"Attractions" that probably shouldn't be on Attractions signs

[roadman]

Lately, I've noticed New Hampshire has an affinity for putting up LOGOs for urgent care facilities on their Attractions signs.

Massachusetts has a few Attractions signs with restaurant LOGOs on them (in fairness, these were installed in the late 1990s before the rules for Attractions signs were clarified).

Any other examples out there of Attractions signs with LOGOs on them for facilities that don't qualify as an attraction?

[Mergingtraffic]

Lately, I've noticed New Hampshire has an affinity for putting up LOGOs for urgent care facilities on their Attractions signs.

Massachusetts has a few Attractions signs with restaurant LOGOs on them (in fairness, these were installed in the late 1990s before the rules for Attractions signs were clarified).

Any other examples out there of Attractions signs with LOGOs on them for facilities that don't qualify as an attraction?

My big issue with ATTRACTIONS signs, in CT anyway, is that they allow them anywhere when other LOGO signs are not. 

CT DOT allows them to be put up in the middle of interchanges or even in closely spaced interchanges when LODGING, GAS, FOOD, CAMPING are not allowed.  For those, the interchanges have to be at least a mile apart. 

There are some interchanges with a lot of gas stations, fast food restaurants where there's no LOGO signage b/c the exits are 3/4 mile apart and therefore not allowed but meanwhile there's an ATTRACTIONS sign.  As a driver I'd rather know about a restaurant or gas station.  Those signs add credibility to them.  But I guess tourism = PC dollars.

And back to topic, CT has shopping malls on them, some that are small.

[Kniwt]

There's this on US 59 near Atchison, Kansas.

[hbelkins]

Those are paid for.

https://transportation.ky.gov/TrafficOperations/Pages/Sign-Programs-and-Standards.aspx

At the bottom of that page, you'll find this link:

https://kentuckytods.interstatelogos.com/state/