Talk:903.6 Warning Signs - Revision history

Smithk at 17:45, 14 September 2010

2010-09-14T17:45:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:45, 14 September 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:

	[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] Thanks for bringing up this practical issue. As is often the case, I turn to the experts in Traffic. Traffic informs me that as of today (Jan 29, 2010), the EPG sign numbers are generally not current due to a failure with the last sign management system contract. Sign numbers were altered with the idea the new system and catalog was soon to be released. The company failed to complete the system and the actual changes never took place because our current sign catalog and requisition program cannot be updated. The signs numbers were altered to accommodate this new system, but now are being changed to match the new MUTCD. In general, MoDOT will be adopting the 2009 numbering system in the near future. Until Traffic reviews and finalizes all of these new numbers and associated figures, Traffic judges that there is little to be gained trying to fix what will shortly be replaced.		[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] Thanks for bringing up this practical issue. As is often the case, I turn to the experts in Traffic. Traffic informs me that as of today (Jan 29, 2010), the EPG sign numbers are generally not current due to a failure with the last sign management system contract. Sign numbers were altered with the idea the new system and catalog was soon to be released. The company failed to complete the system and the actual changes never took place because our current sign catalog and requisition program cannot be updated. The signs numbers were altered to accommodate this new system, but now are being changed to match the new MUTCD. In general, MoDOT will be adopting the 2009 numbering system in the near future. Until Traffic reviews and finalizes all of these new numbers and associated figures, Traffic judges that there is little to be gained trying to fix what will shortly be replaced.

	..

Smithk at 17:44, 14 September 2010

2010-09-14T17:44:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:44, 14 September 2010
Line 10:		Line 10:
	[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] Thanks for bringing up this practical issue. As is often the case, I turn to the experts in Traffic. Traffic informs me that as of today (Jan 29, 2010), the EPG sign numbers are generally not current due to a failure with the last sign management system contract. Sign numbers were altered with the idea the new system and catalog was soon to be released. The company failed to complete the system and the actual changes never took place because our current sign catalog and requisition program cannot be updated. The signs numbers were altered to accommodate this new system, but now are being changed to match the new MUTCD. In general, MoDOT will be adopting the 2009 numbering system in the near future. Until Traffic reviews and finalizes all of these new numbers and associated figures, Traffic judges that there is little to be gained trying to fix what will shortly be replaced.		[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] Thanks for bringing up this practical issue. As is often the case, I turn to the experts in Traffic. Traffic informs me that as of today (Jan 29, 2010), the EPG sign numbers are generally not current due to a failure with the last sign management system contract. Sign numbers were altered with the idea the new system and catalog was soon to be released. The company failed to complete the system and the actual changes never took place because our current sign catalog and requisition program cannot be updated. The signs numbers were altered to accommodate this new system, but now are being changed to match the new MUTCD. In general, MoDOT will be adopting the 2009 numbering system in the near future. Until Traffic reviews and finalizes all of these new numbers and associated figures, Traffic judges that there is little to be gained trying to fix what will shortly be replaced.

	.		..

Smithk at 17:43, 14 September 2010

2010-09-14T17:43:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:43, 14 September 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:

	[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] Thanks for bringing up this practical issue. As is often the case, I turn to the experts in Traffic. Traffic informs me that as of today (Jan 29, 2010), the EPG sign numbers are generally not current due to a failure with the last sign management system contract. Sign numbers were altered with the idea the new system and catalog was soon to be released. The company failed to complete the system and the actual changes never took place because our current sign catalog and requisition program cannot be updated. The signs numbers were altered to accommodate this new system, but now are being changed to match the new MUTCD. In general, MoDOT will be adopting the 2009 numbering system in the near future. Until Traffic reviews and finalizes all of these new numbers and associated figures, Traffic judges that there is little to be gained trying to fix what will shortly be replaced.		[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] Thanks for bringing up this practical issue. As is often the case, I turn to the experts in Traffic. Traffic informs me that as of today (Jan 29, 2010), the EPG sign numbers are generally not current due to a failure with the last sign management system contract. Sign numbers were altered with the idea the new system and catalog was soon to be released. The company failed to complete the system and the actual changes never took place because our current sign catalog and requisition program cannot be updated. The signs numbers were altered to accommodate this new system, but now are being changed to match the new MUTCD. In general, MoDOT will be adopting the 2009 numbering system in the near future. Until Traffic reviews and finalizes all of these new numbers and associated figures, Traffic judges that there is little to be gained trying to fix what will shortly be replaced.

