US 36/Oh 3) and Old Delaware Rd (Oh 229)

Meanwhile for your run-of-the-mill sign error
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/5162404899_ee2da57cb8_b.jpg)
What I like about this sign mistake, ODOT district 6 office is 200 yds behind this sign.
It must be a Delaware city, not ODOT, problem because theres another US 37 shield a mile back also.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on November 09, 2010, 09:07:11 PM
My guess is they used a wide shield for 1- and 2di routes simply for the sake of consistency and having both signs the same size.

But what I would have done was reduced the kerning between the numbers and even made them smaller so you could fit both 2- and 3di onto a shield meant for one or two numerals.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on November 10, 2010, 11:25:12 AM
^^^

Interesting theory Quillz, but it doesn't jive with normal ODOT practice.  Normally wide shields are ONLY used for 3 digit routes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 10, 2010, 11:38:28 AM
But what I would have done was reduced the kerning between the numbers and even made them smaller so you could fit both 2- and 3di onto a shield meant for one or two numerals.

that's ODOT practice from before 1970, when the feds mandated wide shields.  Oklahoma immediately stepped up and implemented the new specifications.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/OH/OH19673221i1.jpg)

this style was used 1967-1970 or so.  before that, the shields had an additional inner black border.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/OH/OH19640231i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on November 10, 2010, 12:34:00 PM
But what I would have done was reduced the kerning between the numbers and even made them smaller so you could fit both 2- and 3di onto a shield meant for one or two numerals.

that's ODOT practice from before 1970, when the feds mandated wide shields.  Oklahoma immediately stepped up and implemented the new specifications.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/OH/OH19673221i1.jpg)

this style was used 1967-1970 or so.  before that, the shields had an additional inner black border.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/OH/OH19640231i1.jpg)
Inner black borders are superior.

Was my favorite US Route shield until I saw the old Ohio ones.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on November 11, 2010, 12:35:51 PM
When did US 322 and US 23 pass through Oklahoma? I think you have the wrong ODOT!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on November 12, 2010, 10:28:44 AM
When did US 322 and US 23 pass through Oklahoma? I think you have the wrong ODOT!

To some of us, ODOT is Ohio, not Oklahoma.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on November 12, 2010, 11:08:31 AM
that's ODOT practice from before 1970, when the feds mandated wide shields.  Oklahoma immediately stepped up and implemented the new specifications.

When did US 322 and US 23 pass through Oklahoma? I think you have the wrong ODOT!

To some of us, ODOT is Ohio, not Oklahoma.

Apparently, Jake is not one of those people!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 12, 2010, 11:30:27 AM
oops.  Indeed, Oklahoma was a few years behind and kept using '61 spec shields a while longer.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on November 16, 2010, 03:04:38 AM
(http://www.quillz.net/pics/P-town.jpg)

The mileage is wrong and a 3dus shield shouldn't be used for a 1dus.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on November 16, 2010, 10:07:19 PM
The mileage is wrong and a 3dus shield shouldn't be used for a 1dus.
The mileage is correct.  Where's your source of being incorrect?  (I was just at the other end, where 6 is signed "from Long Beach," and I don't have a problem with that)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on November 21, 2010, 04:57:08 PM
The infamous US 202 shield error along I-95 southbound at exit 8A in Wilmington, DE is still there:
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ZkmN2RrOJxw/TOc6rygMwlI/AAAAAAAAjn0/Y8EpyDBJ_Qg/s640/IMG_2713.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 21, 2010, 05:03:09 PM
I wouldn't really consider that error "infamous", seeing as US-202 switches to DE-202 not too far north of there.  It's a fairly silly switch in route importance; why not call the whole thing US-202 all the way to the end?  especially since at least three or four signs are in error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: dfilpus on November 21, 2010, 05:54:04 PM
I wouldn't really consider that error "infamous", seeing as US-202 switches to DE-202 not too far north of there.  It's a fairly silly switch in route importance; why not call the whole thing US-202 all the way to the end?  especially since at least three or four signs are in error.
AFAIK, at exit 8, US 202 goes north on the Concord Pike and west multiplexed with I 95. DE 202 goes south on Concord Road. The sign error is that US 202 continues on I 95 and does not exit. Where US 202 transitions to DE 202 depends on the direction of travel.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on November 21, 2010, 08:05:36 PM
I wouldn't really consider that error "infamous", seeing as US-202 switches to DE-202 not too far north of there.  It's a fairly silly switch in route importance; why not call the whole thing US-202 all the way to the end?  especially since at least three or four signs are in error.

Infamous that it has persisted for a good five years now...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Icodec on November 28, 2010, 11:36:55 AM

Meanwhile for your run-of-the-mill sign error
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/5162404899_ee2da57cb8_b.jpg
What I like about this sign mistake, ODOT district 6 office is 200 yds behind this sign.
It must be a Delaware city, not ODOT, problem because theres another US 37 shield a mile back also.

There's another incorrect sign on 37, near the interchange with 23 showing 37 multiplexed with 42 and 36. Since when has that been in place?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 29, 2010, 11:00:36 PM

Meanwhile for your run-of-the-mill sign error
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/5162404899_ee2da57cb8_b.jpg
What I like about this sign mistake, ODOT district 6 office is 200 yds behind this sign.
It must be a Delaware city, not ODOT, problem because theres another US 37 shield a mile back also.

There's another incorrect sign on 37, near the interchange with 23 showing 37 multiplexed with 42 and 36. Since when has that been in place?

1988
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Icodec on November 30, 2010, 09:54:51 PM

Meanwhile for your run-of-the-mill sign error.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/5162404899_ee2da57cb8_b.jpg
What I like about this sign mistake, ODOT district 6 office is 200 yds behind this sign.
It must be a Delaware city, not ODOT, problem because theres another US 37 shield a mile back also.

There's another incorrect sign on 37, near the interchange with 23 showing 37 multiplexed with 42 and 36. Since when has that been in place?

1988

Last time I checked, 36 wasn't concurrent until further east, and 42 is never concurrent with 37 at all. I didn't mean the sign, I meant the nonexistent concurrency.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 30, 2010, 10:26:11 PM

Meanwhile for your run-of-the-mill sign error.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/5162404899_ee2da57cb8_b.jpg
What I like about this sign mistake, ODOT district 6 office is 200 yds behind this sign.
It must be a Delaware city, not ODOT, problem because theres another US 37 shield a mile back also.

There's another incorrect sign on 37, near the interchange with 23 showing 37 multiplexed with 42 and 36. Since when has that been in place?

1988

Last time I checked, 36 wasn't concurrent until further east, and 42 is never concurrent with 37 at all. I didn't mean the sign, I meant the nonexistent concurrency.

Sorry, thought you were asking about the sign(s) you were questioning. Otherwise those signs are there to assist drivers coming off US 23 to find US 42 north and US 36 east. Just like there are signs for Oh 37 east along US 36 between US 23 and "the point."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Icodec on December 03, 2010, 06:05:51 PM
Maybe the sign should include a "to" in the signs, so it says, "37 EAST TO 36 AND 42."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 03, 2010, 11:18:42 PM
Maybe the sign should include a "to" in the signs, so it says, "37 EAST TO 36 AND 42."

Delaware/ODOT has problems with *To* signs as well.
(http://www.roadfan.com/23-36-42.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 16, 2010, 12:22:58 AM
A LOT of these erroneous VA 636 shields have appeared along US 360 in Mechanicsville...

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_vGM7FtU3Pdk/TQmhyVjKl0I/AAAAAAAAFBw/3Ivv8W_6qwI/s640/IMG_0008.jpg)

(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_vGM7FtU3Pdk/TQmhzc3fWmI/AAAAAAAAFB8/9Ugv2ZdvFtw/s512/IMG_0011.jpg)

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_vGM7FtU3Pdk/TQmh0-YA64I/AAAAAAAAFCQ/toJvSX7YG54/s640/IMG_0017.jpg)

There are also VA 643 shields posted in various places, but I don't have pictures of them. Also, they erroneously post VA 156 as an east-west route when it is in fact a north-south route.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 17, 2010, 08:46:26 AM
Since these are detour signs, any possibility these are contractor errors instead of VDOT errors?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on December 17, 2010, 09:21:25 AM
Quite possible.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on December 17, 2010, 09:43:31 AM
Quite possible.

Must be. Highway departments never make mistakes ;)

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3213/2943867931_63e80bc6c0_z_d.jpg?zz=1)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 17, 2010, 05:01:06 PM
It's more than likely contractor error, but the name of the thread IS "erroneous road signs"... :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on December 17, 2010, 05:11:32 PM
If the highway department doesn't reject the sign for being wrong, they share the blame.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: exit322 on December 17, 2010, 06:42:48 PM
Last time I checked, 36 wasn't concurrent until further east, and 42 is never concurrent with 37 at all. I didn't mean the sign, I meant the nonexistent concurrency.

Very often they put the 37 co-signed with 36 there.  It probably should be labeled "TRUCK 37" because there's a very low clearance railroad overpass on 37 in the west side of Delaware.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on December 17, 2010, 09:56:22 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/PA/US-19/Im002982_tweaked.jpg)

And this is right near PennDOT's office in Washington!!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on December 18, 2010, 06:41:16 PM
This one I'll have to explain:

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/5221269601_0018fef9a6_z_d.jpg)

It's actually supposed to be Greathouse Springs Rd

It just appeared last month on I-540 (the old Johnson Exit). So far, I seem to be the only one who has noticed it. :spin:

UPDATE: AHTD says they will be correcting the error. "The city of Johnson has it that way on their street signs and we didn't know it was wrong". 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on December 19, 2010, 12:04:09 AM
I think I see a shadow behind the tail of the G. Are they using demountable copy?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 19, 2010, 12:19:00 AM
I think I see a shadow behind the tail of the G. Are they using demountable copy?

If they are, it'd be an easy fix.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SteveG1988 on December 19, 2010, 04:04:20 PM
On the garden state parkway south of the great egg harbor bridge exists several signs for "when flashing tune to 1640AM for urgent message" Problem is, there are no flashing lights on any of these signs
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on December 19, 2010, 06:32:07 PM
On the garden state parkway south of the great egg harbor bridge exists several signs for "when flashing tune to 1640AM for urgent message" Problem is, there are no flashing lights on any of these signs

There's one on I-90 at Rapid City that says "Do Not Enter When Flashing" , but has no lights. Maybe the sign itself flashes? ;)

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2532/3979840475_b4c5b8aeb6_z_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on December 19, 2010, 11:23:49 PM

There's one on I-90 at Rapid City that says "Do Not Enter When Flashing" , but has no lights. Maybe the sign itself flashes? ;)

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2532/3979840475_b4c5b8aeb6_z_d.jpg)

What's that down near the bottom of the leftmost post on that sign? Is it some sort of box connected to an underground power source? If so, the sign might have LED flashers embedded in the border or somewhere else.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on December 20, 2010, 09:17:31 AM
What's that down near the bottom of the leftmost post on that sign? Is it some sort of box connected to an underground power source? If so, the sign might have LED flashers embedded in the border or somewhere else.

I didn't see any LED's embedded on the sign. Maybe it's a new sign that hadn't been lit yet?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 21, 2010, 11:23:30 PM
Another US 37 sign error in Delaware (ho hum)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5010/5282197694_626fb26a82.jpg)
But I found this on the back of the "incorrect" shield
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5121/5282197818_689725095a.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kniwt on December 27, 2010, 07:05:49 PM
Recently installed on I-15 south near Barstow:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5130/5298518986_868b0146b9.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 27, 2010, 09:24:28 PM
that is extremely recent - as in, it wasn't there less than a month ago.

also, why the patch already on the exit number?

too bad they didn't sign US-466...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on December 28, 2010, 03:46:53 AM
They could have made the 58 shield white...as a contractor error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2010, 11:39:49 AM
there was never a white spade 58.  It got changed from US-466 when the green spades came into existence.  April, 1964
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on December 28, 2010, 01:10:48 PM
Quite possible.

Must be. Highway departments never make mistakes ;)

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3213/2943867931_63e80bc6c0_z_d.jpg?zz=1)

How can anyone get this wrong it is the same road. And you would think that someone working for a DOT or contractor would have a bit of roadgeek in them and know the difference.  Did they just run out of templates for the US sign?  I remember back in 1990 the state of Florida resurfaced US 90 (Beach Blvd) east of Jacksonville.  For a few months theere were SR 90 shields but then they put up the blue US 90 a few months later.(Oh how I miss the colored shields)   I assumed they were out of US shield templates. 

On the same stretch of road the contractor put up the secret SR 212 on reassuance markers in both directons at SR 9A(future East Beltway I-295)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2010, 01:40:06 PM
And you would think that someone working for a DOT or contractor would have a bit of roadgeek in them and know the difference. 

nope.  drones in sign shops are just like drones everywhere else.  go in, get some work done, go to lunch, work some more, go home, collect a paycheck.  no pride in their work; it's just a way to keep the bills paid. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xcellntbuy on December 28, 2010, 04:42:58 PM
nope.  drones in sign shops are just like drones everywhere else.  go in, get some work done, go to lunch, work some more, go home, collect a paycheck.  no pride in their work; it's just a way to keep the bills paid.  
Unfortunately, you are quite right.  Specs are many times, not proof-read, never checked against established standards or the lame excuse of "these are same [specs] we always had and they were fine before.  Who changed them?"  I have been battling this poor mindset in the public sector for years.

quote
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jwolfer on December 29, 2010, 12:23:36 PM
nope.  drones in sign shops are just like drones everywhere else.  go in, get some work done, go to lunch, work some more, go home, collect a paycheck.  no pride in their work; it's just a way to keep the bills paid. 
Unfortunately, you are quite right.  Specs are many times, not proof-read, never checked against established standards or the lame excuse of "these are same [specs] we always had and they were fine before.  Who changed them?"  I have been battling this poor mindset in the public sector for years.

quote

Truly sad that no one would catch these type of errors.  In some states such as NJ where there is no overlap of state and US routes no big deal.  People see a sign for Route 9 there is only one route 9 in the state and it wouldn't matter if in a circle or shield.  But near me in GA there is a multiplex of US 23 and GA 23... It could cause some problems if the mistake were made.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on January 03, 2011, 03:38:18 AM
Not so much an error as just plain ugly:

(http://www.picdrop.net/uploads/RI19882952i1.jpg) (http://"http://www.picdrop.net/pictures/RI19882952i1.jpg")

Use a wide shield and/or Series C, please don't compress Series D. Also seems to have the "lazy 9" thing going on, too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 03, 2011, 12:59:44 PM
and what font is that on the END banner!?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on January 03, 2011, 01:35:14 PM
No idea, maybe Arial. Certainly something non-standard.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on January 03, 2011, 04:06:38 PM
Looks like a bold/black Helvetica or variant thereof.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on January 03, 2011, 04:08:54 PM
Please, that is the best looking I-295 shield you are going to get from RIDOT.  :banghead:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on January 22, 2011, 04:00:39 PM
Not so much an error as just plain ugly:

(http://www.picdrop.net/uploads/RI19882952i1.jpg) (http://"http://www.picdrop.net/pictures/RI19882952i1.jpg")

Use a wide shield and/or Series C, please don't compress Series D. Also seems to have the "lazy 9" thing going on, too.

Ugly indeed.  To quote the MUTCD:

Quote
All sign lettering shall be in upper-case letters as provided in the “Standard Highway Signs and Markings” book (see Section 1A.11), unless otherwise provided in this Manual for a particular sign or type of message.
(Chapter 2A, Section 13, Paragraph 10, Page 35)

Quote
The unique letter forms for each of the Standard Alphabet series shall not be stretched, compressed, warped, or otherwise manipulated.
(Chapter 2A, Section 13, Paragraph 14, Page 36)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: kharvey10 on January 23, 2011, 08:22:08 AM
I got mostly older pictures to show, almost all these signs been removed or corrected

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5086/5380265873_55305d7caf_s.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380265873/)
upsidedown (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380265873/) by Kimmy1978 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29886127@N02/), on Flickr

This was on IL 161 in Marion County back in 1998 - at a time Marion County was NOT in IDiOT District 8 and Clinton County was.  (Marion County was in the Effingham district, and nearby Jefferson County was in Carbondale district - and there were at times none of the IDiOT districts were on the same page on stuff, which explains why a portion of NB 51 south of Centralia is actually in Jefferson County at the same time the SB lanes are in Washington County.)  IDiOT has since realigned their districts and put Marion County in the District 8.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5087/5380866206_5bb0d55170.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380866206/)
exit26b (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380866206/) by Kimmy1978 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29886127@N02/), on Flickr

I took this rather poor picture on SB 255 just north of 55/70 in Spring 1998, and you can barely see that the exit number is 26B.  This was at a spot where IDiOT district 8 headquarters is less than a mile from where I took this picture.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5124/5380265885_4c35dfc7e6_s.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380265885/)
spellingerror (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380265885/) by Kimmy1978 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29886127@N02/), on Flickr

Taken in May 2000 on northbound IL 3 just north of 270.  Wood River is 2 words, not 1.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 23, 2011, 02:26:53 PM
This is a technicality:

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5163/5236228940_48b1280262_z_d.jpg)
It should be BUSINESS 167
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on January 23, 2011, 02:37:31 PM
I'm not really a fan of the newer white/black versions of the Louisiana route shield.  :no: I like the older green design better.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on January 23, 2011, 02:47:56 PM
Subtle, yet erroneous:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/virtual_freeway_tours/2202448851/in/set-72157601881964599/
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 23, 2011, 03:04:04 PM
I'm not really a fan of the newer white/black versions of the Louisiana route shield.  :no: I like the older green design better.

They still exist, but are getting harder to find. There are lots of the "pre-erosion" signs still out there, too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 23, 2011, 03:07:46 PM
what is "pre-erosion"?  do you refer to the level of detail, or lack thereof, in the state outline?

this 18 incher (1950s standard) was still around in 2006.  it survived the hurricane!

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/LA/LA19566111i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 23, 2011, 03:08:36 PM
Subtle, yet erroneous:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/virtual_freeway_tours/2202448851/in/set-72157601881964599/

that took me a while to notice.  "1-I5".  classy!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 23, 2011, 03:18:27 PM
what is "pre-erosion"?  do you refer to the level of detail, or lack thereof, in the state outline?


Yes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on January 23, 2011, 04:11:41 PM
More from the "US shield where a state shield should be" department (Maryland, in this case)...

(http://ten93.com/2011/signs/us355.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on January 23, 2011, 10:59:05 PM
Eth; where is this?  I used to live in Montgomery County
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Eth on January 23, 2011, 11:10:30 PM
It's near the mall in Gaithersburg.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on January 23, 2011, 11:20:52 PM
I got mostly older pictures to show, almost all these signs been removed or corrected

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5086/5380265873_55305d7caf_s.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380265873/)
upsidedown (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29886127@N02/5380265873/) by Kimmy1978 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29886127@N02/), on Flickr

On a railroad, this sign is correct...trackside signals for CTC  (centralized trafic control) systems have the green light on top (highball!) and red on bottom.  But, they don't use signs like this on the railroad.  It was just a funny thought!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on January 24, 2011, 02:03:17 AM
Technically an error shield as it's not really shaped properly, but I think it actually looks quite nice:

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/AL/AL19600901i1.jpg)

The upper left corner is a little thinner than the rest of the outline, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on January 24, 2011, 02:37:22 AM
Quote
The upper left corner is a little thinner than the rest of the outline, though.


I'm 92% sure that's an optical illusion
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on January 24, 2011, 02:38:59 AM
On second glance, you could be right.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on January 24, 2011, 09:35:33 AM
Technically an error shield as it's not really shaped properly, but I think it actually looks quite nice:

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/AL/AL19600901i1.jpg)

The upper left corner is a little thinner than the rest of the outline, though.

Given the very wide variety of shield shapes that are out there, and the way they vary not only from state to state but even within a state, is there really such a thing as "not really shaped properly?"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 24, 2011, 09:57:25 AM
Quote
The upper left corner is a little thinner than the rest of the outline, though.


