AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Erroneous road signs  (Read 1401944 times)

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10178
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 06:09:45 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4675 on: December 04, 2020, 11:09:39 PM »

I mean, I'd at least call the supervisor and say "Hey, I think this might be the wrong sign." But I've also worked with enough people that would say "Eh, that's what they gave us", put it up, and move on.
Logged

jmd41280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Belle Vernon, PA
  • Last Login: March 01, 2021, 07:57:18 PM
    • My Flickr page
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4676 on: January 29, 2021, 05:26:10 PM »

Wow, that's a screw-up. About how many markers are we talking here? Like every 0.1 mile?

It actually was every 0.1 mile. That being said, I just noticed today that the markers in question have been replaced with the correct version.

But isn't the notion of US-70 an upgrade to any concept of I-70 in Pennsylvania?  Whether it be Town Hill or Breezewood or Speers Bridge or Little Washington, it was like I-70 was a stepchild to everything else in Pennsylvania.  My old car that got all scratched up from the tar-and-chip repairs on I-70 somewhere around Belle Vernon in the late 1980s just died in a puff of smoke a few weeks ago.

Forget US 70. (Insert state here) Highway 70 would be an upgrade. I have the misfortune of having the substandard portion of I-70 as my daily commute. That being said, there have been projects along that stretch (from I-79 in Washington to I-76 in New Stanton) to upgrade it to modern standards. They still have a very long way to go to finish that stretch, though. In the meantime, we still have stop signs on the onramps from both North Belle Vernon and PA 51.
Logged
Calvin:  "I wonder where we go when we die."

Hobbes:  "Pittsburgh?"

Calvin:  "You mean if we're good or if we're bad?"

SkyPesos

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 697
  • definition of pain: I-75

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Southwest Ohio
  • Last Login: Today at 08:47:32 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4677 on: January 30, 2021, 12:24:18 PM »

The opposite of the error above: US 65 became I-65. I can't say I'm too surprised, given that even the local media has called the freeway as such. Only two mile markers were affected by this error.

GSV from 2017
I know itís the wrong route, but itís weird seeing an I-65 shield on a green enhanced mile markers. The states I-65 goes through I drove on (IN, KY, TN) all uses blue mile markers.
Logged
Traveled 2di: 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 24, 29, 35, 39, 40, 44, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95
Cities I've lived in: Cincinnati, Columbus (OH), St Louis, Fuzhou

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 403
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: March 01, 2021, 09:42:35 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4678 on: January 30, 2021, 12:48:38 PM »

I mean, I'd at least call the supervisor and say "Hey, I think this might be the wrong sign." But I've also worked with enough people that would say "Eh, that's what they gave us", put it up, and move on.

The subs who do this work only get paid if they hang the signs. If the people who made / inspected the signs were responsible to pay the crews who are out there hanging them (and the hourly workers should get paid for being there), pay for the equipment rented to hang them, etc.  Ie indemnify the losses, I would support them not hanging signs they know are somehow incorrect.

I can tell you all the ways this doesn't work, but....
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10513
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 12:28:25 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4679 on: February 02, 2021, 12:08:08 PM »

This one on US 21 Business in Beaufort, SC states that SC 281 is to the right at the light ahead.  False as the SC designation is the second signal.

Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

SkyPesos

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 697
  • definition of pain: I-75

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Southwest Ohio
  • Last Login: Today at 08:47:32 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4680 on: February 02, 2021, 12:18:07 PM »

Logged
Traveled 2di: 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 24, 29, 35, 39, 40, 44, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95
Cities I've lived in: Cincinnati, Columbus (OH), St Louis, Fuzhou

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15777
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: March 01, 2021, 08:49:20 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4681 on: February 02, 2021, 01:36:59 PM »

Please, for the love of Doug...

US/State mixup shield error signs

As of this post, the Erroneous Road Signs thread has 161 pages (I use the default of 25 posts per page), and it will just continue to grow. To reduce its rate of growth, errors that are solely US/state route mixups go here instead of in the Erroneous Road Signs and Worst of Road Signs threads.

Something similar was done a few years ago when "Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs" was created to reduce the number that went into the Worst of Road Signs thread.

If you recently posted in any of these threads with a US/state mixup, you may move the post to here by deleting the other one and pasting the content in this thread. (It doesn't have to be recent, but I'm assuming that the more recent ones will be more easily found.)

In addition to posting US/state mixups, you can post your opinion on whether this thread is necessary, at least for the first few pages.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10178
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 06:09:45 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4682 on: February 02, 2021, 06:51:56 PM »

That's not a US/State mixup, it's an Interstate/State mixup. So it doesn't go in that thread. :P
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12768
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: March 01, 2021, 01:14:35 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4683 on: February 02, 2021, 09:00:03 PM »

Speaking of: that thread really ought to be for all mix-ups.

