OpenGeofiction
Question about awkward exit signage- several important exits to same streets, how to make more understandable?
Posted by Ernestpkirby on 21 October 2016 in English. Last updated on 15 November 2016.I suppose this is less of a tangible map or wiki issue and more one of practicality. I recently have been spending some time on and off working on Fort Elwood Military base in Freedemia (see here). So far it’s going good, though progress has been slow.
However, I’ve come to face one predicament.
Multiple exits, same street, different destinations…?
As you’ll see on the map, the Freedemia Military Center (aka Fort Elwood) is largely connected by two main roads, Military Parkway (a trunk road through the base and back up to Fort Elwood (city) ) and the Elwood Arthur Jacobs Memorial Expressway, a sort of mini-freeway that connects the M-113, M-13, and the U-4 to the base while also connecting within the base.
However, Military Parkway does a lot of bobbing and weaving, often over or under the Elwood Arthur Jacobs Memorial Expressway. This in itself is fine. It is actually a great thing. It’s a major road and the only real efficient through route in and through the base. Every exit to the highway from the Elwood Arthur Jacobs Memorial Expressway is very important, as each serves a different part of the base, or in the case of the northernmost Military Pkwy exit, areas just off base. Each exit serves a different purpose and is integral for access and traffic flow.
But this leaves me with an odd situation- I have 3 almost back to back exits all labeled Military Parkway. In fact, all of the exits closest to and on base repeat due to the EAJ Mem. Expressway’s loopy shape…
To list out the exits:
*Harris Blvd (hasn’t been mapped yet)
*Unionway 4
*Military Parkway
*Military Parkway
*Naval Parkway
*Naval Parkway
*Military Parkway
*Unionway 4
*Harris Blvd (hasn’t been mapped yet)
*West Blvd, etc (no problems beyond this point)
I’d imagine that without a better system here this would be amazingly confusing for drivers, and I don’t know how to fix this problem. Any ideas?
Discussion
Comment from Reece202 on 21 October 2016 at 10:45
I can’t recall if I’ve seen such a setup anywhere for a direct comparison, but I believe what would work best would be that each sign has Military Parkway listed somewhat like a subtitle, with the primary destinations from that exit being more prominent, i.e.:
Military Parkway
Commisary and Administration
with the next exit being
Military Parkway
Barracks A and B
etc.
Comment from Sarepava on 21 October 2016 at 11:23
Gate numbers are also useful - the docks in my city have Dock Gate 4-40 on various signs. Splitting Military Parkway itself into ‘West’, ‘East’, and ‘Central’ could also help. Don’t forget that most traffic will be actual Army vehicles who will know the base layout and have passes for a particular gate.
Comment from Ernestpkirby on 21 October 2016 at 15:19
Thanks, guys. Those are both good ideas.
Comment from PColumbus73 on 21 October 2016 at 17:02
I’m pretty sure that nearly all the traffic on the Jacobs Mem. Expwy will be traffic headed on or off base, so really, I think you’d just need to sign the important destinations the exits serve without needed to add the street name, except for maybe Military Parkway at Exits 9 & 10.
If Military Pkwy is restricted to military personnel (including service members, family members and non-enlisted employees and contractors), you should add a warning indicating that restriction. Also, if that restriction is in place, you ought to place signs directing visitors to the ‘Main Gates’ if they are required to be screened. Or possibly, require all traffic on the Expressway to stop for ID checks or screening (if they are civilian vehicles) before entering the base property.
Also, if your base is closed off to civilians, you should take into account checkpoints being in place at the entry points. If the Jacobs Expwy is open to the public, that would mean checkpoints at every exit ramp within the base. Think of them as toll plazas where every driver must stop and show ID.
Comment from Thunderbird on 21 October 2016 at 19:12
Wow, a very militaristic country (much like the USA). You know, there are a lot of places I’ve seen in real life that are pretty confusing like this. For example, driving on I-91 in Connecticut, there are many exits for US 5.
I think as long as you can come up with a secondary name (as Reece202 pointed out) it should be fine to leave the primary name “Military Pkwy” for example.
Comment from Ernestpkirby on 21 October 2016 at 21:38
@PColumbus73, I think that’s a good idea to just leave the destinations. I may put little signs like one that says something like Military Parkway- Exits 3, 5, 9 and 10a just to make that connection clear, but it does seem like the destinations will be more important in the long run. However, I will say- only small sections of the bases are closed to civilians. Because Freedemia hasn’t really seen any large threats to its national security to trigger a move to intense security, the bases are mostly open to the public, with the exceptions of certain areas that have to be closed off for direct security reason.