I'm 92% sure that's an optical illusion

no, there is indeed a variance in thickness.  the thinnest part of the outline is the arc just below the left point.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on January 24, 2011, 12:32:43 PM
Technically an error shield as it's not really shaped properly, but I think it actually looks quite nice:

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/AL/AL19600901i1.jpg)

The upper left corner is a little thinner than the rest of the outline, though.

Given the very wide variety of shield shapes that are out there, and the way they vary not only from state to state but even within a state, is there really such a thing as "not really shaped properly?"
I would say yes, because that shield dates to 1965, and didn't follow the 1961 specifications, or even the 1948 specifications, the last one to put the shield against a white background.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on January 24, 2011, 12:50:38 PM
It's near the mall in Gaithersburg.

Ah, okay.  I remember Lakeforest Mall quite fondly.  Didn't remember the errant US 355 sign for Frederick ROad.  Granted it's been 12 years since I lived in Gaithersburg.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on January 24, 2011, 01:12:06 PM

Given the very wide variety of shield shapes that are out there, and the way they vary not only from state to state but even within a state, is there really such a thing as "not really shaped properly?"
I would say yes, because that shield dates to 1965, and didn't follow the 1961 specifications, or even the 1948 specifications, the last one to put the shield against a white background.

Shield Generator shows this as a 1955 Alabama variant.

Arkansas used white backgrounds until the mid-60's.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 24, 2011, 01:45:08 PM

Shield Generator shows this as a 1955 Alabama variant.

Arkansas used white backgrounds until the mid-60's.

It might be a bit newer or older.  I just know I've seen a fully embossed block-font ALABAMA US 98, and that route came into the state in 1955, so someone, somewhere was making the older spec as late as 1955.  But that new style may have been in use as early as 1945, which is when the Feds first released that font, or likely 1948 when it was first made part of a formal MUTCD specification.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on January 24, 2011, 08:14:27 PM
This one's in Downtown Columbus. That should be OH 3, not US 3!
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/5200802264_a3a49a999c_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/longestaugust/5200802264/)
US 3 in Ohio? (http://www.flickr.com/photos/longestaugust/5200802264/) by LongestAugust (http://www.flickr.com/people/longestaugust/), on Flickr

You can't see it in this picture, but on the opposite corner there is a correct NORTH OH 3 assembly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 25, 2011, 08:38:46 PM
Just like in 2004...
(http://www.roadfan.com/us3err.JPG)
(with the alluded Oh 3 shield shown)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on January 25, 2011, 09:16:07 PM
That's a "uni-sign" which I do not recall having previously seen in Ohio. Virginia, yes; Maryland, yes; even in Kentucky, yes, but heretofore never in Ohio.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 25, 2011, 09:31:11 PM
That's a "uni-sign" which I do not recall having previously seen in Ohio. Virginia, yes; Maryland, yes; even in Kentucky, yes, but heretofore never in Ohio.
They were around Columbus, though not in great numbers, before I left for Louisiana.
(http://www.roadfan.com/1pieceg.JPG)
(This one was at Main & Front St. and according to my notes, photographed in 2003)
Now we have them around the OSU campus, along 315 near 270 and along 750 through Polaris (From what I've seen. Could be more)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on January 27, 2011, 08:40:02 PM
I was not in position to take a picture of it, but I saw a glaring sign error in South Georgia today.  I was heading south on I-75 just north of the town of Sparks, which is about 30 miles north of Valdosta.

There is a brand new exit sign in the southbound direction onto a small road that actually shows I-75 exiting off the freeway on the BGS.  It might had been intended to be a "Business Loop 75 shield, (there are still a few down there), I am not sure.  But the sign was brand new, being this stretch of interstate is being widened and reconstructed.

If anybody in the area is interested, you may want to get a photo before they fix the error.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on January 27, 2011, 10:00:45 PM
That's a "uni-sign" which I do not recall having previously seen in Ohio. Virginia, yes; Maryland, yes; even in Kentucky, yes, but heretofore never in Ohio.
They were around Columbus, though not in great numbers, before I left for Louisiana.
(http://www.roadfan.com/1pieceg.JPG)
(This one was at Main & Front St. and according to my notes, photographed in 2003)
Now we have them around the OSU campus, along 315 near 270 and along 750 through Polaris (From what I've seen. Could be more)


There are a few of those around downtown Columbus as well. Most of them are used as trailblazers (like the WEST I-70 in Adam's photo), but usually without a "TO", which makes it a bit confusing when they're used to indicate an actual turn in the route (like the erroneous US 3 sign above).

I haven't seen this particular style of sign outside Columbus, so I suspect they're the work of the city rather than ODOT.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 27, 2011, 10:21:42 PM
I was not in position to take a picture of it, but I saw a glaring sign error in South Georgia today.  I was heading south on I-75 just north of the town of Sparks, which is about 30 miles north of Valdosta.

There is a brand new exit sign in the southbound direction onto a small road that actually shows I-75 exiting off the freeway on the BGS.  It might had been intended to be a "Business Loop 75 shield, (there are still a few down there), I am not sure.  But the sign was brand new, being this stretch of interstate is being widened and reconstructed.

If anybody in the area is interested, you may want to get a photo before they fix the error.

I heard they did the same think over on I-95 with it's sole Business route.  Somebody posted a picture of it, but I can't remember where.  If I can find that post, I'll edit this and post the link to it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on January 28, 2011, 10:37:09 AM
I was not in position to take a picture of it, but I saw a glaring sign error in South Georgia today.  I was heading south on I-75 just north of the town of Sparks, which is about 30 miles north of Valdosta.

There is a brand new exit sign in the southbound direction onto a small road that actually shows I-75 exiting off the freeway on the BGS.  It might had been intended to be a "Business Loop 75 shield, (there are still a few down there), I am not sure.  But the sign was brand new, being this stretch of interstate is being widened and reconstructed.

If anybody in the area is interested, you may want to get a photo before they fix the error.

The I-75 error has been there since at least December 2008:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3247/3145508132_c774fd38f8_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on January 28, 2011, 12:14:22 PM
After two years, it is still there?  I looked at the interchange in Street View and it shows the old sign, which was a green business loop shield.  I will refrain any comments about GDOT since I do work from them. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on January 28, 2011, 01:38:56 PM
I will refrain any comments about GDOT since I do work from them. 

Doesn't this make you the MOST qualified to comment about it?   :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mefailenglish on January 28, 2011, 06:36:59 PM
I heard they did the same think over on I-95 with it's sole Business route.  Somebody posted a picture of it, but I can't remember where.  If I can find that post, I'll edit this and post the link to it.

Here? (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2724.msg62336#msg62336)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on January 29, 2011, 02:48:27 AM
Another sign that isn't really an error at all but just looks wrong:

(http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/976/ca098ebappcrs00201.jpg) (http://img510.imageshack.us/i/ca098ebappcrs00201.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

This particular one is on I-8, at the CA-98 junction. It just looks weird having the arrow to the left of the exit number. Seems like it should be reversed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 29, 2011, 06:07:48 PM
I heard they did the same think over on I-95 with it's sole Business route.  Somebody posted a picture of it, but I can't remember where.  If I can find that post, I'll edit this and post the link to it.

Here? (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2724.msg62336#msg62336)

Yes, that's the one.  Thanks for posting that link.  Hopefully when I go to FL next, I can see if it's been replaced.  Otherwise, I'm going to bitch to GDOT. :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on January 29, 2011, 08:46:10 PM
Here is my photo of that sign:
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ZkmN2RrOJxw/S8uE2ud00lI/AAAAAAAAadY/iS1Mjc6Viis/s640/IMG_3195.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on January 29, 2011, 09:29:39 PM
And the 95 is so large, too.

Do Georgia signs normally omit the tittle on the I, or is that something particular to this sign?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on January 29, 2011, 09:31:01 PM
Do Georgia signs normally omit the tittle on the I, or is that something particular to this sign?

It's an old GDOT standard to omit the dots on the i's and j's.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on February 06, 2011, 05:48:14 PM
Here are a few from yesterday...

Error NJ 1&9 shields in Jersey City:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5017/5423154388_9f0dbfb783_z.jpg)

Upside down signal ahead sign along US 1-9 at the Tonnele Circle project:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5295/5423155876_6a3ec1171b_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 08, 2011, 05:57:47 PM
(http://www.aaroads.com/california/images395/us-395b_nb_ridgecrest_02.jpg)

Can you spot all the wrong things with this shield?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 08, 2011, 06:10:44 PM
it's not even on an old US-395 alignment!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 08, 2011, 06:15:17 PM
I've found at least six errors...

1) It shouldn't be using a California state route shield.
2) Even if it was using the right style shield, it should be the wide shield.
3) California state route shields use Series D numerals.
4) Generally, signs with a white border extend all the way out to the edge. The outer green border is unnecessary.
5) Unequal kerning between the numerals.
6) Uneven height between the numerals, notice how the 9 is lower than the 3 and 5.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 09, 2011, 08:39:04 PM
4) Generally, signs with a white border extend all the way out to the edge. The outer green border is unnecessary.

Personally, I've never found this to be a hard and fast rule with "banners" and arrows. Neither the "TO" nor the arrow in the pic I posted here (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3528.msg81859#msg81859) have the white to the edge, nor does the "VIA" two posts below (but the "TO" in that same assembly does, oddly enough.

IMHO, while I prefer the "border to the edge" on BGS's, for consistency's sake, I like my banners this way.

Also...

7) The shield is "printed" off-kilter.  The green looks a couple of degrees to the left.
8) The greenout on the shield looks like it matches the Business banner, but not the shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 09, 2011, 09:41:28 PM
At least in California, it's generally a standard that I've observed. Signs with a black or other dark color border are usually inset by at least half an inch, while those with a white border extend all the way out. I think the MUTCD even recommends something to that effect. That's why signs (at least regarding CA route shields) are generally in error if they have an unnecessary outer border.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on February 09, 2011, 09:47:07 PM
8 ) The "inner" border has the same corner radii as the corner trimming, making the "outer" border uneven at corners. Radius should increase at the same rate as it extends from the centre of the said radius.

Also, http://www.failqc.com/2011/02/signalisation-routiere-fail/ .
O RLY?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 10, 2011, 12:05:25 AM
At least in California, it's generally a standard that I've observed. Signs with a black or other dark color border are usually inset by at least half an inch, while those with a white border extend all the way out. I think the MUTCD even recommends something to that effect. That's why signs (at least regarding CA route shields) are generally in error if they have an unnecessary outer border.

this is a federal standard.  It seems to go back almost to the very beginnings of things; at least as dark-background signs got popular in the 30s, California was consistently making them have a white outermost border. 

the reason for this is because a black outer border would have almost no differentiating effect against any background except snow.  Most backgrounds are darker than signs, especially when signs are made retroreflective.  The sign border, if made a dark color, would blend in and be wasted metal.

(some 1920s shields intended for snowy places did indeed have the black border outermost.  But this is quite rare, early, and experimental.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 10, 2011, 12:08:49 AM
Personally, I've never found this to be a hard and fast rule with "banners" and arrows.

the reason for this is because the sign shop on occasion has only one screen for, say, a "TO" banner, which does have the outer border, and they use it in both positive- and negative-contrast applications.

or they do have both styles, but the worker assigned to the task isn't paying attention.

other styles of signs tend not to come in both positive- and negative-contrast forms, so you're more likely to see the consistent application of the light-colored outer border there.

the banner phenomenon is exacerbated by the changing interstate standards between 1957 and 1961: the first interstate standard of '57 specified white-background arrows and banners, while the 1961 standard switched to the blue-background style we know today.  Some sign shops simply kept the old screens and changed ink colors.  I wouldn't be surprised if that I-5 gantry in your link is old enough that they were still using the 1957 screens.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 10, 2011, 12:13:03 AM
one exception that suddenly comes to mind: California's old black-background regulatory signs.  (SPEED LIMIT, DO NOT ENTER, etc., 1929-1971)  consistently had the black outer margin and a white inner border!  don't ask me why, seeing as guide signs and whatnot had white going out to the edge.  So did red signs (STOP, for the most part, and some less-often-seen ones like Inspection Station). 

It may have had to do with the original porcelain manufacturing process.  really, I have no idea.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 10, 2011, 12:13:43 AM
At least in California, it's generally a standard that I've observed. Signs with a black or other dark color border are usually inset by at least half an inch, while those with a white border extend all the way out. I think the MUTCD even recommends something to that effect. That's why signs (at least regarding CA route shields) are generally in error if they have an unnecessary outer border.

this is a federal standard.  It seems to go back almost to the very beginnings of things; at least as dark-background signs got popular in the 30s, California was consistently making them have a white outermost border.  

the reason for this is because a black outer border would have almost no differentiating effect against any background except snow.  Most backgrounds are darker than signs, especially when signs are made retroreflective.  The sign border, if made a dark color, would blend in and be wasted metal.

(some 1920s shields intended for snowy places did indeed have the black border outermost.  But this is quite rare, early, and experimental.)
Why don't U.S. Route and most state route shields have a white border to offset the outer black area, then?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 10, 2011, 12:15:59 AM
Why don't U.S. Route and most state route shields have a white border to offset the outer black area, then?

the shield shape tends to be a sufficient differentiator.  in the case of 1961-spec markers, the sign was supposed to appear (kinda vaguely if you squint) like the older cutout style - the black was intended to fade into the background and provide contrast for the shield shape. 

nowadays a lot of states are adding a thin white outer margin.  I think Texas may have been the first to issue '61-spec US shields with a white outer margin, possibly as early as 1969.  

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/TX/TX19690661i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 10, 2011, 12:17:29 AM
That's a nice sign... Classic shape and white outer border. Too bad it's not a cutout, though.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on February 10, 2011, 01:19:18 AM
We had a discussion about this amongst the Wikipedia editors once, brought about by some Kansas shields having a gold border and some not. Our theory was that a border of uninked area around the edges was to prevent process inks from dripping off the edge of the sign while they were applied. On green process-ink signs, green ink is applied to white sheeting, so obviously having the white border abut the edge of the sign is desirable there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 11, 2011, 09:10:34 PM
Personally, I've never found this to be a hard and fast rule with "banners" and arrows.

the reason for this is because the sign shop on occasion has only one screen for, say, a "TO" banner, which does have the outer border, and they use it in both positive- and negative-contrast applications.

or they do have both styles, but the worker assigned to the task isn't paying attention.

other styles of signs tend not to come in both positive- and negative-contrast forms, so you're more likely to see the consistent application of the light-colored outer border there.

the banner phenomenon is exacerbated by the changing interstate standards between 1957 and 1961: the first interstate standard of '57 specified white-background arrows and banners, while the 1961 standard switched to the blue-background style we know today.  Some sign shops simply kept the old screens and changed ink colors.  I wouldn't be surprised if that I-5 gantry in your link is old enough that they were still using the 1957 screens.

After driving around in the day or two since I posted that, I kept my eyes peeled and realized that every sign here in town does follow the positive/negative contrast rule.  So I figured that the "inner" border must have just been an older standard, but the "used the wrong screen" excuse makes sense too.

One thing that still gets me though is that county-route signs (yellow on blue) should count as positive contrast, but the signs http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_524/ (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_524/) almost all have a blue outer border.  But I guess yellow just doesn't count quite the same as white. :D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 11, 2011, 09:27:02 PM
you are right about the county markers.  I wonder when that pentagon spec first came out.  I have seen a California 1958 specification, which is almost close enough to when CA was making porcelain signs with "incorrect" borders that it may very well be explanation.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: burgess87 on February 13, 2011, 06:07:39 PM
My turn!  This is looking southbound on US 62 (Niagara Falls BLVD), just south of IH 290.  NYSDOT has been reconfiguring the Falls BLVD / IH 290 interchange.

(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/3450/img00019201102131302.jpg)

Sorry for the perverse angle, folks - but that there's a NY 62 shield where a US 62 shield should be.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on February 13, 2011, 11:50:37 PM
Similar thing here in Niagara Falls, NY
(http://www.usends.com/60-69/062/begin062n_sb2.jpg)
(from US Ends)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 14, 2011, 05:32:54 AM
I don't mind that error so much because at least NYS has some nice looking state route shields.

Also, does the shield that ausinterkid posted have a thin white border outside the black, or is it just my eyes?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on February 14, 2011, 09:23:24 AM
Also, does the shield that ausinterkid posted have a thin white border outside the black, or is it just my eyes?
I almost see what you're talking about, but I can't tell if it's an actual white border or just an artifact from the compression of the picture.

Also, what's with the tiny "SOUTH" banner?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael in Philly on February 14, 2011, 09:27:34 AM
Also, does the shield that ausinterkid posted have a thin white border outside the black, or is it just my eyes?
I almost see what you're talking about, but I can't tell if it's an actual white border or just an artifact from the compression of the picture.

Also, what's with the tiny "SOUTH" banner?

Maybe they spent days struggling with the fact that what is officially 62 westbound starts out running due east for several miles, so they settled on "south" but tried to keep it as inconspicuous as possible.  :-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 14, 2011, 10:38:45 AM
Also, does the shield that ausinterkid posted have a thin white border outside the black, or is it just my eyes?

I believe it is just the "sharpen" filter used on the photo.  I don't recall ever seeing a shield in New York with the white outer margin.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on February 14, 2011, 12:56:28 PM
I don't mind that error so much because at least NYS has some nice looking state route shields.

When they actually post nice ones, that is...there's about 25 versions of the NY route shield. Most of the newer ones are terrible.

The NY/US shield error is very common in NY, sadly...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on February 14, 2011, 02:15:22 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be any detailed specs of the NY shield. Even the NY MUTCD addendum contains nothing but a crappy bit-mapped version of the shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on February 14, 2011, 08:12:29 PM
I was the one who took the picture on usends for Dale, so if it helps the discussion, here's the full-sized original, along with another NY 62 shield in the same area:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/US%20Routes/US62NiagaraFalls5.jpg?t=1297732196)

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/US%20Routes/US62NiagaraFalls4.jpg?t=1297732296)

It looks like a very slight white border, mostly visible at the corners.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 14, 2011, 08:14:18 PM
While I like the standard NYS route shield, the same cannot be said for the wide version, which I assume is being erroneously used in the second pic.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on February 14, 2011, 08:31:42 PM
This is what today's standard New York shield should look like:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5042/5341569040_ffcae44b94_z.jpg)

An embossed cutout would be cooler, but fat chance that's going to happen.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on February 14, 2011, 08:43:03 PM
While I like the standard NYS route shield, the same cannot be said for the wide version, which I assume is being erroneously used in the second pic.

Since using any NY route shield for 62 is erroneous in the first place, can using any version be any more wrong than another?

What I liked about that area was they also has a couple US 104 shields a few of blocks away.  Balancing thing out, I guess.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 14, 2011, 08:51:43 PM
This might just be me, but other than the old-style nonstandard font, I don't see a significant difference between the 157 shield and the 62 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on February 14, 2011, 08:56:09 PM
This might just be me, but other than the old-style nonstandard font, I don't see a significant difference between the 157 shield and the 62 shield.

I can't explain it very well, but the shaping of the seal is a tad different. I guess to me, the 62 shield has a little more black space.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on February 14, 2011, 09:00:05 PM
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/5434697365_f0e2f2126a_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/longestaugust/5434697365/)
A couple here: First, the exit 35A sign should also mention US 62 WEST, which is concurrent with I-670 at this point.

Secondly, exit 33 is for Easton Way, not Morse Rd--that's exit 32. I kinda understand why they've done this, as drivers coming onto the C/D lanes can't use exit 32, and there are signs on Easton Way guiding traffic to Morse Rd, but there are better ways to indicate this on the guide sign. Also, the letters are too small--you can't tell in the picture, but it appears this was patched over something else, presumably just "Easton".