Title it: Route Designation Mixups

I'd post my suggestion in that thread directly, but I couldn't possibly care about these mixups enough to permanently attach myself to that reply chain.
Logged
Check out my Flickr  |  Comments which I make here do not reflect positions of the University of Washington ("UW"), anyone employed by UW, nor any other students of UW. All comments are my own, and reflect my own ridiculous opinions.

1

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9373
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 22
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 08:37:07 AM
    • Flickr account
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4684 on: February 02, 2021, 09:08:29 PM »

Speaking of: that thread really ought to be for all mix-ups.

Title it: Route Designation Mixups

I'd post my suggestion in that thread directly, but I couldn't possibly care about these mixups enough to permanently attach myself to that reply chain.

I'll change it, but I want to make sure there isn't opposition first.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US ⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒘1⒚14⒈159
NH 27,38,111A(E); CA133; NY366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT32; VT 5A; QC 16⒉16⒌263

Flickr: Click the globe under my avatar

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10513
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 12:28:25 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4685 on: February 03, 2021, 10:16:46 AM »

One of them has to be erroneous.




Both on US 441 several miles apart.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

SkyPesos

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 697
  • definition of pain: I-75

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Southwest Ohio
  • Last Login: Today at 08:47:32 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4686 on: February 03, 2021, 10:37:18 AM »

One of them has to be erroneous.




Both on US 441 several miles apart.
First one is. From some measuring, Okeechobee is 35 miles north of Canal Point on 441, and that sign is south of Canal Point by a mile, so should be 36.
Logged
Traveled 2di: 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 24, 29, 35, 39, 40, 44, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95
Cities I've lived in: Cincinnati, Columbus (OH), St Louis, Fuzhou

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15777
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: March 01, 2021, 08:49:20 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4687 on: February 03, 2021, 12:13:30 PM »

Please, for the love of Doug...

US/State mixup shield error signs

As of this post, the Erroneous Road Signs thread has 161 pages (I use the default of 25 posts per page), and it will just continue to grow. To reduce its rate of growth, errors that are solely US/state route mixups go here instead of in the Erroneous Road Signs and Worst of Road Signs threads.

Something similar was done a few years ago when "Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs" was created to reduce the number that went into the Worst of Road Signs thread.

If you recently posted in any of these threads with a US/state mixup, you may move the post to here by deleting the other one and pasting the content in this thread. (It doesn't have to be recent, but I'm assuming that the more recent ones will be more easily found.)

In addition to posting US/state mixups, you can post your opinion on whether this thread is necessary, at least for the first few pages.


That's not a US/State mixup, it's an Interstate/State mixup. So it doesn't go in that thread. :P

* kphoger slinks away with his tail between his legs.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

interstatefan990

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 94
  • Location: New York
  • Last Login: March 01, 2021, 06:44:45 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4688 on: February 03, 2021, 12:22:26 PM »

This one on US 21 Business in Beaufort, SC states that SC 281 is to the right at the light ahead.  False as the SC designation is the second signal.



I almost thought the top part of that sign was fluorescent yellow-green upon first sight.
Logged
Multi-lane roundabouts are an abomination to mankind.

US71

  • Road Scholar , Master of Snark
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10635
  • Mad man with a camera

  • Age: 61
  • Location: On the road again
  • Last Login: March 01, 2021, 09:34:58 PM
    • The Road Less Taken
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4689 on: February 03, 2021, 01:00:51 PM »


Yellville, AR along US 62


2002 (should be AR 59)

MO 176
Logged
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15777
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: March 01, 2021, 08:49:20 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4690 on: February 03, 2021, 01:12:24 PM »

:facepalm:
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12768
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: March 01, 2021, 01:14:35 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4691 on: February 03, 2021, 01:24:14 PM »

:facepalm:

The never-ending fight rolls on...
Logged
Check out my Flickr  |  Comments which I make here do not reflect positions of the University of Washington ("UW"), anyone employed by UW, nor any other students of UW. All comments are my own, and reflect my own ridiculous opinions.

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4201
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: March 01, 2021, 01:21:33 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4692 on: February 04, 2021, 11:33:29 AM »

This one on US 21 Business in Beaufort, SC states that SC 281 is to the right at the light ahead.  False as the SC designation is the second signal.



This one becomes an error because of its MUTCD violation. The advance turn arrow is not to be used when there is an intersection between the sign and the intended turn. (2009 MUTCD Sec. 2D.31 p06)
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

formulanone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8877
  • Age: 47
  • Location: HSV
  • Last Login: Today at 06:24:26 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4693 on: February 09, 2021, 05:51:58 AM »

Slight error on this one in Waukesha...the "south" should go over the WI-164 shield and the US 18 should have the "west" directional banner:

Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15777
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: March 01, 2021, 08:49:20 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4694 on: February 09, 2021, 10:25:34 AM »


Slight error on this one in Waukesha...the "south" should go over the WI-164 shield and the US 18 should have the "west" directional banner:




And, because it's Wisconsin, one cannot simply switch the tabs around.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

ran4sh

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 110
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Georgia
  • Last Login: Today at 01:55:16 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4695 on: February 09, 2021, 10:52:24 AM »

The opposite of the error above: US 65 became I-65. I can't say I'm too surprised, given that even the local media has called the freeway as such. Only two mile markers were affected by this error.

