Signs With Design Errors

[SignGeek101]

Woops.



Go' old snipping tool on my computer didn't work as I would like. Oh well.

[mrsman]

If it's okay, I'd rather go north on the 408.

California has taken over Florida...

You can thank my mom for me saying that. I've never lived in California, but anytime we go anywhere, it's "take the 5 to the 405, then go a few miles to the 90...."

And what's really weird is that those directions would also work in California.  Although 405/90 freeway is more than a few miles from either 5/405 junction (23 miles from San Fernando, 50 miles from the El Toro Y).  In Seattle, 405/90 is 11 miles from the southern 5/405 and 16 miles from the northern 5/405.

And unlike I-90 which basically does take you from Seattle to the rest of the country, CA-90 only gets you to Marina del Rey.

[freebrickproductions]

Two digit number on a three digit shield:
US 31/US 72 Alt./AL 20 by freebrickproductions, on Flickr

[route56]

A slight design error on K-68 in Ottawa.


51411 by Richie Kennedy, on Flickr

[SignGeek101]

Not sure whether this is the correct thread, but meh.

http://goo.gl/maps/gH529

"72nd Ave" and not "72 Ave"

[jakeroot]

Not sure whether this is the correct thread, but meh.

http://goo.gl/maps/gH529

"72nd Ave" and not "72 Ave"

Probably more of a linguistic error than a design one, but, indeed, meh.

BC speakers, even in informal conversation, generally drop the ordinal indicators after street numbers (the opposite of American behaviour; more in tune with the rest of Canada), so I'm rather baffled as to how this sign slipped through the cracks.

[thenetwork]

Not sure whether this is the correct thread, but meh.

http://goo.gl/maps/gH529

"72nd Ave" and not "72 Ave"

Probably more of a linguistic error than a design one, but, indeed, meh.

BC speakers, even in informal conversation, generally drop the ordinal indicators after street numbers (the opposite of American behaviour; more in tune with the rest of Canada), so I'm rather baffled as to how this sign slipped through the cracks.

Doesn't the Arroyo Seco Parkway (the 110) in Los Angeles do the same thing?

[SignGeek101]

This one is quite subtle:

http://goo.gl/maps/AaFaA

[jakeroot]

Not sure whether this is the correct thread, but meh.

http://goo.gl/maps/gH529

"72nd Ave" and not "72 Ave"

Probably more of a linguistic error than a design one, but, indeed, meh.

BC speakers, even in informal conversation, generally drop the ordinal indicators after street numbers (the opposite of American behaviour; more in tune with the rest of Canada), so I'm rather baffled as to how this sign slipped through the cracks.

Doesn't the Arroyo Seco Parkway (the 110) in Los Angeles do the same thing?

I don't think there's any requirement that signs display the ordinal indicator or not (I think both are acceptable variations of one another, at least in the US). For example, here's a BGS for an exit for "94th Ave E" and "9th St SW" but the street blades read "94 Ave E" and "9 St SW".

But again, in my experience, BC basically never uses the ordinal indicator, in speech or writing, so the "72nd Ave" signs are pretty baffling.

[cbeach40]

And some explanations:

http://goo.gl/maps/Jda77
I think this should be black on white ("normal" speed limit), rather than an advisory "ramp" speed.

It would be a black on white regulatory sign if there's a bylaw to set it at that speed. Otherwise it would be under the general provisions of the Highway Traffic Act, which would be 80 km/h rural, 50 km/h urban. Those signs probably are just there to warn that it's a pretty crappy road, rather than any legal bearing.

http://goo.gl/maps/3FPQF
Not sure what the bigger design error is: the 'B' in FHWA or the 401 not being in black on the other sign.

Those are not MTO signs, so it would appear as though Toronto or their contractor just went with a single colour to save time/money/whatever. Doesn't look good, but not technically an error.

Although I do prefer the FHWA arrows, it is technically incorrect to use them here:
http://goo.gl/maps/dYBxA
Ontario uses the "Ontario arrow" which I personally don't really like.

That's not an Ontario highway, so that arrow is acceptable.

Wondering if I should post this here or erroneous road signs.
http://goo.gl/maps/JQGxx
124 does end here, but the END sign has been used incorrectly. That sign is supposed to be for reserved lanes according to Book 5 in the Ontario Traffic Manual.
This rusty old sign is more appropriate: http://goo.gl/maps/71P9G

That one was stuck up by the contractor back in the day. Yes, that style is for regulatory signs, but it does convey the message.

It is a nitpick, but guidelines are guidelines.

Guidelines are guidelines. Not rules or regulations. Certainly any of those examples don't look very good, but they're not inaccurate or errors.

[jakeroot]

Although I do prefer the FHWA arrows, it is technically incorrect to use them here:
http://goo.gl/maps/dYBxA
Ontario uses the "Ontario arrow" which I personally don't really like.

That's not an Ontario highway, so that arrow is acceptable.