Also, while it's not quite an error, the other southbound guide signs for exit 33 are inconsistent--the newer signs (installed 4 or 5 years ago when the I-270/OH-161 interchange was completed) say "Easton Way" while the original button copy signs just say "Easton".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 14, 2011, 10:08:42 PM
the 157 has wider black margins, and a more gradual ascent from the upper left and upper right corners to the top hump.

given that the original two-digit shield is the New York state seal, it makes sense for the three-digit wider version to approximate it as best as they can given that they have a wider blank to work with.  The 157 achieves that much more than the 62.

(then again, nowadays even the two-digit NY shields aren't the right shape anymore!)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on February 14, 2011, 10:13:43 PM
I still think the standard 2-digit one looks the best. Maybe it's because wide shields are usually the result of stretched proportions, but there are few, if any, wide shields that I think look better than the standard ones.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on March 06, 2011, 12:22:03 PM
Excuse me for bumping an old post, but I found this I-422 sign at the Philadelphia Premium Outlet Mall in Limerick, PA yesterday:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5256/5500695501_ea7d1d6141_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MDOTFanFB on March 07, 2011, 08:39:09 PM
Excuse me for bumping an old post, but I found this I-422 sign at the Philadelphia Premium Outlet Mall in Limerick, PA yesterday:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5256/5500695501_ea7d1d6141_z.jpg)

Okay, who extended I-22 into PA, since the sign mentions I-422?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: The Premier on March 07, 2011, 08:50:55 PM
Excuse me for bumping an old post, but I found this I-422 sign at the Philadelphia Premium Outlet Mall in Limerick, PA yesterday:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5256/5500695501_ea7d1d6141_z.jpg)

They probably meant U.S. Highway 422. :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on March 08, 2011, 12:10:35 PM
Can't really argue that it's even an "I-422" shield, since the colors are all off.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on March 08, 2011, 11:58:08 PM
And I-422 is not even a highway yet!
(It is being planned around Birmingham, AL)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: codyg1985 on March 10, 2011, 08:08:43 AM
It appears that US 20 has been extended way south to Alabama.

(http://i.imgur.com/3Y7wG.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on March 10, 2011, 09:57:03 AM

Secondly, exit 33 is for Easton Way, not Morse Rd--that's exit 32. I kinda understand why they've done this, as drivers coming onto the C/D lanes can't use exit 32, and there are signs on Easton Way guiding traffic to Morse Rd, but there are better ways to indicate this on the guide sign. Also, the letters are too small--you can't tell in the picture, but it appears this was patched over something else, presumably just "Easton".

You're right as to why they did that.  Before Easton was built, there were only exits for 161 and Morse.  The problem really presents itself when you're northbound, as you see an 'Exit 30 & 33' sign, while Morse is exit 32 (you stay on the mainline for it.)  Everyone was getting confused when the new configuration was opened.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on March 22, 2011, 05:59:43 PM
Couldn't get photos of these because of snow, but two signs I saw on my way back south yesterday fit under "erroneous road signs".

- One is on westbound MA 9 approaching I-91.  In a state long-known for bland square route shields, this one was a circle shield.

- The other was near the north end of the US 7 freeway in Norwalk, CT.  Making the turn from northbount Main Ave to Grist Mill Rd, there's a "TO US 15" trailblazer.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: flaroads on March 22, 2011, 08:34:11 PM
It appears that US 20 has been extended way south to Alabama.

(http://i.imgur.com/3Y7wG.jpg)

There is actually another erroneous U.S. 20 shield at that intersection (heading northbound on U.S. 43)

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=87.950;num_replies=964 (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=87.950;num_replies=964)

I probably posted this picture on the thread a long time ago but I'm not taking the time to look  :-P

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: DTComposer on March 23, 2011, 01:15:37 AM
So if you're driving on I-5 north in Orange County and you approach CA-55 you get:

(http://www.12oclockmusic.com/I-5North.jpg)

You want to go to Anaheim, so you take CA-55 North. A little while later, you get:

(http://www.12oclockmusic.com/CA-55North.jpg)

You still want to go to Anaheim, so you take CA-91 East.

Only problem is, here's the route you're taking:

(http://www.12oclockmusic.com/Map.jpg)

(markers represent Downtown Anaheim, Disneyland, Anaheim Stadium, Honda Center, Anaheim Convention Center....basically any reason any out-of-towner would go to Anaheim)

Why would a control city deliberately lead you away from the center of said city, or away from any destination of note? Ahh, Caltrans.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: MDOTFanFB on March 24, 2011, 03:23:32 PM
Isn't a playground sign supposed to be a diamond shape?
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_AXtC_YsMww4/TW1j0CcP3MI/AAAAAAAAA74/_nG8bkpiLOk/s912/SAM_0482.JPG)

This one is actually placed before the road becomes divided:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_AXtC_YsMww4/TW1j18d-aNI/AAAAAAAAA78/Jxitp3sUtzU/s800/SAM_0483.JPG)

No "M" at the top:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_AXtC_YsMww4/TXJ1jdwrvbI/AAAAAAAAA-8/JN-GK1b4Vws/s800/SAM_0507.JPG)

U.S. 10 dosen't go anywhere near Detroit any more:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_AXtC_YsMww4/TXJ23ubDTLI/AAAAAAAABBc/seqqV6gZXDY/s800/SAM_0555.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 24, 2011, 03:58:13 PM
I also note the rather small octagon on the "stop ahead" sign in the background of the playground sign with rather small see-saw.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on March 24, 2011, 04:49:08 PM
I also note the rather small octagon on the "stop ahead" sign in the background of the playground sign with rather small see-saw.

There are some township installed stop ahead signs with small octagons near me as well:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=lima,+pa&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.047881,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Lima,+Delaware,+Pennsylvania&ll=39.902432,-75.412002&spn=0.002329,0.004823&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.902514,-75.411941&panoid=5JLPOn3fxWCJc_aZx4AvSw&cbp=12,212.5,,0,-5.31
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on March 28, 2011, 01:10:30 PM
This is the first time, personally, I've seen this kind of mistake in Tennessee.  It is in the construction area for widening I-65 from exit 65 south.

Magically, we now have US 96 in Tennessee.  This is most likely a contractor error.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5176/5568016361_368e2ae31c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/5568016361/)
20110310I-65N @ Exit 65 bad 96 sign-C (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/5568016361/) by mightyace (http://www.flickr.com/people/mightyace/), on Flickr

Sorry about the low quality folks, it was not a good day for photos.  I'll try and get a better one of the sign is still there.

Edit:
My memory was apparently faulty, see agentsteel53's post below.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 28, 2011, 01:22:18 PM
US-255 has shown up as well.  Should be state secondary 255.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/TN/TN19702551i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mightyace on March 28, 2011, 02:53:25 PM
^^^
Dang, I had forgotten about that one!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rupertus on April 03, 2011, 08:09:34 PM
I found a nice one today, at the stoplight at the end of the ramp from north I-275 to Michigan Avenue. There is a new Clearview guide sign at that location that for some reason has an M-12 shield on it instead of the correct US 12 shield. Not sure where that came from as there is no such road as M-12. Unfortunately the photo I took didn't come out very well...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on April 05, 2011, 07:23:44 PM
I guess California was jealous of Pennsylvania...

(http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/9009/ca099errorjctsign.jpg) (http://img839.imageshack.us/i/ca099errorjctsign.jpg/)

I'm pretty sure this was fixed several years back. And while it's an error shield, at least it's a nice looking one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on April 05, 2011, 08:56:53 PM
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2657/4223611965_c60592a692_z_d.jpg?zz=1)
Near Joplin, MO


(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4112/4969417496_076fdd6de9_z_d.jpg)
Near Perry, AR

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Truvelo on April 07, 2011, 08:19:01 PM
It's not the signs that's errorneous in this picture but the lane markings. The newly rebuilt I-39/I-90 interchange near Rockford was a building site when I last drove through it in 2009. Today I noticed the lane markings are wrong. There are four lanes on the approach with two lanes going each way. However the markings suggest the left three lanes are for I-90 and the right hand lane is for I-39. The short dotted lines should be between the middle two lanes. The two right lanes continue beyond the next exit so there should be the normal lane markings before the solid line.

(http://www.speedcam.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rockford.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on April 07, 2011, 09:36:15 PM
(http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2050/njny23.jpg)

This is actually hilarious. NY 23 is nowhere near here, the sign is for NJ 23 (in New York). They did, however, get the black border part right! :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on April 07, 2011, 10:38:06 PM
Isn't it actually wrong, though? I thought NYS route shields were supposed to lack the black background and use Series F numerals.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on April 08, 2011, 01:39:14 AM
Isn't it actually wrong, though? I thought NYS route shields were supposed to lack the black background and use Series F numerals.
Right, but the black background and Series D numerals are correct for a New Jersey shield (which is what that one should be).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on April 08, 2011, 01:45:48 AM
Oh, I see what you're saying.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 08, 2011, 09:58:53 AM
(http://www.speedcam.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rockford.jpg)

In fact, shouldn't the arrows beon the "Exit Only" yellow part?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on April 08, 2011, 11:13:54 AM
I guess California was jealous of Pennsylvania...

(http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/9009/ca099errorjctsign.jpg) (http://img839.imageshack.us/i/ca099errorjctsign.jpg/)

I'm pretty sure this was fixed several years back. And while it's an error shield, at least it's a nice looking one.

If Bud had his way, that might be an accurate sign someday.  See Kurumi's Trippy Drive '71 (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/signmaker/drive.html) for the ultimate I-99 nightmare.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: InterstateNG on April 09, 2011, 04:11:52 PM
I found a nice one today, at the stoplight at the end of the ramp from north I-275 to Michigan Avenue. There is a new Clearview guide sign at that location that for some reason has an M-12 shield on it instead of the correct US 12 shield. Not sure where that came from as there is no such road as M-12. Unfortunately the photo I took didn't come out very well...

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/205110_138043372935046_100001881518423_239451_6861108_n.jpg
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mobilene on April 19, 2011, 09:42:09 PM
(http://jimgrey.net/fileserver/37error.jpg)

Found by a buddy of mine on the south side of Indianapolis.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tdindy88 on April 19, 2011, 11:17:43 PM
(http://jimgrey.net/fileserver/37error.jpg)

Found by a buddy of mine on the south side of Indianapolis.

Is that recent with the construction in that area? Speaking of which, just north of the exit there are SR 37 signs hovering over Harding Street that are Kentucky-style and not Indiana-style.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 19, 2011, 11:34:44 PM
you mean circle shields?  can you please get a photo of them for the shield gallery?

37 must really attract oddities - in some town there is a pair of black squares with the state outline!  the old embossed Indiana shields had the state outline, but by the time the state moved into the black-square era (for US markers), they were strictly using the modern style square with a state name.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: tdindy88 on April 20, 2011, 05:17:48 PM
Well, I've never had much luck putting pictures up on here, but here is a link to the Streetview of the site. If you would like, I could email the picture that I do have of these same signs, plus the ones of the SR 37 with the state outline which are from Bloomington of the gallery.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Indianapolis,+IN&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=27.643082,86.220703&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Indianapolis,+Marion,+Indiana&ll=39.698247,-86.184762&spn=0,0.014613&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.698038,-86.186604&panoid=Ze3EDWXEDmi-GcGhElbg6Q&cbp=12,191.51,,0,0 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Indianapolis,+IN&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=27.643082,86.220703&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Indianapolis,+Marion,+Indiana&ll=39.698247,-86.184762&spn=0,0.014613&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.698038,-86.186604&panoid=Ze3EDWXEDmi-GcGhElbg6Q&cbp=12,191.51,,0,0)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 20, 2011, 05:40:58 PM
if you could please email them to me, that would be perfect

jake@aaroads.com

thanks!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mobilene on April 22, 2011, 11:44:31 PM
Is that recent with the construction in that area? Speaking of which, just north of the exit there are SR 37 signs hovering over Harding Street that are Kentucky-style and not Indiana-style.

Yes, I believe it is. I haven't been down there to see. Doesn't it look like those shields are hanging over northbound lanes, as if the southbound are closed?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: shadyjay on April 26, 2011, 10:32:59 PM
While not in the "wild", I found this on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_States#Guide

Check out the second sign - something seems strange with that route number   ;-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on April 27, 2011, 05:49:40 AM
I believe the Major Deegan Expressway is I-87, not I-78 (I-78 hardly enters NY)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on April 28, 2011, 08:38:47 PM
What about Pocono being used as a control city on I-380 near Pocono Summit, PA for the PA 934 exit?  There is no such place as Pocono, but there is a Mount Pocono, Pocono Pines, and Pocono Summit!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on April 29, 2011, 12:16:01 AM
I believe the Major Deegan Expressway is I-87, not I-78 (I-78 hardly enters NY)

Yes, that is correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 29, 2011, 12:22:11 AM
someone took a photo in the early 2000s of an I-78 shield more than halfway across Queens!!!  looked like a late 50s vintage route marker.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on April 29, 2011, 01:18:24 AM
If it's the one I remember, it was actually up in the Bronx (!) near I-295 or I-695.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Dougtone on April 29, 2011, 06:46:35 AM
someone took a photo in the early 2000s of an I-78 shield more than halfway across Queens!!!  looked like a late 50s vintage route marker.

The I-78 shield was in the Bronx, near I-295 (Randall Ave. exit).  The shield has since been removed, if I recall correctly.  I've looked for it a few times, to no avail.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 29, 2011, 11:30:58 AM


The I-78 shield was in the Bronx, near I-295 (Randall Ave. exit).  The shield has since been removed, if I recall correctly.  I've looked for it a few times, to no avail.

yeah, it's gone.  what was the purpose of it?  how far down were they going to extend I-78 at one time?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on April 29, 2011, 10:07:55 PM
As far as I-95 via Throgs Neck (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/throgs-neck/).

The short stretch of the Cross Bronx (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/cross-bronx/) between the Bruckner Interchange and the Throgs Neck Bridge was designated I-78 between 1958 and 1971, when it became I-295.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on April 30, 2011, 12:03:15 AM
I wouldn't call sign that erroneous - I'd call that funny as hell! :-D

Then you'll like this one
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2354/2267717817_bd6f0871dd_z_d.jpg)

Or maybe we need a separate thread for humorous signs? ;)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on April 30, 2011, 12:30:42 AM
There is of course exit 69 Big Beaver Road in Michigan. And KY 420 uses High Street in Frankfort (not sure if there's any way to get a photo with both a route shield and a street sign).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 01, 2011, 12:32:42 AM
There is of course exit 69 Big Beaver Road in Michigan. And KY 420 uses High Street in Frankfort (not sure if there's any way to get a photo with both a route shield and a street sign).

I will have to check next time I am in Frankfort, which will be week after next.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on May 01, 2011, 11:15:16 AM
I wouldn't call sign that erroneous - I'd call that funny as hell! :-D

Then you'll like this one
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2354/2267717817_bd6f0871dd_z_d.jpg)

Or maybe we need a separate thread for humorous signs? ;)

(insert Beavis & Butthead laughter here)   :hyper:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 01, 2011, 12:33:14 PM
I wouldn't call sign that erroneous - I'd call that funny as hell! :-D

Then you'll like this one

Or maybe we need a separate thread for humorous signs? ;)

(insert Beavis & Butthead laughter here)   :hyper:
It's especially funny since I'm currently in my friends' dorm and the arrow from the sign is pointing right at Johnson Hall  :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: nyratk1 on May 02, 2011, 08:15:38 AM
I wouldn't call sign that erroneous - I'd call that funny as hell! :-D

Then you'll like this one
Or maybe we need a separate thread for humorous signs? ;)

(insert Beavis & Butthead laughter here)   :hyper:

Huh huh huh, you said "insert."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 02, 2011, 10:59:50 PM
Just like in 2004...
(http://www.roadfan.com/us3err.JPG)
(with the alluded Oh 3 shield shown)
Took 7 years, but the US 3 shield at Spring-Cleveland (in Columbus) is no more. :-(
One less stop for the C-bus tour in two weeks.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on May 03, 2011, 03:01:44 PM
Is your name Tim? If so, don't park in the hourly "C" garage at Reagan Airport in Virginia:

(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/c63c71fa.jpg)


(When I was a kid, the school I attended from the fourth through sixth grades had a sign out front that said "NO PARIKNG." I never got a picture of it and it was eventually replaced long after I no longer went to school there.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 03, 2011, 10:13:52 PM
Is your name Tim? If so, don't park in the hourly "C" garage at Reagan Airport in Virginia:

A certain enchanter would not be too pleased by this. :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on May 03, 2011, 10:24:21 PM
Here is one sign on US 1 southbound I photographed in Westerly, RI a few weeks ago:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5303/5650698736_476c3a8096_z.jpg)

The font is obviously off, but the US 1A shield is supposed to be an RI 1A shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on May 03, 2011, 10:28:43 PM
Isn't it also an error to use the black square background on a BGS?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 03, 2011, 10:54:39 PM
that is horrific!  why do so many people default to the Arial variants?  that font is terrible.

I don't think I've used Arial (or Helvetica, or Arial Black, or the like) since I was about 6.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on May 03, 2011, 10:57:30 PM
that is horrific!  why do so many people default to the Arial variants?  that font is terrible.

That's the Rhode Island way!  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on May 03, 2011, 11:09:22 PM
Yeah, for being in charge of such a small state, RIDOT is one of the worst for consistency. http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ri/ has a whole bunch of photos.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on May 04, 2011, 10:52:50 AM
that is horrific!  why do so many people default to the Arial variants?  that font is terrible.

I don't think I've used Arial (or Helvetica, or Arial Black, or the like) since I was about 6.

That looks like the type of BGS a movie studio would make for a road scene.  Hideous indeed!!!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on May 22, 2011, 03:07:18 PM
I don't think I've seen this one posted (Edit: because I didn't look at the first post in the thread), from I-81 South in Virginia.

(http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20101226/exit317-1mile.jpg)

The correct Virginia 37 is shown on the older sign closer to the exit point.

(http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20101226/exit317.jpg)

Both taken December 26, 2010.  (Edit: so the point of my post is "still there!")

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: flaroads on May 22, 2011, 03:15:13 PM
I don't think I've seen this one posted, from I-81 South in Virginia.

(http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20101226/exit317-1mile.jpg)

Ah, and after 41 pages we have finally come full circle!! lol This was the first sign I posted starting this thread long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away... :spin:
If you look at page one it will be there!  No worries in reposting it again though!  :-D

Not surprised that the error has not been fixed either...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on May 22, 2011, 11:59:23 PM
The "US 37" sign was still in place in March. I saw (and photographed) it on my way back home from New Jersey.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on May 23, 2011, 01:56:10 AM
The US Shields on the Clearview sign look particularly fugly.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 23, 2011, 02:03:53 AM
The US Shields on the Clearview sign look particularly fugly.

indeed.  the 522 looks to be standard 1970 spec 3dus... the two-digit ones look like someone started with the 3dus blank as seen on the 522, and shrunk it horizontally to 2dus width.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on May 23, 2011, 02:09:43 AM
I've actually come to not hate the '70 spec US shields as much as I used to. I used to absolutely loathe them, but they're really not that bad. At least when they're done well.

Even with just a simple white background (no black border or anything), I still see pics from time to time with uncentered numerals, horribly stretched out font, etc.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on May 26, 2011, 03:36:26 PM
Here is one sign on US 1 southbound I photographed in Westerly, RI a few weeks ago:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5303/5650698736_476c3a8096_z.jpg)

The font is obviously off, but the US 1A shield is supposed to be an RI 1A shield.

