Math isn't their strong suit

[vtk]

The expressway bypasses evidently added 11 miles to the distance from Beaverdam to Mansfield.

That's surprising.  The old distance must have been measured straight through Upper Sandusky, and and I believe that was a fairly early realignment.

[PHLBOS]

This topic reminds me of one likely reason why MassHighway/DOT no longer lists distances on their paddle LGS' (spec. D6 & D8 signs).  For decades, LGS' for two North Shore routes had either conflicting and/or back-and-forth distances.

Example 1 - MA 1A in Revere at the rotary adjacent to the Wonderland T Station. 

The offending LGS' have since been taken down when the rotary was recently revamped & restriped; but for decades on LGS listed Boston as 11 miles away while another at the exact same intersection listed Boston as only 5 miles away.  The reason for the descrepancy dates back to an earlier routing of MA 1A.  The original LGS that mentioned 11 miles to Boston was installed during the mid-to-late 60s (when 1A ran along what is now MA 16 and the distance to Boston was based on that plus the subsequent US 1 routingthat existed at the time) whereas the LGS that listed Boston as 5 miles away was erected over a decade later... well after MA 1A was rerouted to its current alignment.

Adding insult to injury, when the older LGS was replaced (it featured the then-spec'd cut-corners and was mounted on a square concrete post); the new LGS still listed Boston as 11 miles away (both the old & new LGS also liste Everett as 4 miles away).  Obviously, this replacement was probably due to the original sign & post getting knocked down in an accident and the legend (other than adding a SOUTH listing that the orignal LGS didn't have) was a replace-in-kind.

Example 2 - MA 114 eastbound LGS' through Peabody & Salem.

At present, all but two offending LGS' (newer DPW-spec.d ones) were replaced during the 1990s.  For over 2 decades, one traveling along 114 Eastbound encountered a reset distancewise to Marblehead.  The first 2 sets of LGS' in Peabody one ecountered listed Marblehead as 6 miles away (Salem as 3 miles away).  These LGS' were located at the intersection of Andover & Pulaski Sts. and the intersection of Pulaski & Gardner Sts. 

The following eastbound 114 LGS, at the intersection of Gardner & Margin Sts. & MA 35 jct.), logically listed the respective distances to Salem & Marblehead as 2 and 5 respectively.

Once one got into Salem, however, they were greated w/a 114 east LGS stating that Marblehead was 6 miles away.  These LGS were located at the MA 107 (Bridge St.) interchange and were recently replaced when the interchange was reconfigured.  Further down 114, one faced LGS' that listed Marblehead as 5 miles away.  These signs were located at the intersection of Summer & Norman Sts. and at Riley Plaza (Washington St. between Canal & Norman Sts.). 

The Riley Plaza LGS' are the only surviving signs in the area that listed distances for destinations and have since had the listed 5 miles to Marblehead replaced w/4 miles (see below links).

LGS on right at Norman St. intersection, pardon the crappy GSV shot

LGS at Canal St. intersection

[PurdueBill]

The expressway bypasses evidently added 11 miles to the distance from Beaverdam to Mansfield.

That's surprising.  The old distance must have been measured straight through Upper Sandusky, and and I believe that was a fairly early realignment.

I found it quite surprising too.  I didn't notice that much difference on my own odometer, at least I thought I didn't.  Seeing a button-copy "70" replaced with a Clearview "81" made me say "bleah!" but at least the rest of the sign is still button copy.  The distances must have been entirely on the old road, before any expressway bypasses.

[amroad17]

The expressway bypasses evidently added 11 miles to the distance from Beaverdam to Mansfield.

That's surprising.  The old distance must have been measured straight through Upper Sandusky, and and I believe that was a fairly early realignment.

I found it quite surprising too.  I didn't notice that much difference on my own odometer, at least I thought I didn't.  Seeing a button-copy "70" replaced with a Clearview "81" made me say "bleah!" but at least the rest of the sign is still button copy.  The distances must have been entirely on the old road, before any expressway bypasses.

I had always thought that Mansfield was 81 miles from Beaverdam instead of the 71 listed at the entrance ramp from OH 696 to US 30.  I based this on adding the mileage on the Rand McNally map. 

Before US 30 was realigned on the expressway from OH 235 to Upper Sandusky, the mileage sign just east of the US 68 "interchange" listed Mansfield at 61 miles.  This interchange is 16 miles east of the Beaverdam interchange, so the original number should have been at least 76 instead of 71.  Since I have not driven around there in seven years, I'm sure the mileage listed for Mansfield on the expressway there should now have 64 or 65.

It is good to see that Ohio DOT does not always "carbon-copy" their mileage signs.  When I-75 had a sign replacement projects between Dayton and Toledo 8-10 years ago, many numbers were changed as far as mileages to Dayton (SB) and both Lima and Toledo (NB) even if it was one or two miles.  On US 35 East around Washington CH with the Clearview sign replacement project, the mileage to Jackson was changed from 64 to 60 (the correct one).  Unfortunately, the mileages to Xenia on US 35 West are now short 4 miles after they changed to the Clearview signs.  They were correct before (except the one that listed Xenia at 27 miles and Dayton at 47 miles just west of the OH 753 interchange--it now has Xenia at 27 and Dayton at 49; Xenia should be 30 or 31 miles).