>>1503355>there isn't a federally mandated set of signsWrong.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/MUTCD introduction paragraph 07:
>The U.S. Secretary of Transportation, under authority granted by the Highway Safety Act of 1966, decreed that traffic control devices on all streets and highways open to public travel in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 402(a) in each State shall be in substantial conformance with the Standards issued or endorsed by the FHWA.And paragraph 19:
>In accordance with 23 CFR 655.603(b)(3), States or other Federal agencies that have their own MUTCDs or Supplements shall revise these MUTCDs or Supplements to be in substantial conformance with changes to the National MUTCD within 2 years of the effective date of the Final Rule for the changes. Substantial conformance of such State or other Federal agency MUTCDs or Supplements shall be as defined in 23 CFR 655.603(b)(1).Presumably the state DOT thinks the signs in OP's photo are "substantially compliant" with pic related from the MUTCD, and the FHWA hasn't bothered to call out the state officials.