			.

Smithk at 21:36, 29 January 2010

2010-01-29T21:36:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:36, 29 January 2010
Line 7:		Line 7:
	===W12 Signs===		===W12 Signs===
	On Table 903.6.3 Warning Sign Sizes, page 2, the two low clearance signs are listed differently than they are in EPG 903.6.23. Low Clearance (Educational Plaque) is listed as W12-2B in the table, and W12-2a in the text. The Overhead Low Clearance Sign is listed as W12-3 in the table, and W12-2p in the text. Also confusing things, the Overhead low clearance sign is W12-2a in the 2009 MUTCD, with a size of 78"x24", whereas our sign is listed as 66 x 24 (*72 x 24). Anything that can be done to help clear this up would be appreciated.		On Table 903.6.3 Warning Sign Sizes, page 2, the two low clearance signs are listed differently than they are in EPG 903.6.23. Low Clearance (Educational Plaque) is listed as W12-2B in the table, and W12-2a in the text. The Overhead Low Clearance Sign is listed as W12-3 in the table, and W12-2p in the text. Also confusing things, the Overhead low clearance sign is W12-2a in the 2009 MUTCD, with a size of 78"x24", whereas our sign is listed as 66 x 24 (*72 x 24). Anything that can be done to help clear this up would be appreciated.

			[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] Thanks for bringing up this practical issue. As is often the case, I turn to the experts in Traffic. Traffic informs me that as of today (Jan 29, 2010), the EPG sign numbers are generally not current due to a failure with the last sign management system contract. Sign numbers were altered with the idea the new system and catalog was soon to be released. The company failed to complete the system and the actual changes never took place because our current sign catalog and requisition program cannot be updated. The signs numbers were altered to accommodate this new system, but now are being changed to match the new MUTCD. In general, MoDOT will be adopting the 2009 numbering system in the near future. Until Traffic reviews and finalizes all of these new numbers and associated figures, Traffic judges that there is little to be gained trying to fix what will shortly be replaced.

Smithk at 20:30, 29 January 2010

2010-01-29T20:30:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:30, 29 January 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Under ~~section~~ 903.6.59, there's a link to ~~Section~~ 903.13.22, but the link only takes you to ~~section~~ 903.13, instead of to the ~~subsection~~. Any way that link could take you directly to the ~~section~~ it references?		Under EPG 903.6.59, there's a link to EPG 903.13.22, but the link only takes you to EPG 903.13, instead of to the subarticle. Any way that link could take you directly to the subarticle it references?

	Also, while I was typing this, I wanted to refer to the page for reference, but I can't view both the discussion and page at the same time. And, I had to scroll all the way to the top of the page to switch to the discussion tab. Could the page/discussion/create/watch tabs be "frozen" at the top of the screen while we scroll through the text? Could it possible to view the discussion tab in a sepearte window, maybe at the bottom of the screen?		Also, while I was typing this, I wanted to refer to the page for reference, but I can't view both the discussion and page at the same time. And, I had to scroll all the way to the top of the page to switch to the discussion tab. Could the page/discussion/create/watch tabs be "frozen" at the top of the screen while we scroll through the text? Could it possible to view the discussion tab in a sepearte window, maybe at the bottom of the screen?
Line 5:		Line 5:
	[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] I like the way you think. First, you located a link to a figure that only linked to the EPG article (we refer to EPG articles to avoid confusion with specs, which are referred to as sections) and got with us to correct it. Thanks - and your suggestion has been implemented. Second, you have a cool, techy idea that might be a convenience. Unfortunately, freezing the tabs would be a major change that our technical gura says might not be feasible. In this case, the cool, techy idea will have to be indefinitely postponed.		[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] I like the way you think. First, you located a link to a figure that only linked to the EPG article (we refer to EPG articles to avoid confusion with specs, which are referred to as sections) and got with us to correct it. Thanks - and your suggestion has been implemented. Second, you have a cool, techy idea that might be a convenience. Unfortunately, freezing the tabs would be a major change that our technical gura says might not be feasible. In this case, the cool, techy idea will have to be indefinitely postponed.