That road is posted throughout the state (since it's RI, not saying much) as *US* 1A, most notably at the interchange on the recently rebuilt stretch of I-95 south of downtown Providence.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on May 26, 2011, 03:47:32 PM
I don't have photos of any of them (will try to get some the next time I go to a game), but the DC DOT made a hash of the street signs outside Nationals Park. The street that runs along the first base side is Potomac Avenue (SE on the ballpark side, SW once you cross South Capitol Street away from the ballpark). But the DC people seem not to have any clue about the name. Some of the street signs say "Potomac Ave" with either SW or SE. Some of them say "Potomac St" with either SW or SE. But the worst is the one at the corner of First Street SE. That sign says "Potomac Ave St SE."  :banghead:

There used to be a sign just up the street from there on South Capitol Street that said "Pedestrain Prohibited," but it's gone. Last year I saw a sign in the construction zone on DC-295 that said "Shollder Closed," but I wasn't able to get a picture due to the volume of traffic. I believe that sign is gone now as well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 26, 2011, 09:20:41 PM
It seems the "pedestrain" bug is spreading, then.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5227/5598816493_46bca72cb9_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/5598816493/)

Admittedly, this isn't a road sign, but still... :P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on May 26, 2011, 09:21:43 PM
There's a 'stop for pedestrains' right next to the Amtrak station in Providence, RI.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 30, 2011, 06:47:23 PM
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/fl/us_441/

There are two erroneous signs in this gallery on alpsroads.net  One is a FL 441 shield in Orlando near the old Amway Arena, and the other is the sign for FL 414 Westbound.  The latter is correct, but if you stay straight for another two or so miles on US 441 you will be in ugh Apopka.  Besides if you go WB on FL 414 you will encounter two exits for Apopka: Keene Road and NB FL 429.  The second exit on 414 for Apopka is 429 which leads back to 441 on the other side of Apopka and thus you enter the same place from opposite ends.

Then the Florida's Turnpike sign at Osceola Parkway in Kissimmee is wrong, but FDOT fixed that since the picture was taken also in his gallery. 

The TOLL for Osceola Parkway WB could be interpreted as that considering the actual toll road does not start until Dyer Boulevard two miles west of here.  I am not complaining on this one though, as it still has merit with many tourists in this area, is better to pre-warn than warn.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on May 30, 2011, 08:07:58 PM
In New Jersey on Highway 35 in Sayreville, the exit for Pine Avenue is signed for Bordentown Avenue when Bordentown is 2 miles ahead at another exit.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: InterstateNG on June 05, 2011, 11:23:06 AM
One of the exits for SR 103 off of Interstate 75 in Bluffton, OH is marked as US 103.  Didn't have my camera ready yesterday, however.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on June 05, 2011, 12:14:35 PM
I was just in the Albany/Schenectady area yesterday and noticed that the DOT has taken to signing NY 890 as I-890.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on June 05, 2011, 07:25:23 PM
U.S. 59 shield instead of AR 59
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4034/4471338686_d0b16e7af1_b.jpg)

I was in this area today, and this sign goof has been corrected with an AR 59 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 05, 2011, 07:33:36 PM

I was in this area today, and this sign goof has been corrected with an AR 59 shield.

And you didn't call.  tsk   :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on June 05, 2011, 11:12:01 PM
This one here is erroneous on TOLL FL 528 in Belle Isle, FL.  McCoy Road leading to Sand Lake Road is also FL 482 as well!  The FL 482 shield probably should be on top over both roads.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/5802390777/in/photostream
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 07, 2011, 05:59:56 PM
Just because some people pronounce it this way doesn't mean you should SPELL it that way, too!!! :banghead:

(http://media.cleveland.com/roadrant_impact/photo/misspelled-sign-8afc927d36cdae93.jpg)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 08, 2011, 07:50:35 PM
...And here is said sign again after the ODOT switchboard lit up:

(http://www.wkyc.com/images/640/360/2/assetpool/images/110608113137_Still0608_00000.jpg)


(http://www.wkyc.com/images/640/360/2/assetpool/images/110608113359_Still0608_00001.jpg)

You mean to say they couldn't find any black-on-white or white-on-blue NORTH blade to use to temporarily cover up the oopsie!?!??? :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JREwing78 on June 08, 2011, 08:30:23 PM
They were better off leaving the misspelling alone!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on June 08, 2011, 08:32:36 PM
They could have also left the N uncovered.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on June 08, 2011, 08:59:41 PM
Desperate times call for desperate measures!   :sombrero:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Anonymity Lane on June 08, 2011, 09:07:27 PM
Well that's tacky.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 08, 2011, 10:34:22 PM
So the sign wasn't "fixed" like the ODOT district spokeswoman claimed it was this morning?
Quote
Ohio Department of Transportation spokeswoman Jackie Schafer says the contractor fixed the error in the Cleveland suburb of Strongsville yesterday by placing an overlay over the word, with the correct spelling. She tells the Associated Press the contractor will pay to have a new sign made.

The Plain Dealer of Cleveland was first to report about the problem with the sign, on eastbound Rt. 82 at I-71.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 08, 2011, 11:55:08 PM
So the sign wasn't "fixed" like the ODOT district spokeswoman claimed it was this morning?
Quote
Ohio Department of Transportation spokeswoman Jackie Schafer says the contractor fixed the error in the Cleveland suburb of Strongsville yesterday by placing an overlay over the word, with the correct spelling. She tells the Associated Press the contractor will pay to have a new sign made.

The Plain Dealer of Cleveland was first to report about the problem with the sign, on eastbound Rt. 82 at I-71.


Nope -- It's still in Clearview. :rofl:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael on June 10, 2011, 05:05:03 PM
They could have also left the N uncovered.

That would not be possible, because the MUTCD contains the following "standard" statement:
Quote from: MUTCD
The words NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, and WEST shall not be abbreviated when used with route signs to indicate cardinal directions on guide signs.
Chapter 2E.17, Paragraph 4, Page 192
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2011, 05:57:39 PM
That would not be possible, because the MUTCD contains the following "standard" statement:
Quote from: MUTCD
The words NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, and WEST shall not be abbreviated when used with route signs to indicate cardinal directions on guide signs.
Chapter 2E.17, Paragraph 4, Page 192

actually, it would be allowed, since the MUTCD doesn't say anything about abbreviating the word "NORHT"  :sombrero:

(more practically: in this case, leaving the N instead of entirely covering up the misspelled word would be a more useful temporary fix.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 11, 2011, 01:18:36 AM
That would not be possible, because the MUTCD contains the following "standard" statement:
Quote from: MUTCD
The words NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, and WEST shall not be abbreviated when used with route signs to indicate cardinal directions on guide signs.
Chapter 2E.17, Paragraph 4, Page 192

actually, it would be allowed, since the MUTCD doesn't say anything about abbreviating the word "NORHT"  :sombrero:

(more practically: in this case, leaving the N instead of entirely covering up the misspelled word would be a more useful temporary fix.)

Yet another example of how the MUTCD is unnecessarily specific, detailed or anal-retentive (take your pick).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 12, 2011, 06:54:53 PM
I don't see how that's too specific or anal-retentive. If you have a random "N" floating around a sign, especially a complex one with multiple shields (which is probably the most likely scenario for abbreviation) it could be difficult at first glance to connect just that single letter to a specific shield and realize it's supposed to be a cardinal direction. In most cases it would be obvious, yes, but I could see ODOT horribly botching it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 12, 2011, 06:58:35 PM
I don't see how that's too specific or anal-retentive. If you have a random "N" floating around a sign, especially a complex one with multiple shields (which is probably the most likely scenario for abbreviation) it could be difficult at first glance to connect just that single letter to a specific shield and realize it's supposed to be a cardinal direction. In most cases it would be obvious, yes, but I could see ODOT horribly botching it.

I think in this case it would've made the most sense.

then again, I'll bet the patch was not applied the way it was because the crew consciously decided that to leave the "N" exposed would violate a particular paragraph and subsection of the MUTCD.  It's most likely that they simply never thought to do so.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on June 14, 2011, 12:36:24 PM
This one speaks for itself:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-mn4YJ-uqdmU/TfaubUxu3SI/AAAAAAAAIQU/RKmPJ3nMd-M/s640/100_5461.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 14, 2011, 09:45:54 PM
This one speaks for itself:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-mn4YJ-uqdmU/TfaubUxu3SI/AAAAAAAAIQU/RKmPJ3nMd-M/s640/100_5461.JPG)

Awesome.  I remember doing a double-take at that when I was out there last summer. :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on June 14, 2011, 11:27:06 PM
^^^  Pardon my ignorance, but is it the wrong directional banner or a wrong shield?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on June 14, 2011, 11:32:21 PM
^^^  Pardon my ignorance, but is it the wrong directional banner or a wrong shield?

Error: U.S. 10 is nowhere near New York state.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 16, 2011, 06:25:36 PM
^^^  Pardon my ignorance, but is it the wrong directional banner or a wrong shield?

Error: U.S. 10 is nowhere near New York state.

And even if it were, U.S. shields should always be above the state shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cjk374 on June 16, 2011, 09:03:06 PM
Thanks for the clarification.  Greatly appreciated.   :cheers:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on June 16, 2011, 09:34:41 PM
I was just in the Albany/Schenectady area yesterday and noticed that the DOT has taken to signing NY 890 as I-890.

Not entirely.  The signs on NY 5 now all reference I-890 after being NY 890 when the bridge first opened connecting 890 to NY 5.  This change was made a few years ago at least.  But there is still an "East NY 890" just east of 5, and a "West NY 890" just beyond the exit for the Thruway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on June 20, 2011, 11:51:43 AM
US 62 apparently got a downgrade in Gahanna:
(http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/3807/oh62error.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: newyorker478 on June 20, 2011, 02:00:56 PM
http://www.wsfa.com/global/story.asp?S=3642053

Alabama Route shields in Northampton mass
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: newyorker478 on June 20, 2011, 02:01:19 PM
http://WSFA.images.worldnow.com/images/161078_LG.jpg
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on June 20, 2011, 02:22:28 PM
http://www.wsfa.com/global/story.asp?S=3642053

Alabama Route shields in Northampton mass
This is from 2005.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 20, 2011, 03:38:14 PM
Yep, it was talked about on MTR rather extensively when it happened, IIRC.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: geronimoabn on June 20, 2011, 05:23:57 PM
This one can be found in Elwood, Illinois.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v354/geronimoabn/55-53sign.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 20, 2011, 07:18:14 PM
US 62 apparently got a downgrade in Gahanna:
You take that photo before or after the downpour we had at rush hour Friday (just before the Creekside festival started)? ;-)
That Oh 62 sign been around 7 or 8 years now. I have a photo of it herehttp://www.roadfan.com/gahanna.html (http://www.roadfan.com/gahanna.html) from when I attended the 2004 Creekside Blues & Jazz festival.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on June 27, 2011, 01:01:25 PM
US 62 apparently got a downgrade in Gahanna:

This breed of mistake is extremely common on Ohio.  It's not just on signs, either: text descriptions of roads frequently say "state route" even when it's a US highway being referenced.  Even municipal highway department and ODOT employees get it wrong sometimes.  Anyway, given that US highways, just like Ohio state routes, are maintained by ODOT outside of municipalities, and there are no duplicated numbers between the two systems, it's a very minor error of almost no consequence.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on June 27, 2011, 02:55:45 PM
This breed of mistake is extremely common on Ohio.

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/US20-395Burnssigngoofa-1.jpg) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/US26-395MtVernonSignGoof1-1.jpg?t=1309200891) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR140US97KlamathFallssigngoof1.jpg?t=1267505245) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR34US101WaldportSignGoof2-1.jpg?t=1309200825) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/US199GrantsPasssigngoof1.jpg?t=1268962568)

It's pretty common in Oregon, too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on June 27, 2011, 03:17:21 PM
This breed of mistake is extremely common on Ohio.
It's pretty common in Oregon, too.
Instead of downgrading routes, California has a tendency to upgrade routes...
(http://www.aaroads.com/california/images050/us-050_error_interstate_04.jpg)(http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/pics/photo-i152-th.jpg)(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/CA/CA19800991i1.jpg)
(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/CA/CA19800992i1.jpg)
Images from Kurumi's 3DI site, the AARoads Gallery and the AARoads Sheild Gallery
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Michael in Philly on June 27, 2011, 03:22:23 PM
That's how it starts:  One minute they're making a sign mistake, the next we have Interstate 238.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 27, 2011, 04:09:44 PM
one more that was around at the first mile of US-101 for a few years

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/CA/CA19611011i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on June 27, 2011, 05:10:54 PM
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5022/5878115503_816ba764ce_z_d.jpg)

Excelsior Springs, MO (should be US 69)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on June 28, 2011, 12:52:55 AM
Somebody with a perverted sense of humor, I would say.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on June 28, 2011, 12:16:42 PM
(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/CA/CA19800991i1.jpg)
And to think we though that I-99 in PA was bad...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on June 28, 2011, 03:24:49 PM
Instead of downgrading routes, California has a tendency to upgrade routes...

So does Oregon:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR19DayvilleSignGoof2.jpg?t=1279910793) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_IMG_0369.jpg?t=1301204899) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR53CannonBeachJctSignGoof3.jpg?t=1281550500) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR201Adriansigngoof2.jpg?t=1267580435) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR245HerefordSignGoof1.jpg?t=1279910793) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR103SignGoof1.jpg?t=1267503603) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR140US395Lakeviewsigngoof1.jpg?t=1267505244) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR202SignGoof1.jpg?t=1267580826) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR205Narrowssigngoof1.jpg?t=1267505241) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR216GrassValley1.jpg?t=1267580011) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR22StaytonSignGoof1.jpg?t=1267580617) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR224BartonSignGoof1.jpg?t=1268203109) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR39-140KlamathFallsSignGoof1.jpg?t=1268203109) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR58Cloverdale2-1.jpg?t=1267579597) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR82LaGrandesigngoof1-1.jpg?t=1267580640) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OR99GoldHillSignGoof2-1.jpg?t=1267580566) (http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR86HalfwaySignGoof1-3-1.jpg?t=1309289043)

However, while Oregon has plenty of state-route-to-US "upgrades", I've never seen a non-interstate in Oregon marked as interstate.  Has anybody?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 28, 2011, 04:39:37 PM
that US-99 feels like it should be a different category of error: a retrograde, rather than an upgrade, as US-99 was the correct designation for the route. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 28, 2011, 04:45:55 PM
I've never seen a non-interstate in Oregon marked as interstate.  Has anybody?

kinda sorta close in a way maybe ish

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/OR/OR20000991i1.jpg)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on June 28, 2011, 04:53:35 PM
(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/CA/CA19800991i1.jpg)
And to think we though that I-99 in PA was bad...


Perhaps Bud Shuster's I-99 plan was to be a "ring interstate" around the country.    ;-)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on June 28, 2011, 05:31:03 PM
kinda sorta close in a way maybe ish

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/OR/OR20000991i1.jpg)


I was hoping for blue shield and all, but I guess that kinda sorta close in a way maybe ish counts.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 28, 2011, 06:05:16 PM
red white and blue shield errors are relatively rare.  CA has a much higher proportion than other states.

I've never seen one in Oregon.  or a lot of other places.  I need to make an addition to the shield gallery software to search for error shields: a manual search of a few states turned up nothing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 28, 2011, 07:34:05 PM
I know the shield gallery has an I-530 from Washington, but IIRC, it's not really an error shield.  It was done as a joke at the DOT shop, and is posted at the exit of said shop.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 28, 2011, 07:39:19 PM
I know the shield gallery has an I-530 from Washington, but IIRC, it's not really an error shield.  It was done as a joke at the DOT shop, and is posted at the exit of said shop.

I have never been able to find that.  You'd imagine 530 isn't all that long of a route, too...

is it visible from mainline 530?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ftballfan on June 29, 2011, 10:12:04 PM
I have yet to find an error shield in Michigan.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 29, 2011, 10:42:08 PM
I know the shield gallery has an I-530 from Washington, but IIRC, it's not really an error shield.  It was done as a joke at the DOT shop, and is posted at the exit of said shop.

I have never been able to find that.  You'd imagine 530 isn't all that long of a route, too...

is it visible from mainline 530?

I've never seen it myself, I was just going from memory of what I read on the site the photo was originally posted on.  My guess is that if it still exists, it's within the shop, and was never visible to the public.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 29, 2011, 11:05:26 PM
I have yet to find an error shield in Michigan.

at one point, there was a Pennsylvania state route 31 (!) posted on US-31 in Michigan.  I do not have a picture. 

I do have a picture of this circle being used for M-10.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/MI/MI19880752i1.jpg)

there are also certain US-10 shields which were put up well after the truncation in 1986.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/MI/MI19800102i1.jpg)

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/MI/MI19800101i1.jpg)

both are from Detroit.  there are also MICHIGAN/US/10 shields left, but I do believe even the city installs are from before 1986. 

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 30, 2011, 12:26:07 AM
Remember when I told you people about this picture in rural Pasco County, Florida?
(http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/8043/fl52errorpascocr583.jpg)
Still there, incorrect as usual.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on June 30, 2011, 12:36:47 AM
at one point, there was a Pennsylvania state route 31 (!) posted on US-31 in Michigan.  I do not have a picture. 

I saw it in my rear-view mirror while driving south on I-196 after the Grand Rapids meet a few years ago. I know there are some photos of it floating around out there because I have seen them. It was in the northbound lanes of I-196.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on June 30, 2011, 01:07:32 AM
at one point, there was a Pennsylvania state route 31 (!) posted on US-31 in Michigan.  I do not have a picture. 

I saw it in my rear-view mirror while driving south on I-196 after the Grand Rapids meet a few years ago. I know there are some photos of it floating around out there because I have seen them. It was in the northbound lanes of I-196.

Both assemblies are pictured in the PA Shield in MI thread (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1775.0).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: InterstateNG on June 30, 2011, 12:21:28 PM
I have yet to find an error shield in Michigan.

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg96631#msg96631
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2011, 01:57:51 PM
Speaking of erroneous shields...
(http://www.denexa.com/roadgeek/road-photos/main.php?cmd=image&var1=ok%2Fmcclain%2Fimg_4532.jpg&var2=700_85)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on June 30, 2011, 04:03:45 PM
Here's another from OK:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OK325BoiseCitySignGoof1.jpg?t=1279910871)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 30, 2011, 04:37:13 PM
Here's another from OK:

[US-325]

goes well with US-412  :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ftballfan on June 30, 2011, 08:09:12 PM
In my defense, I have never been to the city of Detroit and I have not been down I-196 south of Holland in years.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 01, 2011, 12:58:14 AM
Here's another from OK:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/th_OK325BoiseCitySignGoof1.jpg?t=1279910871)

How old is that? There was a circle there when I went in 2007.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 01, 2011, 01:32:09 AM
How old is that? There was a circle there when I went in 2007.

I took it July last year.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: nyratk1 on July 01, 2011, 05:28:25 AM
Speaking of erroneous shields...
***US 9 shield in Oklahoma***
Now I know parts of upstate NY are backwoods and rural but since when did it literally become Oklahoma? Welp, enjoy all those tornadoes, guys.  :-P
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 01, 2011, 09:24:36 AM
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5022/5878115503_816ba764ce_z_d.jpg)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WahooBill on July 01, 2011, 03:20:04 PM
I found this one in my files from 2002.

(http://mysite.verizon.net/bmanningva/I163ErrorSign.jpg)

Bill
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 01, 2011, 10:43:18 PM
<snip>

You posted that already on the previous page.
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg105866#msg105866
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on July 04, 2011, 11:49:03 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/U.S._Route_10_in_Michigan_map.svg/776px-U.S._Route_10_in_Michigan_map.svg.png)
Here I-69 is shown as 'I-96'.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on July 04, 2011, 11:57:27 PM
[snip map image]
Here I-69 is hown as 'I-96'.
Here shown is shown as 'hown'.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on July 05, 2011, 06:08:46 AM
(snip Wikipedia map image)
Here I-69 is hown as 'I-96'.

This thread is supposed to be about signs, not maps... In any event, I have requested this map image be corrected--the Wikipedia USRD Maps Task Force doesn't always see activity, so it could be a while before it is changed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 05, 2011, 09:34:44 AM
It's an SVG. Why not fix it yourself?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 05, 2011, 09:06:13 PM
What went here?

(http://i837.photobucket.com/albums/zz298/midamcrossrds/100_1335.jpg)

I don't think it just blew off into the Iowa cornfields either.  The other signs for this exit were like that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 05, 2011, 09:16:22 PM
Been trying to catch this one unsuccessfully for years (either no camera, traffic, or I just dropped the ball).