Acceptable, sure, but it's still a design error. The rest of the sign clearly corresponds to MTO standards, however, the contractor slipped when they forwent the use of the Ontario arrow. Thus, the arrow is a design mistake. The only way the arrow isn't a mistake would be if the contractor clearly stated that they intended to use the traditional down arrow (which still wouldn't make sense, since the rest of the signs along the ETR use the Ontario arrow).

[cbeach40]

Acceptable, sure, but it's still a design error. The rest of the sign clearly corresponds to MTO standards, however, the contractor slipped when they forwent the use of the Ontario arrow. Thus, the arrow is a design mistake. The only way the arrow isn't a mistake would be if the contractor clearly stated that they intended to use the traditional down arrow (which still wouldn't make sense, since the rest of the signs along the ETR use the Ontario arrow).

Looking at the other signs in the area, it would appear as though that is intentional. Based on other signs in the area, its design would appear to be based on the old MTO standards. So its not so much an error as it is a relic.

Various signs in the area, since replaced:
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_407-409_images/407_dv_33_east_Jun07.jpg
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_407-409_images/407_dv_33-5_east.jpg
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/hwy_407-409_images/407_dv_34_east.jpg

[SignGeek101]

https://maps.google.com/maps/myplaces?ll=44.025131,-75.908275&spn=0.018175,0.042272&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=44.024515,-75.91644&panoid=L999ZA3wQe-pMTpeC3AyaQ&cbp=12,56.04,,1,-6.82

Sorry for the long link.

"NORTH" is written as "North".

[SignGeek101]

http://goo.gl/maps/pj3Kv

'5' on this speed limit sign got messed up somehow. Looks like a series E wanna be.

[Bruce]

On SR 525 northbound approaching SR 99 in Mukilteo.

[1995hoo]

(cardinal directions are only included if the exit is for one or the other -- both directions, it's excluded).

In that case...

...When there's only one lane.  My mistake.

I can think of a couple of exits that use single-lane C/D roads yet list both directions for the other road. Eastbound I-66 at VA-123 comes to mind (the signs have "SOUTH" and "NORTH" stacked above each other next to the 123 shield). So do both I-81 and I-70 at said roads' junction near Hagerstown (e.g., on westbound I-70 the sign says I-81 "NORTH & SOUTH"). In both cases, separate smaller BGSs on the C/D roads segregate the directions.

[theline]

I wasn't sure where to post this one. There is a definite design error on this street sign, posted on Facebook by a friend:


When I first saw it, I thought it could go in the vandalized sign thread, because somebody flipped the blade over, but my friend reported that "Pulling St." is right side up on the other side of the sign. It could also go in the funny street name thread, I suppose.

[TEG24601]

On SR 525 northbound approaching SR 99 in Mukilteo.

I drive by that often, and it has always bothered me, but I'm not sure why.  Could you elaborate?

[1995hoo]

Passed this last week outside the Watergate on Virginia Avenue in DC. The arrow looks mighty odd. It's also an odd sign because the crosswalk on that side is at a traffic light, so the sign seems unnecessary. (The other crosswalk where that car is has no signal associated with it but no warning sign. )

[okroads]

DSC05124 by
Eric Stuve, on Flickr

[thenetwork]

On SR 525 northbound approaching SR 99 in Mukilteo.

I drive by that often, and it has always bothered me, but I'm not sure why.  Could you elaborate?

My guess is that on the Everett sign, the exit arrow should be below Everett or the sign should've been wider so that the exit arrow is to the right of all text.  As I see it, the BGS looks like a pull-through with an arrow crammed inside.

[Bruce]

On SR 525 northbound approaching SR 99 in Mukilteo.

I drive by that often, and it has always bothered me, but I'm not sure why.  Could you elaborate?

My guess is that on the Everett sign, the exit arrow should be below Everett or the sign should've been wider so that the exit arrow is to the right of all text.  As I see it, the BGS looks like a pull-through with an arrow crammed inside.

I didn't notice that one.

My main concern was with the highway numbers, which are a bit too big and badly spaced inside the shield.

[spooky]

If someone was going to consider misplaced arrows a design error, then almost every BGS in the State of Rhode Island would end up in this thread.

[TEG24601]

On SR 525 northbound approaching SR 99 in Mukilteo.

I drive by that often, and it has always bothered me, but I'm not sure why.  Could you elaborate?

My guess is that on the Everett sign, the exit arrow should be below Everett or the sign should've been wider so that the exit arrow is to the right of all text.  As I see it, the BGS looks like a pull-through with an arrow crammed inside.

I didn't notice that one.

My main concern was with the highway numbers, which are a bit too big and badly spaced inside the shield.

Which I don't notice, because that seems to be the common layout for SR 99, although these are a little large, but at least they aren't the tiny ones you see down south.  I'm not a fan of the way the signs are laid out.  The Shields don't match position, and I'd make the right sign wider, and put the arrow on the end, and replace the Arrow on the Left Sign with "Right at Signal", since there is no exit to speak of.

[Kacie Jane]

The 99 digits don't seem "too large" to me, but are definitely more widely spaced than they should be.  The arrow on the Everett sign though is relatively standard for Washington.  We do have a tendency to shove them wherever they (kind of) fit.