GSV from 2017
I know itís the wrong route, but itís weird seeing an I-65 shield on a green enhanced mile markers. The states I-65 goes through I drove on (IN, KY, TN) all uses blue mile markers.

If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.
Logged
University of Georgia est. 1785 -  The Birthplace of Public Higher Education in America - 2018 Rose Bowl Champion - 3 W streak vs Ga Tech - 4 W streak vs Auburn

SkyPesos

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 697
  • definition of pain: I-75

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Southwest Ohio
  • Last Login: Today at 08:47:32 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4696 on: February 09, 2021, 11:20:33 AM »

If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.
Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction to the full sized ones, both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2021, 11:34:01 AM by SkyPesos »
Logged
Traveled 2di: 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 24, 29, 35, 39, 40, 44, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95
Cities I've lived in: Cincinnati, Columbus (OH), St Louis, Fuzhou

PurdueBill

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1272
  • Last Login: Today at 01:51:46 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4697 on: February 09, 2021, 01:46:29 PM »

If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.
Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction to the full sized ones, both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.

Interestingly, there has been a rash of new-style ones with the initial letter only for the direction, usually in Series B or C which is narrower than what was on the original design. 

I would be surprised if ODOT changed them all over statewide just to turn blue to green.

It is interesting that ODOT went through a phase of the whole number markers being green and the others blue.  Those were put up at the same time, and interestingly, the values changed by 6/10 mile when they did.  (If you move back in time, you can see 22.6 where 22.0 now is.  Also, the old 22.6 was an interesting one with a W direction but both 76 and 77 shields; they all had that along the duplex.)
Logged

SkyPesos

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 697
  • definition of pain: I-75

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Southwest Ohio
  • Last Login: Today at 08:47:32 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4698 on: February 09, 2021, 02:05:37 PM »

If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.
Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction to the full sized ones, both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.
It is interesting that ODOT went through a phase of the whole number markers being green and the others blue.  Those were put up at the same time, and interestingly, the values changed by 6/10 mile when they did.  (If you move back in time, you can see 22.6 where 22.0 now is.  Also, the old 22.6 was an interesting one with a W direction but both 76 and 77 shields; they all had that along the duplex.)
I think the whole number green enhanced markers might be exclusive to Akron (or ODOT district 4), as I don't see them anywhere else in the state. Also interesting is that the .0 is omitted on the Akron ones you linked. Normally, the state keeps the .0 on whole miles; this one-off in Toledo was the only one I knew about that omitted the .0 before seeing the Akron ones. The other cities (well, Cincy, Columbus, Dayton and Cleveland at least) have the standard vertical number green mile marker on the right side of the road for whole miles in addition to the blue mile marker in the median.
Logged
Traveled 2di: 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 24, 29, 35, 39, 40, 44, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95
Cities I've lived in: Cincinnati, Columbus (OH), St Louis, Fuzhou

PurdueBill

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1272
  • Last Login: Today at 01:51:46 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4699 on: February 09, 2021, 02:09:12 PM »

If the proposed new MUTCD is adopted as is, then those states (and others) will have to change their blue markers to green, the proposed new MUTCD removes the option of having those markers in blue.
Ohio's going to have a fun time with that. They recently replaced a lot of the thinner older style mile markers with abbreviated cardinal direction to the full sized ones, both in blue. The state will probably find a way around it, considering Ohio still have a good amount of dancing arrow signage up despite dancing arrows getting disallowed in the 2009 MUTCD. I prefer enhanced mile markers in blue over green, though a lot of people will disagree with me.

Afaik for states that uses blue, KY, IN and TN has been mentioned already, OH just mentioned, and there's also KS and WI.
It is interesting that ODOT went through a phase of the whole number markers being green and the others blue.  Those were put up at the same time, and interestingly, the values changed by 6/10 mile when they did.  (If you move back in time, you can see 22.6 where 22.0 now is.  Also, the old 22.6 was an interesting one with a W direction but both 76 and 77 shields; they all had that along the duplex.)
I think the whole number green enhanced markers might be exclusive to Akron (or ODOT district 4), as I don't see them anywhere else in the state. Also interesting is that the .0 is omitted on the Akron ones you linked. Normally, the state keeps the .0 on whole miles; this one-off in Toledo was the only one I knew about that omitted the .0 before seeing the Akron ones. The other cities (well, Cincy, Columbus, Dayton and Cleveland at least) have the standard vertical number green mile marker on the right side of the road for whole miles in addition to the blue mile marker in the median.

Some of the newest .0 ones show .0; it seems that it is flavor of the month with them.  The recently-completed project on 76/77 includes a new 22.0 marker with Mile 22 traditional markers on the roadside; other whole numbers nearby are missing and possibly because of the 6/10 shift (which itself is odd).  It is almost like they are seeing how many permutations they can come up with.  It was never this way when they were all the old design.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.