(http://i837.photobucket.com/albums/zz298/midamcrossrds/100_1320.jpg)

Note how IDOT District 3 is following IDOT District 1's approach to signage by making both signs the same height.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 05, 2011, 11:53:55 PM
And that's a perfect example of why making all the signs on one gantry the same height is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: deathtopumpkins on July 06, 2011, 12:08:49 AM
I usually think that practice is very aesthetically pleasing if done correctly.
It would look much better if the spacing on the right sign was adjusted, i.e. move the shield up a bit and bring the arrow down under the text.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on July 06, 2011, 02:27:16 AM
And that's a perfect example of why making all the signs on one gantry the same height is ridiculous.
Not really.  Why not put the control cities on the advance guide sign (exit 75) next the route shield instead of under it.  That will prevent the exit direction sign (exit 77) from having too much wasted space.  Kind of like this...
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/il_exit77-75.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 06, 2011, 02:44:01 AM
Because that means the region of the sign that the control cities are found in is not consistent from sign to sign. In nearly all the states I have driven extensively in, the signs place the shields on top and the control cities immediately beneath (with any distance information immediately below that).

It is also a less than optimal solution when one panel carries multiple route shields (two is iffy, three is definitely unbalanced-looking). Also, the placement of the distance ends up being awkward then, since it's not centered with the rest of the text on the sign.

In essence, having all sign panels the same size either ends up being wasteful (like in the above IL example) or breaches consistency. The end result is for a scant increase in the aesthetics. Signs with varying panel sizes on one gantry don't look terrible, especially if their lower edges match up with the lower edge of the gantry instead of being centered on the gantry as in your illustration.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: myosh_tino on July 06, 2011, 03:07:34 AM
Because that means the region of the sign that the control cities are found in is not consistent from sign to sign. In nearly all the states I have driven extensively in, the signs place the shields on top and the control cities immediately beneath (with any distance information immediately below that).
Then I guess you haven't done much driving in California then because there are a fair number of overhead guide signs that place the control cities (especially if there are two of them) next to the route shield.  There are cases where the route shield is placed above the control city but in almost all of these cases, there is only a single control city on the sign.  The reasons for the two different layouts is because California follows the all-signs-must-be-the-same-height rule and the maximum height of a guide sign is 120 inches.  In California, overhead guide sign heights are dependent on the type and size of truss the sign is being installed on.

I do agree that in cases where there are multiple route shields, laying out the sign using the method I showed would be troublesome.  Believe me, I've tried to "California-tize" some signs in other states where there are multiple shields and it is a royal pain in the butt especially when the max height of a sign is only 120 inches.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 06, 2011, 07:16:11 AM
Michigan also places the controls to the side of the shield maybe about 50% of the time.  However, unlike California, they're not wedded to making the signs all the same height.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 06, 2011, 10:25:23 AM
Though I've never been there, I am aware of California's practice of moving around the control cities to enforce the height restriction. However, the point I was making is, since most states tend to put the shields on top and the locations below, this is the expected way of doing things, and doing it different could cause a couple seconds of unnecessary delay in mentally processing the sign.

Things get even more hairy when you get cardinal directions involved, because either you have to violate the MUTCD's margin guidelines to cram the direction in the margin between the shield and the top of the sign, hang it out to the left of the shields (which looks unbalanced), or put it to the right of the shields, where it gets mixed in with the other text elements.

It's a recipe for ugly signage, in any event.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on July 06, 2011, 06:28:31 PM
Back on the topic of erroneous road signs:
(http://www.denexa.com/roadgeek/road-photos/main.php?cmd=image&var1=ok%2Fcomanche%2Fimg_4538.jpg&var2=1000_85)

US-288?  :banghead: This isn't even supposed to be OK-288, which is as fictional as US-288. They mean US-281.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 06, 2011, 09:51:10 PM
I was going to say, this would have semi-validated the erroneous US 288 shield that briefly existed in Chesterfield County, Virginia. (never mind that there's no US 88 :P)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Icodec on July 07, 2011, 02:18:00 PM
Okay, we've all seen them and did a double-take when we did.  Yup, I'm talking about sign goofs.  We know they're out there, now let's see how many sign errors the DOT's and sign companies have put up across the country.  Here's one to get it started (which I have already posted on another thread)

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/VA_37.jpg)

A US 37 in Virginia??  No, don't get your hopes up, it's actually suppose to be VA 37.  This is located along southbound I-81 in Virginia.  The other signs at this interchange show the correct VA 37 but whoever crafted this particular sign didn't read the full instructions and decided to make all the numbers with US highway shields...


Why do they always have trouble with the state route 37s? In Delaware, OH, there are two (previously three) erroneous road shields for OH-37. They fixed one. Another case is in ALSO in Delaware, where a sign says "E US-36, N US-42, E OH-37 (right shield this time). The problem with this is US-36 doesn't concur with 37 until about a mile east. The US-42 signage is correct. But why is this so? Delaware has an ODOT office right where 36 and 37 split!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on July 07, 2011, 02:20:48 PM
(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/us195sanluis.jpg)

US-195 comes to Yuma!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 07, 2011, 02:26:43 PM
I was going to say, this would have semi-validated the erroneous US 288 shield that briefly existed in Chesterfield County, Virginia. (never mind that there's no US 88 :P)

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/TX/TX19702881i1.jpg)

Texas also likes US-288.  the real mystery about that gantry is ... how did they manage to get one out of two of the signs wrong!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 07, 2011, 04:42:49 PM
I'm not sure if this qualifies as erroneous more than FLDOT just saying "FL 880 barely exists period, let's just sign its 18.5 mile CR extension instead." This is on FL 15 / 80 at the intersection with Dr. ML King Blvd (FL 880) in Belle Glade.


(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6050/5910017297_16684bef49_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mark D on July 07, 2011, 06:02:34 PM
I don't have any pictures, but I know of an incorrect mileage sign on I-95 SB in Florida. It is following exit 298 (US-1 to Bunnell) crossing the Pellicer Creek at the St. Johns/Flagler County border, where the sign reads 289 to Miami and should say 298. This is a careless switch that I find amusing hasn't been fixed after years. Because unlike shields and fonts, even non-roadgeeks read mileage signs critically for reference.

9 miles later in Palm Coast, the sign again reports 289 miles to Miami.... :spin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 07, 2011, 07:10:59 PM
the sign reads 289 to Miami and should say 298.

that's bad, but not fatally awful.  It's unlikely you'd miss an exit based on that sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: iowahighways on July 07, 2011, 08:01:07 PM
What went here?

(http://i837.photobucket.com/albums/zz298/midamcrossrds/100_1335.jpg)

I don't think it just blew off into the Iowa cornfields either.  The other signs for this exit were like that.

That used to be IA 363, which connected I-380 and IA 150 in Urbana, but it was decommissioned in 2003.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mark D on July 07, 2011, 08:18:11 PM
that's bad, but not fatally awful.  It's unlikely you'd miss an exit based on that sign.

Right, I just always thought it was bizarre because the mileage follows the exits exactly, as I-95 comes to an end in the heart of downtown Miami.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on July 08, 2011, 02:20:05 PM
Why do they always have trouble with the state route 37s? In Delaware, OH, there are two (previously three) erroneous road shields for OH-37. They fixed one. Another case is in ALSO in Delaware, where a sign says "E US-36, N US-42, E OH-37 (right shield this time). The problem with this is US-36 doesn't concur with 37 until about a mile east. The US-42 signage is correct. But why is this so? Delaware has an ODOT office right where 36 and 37 split!

You're probably referring to the exit signage from the short freeway section of US-23.  That signage is for a split diamond interchange which attempts to serve two or three cross-streets.  US 36 and US 42 are on one of those streets, and SR 37 is on another.  There's also a SR 521 or something on one of those streets, but signage for that one is rather incomplete.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 08, 2011, 02:53:37 PM
I'm not sure if this qualifies as erroneous more than FLDOT just saying "FL 880 barely exists period, let's just sign its 18.5 mile CR extension instead." This is on FL 15 / 80 at the intersection with Dr. ML King Blvd (FL 880) in Belle Glade.


(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6050/5910017297_16684bef49_z.jpg)

Noticed that on the road recently, it used to say SR880 along the entire route, then just the little section from SR15, but it may have actually fallen out of state-maintenance for that tiny little stretch, like the tiny part of SR717,  versus the longer stretch of CR717 (Muck City Road).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on July 08, 2011, 04:45:58 PM
I'm not sure if this qualifies as erroneous more than FLDOT just saying "FL 880 barely exists period, let's just sign its 18.5 mile CR extension instead." This is on FL 15 / 80 at the intersection with Dr. ML King Blvd (FL 880) in Belle Glade.

Noticed that on the road recently, it used to say SR880 along the entire route, then just the little section from SR15, but it may have actually fallen out of state-maintenance for that tiny little stretch, like the tiny part of SR717,  versus the longer stretch of CR717 (Muck City Road).

I don't know the status of SR 880 offhand, but I do know that if you drive along CR-880, you'll find a Palm Beach County US-shield cutout error along westbound and this goofy SR-98 shield for CR-700 (former US 98) at the east end:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/cr-880_eb_app_cr-700.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/cr-880_eb_app_cr-700.jpg)

Photographed three days ago.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 08, 2011, 05:17:35 PM
Why do they always have trouble with the state route 37s? In Delaware, OH, there are two (previously three) erroneous road shields for OH-37. They fixed one. Another case is in ALSO in Delaware, where a sign says "E US-36, N US-42, E OH-37 (right shield this time). The problem with this is US-36 doesn't concur with 37 until about a mile east. The US-42 signage is correct. But why is this so? Delaware has an ODOT office right where 36 and 37 split!

You're probably referring to the exit signage from the short freeway section of US-23.  That signage is for a split diamond interchange which attempts to serve two or three cross-streets.  US 36 and US 42 are on one of those streets, and SR 37 is on another.  There's also a SR 521 or something on one of those streets, but signage for that one is rather incomplete.

Ohio Straight line diagram shows Oh 521 following US 36 (Williams St) into DT Delaware. However, 521 has not been signed, west from it's junction with US 36/Oh 37 since the US 23 "bypass" has been opened (mid 60s).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on July 08, 2011, 05:58:54 PM
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5235/5915880884_d54b74732a_z_d.jpg)

This is wrong on a technicality: it's Alternate US 69

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6027/5916875639_52f268e75e_z_d.jpg)

This should be US 75
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kniwt on July 12, 2011, 04:19:45 PM
Spotted today on US 89 northbound headed into Page, Ariz.:

(http://zoza.com/~kniwt/us60.jpg)

I suppose you could eventually get to US 60 that way, but the destination should be US 160.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on July 12, 2011, 05:57:06 PM
I suppose you could eventually get to US 60 that way, but the destination should be US 160.

Does that indirectly make Springfield, MO one of the control cities for AZ 98?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on July 18, 2011, 06:23:45 PM
ODOT (or is it the city of Cincinnati?) flatters OH 3:
(http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/2533/img2795web.jpg)

and ConnDOT insults US 5:
(http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/8212/img3234web.jpg)

(of coincidence, both of these assembles contain a 22, and both of those are correct!)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: sandwalk on July 19, 2011, 12:28:18 PM
(http://www.sanduskyregister.com/files/www2.sanduskyregister.com/imagecache/fullsize_art/FEA_Cleveland_Closed_07182011.jpg)

The sign should say "Cleveland Road" (US 6)  :)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on July 19, 2011, 01:21:37 PM
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5235/5915880884_d54b74732a_z_d.jpg)

This is wrong on a technicality: it's Alternate US 69


Oklahoma hasn't been able to figure out how to handle Alt. 69 for decades. When I first moved to southeast Kansas, I was thrown off by the change from U.S. 69 to OK-69A shields at the state line. Then one day, the shields were changed to U.S. 69 cutouts with "ALTERNATE" in small letters along the top and 69A was made a different route that bypassed Miami on the east side.

So while signing Alt. U.S. 69 as OK-69A isn't right, it isn't surprising, either.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hobsini2 on July 20, 2011, 12:14:51 PM
(http://www.sanduskyregister.com/files/www2.sanduskyregister.com/imagecache/fullsize_art/FEA_Cleveland_Closed_07182011.jpg)

The sign should say "Cleveland Road" (US 6)  :)
I like the idea of the city of Cleveland being closed for 65 days.  Apparently they are having their own "lockout".
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 20, 2011, 08:02:25 PM
Maybe Sandwalk could "age" the photo and pretend it goes along with Cleveland's default back in 1978. :biggrin:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on July 21, 2011, 11:34:30 AM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3360/5722193174_261721af09_b.jpg)

MO 45 actually continues straight ahead; MO 92 is to the left
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: InterstateNG on July 22, 2011, 08:44:19 PM
Apparently the NB Lakeshore Drive exit for Irving Park is for US 19. Who knew?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on July 22, 2011, 10:57:16 PM
Apparently the NB Lake Shore Drive [sic] exit for Irving Park is for US 19. Who knew?

Photo or link to photo of the Irving Park Rd exit on LSD marked for US-19?  :confused:
Last time I was there, it was marked for IL-19.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: InterstateNG on July 23, 2011, 11:15:25 AM
Didn't have my camera at the ready.  It's just before the BGS for Irving Park which does have a IL-19 sign
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Stratuscaster on July 23, 2011, 06:23:04 PM
Possibly this sign - which is missing the route marker altogether?
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=North+Lake+Shore+Drive,+Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.950498,-87.644109&spn=0.004261,0.007178&sll=39.436193,-91.845703&sspn=18.099096,29.399414&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.950279,-87.643973&panoid=PVT-8Bl1UssSLr243INa0w&cbp=12,352.66,,1,6.13
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 6a on July 23, 2011, 07:04:09 PM

Ohio Straight line diagram shows Oh 521 following US 36 (Williams St) into DT Delaware. However, 521 has not been signed, west from it's junction with US 36/Oh 37 since the US 23 "bypass" has been opened (mid 60s).
Speaking of the 23 bypass, at the southern end, where US 42 splits off, you'll see pavement markings directing you to SR 42. 
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: InterstateNG on July 25, 2011, 09:32:50 AM
Possibly this sign - which is missing the route marker altogether?
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=North+Lake+Shore+Drive,+Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.950498,-87.644109&spn=0.004261,0.007178&sll=39.436193,-91.845703&sspn=18.099096,29.399414&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.950279,-87.643973&panoid=PVT-8Bl1UssSLr243INa0w&cbp=12,352.66,,1,6.13

That's the one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on July 27, 2011, 11:40:27 AM
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5040/5894887875_72d2928d32_b.jpg)

All 3 direction tabs on this assembly are wrong: they should all say South
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on July 27, 2011, 11:54:22 AM
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6028/5939671585_30c70939cc.jpg)

KY 52 eastbound in Madison County, Ky. (Moberly/Speedwell area). Taken back during the winter. Has since been fixed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on July 27, 2011, 12:13:21 PM
Why no, we are not in Immokalee, we are the farthest you can get in the same state from it!

(http://www.aaroads.com/queue/cache/forum-images/dsc_0180_w1000_h669.jpg)

This error has stood since at least May of 2004 now...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on July 27, 2011, 12:37:45 PM
Why no, we are not in Immokalee, we are the farthest you can get in the same state from it!

Hey, it might be Jerome or Copeland...:pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on July 31, 2011, 02:47:49 AM
Speaking of the 23 bypass, at the southern end, where US 42 splits off, you'll see pavement markings directing you to SR 42. 

Apparently not.  US 23 has been resurfaced recently from the 23/42 split all the way to the south end of the "Experimental Test Pavement" section.  There are hardly any pavement markings at all: just a broken white line separating the two lanes in each direction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on July 31, 2011, 03:33:42 AM
Speaking of the 23 bypass, at the southern end, where US 42 splits off, you'll see pavement markings directing you to SR 42. 

Apparently not.  US 23 has been resurfaced recently from the 23/42 split all the way to the south end of the "Experimental Test Pavement" section.  There are hardly any pavement markings at all: just a broken white line separating the two lanes in each direction.

How recent was this? When I was up there earlier this month the lanes on the very southern portion of Sandusky Street (just off US 23) were still marked "SR 42"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on July 31, 2011, 03:38:53 AM
Speaking of the 23 bypass, at the southern end, where US 42 splits off, you'll see pavement markings directing you to SR 42. 

Apparently not.  US 23 has been resurfaced recently from the 23/42 split all the way to the south end of the "Experimental Test Pavement" section.  There are hardly any pavement markings at all: just a broken white line separating the two lanes in each direction.

How recent was this? When I was up there earlier this month the lanes on the very southern portion of Sandusky Street (just off US 23) were still marked "SR 42"

I've been through there a few times in the last couple of weeks, but only on US 23 & US 42.  I haven't been on Sandusky Street so I can't verify or dispute the existence of "SR 42" pavement markings there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Mr. Matté on July 31, 2011, 11:22:37 PM
(http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/2889/img2244crop.jpg)

Seems odd to over-sign a speed hump for people going the wrong way.

Location: Johnson Park, Piscataway, NJ
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 01, 2011, 02:18:50 AM
Maybe the road used to be 2-way and they just changed it recently.  They also probably just didn't feel like taking down the old signs in case they wanted to undo the one way conversion.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 01, 2011, 03:03:42 AM
Maybe the road used to be 2-way and they just changed it recently.  They also probably just didn't feel like taking down the old signs in case they wanted to undo the one way conversion.

As a local resident I can vouch its been one way for years. Bikes have to and commonly use this portion which is who I am sure those are targeting.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on August 01, 2011, 07:03:20 PM
^ If that's the case, bikes violate the "Do Not Enter" signs...there should be an "Except bikes" or similar plaque, and the warning signs should be smaller, if the road is to cater to bikes in the wrong direction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 03, 2011, 12:58:20 AM
Speaking of the 23 bypass, at the southern end, where US 42 splits off, you'll see pavement markings directing you to SR 42. 

Apparently not.  US 23 has been resurfaced recently from the 23/42 split all the way to the south end of the "Experimental Test Pavement" section.  There are hardly any pavement markings at all: just a broken white line separating the two lanes in each direction.

How recent was this? When I was up there earlier this month the lanes on the very southern portion of Sandusky Street (just off US 23) were still marked "SR 42"

I've been through there a few times in the last couple of weeks, but only on US 23 & US 42.  I haven't been on Sandusky Street so I can't verify or dispute the existence of "SR 42" pavement markings there.

Having driven through the intersection last night...
There might be lane markings for (just) "42" on the turn lane from US 23 NB to NB S. Sandusky St.  Nothing on US 23 SB (but thats where the repaving starts/end.)
However, on (NB) S. Sandusky St, the (right) turn lane onto US 42 SB does have SR 42 painted on it. No outline around the 42.
Don't know if it's ODOT or City of Delaware's fault on this one.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 03, 2011, 10:46:09 PM
Posted by the City of Aurora.  The nostalgia is nice, but this hasn't been US-30, much less Business US-30 in decades.

(http://i837.photobucket.com/albums/zz298/midamcrossrds/100_1402.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on August 04, 2011, 10:50:00 AM
US 12 gets a downgrade to M-12 in Canton, MI at the exit from I-275.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2919/14230274941_f6b4b5193a_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nFtSXX)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on August 05, 2011, 12:37:10 AM
Would this be considered a misprint? Most of the steep hill graphic signs I see have the truck going toward the left and not the right as seen here:
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6132/6002385311_26b3422a55_z.jpg)

This is on NY 9N southbound in Bolton, NY.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on August 05, 2011, 12:45:25 AM
The MUTCD does allow for standard symbols to be flipped or oriented in different directions where applicable and warranted. The hill sign is usually oriented downhill to the left. However, since it appears the road in the picture makes a sharp turn to the right ahead, having the hill sign downhill to the right makes some sense, if it was done deliberately.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on August 05, 2011, 04:25:13 PM
The MUTCD does allow for standard symbols to be flipped or oriented in different directions where applicable and warranted. The hill sign is usually oriented downhill to the left. However, since it appears the road in the picture makes a sharp turn to the right ahead, having the hill sign downhill to the right makes some sense, if it was done deliberately.