@Thunderbird, it’s actually a lot less militaristic than you’d think- it’s a pacifist nation, and the military mostly acts as a National Guard. However, the nation has a medium strong military for defense if it ever becomes necessary. They recently cut military spending by about 75% because they had been spending so much extra money on a military system that never really did anything. I wrote a couple news articles about it a long while back, the money was reallocated away from the military under a bill called SRAFRA. (see here) (and here)
Comment from Thunderbird on 21 October 2016 at 21:56
@Ernestpcosby Ah, very nice. I was thinking of having a similar type of situation for my country, or possibly even less so (like Switzerland).
In that case, I wonder if there are any USA like countries in this world at all, countries that have their military deployed in foreign places. It certainly is a much more peaceful world than ours.
Comment from Yuanls on 21 October 2016 at 23:36
@Thunderbird
The only reason the USA has so much military influence around the world is because it’s a (currently) unchallenged superpower. I’m not sure if there are any existing countries in the OGF world that could fill in this role for the modern day. Of course, the reasons why the USA has troops everywhere is of a far more of a historical and political nature, an aspect we haven’t gone as deep on OGF as I would have liked. This is not to say that we cannot have superpowers. Mazan, Suria or UL099 can all be repurposed into a superpower (the viability of it and its impact on users is debatable). We could even have an organisation similar to the EU if countries were willing enough.
The OGF world is apparently far more peaceful than ours for several reasons. If we take areas that have been unstable for decades or even centuries, like the Balkans, Sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East, it’s pretty evident that it’s not just plain ‘you vs me’, but more of a complex, multilateral religious and ethnic conflict around borders. This kind of situation can only be reflected with close user co-operation and interest, something we seem to lack on OGF.
Comment from Thunderbird on 22 October 2016 at 02:39
@Yuanls That would be interesting. UL099 reminds me of Russia the way it is positioned now. Looking on the overview map I see it is reserved. Possibly it could become a superpower with greater ambitions.
Perhaps after the world is more developed we will be ready for more international collaboration. I plan to do a lot more internationally once my country is more developed. I also agree with what many users have said that there are not enough “developing” countries.
I suggest an idea to fix that: When the new continents open up we could restrict them to being developing countries except for maybe a select few. If each mapper worked on an additional country that did not have a motorway to each city and glistening skyscrapers, we could create a more even balance. By the way, I am aware I am not helping this issue by building a large USA style city for my capital!!
Comment from Sarepava on 22 October 2016 at 09:51
Regarding the EU, I tried to create something approaching it by having Karolia, Meridonia, Ispelia, Vartisimulia and Darcodia in a customs union and with more or less open borders. But there is no plan for a single currency or totally free trade as yet - and it’s only five countries.
Comment from Yuanls on 22 October 2016 at 13:06
@Sarepava
Hmmm…I never knew about this. There is an international organisation, the Eastern Ulethan Organisation of Independent Allies (the EUOIA). What do you think of relations between these two organisations? Any ideas are okay, even maybe a merger between the two!
Comment from No Way on 24 October 2016 at 19:31
Are you not afaird of a Jiyhadst that might lob a bomb off driving through the base like that?
Comment from Yuanls on 24 October 2016 at 21:01
How many jihadists fly halfway across the world just so they can lob bombs into a place full of hundreds of armed men with guns and training? You’d be better off bombing a civilian bus or a train. Furthermore, I doubt there are any major ‘terrorist’ organisations in OGF anyway.
Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 24 October 2016 at 23:40
@Yuanls
There is Ŏrsham (ߎߙߛߤߊߡ) .
Comment from Ernestpkirby on 25 October 2016 at 14:05
The only terrorist organization that has threatened Freedemia are the Woolonian Traditionalist Rebels, more specifically Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing, a more radical subset, and their attacks are more small, poison dart-based than bomb based. Even then, I’m not sure I would classify them as “jihadists” as much as political terrorists of sorts. Besides, from what i understand, even nations like the US had far less security on bases and such just 15-20 years ago.
Like I was explaining in vaguer terms, Freedemia has never had something tragic like 9/11 happen on such a scale that would have made the nation increase security so drastically. While it still has increased over time (Freedemia has airport security on par with international standards, bases probably would still have perhaps a loose checkpoint with random checks, etc) when our military is basically just reserves and there hasn’t been any major threat or even a past threat, it seems like in the same situation in real life security wouldn’t be as strict as in nations that have experienced terrorism in the past.
Comment from skquinn on 30 November 2016 at 11:47
I know I’m a bit late, but if Reece202’s suggestion doesn’t work, there’s always the possibility of putting the block numbers as part of the destination (Military Parkway 5100-5599, Military Parkway 5600-6299).
If it helps, you’re welcome to look at Frogtown’s Far West End Expressway for inspiration if you’d like; it’s the only significant expressway I’ve built.