Enhanced Mile Markers

[Quillz]

and some of those are even yellow rather than white.

Which is most likely a better color scheme to begin with, as black-on-yellow will typically get used for cautionary information, like "CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP." (Which is why I really dislike this color scheme being used for route markers like in Wyoming).

[kphoger]

"END FREEWAY" signs are black-on-white (although this could be more regulatory).

No, they aren't.

[Quillz]

BEGIN FREEWAY: https://imgur.com/v2gfp7Y
END FREEWAY: https://imgur.com/zN9RbzZ

These might be an older spec. But the color scheme has been used for them.

[bulldog1979]

I don't know if I've commented or not. But I prefer black-on-white for mile markers. The color scheme for regulatory information. White-on-green is intended for guidance, as opposed to information. (Which of course is a very blurred line to begin with). To me, a mile marker is a perfect example of regulatory information. Although it's said white-on-black isn't as legible as white-on-green. So that might play a role.

As Road Guy Rob says, black-on-white regulatory signs should be read with "or you'll get a fine" after the sign. So tell me how "mile 123, or you'll get a fine" works.

[ran4sh]

I don't know if I've commented or not. But I prefer black-on-white for mile markers. The color scheme for regulatory information. White-on-green is intended for guidance, as opposed to information. (Which of course is a very blurred line to begin with). To me, a mile marker is a perfect example of regulatory information. Although it's said white-on-black isn't as legible as white-on-green. So that might play a role.

As Road Guy Rob says, black-on-white regulatory signs should be read with "or you'll get a fine" after the sign. So tell me how "mile 123, or you'll get a fine" works.

That's too simplistic though. Good for a YouTube video but when people apply it to literally everything they can get confused. Such as regulatory signs designating a bike lane - " 'Bike Lane' or you'll get a fine" - this confuses some bike lane advocates into thinking that those signs should really be yellow (warning) because bikes are still allowed in the other lanes (when passing or making left turns, etc). When the regulatory message is that if a car uses the bike lane then they are subject to being ticketed.

[Scott5114]

Chapter 2H of the MUTCD covers "general information signs". And in it you'll find:

Standard:
03 Except for political boundary signs, General Information signs shall have white legends and borders on green rectangular-shaped backgrounds.

And so the MUTCD already makes a distinction between guide signs and general information signs...it just defines them both to be green.

This is also the chapter where milepost signage can be found. And so mileposts are green under the terms of this standard.

[NJRoadfan]

Apparently Burlington County, NJ had installed a couple of probably test enhanced markers along CR 630 in July 2019 (per the sticker on the signs, verified in Aug. 2019 GSV) that I've never noticed until last week, even though I've biked down this road a couple of times since then.

I'll raise you, enhanced TMMs on CR-681 in Hudson County: https://goo.gl/maps/X4gVf2CE8ihpJCir7

I suspect NJDOT installed these for the NJ-496 viaduct reconstruction and incident response since Paterson Plank Rd. was a detour route. Hudson County certainly didn't put them in as they can't be bothered to sign any county routes.

[kphoger]

I don't know if I've commented or not. But I prefer black-on-white for mile markers. The color scheme for regulatory information. White-on-green is intended for guidance, as opposed to information. (Which of course is a very blurred line to begin with). To me, a mile marker is a perfect example of regulatory information. Although it's said white-on-black isn't as legible as white-on-green. So that might play a role.

As Road Guy Rob says, black-on-white regulatory signs should be read with "or you'll get a fine" after the sign. So tell me how "mile 123, or you'll get a fine" works.

That's too simplistic though. Good for a YouTube video but when people apply it to literally everything they can get confused. Such as regulatory signs designating a bike lane - " 'Bike Lane' or you'll get a fine" - this confuses some bike lane advocates into thinking that those signs should really be yellow (warning) because bikes are still allowed in the other lanes (when passing or making left turns, etc). When the regulatory message is that if a car uses the bike lane then they are subject to being ticketed.

A "bike lane" sign is regulatory because it restricts who can use the lane and for what purpose (note:  not all states have such a law to go along with the sign).  Similarly, "HOV lane" signs are also white rectangles, even though qualifying vehicles are allowed to use the other lanes instead if they so choose.