Ah, okay. That makes sense. Thanks for the answer!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: jdb1234 on August 07, 2011, 11:22:55 PM
(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/100_0391.jpg)

US 119 should be AL 119.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Super Mateo on August 08, 2011, 03:25:14 AM
Apparently the NB Lakeshore Drive exit for Irving Park is for US 19. Who knew?

LOL I just drove by that tonight!  It's especially odd because all of the other signs are correct (IL 19), including the one right behind it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: RustyK on August 08, 2011, 03:37:11 AM
I can confirm that the black and white Interstate 9 shield at exit 29 of the Garden State Parkway north still stands; at least 4 years now, likely longer.  Passed it two days ago.  Will check again around this time in 2012.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on August 08, 2011, 07:43:56 AM
(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/100_0391.jpg)
What is with those US Route Shields?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on August 08, 2011, 02:49:18 PM
(snip pic)
What is with those US Route Shields?

Same ones I see a lot in Kansas. Why?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on August 09, 2011, 12:51:14 AM
Covered wagon shield for Spur 55M in Lancaster County :O

took the photo last October- just now got around to putting it online

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/ne/34/79tos55m/4.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 09, 2011, 01:53:21 AM
Would I-5 shields with E(M) numerals for the legend be considered erroneous? I saw a bunch in Washington today, although I think it looks better than Series D.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on August 09, 2011, 02:52:15 AM
You mean like these?
(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/5/205to502/1.JPG)
(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/5/503to432/3.JPG)
(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/5/503to432/4.JPG)
(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/5/4to504/1.JPG)
(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/5/4to504/5.JPG)
(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/5/506to505/1.JPG)
(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/5/505to12/1.JPG)
 I was going to post all of them, but I'm about 25% of the way through my I-5 reassurance shield photos (which should be just over 50% of the reassurance shields  in the state) and haven't even looked at junctions, so posting all of them would be overload

Suffice to say there are at least 50 of them in the state (or were as of 07 and 08 when I was photographing signs in Washington), so I'm not sure if they could be considered erroneous. E(M) works fine for a single digit route

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 09, 2011, 04:07:45 AM
I would agree. I think for a single digit, D is actually too narrow. Quebec Autoroute shields use E(M) legend for single digits, and it works very well.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: luokou on August 09, 2011, 11:40:17 AM
Seems like regular Series E. Never liked E, E(M) or F in route shields since it looks too angry to me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 13, 2011, 12:58:52 AM
Found a third "PA Turnpike 76" style shield the other day in the Pittsburgh area.  This time, it's on Warrendale Bayne Rd going WB just past Northgate Dr.  It's been there for awhile since StreetView (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.653146,-80.080022&spn=0.00152,0.003484&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.653153,-80.079866&panoid=sCMY8ZzRRn56HZ_Y4rKYSg&cbp=12,289.57,,0,5.61) has a picture of it.

The other two are at the following locations:
I-79 Exit #78 Southbound offramp (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&layer=c&cbll=40.686704,-80.096537&panoid=qh3lxVf2yEaGZIFIsBfN1g&cbp=12,210.94,,0,7.83&ll=40.686268,-80.096608&spn=0.006118,0.013937&z=17)
PA-130 @ I-376 (http://shields.aaroads.com/show.php?image=PA19793762).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Super Mateo on August 14, 2011, 02:40:53 PM
https://picasaweb.google.com/108051035264643954872/PublicPhotos?authkey=Gv1sRgCNqrhpvs0sCCUg#5640442194698539266  "US" 19 in Chicago, as mentioned previously.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on August 14, 2011, 07:40:58 PM
From yesterday:
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6206/6043721902_c60ec245d1_z.jpg)

Error NJ 1 shield for US 1.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 14, 2011, 07:51:11 PM
https://picasaweb.google.com/108051035264643954872/PublicPhotos?authkey=Gv1sRgCNqrhpvs0sCCUg#5640442194698539266  "US" 19 in Chicago, as mentioned previously.

CDOT, IDOT, or contractor?  I'm guessing contractor.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 14, 2011, 10:20:33 PM
"US 933" street sign in South Bend/Notre Dame, IN

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6010/5924360143_ffdfbb528f_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 14, 2011, 10:24:07 PM
"US 933" street sign in South Bend/Notre Dame, IN

Was US-33.  Could be they simply added a "9", or copied the old sign with the new number.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on August 17, 2011, 02:07:57 AM
Spotted today in Delaware, OH: a East US 37 assembly on OH 37 juse east of US 42. Partially obscured by a parking restriction sign. No pic because I was on duty.

Has anyone mentioned the US 315 sign on southbound OH 315 just before the Goodale St exit?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mjb2002 on August 23, 2011, 08:00:10 PM
Here is one I found along SAND BAR FERRY RD in Beech Island, S.C.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-6wYei2XXW9w/TlQ-uahIDiI/AAAAAAAAAiI/w2xNHkgPNcQ/s800/erroneous%252520sign%252520in%252520Aiken%252520County.jpg)

SAND BAR FERRY RD is actually SC 28, NOT SC 302. SILVER BLUFF RD is SC 302.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on August 23, 2011, 09:55:20 PM
And Google Maps says it's County 28.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mjb2002 on August 23, 2011, 10:50:51 PM
And Google Maps says it's County 28.

And that is an erroneous mistake on their part. I'm gonna log in and change it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on August 23, 2011, 11:00:35 PM
And Google Maps says it's County 28.

And that is an erroneous mistake on their part. I'm gonna log in and change it.

Good luck.  I've already read stories of people trying to make Google maps more accurate and the morons who oppose them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 26, 2011, 02:23:42 AM
And Google Maps says it's County 28.

And that is an erroneous mistake on their part. I'm gonna log in and change it.

Good luck.  I've already read stories of people trying to make Google maps more accurate and the morons who oppose them.

Yep, that is true.  Editing in Google Map Maker can be a bitch sometimes (Fight over I-381 (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4464.msg105937#msg105937)).

Also see the following threads:
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4464.0
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2001.0
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 28, 2011, 10:19:21 PM
The sign on the right should say "Sand Springs'...

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6088/6091521160_0eb8106d06_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on August 28, 2011, 11:58:19 PM
The sign on the right should say "Sand Springs'...

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6088/6091521160_0eb8106d06_b.jpg)

And take a look at the beauty the sign above replaced...

(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2009_OKC_Day_4/Images/229.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 29, 2011, 12:22:28 AM
Here are some new errors from Klamath Falls:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR140KlamathFallsSignGoofa.jpg?t=1314591313)

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR39-140KlamathFallsSignGoofa.jpg?t=1314591380)

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR39-140KlamathFallsSignGoofb.jpg?t=1314591459)

On the same trip, I finally got to see this infamous pair of goofs in Medford:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/I5MedfordSignGoof1.jpg?t=1314591662)

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/I5MedfordSignGoof2.jpg?t=1314591556)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 29, 2011, 12:49:04 AM
Wow, talk about massive fail. US-5 in on the wrong side of the country, the never-existed US-39 apparently exists only in Klamath Falls, the 97 shield using Series B, etc. Wow.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2011, 02:57:45 AM
wow, not often that you see a US/interstate mixup error.

I saw the 140 and 39 in Klamath Falls over Memorial Day weekend, but not the previous time I was there in 2008, so that gives a bit of an idea (not much of one!) for when they were installed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 29, 2011, 03:02:04 AM
This is a really dumb question, but how do such obvious errors go unnoticed? I mean, the people who are contracted to make these signs, don't they at least look at a map and realize Interstate 5 and US Route 5 are different roads and in different corners of the country?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on August 29, 2011, 04:47:33 AM

(snip)

On the same trip, I finally got to see this infamous pair of goofs in Medford:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/I5MedfordSignGoof1.jpg?t=1314591662)

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/I5MedfordSignGoof2.jpg?t=1314591556)

For some reason I find it amusing that they managed to get the "TO" and arrow plates correct, but not the shields themselves.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: BigOkie on August 29, 2011, 10:39:45 AM
The sign on the right should say "Sand Springs'...

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6088/6091521160_0eb8106d06_b.jpg)

Is that the southbound Tisdale Interchange at I-244/US412?  Good job, ODOT!  LOL.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on August 29, 2011, 12:11:07 PM
The sign on the right should say "Sand Springs'...

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6088/6091521160_0eb8106d06_b.jpg)

Is that the southbound Tisdale Interchange at I-244/US412?  Good job, ODOT!  LOL.

Yep; that's it!
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 29, 2011, 03:58:48 PM
This is a really dumb question, but how do such obvious errors go unnoticed? I mean, the people who are contracted to make these signs, don't they at least look at a map and realize Interstate 5 and US Route 5 are different roads and in different corners of the country?

A cosmic convergence of incompetence and apathy, methinks.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 29, 2011, 04:02:18 PM
Wow, talk about massive fail. US-5 in on the wrong side of the country, the never-existed US-39 apparently exists only in Klamath Falls, the 97 shield using Series B, etc. Wow.

This guy's still around in downtown K-Falls, too:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/OR140US97KlamathFallssigngoof1.jpg?t=1267505245)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 29, 2011, 04:13:08 PM
Series B works fine on standard Oregon shields, I think.

And at least they picked the nice '61 spec for "US 140."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2011, 04:14:19 PM
And at least they picked the nice '61 spec for "US 140."

yes, those are getting tough to find in general in Oregon.  there's a couple actual old '61 spec shields on green signs at the 97/Business 97 split just north of town.

I am pretty sure Oregon did not ever use '61 spec black square shields: they went straight from the state-named cutouts to '70 spec in 1974.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 29, 2011, 04:16:56 PM
And at least they picked the nice '61 spec for "US 140."

yes, those are getting tough to find in general in Oregon.  there's a couple actual old '61 spec shields on green signs at the 97/Business 97 split just north of town.

I am pretty sure Oregon did not ever use '61 spec black square shields: they went straight from the state-named cutouts to '70 spec in 1974.
I posted some pics a while back of some '61-era shields on some guide signs in Astoria. That's the only other area I've seen them. I don't recall seeing any in Portland.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 29, 2011, 04:57:58 PM
I think the US 26 shields mounted above the BGS overheads as you approach the Vista Ridge tunnels from the west are '61 spec, but I'm not 100% sure.  If so, those are standalone shields, and they are on square signs.  Maybe some of our Portland-area colleagues can speak on this.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2011, 05:09:23 PM
I think the US 26 shields mounted above the BGS overheads as you approach the Vista Ridge tunnels from the west are '61 spec, but I'm not 100% sure.  If so, those are standalone shields, and they are on square signs.  Maybe some of our Portland-area colleagues can speak on this.

I checked Google Street View and you may very well be right.  tough to tell because of the Series D digits and the distortion of the camera angle, but it's likely to be a '61 spec shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on August 29, 2011, 06:44:13 PM
I checked Google Street View and you may very well be right.  tough to tell because of the Series D digits and the distortion of the camera angle, but it's likely to be a '61 spec shield.

I just did the same, but couldn't really tell.  Those 26 shields had been moved since they used to direct you onto Market Street to access 26's downtown alignment, and you can see the metal posts where they had previously been mounted (the right 405's moved, too).  So it would've been weird if they re-used the old shields.  But whenever I've zipped by on the freeway, they sure look like they're the older spec shields.  But they might look odd because of the digits, now that you mention that.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: luokou on August 29, 2011, 08:31:14 PM
The US-26 shields prior to their replacement in the late 90's/early 2000's were both the '48 state-named cutout on the first gantry after the Zoo exit, and '61 cutouts for the rest of the gantries up to I-405 (incidentally, all of these shields were wooden). The US-26 shields now seem to be '61 black squares with comically huge Series D digits (which replaced error OR-26 shields). There were two US-30 shields in the same style, one at the ramp right after the Central Eastside Industrial area exit before merging onto mainline I-84, and the other right next to Providence Medical Center at mile 3. Those were most likely installed by the same contractor, but both of those are nonexistent today.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on August 29, 2011, 08:52:17 PM
They should have just used the '70 spec shields if they wanted Series D so badly. The '61 shields were designed for Series C and smaller.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: luokou on August 29, 2011, 09:41:27 PM
Tell that to the contractor who produced these goofs and to quit using those damn bubble interstate shields! XD those US shields wouldn't look so bad if the digits were a little smaller.

Of course, if all these signs were from an Oregon DOT shop, everything would be up to spec and look 73x better.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Fleetwood Mac Attack on September 01, 2011, 11:16:25 AM
Not going to look through 48 pages of erroneous road signs but here's one for VDOT in Chesapeake - off-ramp from I-64 Exit 297 to US 13/US 460 (Military Highway) incorrectly marks US 460 as a Virginia state route.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=36.771895,-76.368771&spn=0.000001,0.000858&t=h&z=21&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=36.771812,-76.368771&panoid=ogdH1Prlm38hNR98kumXDw&cbp=12,178.29,,0,-2.76
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 02, 2011, 04:25:40 PM
I've seen this leftover NY 495 shield at the Roslyn Clock Tower, and tried to take a picture of it years ago. It turned out like crap. But this one didn't:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55016974

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: mjb2002 on September 03, 2011, 01:19:57 PM
This sign could possibly be misspelled:

http://g.co/maps/qw3v (http://g.co/maps/qw3v)

I don't think that I have seen SCDOT spell this town's name correct.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on September 03, 2011, 02:42:24 PM
There is an old stop sign about a block from my house that has the design of the old black-on-yellow signs (complete with button copy "STOP" legend), but it's the familiar white-on-red. I don't have a pic of it yet (will get one very soon), but I'm wondering if that's technically an error? Because it seems 1954 was when the old design gave way to the current one, with no stopgap in between. (Which this one appears to be.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2011, 03:11:27 PM
There is an old stop sign about a block from my house that has the design of the old black-on-yellow signs (complete with button copy "STOP" legend), but it's the familiar white-on-red. I don't have a pic of it yet (will get one very soon), but I'm wondering if that's technically an error? Because it seems 1954 was when the old design gave way to the current one, with no stopgap in between. (Which this one appears to be.)

likely refurbished.  I have seen many block-font red/white stop signs, most of which started life as yellow/black.

a LOT of signs were refurbished back in the day.  Even these days they are, but it usually just involves peeling off the sheeting and putting a new design on.  Back in the day, an embossed sign was repainted over and over again - in some states, until it was so corroded that it fell off the post.

I have a photo somewhere of an Iowa maintenance worker repainting an IOWA US 75 cast iron shield (1926-1934) with a roller.  What's amazing about the photo is that the sign isn't taken off the post.  He's got his truck parked nearby and he's reaching into the sky with his roller with a six-foot handle.

what's even more amazing is that the photo was taken in 1975.

another explanation for your STOP sign, however, is that California was using red and white stop signs as early as 1915.  They did not ever use yellow on black.  They invented the familiar cutout octagon in 1924.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on September 03, 2011, 03:21:30 PM
Hmm... Well, given the location of the school and the age of the neighborhood (there really wasn't anything here prior to the 1960s), my guess is it's probably a refurbished sign. Next time I go by it, I'll be sure to get a pic.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2011, 03:27:17 PM
Hmm... Well, given the location of the school and the age of the neighborhood (there really wasn't anything here prior to the 1960s), my guess is it's probably a refurbished sign. Next time I go by it, I'll be sure to get a pic.

get me a picture and I'll see if I can tell you its history
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: nyratk1 on September 04, 2011, 06:18:47 PM
I've seen this leftover NY 495 shield at the Roslyn Clock Tower, and tried to take a picture of it years ago. It turned out like crap. But this one didn't:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55016974


Two other NY 495 signs still up - one on Nicolls Rd. southbound near Hawkins Rd. in Centereach (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Nicolls+Road+and+hawkins+rd,+centereach,+ny&hl=en&ll=40.882225,-73.080089&spn=0.00855,0.017531&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.642161,71.806641&vpsrc=0&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.882279,-73.080212&panoid=VWQuPR94fbeuqtgt2qctXw&cbp=12,173.23,,0,12.01) and one on Mill Rd. in Yaphank (http://g.co/maps/tvf3)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 04, 2011, 07:03:31 PM
Mill Road, I knew about, and I though I posted it online somewhere. I forgot about the one on Nicoll's Road. That one shouldn't even be replaced with an I-495 shield. It should be torn out and the whole intersection should be converted into an interchange.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on September 04, 2011, 07:40:56 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/5043752012/in/photostream/

This is along US 431 SB on the east side of Dothan, AL.  The "TO" does not belong above US 431 here as it is the real deal.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kacie Jane on September 04, 2011, 08:59:37 PM
Not hard to see what the mistake is here.  Seen in Valley Cottage, NY.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-0LmJAbIOG2U/TmQbQ2OAu3I/AAAAAAAAACQ/cal17tXvXsg/s400/IMG_20110901_131424.jpgg)

(As an aside in the "For Another Thread" department, half (but only half) of Virginia Street (the other sign in the photo) is mislabelled as E Ridge Road in Google Maps.  The road was constructed in the 90s, and has never been called E Ridge Road, nor has any other road in the neighborhood.)

Also, didn't get a pic, but there is a NY 9 (as opposed to US 9) shield northbound on Broadway at 179th Street near the George Washington Bridge.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on September 05, 2011, 11:21:11 AM
From my trip this weekend:
(http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/9012/saveslives.jpg)
(http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1927/sidewaysflagman.jpg)
(http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/318/nyus22.jpg)

That US 22 shield is on NY 22, southbound somewhere north of Plattsburgh. There are two of them in a row.

(didn't get a picture of: MA 5 shield)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 05, 2011, 02:33:41 PM
How about in Final Destination 2? The wreck happened on a Route 23, a four-lane divided road with possible access control, supposedly somewhere in the state of New York.  The route marker shown was clearly a US 23 shield. Of course, US 23 doesn't enter New York — or Canada, where the film was shot.  Maybe the film portrays an example of an error by NYSDOT.

That still doesn't explain why later films refer to it as a crash on Route 180.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on September 05, 2011, 03:10:05 PM
Beyond the fact all the movies in the series were rather dumb, I believe the "180" was a reference to the flight number in the original film.

It seems movies in general are notorious for getting highways wrong. I believe "Forrest Gump" had a US-17 shield being shown located in western Alabama.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 05, 2011, 04:22:15 PM
Beyond the fact all the movies in the series were rather dumb, I believe the "180" was a reference to the flight number in the original film.

The number 180 comes up a lot in the series for some reason.  On Route 23 where the big pileup happened, there was a VMS saying "Road Work Next 180 Miles".  (There's a topic for a new thread -- longest construction zone?)  In later films, they actually did (in dialog and/or in a newspaper clipping) refer to that incident as a pileup on Route 180, which I'm pretty sure is simply a mistake on the part of the writers.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: froggie on September 05, 2011, 05:23:30 PM
Quote
Beyond the fact all the movies in the series were rather dumb,

Pretty much all one needs to say for that sub-thread.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on September 05, 2011, 08:44:29 PM
U.S. 9 now apparently exists in Oklahoma...

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6065/6118564212_5bbd5d2c83_b.jpg)

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6210/6118564650_7c52abeddb_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 05, 2011, 10:46:26 PM
How about in Final Destination 2? The wreck happened on a Route 23, a four-lane divided road with possible access control, supposedly somewhere in the state of New York.  The route marker shown was clearly a US 23 shield. Of course, US 23 doesn't enter New York — or Canada, where the film was shot.  Maybe the film portrays an example of an error by NYSDOT.

That still doesn't explain why later films refer to it as a crash on Route 180.

Maybe filmed in Michigan?  Similar topography and foliage.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: OracleUsr on September 06, 2011, 12:30:36 AM
The "180" is a thread through all the FD movies, and is, indeed, a reference to the flight of the original movie.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: pianocello on September 06, 2011, 05:50:27 PM
If you pause "Groundhog Day", set in PA, at the right time, you'll see an IL-120 sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 06, 2011, 05:57:40 PM
I can't find it now, but KYTV in Springfield, MO ran a story this past week about the widening of US 65, but posted an Interstate 65 shield.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 06, 2011, 06:05:06 PM
Quote
I can't find it now, but KYTV in Springfield, MO ran a story this past week about the widening of US 65, but posted an Interstate 65 shield.

