Something I think is lost from your comment, though:
It's also stories like this that can show us that people are generally benevolent. Your reaction to this is to call this "forgery" and say the signage is not "secure". Neither of those actually occurred to me here. The only thing I see is a well-intentioned person fixing inadequate signage. It doesn't seem all that less legitimate than signage from the state.
To me, a better argument for increasing "security" of the signage is that occasionally in urban areas I've seen taggers paint over highway signs. That has the potential to confuse drivers, possibly leading to accidents, and it costs the state money to re-paint. But there is no danger in a vigilante making the signage more accurate.
He did it right by their standards, though. Apparently even affixed it well enough to not introduce liabilities (sign shearing off in high wind and slicing into a windshield).
If you don't satisfy codes, the city will undo your work [1].
It's also stories like this that can show us that people are generally benevolent. Your reaction to this is to call this "forgery" and say the signage is not "secure". Neither of those actually occurred to me here. The only thing I see is a well-intentioned person fixing inadequate signage. It doesn't seem all that less legitimate than signage from the state.
To me, a better argument for increasing "security" of the signage is that occasionally in urban areas I've seen taggers paint over highway signs. That has the potential to confuse drivers, possibly leading to accidents, and it costs the state money to re-paint. But there is no danger in a vigilante making the signage more accurate.