[hotdogPi]

How is a route marker regulatory, though?

[kphoger]

How is a route marker regulatory, though?

It isn't.  But I don't know what the solution would be, other than to mandate they all be green or something.

So we've got, what? a total of one white rectangular sign type that's unequivocally not regulatory in nature.

[ran4sh]

I don't know if I've commented or not. But I prefer black-on-white for mile markers. The color scheme for regulatory information. White-on-green is intended for guidance, as opposed to information. (Which of course is a very blurred line to begin with). To me, a mile marker is a perfect example of regulatory information. Although it's said white-on-black isn't as legible as white-on-green. So that might play a role.

As Road Guy Rob says, black-on-white regulatory signs should be read with "or you'll get a fine" after the sign. So tell me how "mile 123, or you'll get a fine" works.

That's too simplistic though. Good for a YouTube video but when people apply it to literally everything they can get confused. Such as regulatory signs designating a bike lane - " 'Bike Lane' or you'll get a fine" - this confuses some bike lane advocates into thinking that those signs should really be yellow (warning) because bikes are still allowed in the other lanes (when passing or making left turns, etc). When the regulatory message is that if a car uses the bike lane then they are subject to being ticketed.

A "bike lane" sign is regulatory because it restricts who can use the lane and for what purpose (note:  not all states have such a law to go along with the sign).  Similarly, "HOV lane" signs are also white rectangles, even though qualifying vehicles are allowed to use the other lanes instead if they so choose.

Yes, you are correct, yet some people thought bike lane signs should be yellow instead of white.

[jeffandnicole]

I don't know if I've commented or not. But I prefer black-on-white for mile markers. The color scheme for regulatory information. White-on-green is intended for guidance, as opposed to information. (Which of course is a very blurred line to begin with). To me, a mile marker is a perfect example of regulatory information. Although it's said white-on-black isn't as legible as white-on-green. So that might play a role.

As Road Guy Rob says, black-on-white regulatory signs should be read with "or you'll get a fine" after the sign. So tell me how "mile 123, or you'll get a fine" works.

That's too simplistic though. Good for a YouTube video but when people apply it to literally everything they can get confused. Such as regulatory signs designating a bike lane - " 'Bike Lane' or you'll get a fine" - this confuses some bike lane advocates into thinking that those signs should really be yellow (warning) because bikes are still allowed in the other lanes (when passing or making left turns, etc). When the regulatory message is that if a car uses the bike lane then they are subject to being ticketed.

A "bike lane" sign is regulatory because it restricts who can use the lane and for what purpose (note:  not all states have such a law to go along with the sign).  Similarly, "HOV lane" signs are also white rectangles, even though qualifying vehicles are allowed to use the other lanes instead if they so choose.

But...

Can a pedestrian use a bike lane? On some streets, the shoulder is now a marked bike lane.  If there's no sidewalk, the only prudent area for a pedestrian to walk would be facing traffic in the bike lane.  Will bicyclists say, no, the lane is for bikes only?

[kphoger]

But...

Can a pedestrian use a bike lane? On some streets, the shoulder is now a marked bike lane.  If there's no sidewalk, the only prudent area for a pedestrian to walk would be facing traffic in the bike lane.  Will bicyclists say, no, the lane is for bikes only?

I don't think I've ever seen that issue addressed in a state's vehicle code.  In fact, most states don't even appear to have a statute restricting cars from using a bike lane (which makes me wonder about the enforceability of the signs there);  indeed, I don't see anything like that in the UVC either.  But, for the state codes I've read that do, only vehicular traffic is restricted, which implies to me that pedestrians are allowed to treat a bike lane as they would any other lane:  use a sidewalk if there is one, keep close to the edge of the roadway and face traffic if there isn't.

[Roadwarriors79]

I don't think Arizona typically uses enhanced mile markers, but they are starting to install memorial mile markers for fallen officers. They are essentially enhanced mile markers with a memorial plaque that are placed near the location of their death.

https://www.eacourier.com/news/dps-honoring-fallen-officers-with-roadside-markers/article_022793c4-ae88-11eb-9535-47ec479904df.html

Other than the memorial mile markers, the only enhanced markers I have seen in Arizona have been on a small stretch of I-10 west of AZ 85.