I'm working on a report for a city in Arizona where the engineers for the city sent me a chunk of text to include talking about how important "I-60" is.  X-(
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 06, 2011, 08:02:52 PM
If you pause "Groundhog Day", set in PA, at the right time, you'll see an IL-120 sign.

Yep, filmed in Woodstock, IL, up in McHenry County.  Woodstock has IL-120, IL-47, and US-14.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on September 06, 2011, 09:33:07 PM
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r60/mr740ti/roadpix/360fail.png)

Grand Prarie, TX, 10/2010.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 06, 2011, 09:35:47 PM
for $2.53 gas, I'll put up with a lot of abuses.  even '70 spec shields.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on September 07, 2011, 09:05:11 PM
Here's one that may or may not have been noticed or fixed, but in Salina, UT, there's an "SR-50" sign (http://maps.google.com/?ll=38.95586,-111.873239&spn=0.006783,0.013937&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.95586,-111.873239&panoid=TpoDYF-mywp7VT_MqjgjnA&cbp=12,145.74,,0,3.05) at the US-50/UT-24 junction.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 13, 2011, 02:10:27 PM
A couple in Flagstaff

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/b40.jpg)

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/89a.jpg) (should be SR 89A, pardon the graniness, I was on the elevated highway and shot across the car out the passenger window down to the road below me)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on September 13, 2011, 04:51:09 PM
A couple in Flagstaff

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/b40.jpg)

There was once a shield for K-89 at Halstead that actually said "K-89" with all four characters (hyphen included) crammed into a 2-digit shield. I didn't have a digital camera back then, so I wasn't ever able to get a shot for it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 13, 2011, 05:00:07 PM
Quote
There was once a shield for K-89 at Halstead that actually said "K-89" with all four characters (hyphen included) crammed into a 2-digit shield. I didn't have a digital camera back then, so I wasn't ever able to get a shot for it.

Like this?

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/co/25/70to70bus/2.JPG)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on September 13, 2011, 06:00:35 PM
Reminds me of one of the proposals for what the original Interstate shield should have looked like. One of them was the current US route shield (although then following the '48 specs), only the legend said "I-x."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 13, 2011, 08:52:17 PM
At The Mall At Tuttle Crossing, there is some directional signage pointing drivers to the correct way out of the parking lots to lead to different destinations and major roads.  On these signs, the Outerbelt is referred to thusly:

Interstate I-(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/I-270.svg/25px-I-270.svg.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on September 13, 2011, 09:55:02 PM
This is not technically incorrect. It is, however, improper style.

(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6874/arrowabove.jpg)

Arrow goes below the shield, not above! :pan:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 14, 2011, 02:02:08 PM
This is not technically incorrect. It is, however, improper style.

(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6874/arrowabove.jpg)

Arrow goes below the shield, not above! :pan:

Plus, isn't that a wrong-way multiplex between a main US route and its unofficial alternate?  I could see people being confused by this.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on September 14, 2011, 07:53:55 PM
Plus, isn't that a wrong-way multiplex between a main US route and its unofficial alternate?  I could see people being confused by this.

Yes, but those are the actual existing conditions (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=elizabethtown,+ny&hl=en&sll=40.714353,-74.005973&sspn=0.560015,0.999756&vpsrc=0&t=m&z=14).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 14, 2011, 08:42:25 PM
You didn't happen to go through Lake George, did you?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 14, 2011, 10:49:04 PM
I just noticed this one on Old 80/the I-10 business loop in Lordsburg, New Mexico.

"Dougles" is supposed to be "Douglas" Arizona
(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/dougles.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on September 14, 2011, 11:30:13 PM
I also see a California-style US Route shield on that BGS. That black outline makes it look really sharp.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on September 14, 2011, 11:38:07 PM
Quote
I also see a California-style US Route shield on that BGS. That black outline makes it look really sharp.

New Mexico does that reasonably often- not all the time (it's New Mexico!) but reasonably often. I agree, it looks really good.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on September 14, 2011, 11:46:12 PM
I remember seeing exactly one California-style shield in Oregon when on vacation a few weeks back, but it was on a construction sign. I think it was for US-26, but I can't remember for sure.

I guess if they're not in California, they would technically be in error as they aren't the '70 specs, but hey, I'm not complaining.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on September 15, 2011, 12:12:44 AM
Quote
There was once a shield for K-89 at Halstead that actually said "K-89" with all four characters (hyphen included) crammed into a 2-digit shield. I didn't have a digital camera back then, so I wasn't ever able to get a shot for it.

Like this?

(http://www.davidjcorcoran.com/highways/co/25/70to70bus/2.JPG)
Very much so.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 15, 2011, 07:04:23 AM
I also see a California-style US Route shield on that BGS. That black outline makes it look really sharp.

Looks more like an Iowa sign to me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 15, 2011, 08:58:20 AM
This is not technically incorrect. It is, however, improper style.

(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6874/arrowabove.jpg)

Arrow goes below the shield, not above! :pan:

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3523/3308403372_093da05f36_d.jpg)

Missouri is just as guilty.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on September 15, 2011, 09:17:21 PM
You didn't happen to go through Lake George, did you?

I did, why?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on September 15, 2011, 10:46:02 PM
Just wondering, I have family that has a house up there.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on September 16, 2011, 02:11:00 AM
This is not technically incorrect. It is, however, improper style.

(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6874/arrowabove.jpg)

Arrow goes below the shield, not above! :pan:

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3523/3308403372_093da05f36_d.jpg)

Missouri is just as guilty.


A 169 shield at the U.S. 400 exit has the arrow placed above. I tried to get a pic of it on Saturday but I had no place to pull off and get a clear image.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 16, 2011, 03:23:55 PM
You mean this one?

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2675/5792399144_4276e70e41.jpg)

Got that pic when I was in Kansas back in the spring.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on September 18, 2011, 01:58:23 AM
You mean this one?

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2675/5792399144_4276e70e41.jpg)

Got that pic when I was in Kansas back in the spring.


Exactly! It was still that way last week.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 18, 2011, 08:21:18 PM
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6079/6160376959_63e4434aaa_b.jpg)

US 62 became OH 62 somewhere north of New Albany, going northbound.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on September 18, 2011, 08:55:24 PM
Arrow goes below the shield, not above! :pan:

How about beside the shield:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Oregon%20State%20Routes/OR99EAlbany1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 19, 2011, 12:23:31 AM
US 62 became OH 62 somewhere north of New Albany, going northbound.

Ooh, did you see the mailbox with the button copy house number on it? It would have been on your left, if still there at all.

Also, you (perhaps accidentally) pointed out another error in that sign assembly: It says "east" where it should say "north".  This error persists for most of US 62's length from Mexico to Canada.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: apeman33 on September 19, 2011, 12:25:27 AM
My favorite goof of all time are the signs when the U.S. 400 bypass first opened around Parsons.

(http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/9833625/sn/1879221281/name/n_a) (http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/9833625/sn/968492112/name/n_a)

About six of them in each direction. In Kansas.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 19, 2011, 12:31:35 AM
US 62 became OH 62 somewhere north of New Albany, going northbound.

Ooh, did you see the mailbox with the button copy house number on it? It would have been on your left, if still there at all.

Also, you (perhaps accidentally) pointed out another error in that sign assembly: It says "east" where it should say "north".  This error persists for most of US 62's length from Mexico to Canada.

"East" is correct. 62 is an even number.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 19, 2011, 12:50:19 AM
62 is an even number.

You're right: the number 62 is also wrong.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Anonymity Lane on September 19, 2011, 02:18:56 AM
My favorite goof of all time are the signs when the U.S. 400 bypass first opened around Parsons.

(http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/9833625/sn/1879221281/name/n_a) (http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/9833625/sn/968492112/name/n_a)


About six of them in each direction. In Kansas.

How did that happen? Inattentiveness?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Scott5114 on September 19, 2011, 09:42:55 AM
62 is an even number.

You're right: the number 62 is also wrong.

I don't agree. 62's original extent was Carlsbad NM to Maysville KY; this is obviously more E-W than N-S. The extension to Niagara Falls muddies the issue significantly, but by a visual estimation on a map El Paso and Niagara Falls appear to be separated further E-W than they are N-S. SW-NE routes are always a crapshoot as to their numbering, but in the end, one or the other has to be picked. Were the number assigned to the route today, I would call it 50-50, but considering the history, I would say the number 62 was appropriate.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: thenetwork on September 19, 2011, 10:56:08 AM
There are several US routes that change cardinal directions along their alignments -- a couple tend to change at or near the Ohio border:

US 24:  N-S in MI, E-W in OH and West.
US 42:  N-S in OH, E-W in KY
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: US71 on September 19, 2011, 11:28:13 AM
If you think misplaced arrows are a problem, what about NO arrows?

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2544/3741109578_986a8e47c9_z_d.jpg)
South of Osceola, MO

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3054/3057924628_3b08689bc7_d.jpg)
DeQueen, AR

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3570/3829093364_ddc1d821dc_d.jpg)
Along I-40 near Mulberry
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 19, 2011, 11:28:44 AM
There are several US routes that change cardinal directions along their alignments -- a couple tend to change at or near the Ohio border:

US 24:  N-S in MI, E-W in OH and West.
US 42:  N-S in OH, E-W in KY


Lots more than that, most involving Ohio.

US 35: N-S in IN and WV, E-W in Ohio.
US 33: E-W in all but IN, N-S there.
US 250: N-S in WV, E-W in VA and OH.
US 68: E-W in KY, N-S in OH.
US 52: E-W in IL, IN and OH, N-S in WV, VA, NC and SC. (Not sure about IA or other states off the top of my head.)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 19, 2011, 11:45:35 AM
Were the number assigned to the route today, I would call it 50-50, but considering the history, I would say the number 62 was appropriate.

I'd only allow that number if it intersected US 17-1.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 19, 2011, 03:34:48 PM
62 is an even number.

You're right: the number 62 is also wrong.

I don't agree. 62's original extent was Carlsbad NM to Maysville KY; this is obviously more E-W than N-S. The extension to Niagara Falls muddies the issue significantly, but by a visual estimation on a map El Paso and Niagara Falls appear to be separated further E-W than they are N-S. SW-NE routes are always a crapshoot as to their numbering, but in the end, one or the other has to be picked. Were the number assigned to the route today, I would call it 50-50, but considering the history, I would say the number 62 was appropriate.

Okay, I can't really argue with that, if we're being serious.  I can, however, opine that diagonal US routes should be able to change their direction at state borders, if it corresponds closely to a geographical direction change — as they often do in reality — and that US 62 should be signed N-S in OH, NY, and probably PA (to match neighbors OH and NY).  I think ODOT is fairly wishy-washy on this; directional banners are simply omitted in many cases, and most assemblies I've seen of the US 62 / OH 3 overlap have a single shared NORTH or SOUTH banner, if any directional banner at all.  So "EAST US 62" may be technically "correct" in Ohio, but I still say it's an error — perhaps not an erroneous sign, but an erroneous decision made by someone at ODOT decades ago.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on September 19, 2011, 03:52:22 PM
US 62 really should not be a continuous route. In many places it's an alternate to another route or just a minor road. For example US 68 is a better road from Lexington-Versailles to Maysville, and it looks to do way too much stairstepping northeast of Canton.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 19, 2011, 10:44:26 PM
US 62 really should not be a continuous route. In many places it's an alternate to another route or just a minor road. For example US 68 is a better road from Lexington-Versailles to Maysville, and it looks to do way too much stairstepping northeast of Canton.

Kentucky has four classifications of roads -- state primary (includes interstates and parkways), state secondary, rural secondary and supplemental. Once upon a time a segment of US 62 in Mason County was classified as a supplemental road. That has since changed.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on September 20, 2011, 12:04:38 AM
When in doubt, sign it as both.
(http://www.roadfan.com/62en.JPG)
Nelson Road, just north of Broad St. in Bexley. 2003
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on September 20, 2011, 01:26:22 AM
When in doubt, sign it as both.
[picture]
Nelson Road, just north of Broad St. in Bexley. 2003

My first thought is "why do you need two reassurance markers so close together in the first place?"
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on September 20, 2011, 02:01:12 PM
My first thought is "why do you need two reassurance markers so close together in the first place?"

New York does that almost as a matter of course. You'll see a route marker with the directional banner, then just a few feet down the road the route sign without the directional banner. Seems awfully redundant to me.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on September 21, 2011, 08:17:20 AM
My first thought is "why do you need two reassurance markers so close together in the first place?"

New York does that almost as a matter of course. You'll see a route marker with the directional banner, then just a few feet down the road the route sign without the directional banner. Seems awfully redundant to me.

Might it have something to do with various construction, signage projects or updating signage when routes are changed or realigned. I.e. the contract documents specify a new sign to be installed, but for whatever reason the old sign(s) are not removed even if duplicative. The distance between could be due to updates to or new compliance with sign spacing standards. Just speculating...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on September 21, 2011, 12:23:55 PM
Probably.  NY signage varies not only by region but by what government maintains the road.  It's also not uncommon to see only signs immediately where a route turns or intersects another but nowhere else, at least in cities.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: gonealookin on September 23, 2011, 04:55:46 PM
The last couple hundred yards of NV 28 along the east shore of Lake Tahoe seems like an odd place to put a "Begin" sign in reference to US 50.

(Edit:  Image posted on Photobucket deleted)

The sign that one replaced had the more conventional "Junction" reference:

http://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada028/nv-028_eb_lake_tahoe_75.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada028/nv-028_eb_lake_tahoe_75.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on September 23, 2011, 04:56:42 PM
I also like how it's a hugely oversized "BEGIN," too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on September 23, 2011, 06:25:13 PM
The last couple hundred yards of NV 28 along the east shore of Lake Tahoe seems like an odd place to put a "Begin" sign in reference to US 50.

Virginia does this kind of thing at Virginia 207's junction with US 301:

(http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20050525/beginus301endva207.jpg)

No, US 301 doesn't begin anywhere near here.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on September 23, 2011, 09:56:20 PM
They're not they only BEGIN signs like that.  The south end of the Tri-State Tollway has the following:
END - {294}
BEGIN - {80} {94}

However, one is already on I-80 (combined with I-294) and merging with I-94.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 23, 2011, 10:41:21 PM
No, US 301 doesn't begin anywhere near here.

It doesn't end, either. ;)

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2578/4023506420_8037874c98_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4023506420/)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on September 23, 2011, 10:54:20 PM
I think there are a lot of examples of a "begin" banner whose intended meaning is "you are now on" suchandsuch a road.  Correct, no; rare, unfortunately no.  I don't think "end" is similarly misused in as many cases.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadfro on September 25, 2011, 06:42:14 AM
The last couple hundred yards of NV 28 along the east shore of Lake Tahoe seems like an odd place to put a "Begin" sign in reference to US 50.

(http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r302/ilikeem102/aaroads/EndofNV28.jpg)

The sign that one replaced had the more conventional "Junction" reference:

http://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada028/nv-028_eb_lake_tahoe_75.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada028/nv-028_eb_lake_tahoe_75.jpg)

SR 28 was repaved not too long ago (within the last year or so), so many signs were probably replaced--I noticed the two shields switched positions and the SR 28 shield is the newer design (using the approximated outline of the southern tip) and also the parking regulation sign in the background is also different. Thus, I assume that 'begin' plate is a contractor error.

That type of error is fairly rare for Nevada, as NDOT is pretty good a posting end/jct assemblies outside of urban areas.

Also, I have never seen an oversized "begin" banner in Nevada before--typically, they're undersized if not the standard banner height.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on September 26, 2011, 11:16:26 AM
Leafing through my old pics from January 2008: It should be a US 441 shield, not a Florida State Road one (FL 441 is to the northeast).

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6176/6185095559_e3f376ed4f_b.jpg)
Conners Highway "SR 441" road (http://www.flickr.com/photos/formulanone/6185095559/in/photostream) by formulanone (http://www.flickr.com/photos/formulanone/) on Flickr
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Rover_0 on September 29, 2011, 01:03:41 AM
Here's one I've managed to fix:  In Salina, UT, at the junction of UT-24 and US-50, an erroneous "UT-50" shield was placed there (http://g.co/maps/dny3n).  I got in touch with a regional employee, and this has been replaced.  I'm actually going to see if I can get it.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on September 29, 2011, 08:19:58 PM
Here's one I've managed to fix:  In Salina, UT, at the junction of UT-24 and US-50, an erroneous "UT-50" shield was placed there (http://g.co/maps/dny3n).  I got in touch with a regional employee, and this has been replaced.  I'm actually going to see if I can get it.

Dang, don't tell them about it!  I'd rather see the error remain in place.

Does the erroneous Utah beauty pictured below still exist?

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/US191MoabSignGoof1-1.jpg?t=1317342156)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Kniwt on September 29, 2011, 09:24:05 PM
Does the erroneous Utah beauty pictured below still exist?

As of early July, yes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on October 04, 2011, 05:33:18 PM
How is U.S. 281 North both straight and to the right? When ODOT added the "North" tab, they didn't change the arrows...

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6085/6090739377_e3050c782f_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Lightning Strike on October 05, 2011, 02:14:57 AM
I don't have a picture because it caught me off guard, but as i was driving the usual route on 80/94 WB towards Chicago I did notice the sign at the 2mi mark prior to the split off has 94 listed as NB to Chicago. First time I've noticed it and I've been taking that route for almost 5 yrs. Is this new or is it me?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on October 05, 2011, 07:15:21 AM
I don't have a picture because it caught me off guard, but as i was driving the usual route on 80/94 WB towards Chicago I did notice the sign at the 2mi mark prior to the split off has 94 listed as NB to Chicago. First time I've noticed it and I've been taking that route for almost 5 yrs. Is this new or is it me?

A number of I-94 North or South signs exist out there due to the direction I-94 takes in Illinois.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on October 05, 2011, 11:09:38 AM
I don't have a picture because it caught me off guard, but as i was driving the usual route on 80/94 WB towards Chicago I did notice the sign at the 2mi mark prior to the split off has 94 listed as NB to Chicago. First time I've noticed it and I've been taking that route for almost 5 yrs. Is this new or is it me?

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6140/5942852940_195a580277_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on October 05, 2011, 07:51:31 PM
^^ That's an InDOT sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: roadman65 on October 05, 2011, 07:59:56 PM
A place where there is one good erronious road sign is On US 10 near Ludington, MI for US 31.  Just east of Ludington US 10 and US 31 duplex for a few miles, but a mile west of the two route concurrency, US 10 intersects with Business US 31.  At that intersection the trailblazing for US 31 for those departing the Cross Lake Ferry that has TO US 31 shields all the way from the ferry dock, shows SB US 31 Business as the way to go to access both directions of US 31.

I have a photo that I will upload to here, but for now take my word or check google street view.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on October 16, 2011, 10:32:59 PM
A series from Wisconsin - the Sign Goof State.

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6176/6252445276_aeb54b1a96.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6252445276/)
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6049/6251865187_8016db7bd8.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6251865187/)
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6232/6251865727_cc3a1cd2aa.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6251865727/)
I don't recall a WIS 61, but I know US 61 is ahead of us.  (Side note, the third assembly should be right at the stop sign.)

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6219/6252394226_5062db8dfc.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6252394226/)
Such large numbers - not standard for sure

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6104/6251962139_66d9e37dff.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6251962139/)
MUTCD Yellow?  Don't these get the new neon green?