	On Table 903.6.3 Warning Sign Sizes, page 2, the two low clearance signs are listed differently than they are in ~~section~~ 903.6.23. Low Clearance (Educational Plaque) is listed as W12-2B in the table, and W12-2a in the text. The Overhead Low Clearance Sign is listed as W12-3 in the table, and W12-2p in the text. Also confusing things, the Overhead low clearance sign is W12-2a in the 2009 MUTCD, with a size of 78"x24", whereas our sign is listed as 66 x 24 (*72 x 24). Anything that can be done to help clear this up would be appreciated.		===W12 Signs===
			On Table 903.6.3 Warning Sign Sizes, page 2, the two low clearance signs are listed differently than they are in EPG 903.6.23. Low Clearance (Educational Plaque) is listed as W12-2B in the table, and W12-2a in the text. The Overhead Low Clearance Sign is listed as W12-3 in the table, and W12-2p in the text. Also confusing things, the Overhead low clearance sign is W12-2a in the 2009 MUTCD, with a size of 78"x24", whereas our sign is listed as 66 x 24 (*72 x 24). Anything that can be done to help clear this up would be appreciated.

EPG-Admin at 20:18, 29 January 2010

2010-01-29T20:18:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:18, 29 January 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:

	[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] I like the way you think. First, you located a link to a figure that only linked to the EPG article (we refer to EPG articles to avoid confusion with specs, which are referred to as sections) and got with us to correct it. Thanks - and your suggestion has been implemented. Second, you have a cool, techy idea that might be a convenience. Unfortunately, freezing the tabs would be a major change that our technical gura says might not be feasible. In this case, the cool, techy idea will have to be indefinitely postponed.		[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] I like the way you think. First, you located a link to a figure that only linked to the EPG article (we refer to EPG articles to avoid confusion with specs, which are referred to as sections) and got with us to correct it. Thanks - and your suggestion has been implemented. Second, you have a cool, techy idea that might be a convenience. Unfortunately, freezing the tabs would be a major change that our technical gura says might not be feasible. In this case, the cool, techy idea will have to be indefinitely postponed.

			On Table 903.6.3 Warning Sign Sizes, page 2, the two low clearance signs are listed differently than they are in section 903.6.23. Low Clearance (Educational Plaque) is listed as W12-2B in the table, and W12-2a in the text. The Overhead Low Clearance Sign is listed as W12-3 in the table, and W12-2p in the text. Also confusing things, the Overhead low clearance sign is W12-2a in the 2009 MUTCD, with a size of 78"x24", whereas our sign is listed as 66 x 24 (*72 x 24). Anything that can be done to help clear this up would be appreciated.

Smithk at 13:40, 17 February 2009

2009-02-17T13:40:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:40, 17 February 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Also, while I was typing this, I wanted to refer to the page for reference, but I can't view both the discussion and page at the same time. And, I had to scroll all the way to the top of the page to switch to the discussion tab. Could the page/discussion/create/watch tabs be "frozen" at the top of the screen while we scroll through the text? Could it possible to view the discussion tab in a sepearte window, maybe at the bottom of the screen?		Also, while I was typing this, I wanted to refer to the page for reference, but I can't view both the discussion and page at the same time. And, I had to scroll all the way to the top of the page to switch to the discussion tab. Could the page/discussion/create/watch tabs be "frozen" at the top of the screen while we scroll through the text? Could it possible to view the discussion tab in a sepearte window, maybe at the bottom of the screen?

