Signs Signs Everywhere are Signs...

I guess that's why people call rolling stops "California rolls"... You aren't allowed to stop!

 

Cute...and maybe it's just my monitor, but it looks photoshopped to me.

The no-stopping sign (which appears to be real) is rotated slightly left while the STOP sign is straight-on. The bolts securing both signs to the pole are not lined-up like they would be on a real sign.

Of course, it could be real and just sloppy workmanship...

 

Likewise the lighting looks odd.

Tom

 

Reflective signs will appear odd in certain angles.. the shadows seem right, especially the one on the pole which would have been difficult to manufacture.

As for the bolts, you can see from the other sign that they are held on by bands, so they can rotate around the pole if not tight enough.

 

From what I've seen, stop signs are usually perpendicular to the street, while no parking signs can either be perpendicular or set at an angle, depending on the area.

 

It does not look photoshopped. Signs are like that, but opening the picture up (in photoshop ) and zooming in around the borders of the signs, the trees/leaves/shadows all appear to be accurate. No stray pixels to be seen. Even the space between the signs is ok, and no duplication either. So unless someone filled them in by hand (like an artist), the camera did it.

 

Sometimes in Chicago you want a red light just so you can figure out what's going on:

 

Well, if what you pulled into Photoshop was a screenshot instead of the original digital image, I'm not sure that's conclusive, because a screenshot is not a pixel for pixel duplication of the original image.

The sign, if it actually exists, violates MUTCD in that it is two regulatory signs on the same support with conflicting information, a configuration expressly forbidden in MUTCD (Chapter 2A-16).

I suspect the stop sign was photoshopped atop an existing parking prohibition sign; the stop sign is higher than the standard 7 feet MUTCD spells out, and is clearly higher than the other stop sign on the cross street.

The neighborhood looks nice, which to me would indicate strong compliance with building codes and regulations, so a MUTCD non-compliant sign would be unlikely.

But you never know - like the guys at the top say when covering their hind end after a boo-boo, "mistakes may have been made".

 

I realize that, and that is why I didn't do that... I screenshotted a closeup to show what I meant about the pixels. It is a JPEG so the algorithm may have taken care of the blending in and making no duplicates. But generally you can still see duplication techniques under the artifacts.

 

I haven't run across anyone who is too concerned about following MUTCD, let alone knowing what that even means (aside from traffic engineers).

But I have seen busybodies who will complain about some trivial issue until a government official puts up a sign so they will shut up. This seems to happen in nicer neighborhoods.

Also odd, one crosswalk uses yellow lines but the other uses white?