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6055/6225316148_d65aaa5b85.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6225316148/)
More of a vintage sign, the "I" fell off, seems the dash did too.  Also the pic isn't standard.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on October 16, 2011, 11:51:10 PM
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6219/6252394226_5062db8dfc.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6252394226/)
Such large numbers - not standard for sure

I don't know if it's MUTCD-standard, but New York uses numbers that size in it's new Speed Zone Ahead signs...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 17, 2011, 12:32:57 AM
a Wisconsin error gantry going the other way:

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/WI/WI19820591i1.jpg)

and one which cannot make up its mind:

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/WI/WI19700083i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on October 17, 2011, 09:43:23 AM
...and one which cannot make up its mind:

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/WI/WI19700083i1.jpg)

At least they made the effort...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 17, 2011, 11:04:27 AM


At least they made the effort...

having either "WIS" or "US" above the number was a standard until 1982 or so.  This makes it a different situation than, say, here:

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/VT/VT19610031i1.jpg)

the sign, while a tad non-standard, does illustrate that US-3 is ahead, but is in New Hampshire.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SSOWorld on October 17, 2011, 11:16:13 AM
Looks like the sign maker painted that sign :/ :pan: :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: okroads on October 17, 2011, 12:55:28 PM
Here's a tricky one: This is on the Dallas North Tollway northbound; U.S. 380 is signed as Business U.S. 380 here.

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6069/6118555510_e660d58131_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 17, 2011, 01:25:34 PM
Looks like the sign maker painted that sign :/ :pan: :eyebrow:

that is surprisingly commonly done
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on October 18, 2011, 07:00:38 AM
Looks like the sign maker painted that sign :/ :pan: :eyebrow:
Looks more like sharpie marker.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on October 18, 2011, 08:13:47 AM
Looks like the sign maker painted that sign :/ :pan: :eyebrow:
Looks more like sharpie marker.

I was thinking the same thing.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: sp_redelectric on October 19, 2011, 01:14:58 AM
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6219/6252394226_5062db8dfc.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6252394226/)

That's not a goof, that's Oregon making its presence known in the rest of the nation!  Wisconsin adds the word "Limit" to make it a Wisconsin sign.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: codyg1985 on October 19, 2011, 07:37:03 AM
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6219/6252394226_5062db8dfc.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6252394226/)
Such large numbers - not standard for sure

I don't know if it's MUTCD-standard, but New York uses numbers that size in it's new Speed Zone Ahead signs...

So does Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Although, with that said I don't think the numbers that those states use are quite as large as the ones in your original picture, but they are larger than on a standard speed limit sign.

Sign W3-5 in the MUTCD 2009 shows larger numerals as well:

(http://i.imgur.com/WoYuc.png)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 21, 2011, 04:22:26 AM
Somebody either forgot to take these US-150 signs down, or just put them up, because they look rather new.  And this isn't US-150 (at least now, but I think it was before US-150 was put on I-64 here).

http://g.co/maps/7xfy8
http://g.co/maps/824hb
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 23, 2011, 08:09:08 PM
The infamous "PA 97" signs at the intersection of WV 97 and US 52/WV 80 in Wyoming County are still there. Saw them yesterday. Got photos.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ftballfan on October 25, 2011, 10:53:09 AM
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6219/6252394226_5062db8dfc.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/6252394226/)
Such large numbers - not standard for sure

I don't know if it's MUTCD-standard, but New York uses numbers that size in it's new Speed Zone Ahead signs...

So does Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Although, with that said I don't think the numbers that those states use are quite as large as the ones in your original picture, but they are larger than on a standard speed limit sign.

Sign W3-5 in the MUTCD 2009 shows larger numerals as well:

(http://i.imgur.com/WoYuc.png)
Michigan has signs like those now, especially on state highways.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 25, 2011, 11:21:36 AM
I suspect this is misspelled. From Oceana, WV:

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6235/6275957643_feeb9b270f.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on October 25, 2011, 07:54:53 PM
What shield is that '961'?
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: NE2 on October 25, 2011, 08:03:35 PM
What shield is that '961'?
"Home access road program", basically a shared driveway.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: adt1982 on October 29, 2011, 11:20:20 PM
This should be an Illinois sign.  And it's even worse how all each sign overlaps the one below it.

It's at the intersection of Farmersville Road and Illinois 4 in Girard.  I'm guessing this assembly came from the county highway department.  I didn't see any type of IDOT markings.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v346/adt1982/IMAG0230.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: CL on October 30, 2011, 02:21:04 AM
Utah usually does well in keeping signage errors to a minimum. Once in a blue moon, a state highway shield may be installed where a U.S. highway shield was called for. Once in a hundred blue moons...

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6218/6294026028_80b6535653_z.jpg)

This is on Bangerter Highway at SR-201. That interchange was just reconfigured to a diverging diamond. The stunning thing about this is that there are several correct SR-201 shields that were installed at the same time, as part of the same project. I don't know how two US-201 shields were produced alongside several SR-201 signs. This is only one of two instances I know of where a U.S. highway shield was installed in place of a state highway shield. The other is SR-210 at SR-190 (and it still stands).

On the plus side, UDOT chose to use a three-digit width shield...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on October 30, 2011, 10:46:12 AM
On the plus side, UDOT chose to use a three-digit width shield...

Not a plus in m book.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on November 04, 2011, 02:46:25 AM
This temporary guide sign along I-71 southbound in Columbus has an Ohio 40 shield instead of a US 40 shield.
(http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i370/longestaugust/Roads/DSCN5093.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 04, 2011, 08:50:17 PM
Temporary signage, in Clearview no less.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on November 04, 2011, 08:53:13 PM
Is Ohio a state that classifies all numbered highways, regardless of actual class, as state routes? If so, that would not technically be an error shield.

Some states, like California, do that. That is, I-5 is actually maintained as "CA-5."
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Central Avenue on November 04, 2011, 09:15:02 PM
Is Ohio a state that classifies all numbered highways, regardless of actual class, as state routes? If so, that would not technically be an error shield.

Some states, like California, do that. That is, I-5 is actually maintained as "CA-5."
Yes, Ohio does that as well. So admittedly, it's not technically incorrect, but I still count it as an error because OH 40 is supposed to be signed as US 40.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on November 04, 2011, 11:45:49 PM
Is Ohio a state that classifies all numbered highways, regardless of actual class, as state routes? If so, that would not technically be an error shield.

Some states, like California, do that. That is, I-5 is actually maintained as "CA-5."

That may be open to interpretation. Numbers aren't duplicated, so a route number alone (such as on bridge plaques) is unambiguous. However, the Straight Line Diagrams consistently distinguish between route classes, like this: IR 71R, US 40R, SR 16R.  But that doesn't stop state and local officials from lumping in US routes with state routes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 05, 2011, 09:24:16 PM
Most of the route classification errors I've seen in Ohio have been classifying US routes as state routes.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: formulanone on November 05, 2011, 09:31:40 PM
Most of the toute classification errors I've seen in Ohio have been classifying US routes as state routes.

Didn't know that...makes sence that I found that OH 62 shield along US 62.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Takumi on November 05, 2011, 11:19:26 PM
VA does all kinds of them. State primaries with US shields, state primaries with secondary shields, US routes with state primary shields, secondaries with primary shields...my theory as to why this happens so much is that the VA primary route shield looks like the halfway point between the US shield and a secondary shield (a circle).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 05, 2011, 11:46:06 PM
VA does all kinds of them. State primaries with US shields, state primaries with secondary shields, US routes with state primary shields, secondaries with primary shields...my theory as to why this happens so much is that the VA primary route shield looks like the halfway point between the US shield and a secondary shield (a circle).

Not to mention the one isolated case of a VA primary route signed in an interstate business loop shield (VA 7).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Ian on November 08, 2011, 03:43:52 PM
NY 9W should be US 9W:
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6033/6326177295_6985b57d23_z.jpg)

I-84 eastbound at the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xcellntbuy on November 08, 2011, 05:03:10 PM
Just before Exits 10N-S on Interstate 84 are signs for NY 9D Wappinger Falls instead of Wappingers Falls.  The Town is Town of Wappinger.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on November 08, 2011, 08:58:01 PM
Two separate signs for US 22 in White Plains:
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4364/img4999e.jpg)
(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2026/img5001x.jpg)

This makes a grand total of four US 22 shields that I know of in New York (the other two are waaay upstate north of the Adirondacks, I believe I posted one of them before).

Now for a more subtle error:
(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1026/img5095c.jpg)

While this is geographically accurate, I-278 is technically an east-west route, so this sign is not following proper convention.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alex on November 08, 2011, 09:20:36 PM
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/in-009_at_i-074_us-421.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/in-009_at_i-074_us-421.jpg)

U.S. 421 is signed as Indiana 421 on both overheads along SR 9 at the interchange with I-74 & U.S. 421.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Brandon on November 08, 2011, 10:33:48 PM
While this is geographically accurate, I-278 is technically an east-west route, so this sign is not following proper convention.


It is?  3dis can go any direction, and are not limited by the even-odd rules.  I-294 is a north-south 3di here, and I-196 is a north-south 3di in Michigan, thus I-278 can be north-south in New York.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on November 08, 2011, 11:19:27 PM
While this is geographically accurate, I-278 is technically an east-west route, so this sign is not following proper convention.


It is?  3dis can go any direction, and are not limited by the even-odd rules.  I-294 is a north-south 3di here, and I-196 is a north-south 3di in Michigan, thus I-278 can be north-south in New York.

Yes, 3dI's can go in any direction.  This one goes east-west because NYSDOT says so, not because of its even number.  Geographically, I-278 appears to go every direction at some point or another, but runs overall southwest to northeast, slightly closer to west to east than south to north.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Alps on November 08, 2011, 11:48:58 PM
Within Brooklyn and Queens, though, 278 runs north-south, or more precisely, the Gowanus and BQE run north-south, even though 278 is signed east-west. It's a case where the individual roadway names are so well known in the area, usually the numbering plays second fiddle, and that can happen to directions even with the number posted. (95 runs east-west on the Cross Bronx, and that's how traffic reports call it.)

Thanks for the White Plains signs, I hadn't been through there on 22 SB, so I'll make a detour next time.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on November 09, 2011, 07:43:44 AM
"Gowanus" and "BQE" might be more than just "well-known" in the area. I referred to I-278 and none of my relatives (who at the time lived in Bay Ridge and Staten Island) had any clue what I-278 once. I was shocked, but when they realized what I meant they said nobody calls NYC's highways by number.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 19, 2011, 04:48:19 PM
Spotted last week in the Empire State:

(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6101/6358264445_d25c7ed90a.jpg)

(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6060/6358265703_2aa0680995.jpg)

These were the only two I saw northbound, not sure if there were any southbound or not.

And that's a funky shape for the NY shield in the bottom photo, too.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on November 19, 2011, 05:20:58 PM
And that's a funky shape for the NY shield in the bottom photo, too.

But not uncommon, sadly. Those are all over the place.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ftballfan on November 19, 2011, 09:01:06 PM
While this is geographically accurate, I-278 is technically an east-west route, so this sign is not following proper convention.


It is?  3dis can go any direction, and are not limited by the even-odd rules.  I-294 is a north-south 3di here, and I-196 is a north-south 3di in Michigan, thus I-278 can be north-south in New York.
I-196 runs BOTH north-south (with US-31) and east-west (without US-31).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: ctsignguy on November 20, 2011, 12:47:40 PM
Is Ohio a state that classifies all numbered highways, regardless of actual class, as state routes? If so, that would not technically be an error shield.

Some states, like California, do that. That is, I-5 is actually maintained as "CA-5."
Yes, Ohio does that as well. So admittedly, it's not technically incorrect, but I still count it as an error because OH 40 is supposed to be signed as US 40.

Well, i dont know if this is still done, but at one time, Ohio had their roads classified as State Highways...and the numbers often didnt match the route numbers....for instance, i had a map of Ashtabula County many years ago that had State Highways written alongside the shields...I-90 was also noted as State Highway 1...and the various routes in the County had State Highway numbers that were nothing like the Route numbers they carry
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 20, 2011, 11:47:13 PM
California is surprisingly good at not getting route classifications mixed up.  I remember a construction zone at the East LA Interchange had a lovely I-101 shield on a "your tax dollars at work" sign for a year or two.  I've also seen interstates 1, 50, and 99. 

there was a lovely US-99 posted in Sacramento a few months ago but it was quickly patched to the correct state 99.  that is the only state-to-US error I've ever seen made by Caltrans.  there is a US-12 shield on a county road green sign in Santa Rosa and a US-86 street blade in El Centro.  as those examples are all on green guide signs, I have never once spotted a US route cutout with a state route number in California.  that would be quite the find.

as for other states... North Dakota seems to have had a problem in the 1950s - I have seen at least four cutouts for North Dakota state routes in US shields.  I've also seen (in fact, owned) a red Mississippi US 18 cutout from 1956, and have heard that there is a Colorado US 9 out there.

then there is this attempt at a US-83 shield from Oklahoma.

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/OK/OK19300381i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 23, 2011, 12:39:29 AM
Somewhat of an oddity- The normal shields are wrong, while the detour shields are right: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.834563,-77.715225&spn=0.000063,0.027595&t=m&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=42.834667,-77.715192&panoid=CYgSGiKrHNRo6p4t30PwbQ&cbp=12,58.67,,1,-0.28
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: cu2010 on November 23, 2011, 03:01:36 AM
That is, sadly, a common error throughout NY...
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: JREwing78 on November 24, 2011, 08:38:17 AM
While this is geographically accurate, I-278 is technically an east-west route, so this sign is not following proper convention.


It is?  3dis can go any direction, and are not limited by the even-odd rules.  I-294 is a north-south 3di here, and I-196 is a north-south 3di in Michigan, thus I-278 can be north-south in New York.
I-196 runs BOTH north-south (with US-31) and east-west (without US-31).

Brought to you by the same state that also posts a north-south and east-west I-69. Hang the convention - the east-west section would make no sense posted north-south.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vtk on November 26, 2011, 01:52:41 PM
Here are a couple of examples where the sign is only erroneous due to its orientation:

(http://vidthekid.info/imghost/error-124823.jpg)
Renner Rd, westbound at St James Lutheran Ln in Columbus.  It's the I-70 trailblazer combo on the right that's wrong.  Turning left here certainly will not lead you to I-70.  Instead, go to the next intersection and turn left onto Hilliard–Rome Rd.  Years ago there was a traditional 3-piece trailblazer assembly here, facing St James Lutheran Ln, and that made sense.  Apparently the error was made when the assembly was replaced with this one-piece dealie.

(http://vidthekid.info/imghost/error-102506.jpg)

US 52 westbound at US 23 northbound in Portsmouth.  The OH 73 / US 52 assembly on the right is wrong.  Again, the markers should be facing northbound traffic, guiding them to turn west.  Instead, this seems to instruct westbound US 52 traffic to turn left here, which would send them the wrong way down a one-way street!  It's possible this display was installed correctly, and became disoriented later; the signs are mounted on a U-channel, but that U-channel has been secured to the adjacent light post rather clumsily.  By the way, this is the first time I've taken a roadgeek photo while on the job — apparently I'm willing to do that when moving very slowly and not carrying a crew.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: national highway 1 on November 26, 2011, 09:25:06 PM
(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/MN/MN19800951i1.jpg)
MN 95 is signed with a Wisconsin shield before the state line.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xonhulu on November 26, 2011, 09:39:18 PM
MN 95 is signed with a Wisconsin shield before the state line.

Am I correct that it looks like they added "MINN" to the shield?

If so, it reminds me of this beauty from El Paso:

(http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/xonhulu/Sign%20Goofs/US62-85ElPaso7.jpg?t=1322361530)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 27, 2011, 01:20:14 AM
Keokee, Va.:

(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/interestingsigns/va/To_KY_38.jpg)

(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6162/6182140717_bb797eb11e.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Jim on November 27, 2011, 09:47:52 AM
Along these lines but not so bad since they used a reasonable-looking New York shield.  From North Bennington, Vermont:

(http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20041016/ny7vt279vt67a.jpg)

There are and have been a variety of "To NY 7"'s in the Bennington area, necessitated by the unfortunate proximity of NY 7 and US 7.

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on November 29, 2011, 12:00:58 AM
This is bilingualism at its finest:

(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_130-139_images/138_sign_417_east-east.jpg)

Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: corco on November 29, 2011, 12:03:27 AM
Wow- that is all kinds of terrible
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Duke87 on November 29, 2011, 01:16:42 PM
Some of Canada's sign bilingualism is really just silly. Even an English speaker who's never heard a word of French in their lives should be able to figure out what "Est", "Ouest", "Sud", and "Nord" mean in context, and the same goes for a French speaker with "East", "West", "South", and "North". Quebec only posts the French and nobody from outside has trouble with it.

Attempting to do "East/Est" and messing it up as depicted is hilarious, though. :-D
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: 1995hoo on November 29, 2011, 01:55:14 PM
Some of Canada's sign bilingualism is really just silly. Even an English speaker who's never heard a word of French in their lives should be able to figure out what "Est", "Ouest", "Sud", and "Nord" mean in context, and the same goes for a French speaker with "East", "West", "South", and "North". Quebec only posts the French and nobody from outside has trouble with it.

Attempting to do "East/Est" and messing it up as depicted is hilarious, though. :-D

There's a sign near Ottawa listing an exit as serving "Av Maitland Ave." To me that's really carrying bilingualism to an extreme.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: twinsfan87 on November 29, 2011, 03:16:28 PM
(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/MN/MN19800951i1.jpg)
MN 95 is signed with a Wisconsin shield before the state line.

I believe this shield has since been replaced with the correct Mn/DOT "JCT 95" assembly (Google Streetview seems to confirm my belief).
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 29, 2011, 03:35:03 PM
Even an English speaker who's never heard a word of French in their lives should be able to figure out what "Est", "Ouest", "Sud", and "Nord" mean in context

honestly, east and west can get confusing if you're familiar with too many languages.  West is "oeste" in Spanish.  In German, east is "öst", which can get transliterated into "oest".

big trouble brewing... I know I got confused several times when crossing between Latin and Germanic countries.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: Quillz on November 29, 2011, 03:40:59 PM
I do like that Ontario sign using square corners rather than the fake rounded ones most American signs use.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on November 29, 2011, 04:12:15 PM
Some of Canada's sign bilingualism is really just silly. Even an English speaker who's never heard a word of French in their lives should be able to figure out what "Est", "Ouest", "Sud", and "Nord" mean in context, and the same goes for a French speaker with "East", "West", "South", and "North". Quebec only posts the French and nobody from outside has trouble with it.

Attempting to do "East/Est" and messing it up as depicted is hilarious, though. :-D

I think that bilingual signage in Ontario has more to do with a commitment by government to provide services in both official languages rather than the need to translate "east" to "est" for francophones.

Language has been a controversial issue in Canada at times.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: vdeane on November 30, 2011, 10:12:54 AM
I do like that Ontario sign using square corners rather than the fake rounded ones most American signs use.

Glad that in NY we use REAL rounded corners.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: xcellntbuy on November 30, 2011, 05:35:23 PM
Having stocked and handled aluminum road signs in my Warehouse days in New York, believe me, radius (rounded) corners were always specified.  Sharp 90-degree angled signs could have the potential to slip and leave quite a gash or even worse, lop off a hand, especially handling the heavy signs. :ded:
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 30, 2011, 05:39:22 PM
I've actually gotten quite a few spikes and pokes just from the pointed tips of cutout US route markers.

mmm... tetanus.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: bugo on November 30, 2011, 06:05:09 PM
The sign on the right should say "Sand Springs'...

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6088/6091521160_0eb8106d06_b.jpg)

Is that the southbound Tisdale Interchange at I-244/US412?  Good job, ODOT!  LOL.

ODOT does not maintain the Tisdale, it is a city-maintained freeway.  Did ODOT handle the resigning?

There used to be some cool button copy signs on the SB Tisdale approaching I-244.  They disappeared before I could get pictures of them.
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: hbelkins on November 30, 2011, 08:26:50 PM
This is what that sign replaced. (I may have posted this pic previously...)

(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2009_OKC_Day_4/Images/229.jpg)
Title: Re: Erroneous road signs
Post by: SidS1045 on December 01, 2011, 03:24:10 PM