	[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] I like the way you think. First, you located a link to a figure that only linked to the EPG article (we refer to EPG articles to avoid confusion with specs, which are referred to as sections) and got with us to correct it. Thanks - and your suggestion has been implemented. Second, you have a cool, techy idea that might be a convenience. Unfortunately, ~~I do~~ not ~~know what is possible for your second suggestion but~~ have ~~passed it on~~ to ~~someone (outside of the Engineering Policy Group) who will know~~.		[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] I like the way you think. First, you located a link to a figure that only linked to the EPG article (we refer to EPG articles to avoid confusion with specs, which are referred to as sections) and got with us to correct it. Thanks - and your suggestion has been implemented. Second, you have a cool, techy idea that might be a convenience. Unfortunately, freezing the tabs would be a major change that our technical gura says might not be feasible. In this case, the cool, techy idea will have to be indefinitely postponed.

Smithk at 21:47, 13 February 2009

2009-02-13T21:47:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:47, 13 February 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Also, while I was typing this, I wanted to refer to the page for reference, but I can't view both the discussion and page at the same time. And, I had to scroll all the way to the top of the page to switch to the discussion tab. Could the page/discussion/create/watch tabs be "frozen" at the top of the screen while we scroll through the text? Could it possible to view the discussion tab in a sepearte window, maybe at the bottom of the screen?		Also, while I was typing this, I wanted to refer to the page for reference, but I can't view both the discussion and page at the same time. And, I had to scroll all the way to the top of the page to switch to the discussion tab. Could the page/discussion/create/watch tabs be "frozen" at the top of the screen while we scroll through the text? Could it possible to view the discussion tab in a sepearte window, maybe at the bottom of the screen?

	[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] I like the way you think. First, you located a link to a figure that only linked to the EPG article (we refer to EPG articles to avoid confusion with specs) and got with us to correct it. Thanks - and your suggestion has been implemented. Second, you have a cool, techy idea that might be a convenience. Unfortunately, I do not know what is possible for your second suggestion but have passed it on to someone (outside of the Engineering Policy Group) who will know.		[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] I like the way you think. First, you located a link to a figure that only linked to the EPG article (we refer to EPG articles to avoid confusion with specs, which are referred to as sections) and got with us to correct it. Thanks - and your suggestion has been implemented. Second, you have a cool, techy idea that might be a convenience. Unfortunately, I do not know what is possible for your second suggestion but have passed it on to someone (outside of the Engineering Policy Group) who will know.

Smithk: article construction

2009-02-13T21:01:17Z

article construction

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:01, 13 February 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Also, while I was typing this, I wanted to refer to the page for reference, but I can't view both the discussion and page at the same time. And, I had to scroll all the way to the top of the page to switch to the discussion tab. Could the page/discussion/create/watch tabs be "frozen" at the top of the screen while we scroll through the text? Could it possible to view the discussion tab in a sepearte window, maybe at the bottom of the screen?		Also, while I was typing this, I wanted to refer to the page for reference, but I can't view both the discussion and page at the same time. And, I had to scroll all the way to the top of the page to switch to the discussion tab. Could the page/discussion/create/watch tabs be "frozen" at the top of the screen while we scroll through the text? Could it possible to view the discussion tab in a sepearte window, maybe at the bottom of the screen?

			[[USER:smithk\|Keith L. Smith:]] I like the way you think. First, you located a link to a figure that only linked to the EPG article (we refer to EPG articles to avoid confusion with specs) and got with us to correct it. Thanks - and your suggestion has been implemented. Second, you have a cool, techy idea that might be a convenience. Unfortunately, I do not know what is possible for your second suggestion but have passed it on to someone (outside of the Engineering Policy Group) who will know.

EPG-Admin: Link in Section 903.6.59 to 903.13.22 and general page layout

2009-02-13T20:47:06Z

Link in Section 903.6.59 to 903.13.22 and general page layout

New page

Under section 903.6.59, there's a link to Section 903.13.22, but the link only takes you to section 903.13, instead of to the subsection. Any way that link could take you directly to the section it references?

Also, while I was typing this, I wanted to refer to the page for reference, but I can't view both the discussion and page at the same time. And, I had to scroll all the way to the top of the page to switch to the discussion tab. Could the page/discussion/create/watch tabs be "frozen" at the top of the screen while we scroll through the text? Could it possible to view the discussion tab in a sepearte window, maybe at the bottom of the screen?