The Worst of Road Signs

[getemngo]

Apparently TDOT and MDOT are drinking the same Kool-Aid. Here's the opposite problem!



Michigan has actually switched to the standard "END" and (in the rare cases it's used) "BEGIN" in the last few years, but I've seen "END" placed underneath more than I've seen it on top. 

For some reason I can't see your picture

That's because it disappeared. It worked when I previewed the post... so either AARoads limits your image sizes (I shrunk it using BBCode), a mod removed it for some reason, or Gribblenation doesn't let you embed images.  It was the first photo on the M-294 Ends page.

[hbelkins]

I know pot is legal in Washington now, but someone in the sign shop needs to stick away from the herb during work.



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3761/9972043016_543ab1b553_o.jpg

I'm missing something here.

[Brandon]

I know pot is legal in Washington now, but someone in the sign shop needs to stick away from the herb during work.



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3761/9972043016_543ab1b553_o.jpg

Well, it does have alignment issues and one damn big-ass arrow.

[NE2]

KEK embedded the wrong photo here.

[Kacie Jane]

KEK embedded the wrong photo here.

Perhaps, but it's big enough that you can see the sign in question.  It's the 405 north towards the top right of the photo (the sign that points down the ramp in the foreground).

P.S.  Thanks for posting it regardless.  I caught a glimpse of it while driving on 405 and knew something was up with it... didn't expect it to be that bad.

[vtk]

KEK embedded the wrong photo here.

Perhaps, but it's big enough that you can see the sign in question.  It's the 405 north towards the top right of the photo (the sign that points down the ramp in the foreground).

Would have been better to post a cropped version. Just noticing a sign that takes up such a tiny part of the image isn't easy.  I'm sure I wan't the only one wondering for a minute why this photo was posted in a thread about signs.  Plus, some users may have problems viewing such a large image file.  For example, my phone seems incapable of displaying large images (even small parts of them) at their full resolution, so I can't see that sign very clearly unless I'm sitting at my desktop pc.

[Kacie Jane]

No, you're absolutely right, and I'm sorry if my post came off wrong.  I was just trying to point out to hbelkins and presumably others what they were missing.

[NE2]

KEK embedded the wrong photo here.

Perhaps, but it's big enough that you can see the sign in question.  It's the 405 north towards the top right of the photo (the sign that points down the ramp in the foreground).

Except that the link below the image goes to a different photo.

[KEK Inc.]

I posted two pictures intentionally.  The zoomed out picture only has one sign that you can see, but it's hard to make detail of.  If you guys bothered to click the link, it's zoomed in at the sign, but the picture is really big (much bigger than the 800px), and there's more signs in the other picture.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3761/9972043016_543ab1b553_o.jpg

Sue me, I didn't photo-edit it with free pacifiers. 

[agentsteel53]

Sue me, I didn't photo-edit it with free pacifiers.

I can't tell if this is a dig against the gimp, or what?

[Kacie Jane]

KEK embedded the wrong photo here.

Perhaps, but it's big enough that you can see the sign in question.  It's the 405 north towards the top right of the photo (the sign that points down the ramp in the foreground).

Except that the link below the image goes to a different photo.

Huh, I honestly didn't notice until you pointed it out. I thought the linked one was merely a zoomed-in version of the embedded one, though now I see I'm mistaken -- slightly different angle, different cars...

[J N Winkler]

I posted two pictures intentionally.  The zoomed out picture only has one sign that you can see, but it's hard to make detail of.  If you guys bothered to click the link, it's zoomed in at the sign, but the picture is really big (much bigger than the 800px), and there's more signs in the other picture.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3761/9972043016_543ab1b553_o.jpg

Sue me, I didn't photo-edit it with free pacifiers.

"Free pacifiers" is really uncalled-for.

Yes, you embedded one image and posted a link to another image, but:

*  Neither image shows the error sign front and center.

*  When a post shows an embedded image followed in quick succession by a link that clearly goes to an image, and it is not made absolutely clear that these are distinct images, users will assume that the image at the link is a much larger version of the embedded image, and if they can't see the feature of interest in the embedded image, they won't click on the link.

It would have been really helpful to have an indication of what we were expected to see in the two images.  In my case, I thought you were trying to point out an error with the striping, delineation, or barrier placement on the on-ramp, and I couldn't really see anything wrong except an apparent lane narrowing in the distance that I suspect is an artifact of perspective.

[agentsteel53]

as a bonus, some of the best of road signs are in here somewhere too.

[formulanone]

Sue me, I didn't photo-edit it with free pacifiers.

I can't tell if this is a dig against the gimp, or what?

"Free pacifiers" is really uncalled-for.

...huh, what? This is a case where Google literally gave me an infantile answer.

[NE2]

He was comparing me to David Vitter. Not that there's anything wrong with obscure sexual fetishes.

[rickmastfan67]

That's because it disappeared. It worked when I previewed the post... so either AARoads limits your image sizes (I shrunk it using BBCode), a mod removed it for some reason, or Gribblenation doesn't let you embed images.  It was the first photo on the M-294 Ends page.

I bolded above what happened.  Gribblenation doesn't like hot linking.  No mod modified your original post.

[TEG24601]

I know pot is legal in Washington now, but someone in the sign shop needs to stick away from the herb during work.

Yea, that one is bad.  Looks like a contractors work, as WSDOT is usually so much better, even if we can't get a proper 3-Digit State Route sign to save our lives.

[myosh_tino]

For those of you having trouble seeing the sign KEK was referring to...



Big ass arrow... All-caps legend... oddly laid out sign... yep, that's pretty bad! 

[hotdogPi]

For those of you having trouble seeing the sign KEK was referring to...



Big ass arrow... All-caps legend... oddly laid out sign... yep, that's pretty bad! 

And off-center shield (unless that's what you meant by "oddly laid out sign").

[formulanone]

Wow, that's an ugly sign. Centering the shield would have made it merely passable.

[PHLBOS]

Wow, that's an ugly sign. Centering the shield would have made it merely passable.

The numerals could be a bit taller, better spaced and in FHWA Series C font (as opposed to Series D).  Note: the latter is more of a personal preference. 

[Takumi]

The number placement on these VA 230 and 231 shields...ugh

[Molandfreak]

That's literally the funniest thing I've seen all day!

[KEK Inc.]

I posted two pictures intentionally.  The zoomed out picture only has one sign that you can see, but it's hard to make detail of.  If you guys bothered to click the link, it's zoomed in at the sign, but the picture is really big (much bigger than the 800px), and there's more signs in the other picture.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3761/9972043016_543ab1b553_o.jpg

Sue me, I didn't photo-edit it with free pacifiers.

"Free pacifiers" is really uncalled-for.

Yes, you embedded one image and posted a link to another image, but:

*  Neither image shows the error sign front and center.

*  When a post shows an embedded image followed in quick succession by a link that clearly goes to an image, and it is not made absolutely clear that these are distinct images, users will assume that the image at the link is a much larger version of the embedded image, and if they can't see the feature of interest in the embedded image, they won't click on the link.

It would have been really helpful to have an indication of what we were expected to see in the two images.  In my case, I thought you were trying to point out an error with the striping, delineation, or barrier placement on the on-ramp, and I couldn't really see anything wrong except an apparent lane narrowing in the distance that I suspect is an artifact of perspective.

Neither images were mine.  They were from WSDOT, so the focus of the image was the construction.  I didn't want to take the time to photo-edit it to focus in on the picture; however, I thought it was heavily implied what the focus was given the context of the thread, since we're in the Worst of Road Signs thread, and those were the only road signs visible in the two pictures. 



Anyways, I don't really mean for the pacifiers to be offensive -- more jokingly...  Because I'm a cheeky bastard, I decided to photo-edit it in there. 

[NE2]

The most visible road sign in this photo is an OM3-R:

PS: look who's popular.