3DI Fonts

[PHLBOS]

There are some shields in California that I think are very nice. They use Series D (probably modified):

That looks like regular Series D.  When I stated modified in my earlier post; I was referring to the wider stroke width (to accommodate reflector buttons for the above-examples). 

Only Series E has an actual separate modified (E(M)) font companion.  Officially, there is no Series D-Modified or D(M).

Side bar: most states have since abandoned the use of state-named I-shields across-the board and although Caltrans still(?) uses such for its stand-alone signs (trailblazer & reassurance signage); I believe they use neutered shields with larger numerals (for better distant-visibility) for its BGS'.

[hbelkins]

I'm not sure which series is which, but I do know that the marker on the right looks a lot better than the one on the left in this photo:

[jakeroot]

Side bar: most states have since abandoned the use of state-named I-shields across-the board and although Caltrans still(?) uses such for its stand-alone signs (trailblazer & reassurance signage); I believe they use neutered shields with larger numerals (for better distant-visibility) for its BGS'.

Yes, they forego the use of the state name on most guide signs. But, the spacing around the edge of the numbers is still better than most 3di shields with Series C (though they also use a slightly modified 3di shield, so maybe they're cheating). It's hard to avoid getting the numbers too close to the left and right edges of the shield, but it's nice when the number isn't too close to the top of the blue area. The shield below has the number scooted down from the top edge quite a bit, which makes a difference to me:

I'm not sure which series is which, but I do know that the marker on the right looks a lot better than the one on the left in this photo:

http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2009_Northeast_Day_2/Images/219.jpg

The left is Series D. The right is Series C. I prefer the shield on the left.

[myosh_tino]

There are some shields in California that I think are very nice. They use Series D (probably modified):

For the most part you are correct.  Here's a brief run-down on 3-digit interstate shields used on overhead guide signs in California...

"Early" Button Copy - 15" Series D-modified


"Middle" Button Copy - 12" Series E-modified


"Late" Button Copy - 15" Series E-modified


Current  - 15" Series D



I must point out 3DI shields in California measure 45" x 38" which is 2 inches taller than the national standard (45 x 36).    Of the above variations, my favorite remains the 15" Series D-modified shields followed by the 15" Series D shields found on all new reflective signs.  My least favorite is the 15" Series E-modified simply because the numerals look squished.

I have been, and never will be, a fan of using 18" numerals in any 36" tall shield period.

[PHLBOS]

For those that may not know or are unfamiliar with PA Turnpike history; the reasoning for the (needless IMHO) redundancy of I-476 shields was due to this BGS was originally erected prior to the Northeast Extension becoming I-476 (the BGS had a PA 9 shield next to the Series D I-476 shield). 

Personally, I would've just removed the direction cardinals and repositioned the original I-476 shield so that it was centered between its old position and the removed-PA 9 shield.  Moot point today because this BGS has since been replaced with one of a more simpler design & layout.

Another comparison exercise (using mostly I-476 shields):

Series D, 16"  height

Series C, 18"  height

Series D, 18"  height
Note: these BGS' replaced ones that had shorter 16"  Series D numerals roughly 6 months after the Blue Route first opened.  PennDOT's supposed reasoning for replacing brand new signs at this interchange as well as ones at MacDade Blvd. & I-95 was in response to requests/complaints about the numerals not being large enough to see at a distance.  If such was the case; I would've went w/18" Series C.  The D numerals in this example indeed appear cluttered; not recommended IMHO.

Series B, 18"  height  Not recommended IMHO; the numerals appear anemic.

This one hasn't yet been brought up (a likely-PA exclusive):

Elongated/stretched Series D, see I-476 shield

Similar style w/I-276 shields

[Mergingtraffic]

I'm not sure which series is which, but I do know that the marker on the right looks a lot better than the one on the left in this photo:

I actually prefer the one on the left.  More blue outside of the numbering.  I actually have an easier time reading the 57 and 61 spec shields.
A great comparison pic for the thread tho.

[hotdogPi]

I'm not sure which series is which, but I do know that the marker on the right looks a lot better than the one on the left in this photo:

I actually prefer the one on the left.  More blue outside of the numbering.  I actually have an easier time reading the 57 and 61 spec shields.
A great comparison pic for the thread tho.

Also prefer left. The right is a raci-... oh wait, that's NE2's line. The right shield just looks a bit strange. I also think it's the blue space.

[PHLBOS]

I'm not sure which series is which, but I do know that the marker on the right looks a lot better than the one on the left in this photo:

I actually prefer the one on the left.  More blue outside of the numbering.  I actually have an easier time reading the 57 and 61 spec shields.
A great comparison pic for the thread tho.

...The right shield just looks a bit strange. I also think it's the blue space.

If one looks closely at the shield on the right; it appears that the numerals aren't evenly spaced.  That might be why it looks, in your words, strange.

Here's a better (IMHO) example of Series C & properly-spaced numerals.

[jakeroot]

I haven't been, and never will be, a fan of using 18" numerals in any 36" tall shield period.

The (18") D numerals in this example indeed appear cluttered; not recommended IMHO.

I have a strong preference for Series D, but even I hate 18" Series D. I'll take Series B over that cramped crap.

[Scott5114]

For what it's worth, this is the exact variant specified in the federal MUTCD. (Note also that the word "INTERSTATE" is in series E; this is a detail that most states skip over, keeping the Series C specified on the two-digit shield.)

[jakeroot]

http://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/winrd/100_7390-s.JPG

For what it's worth, this is the exact variant specified in the federal MUTCD. (Note also that the word "INTERSTATE" is in series E; this is a detail that most states skip over, keeping the Series C specified on the two-digit shield.)

I didn't realize that. Most of the shields along Washington's I-405 use the narrower "INTERSTATE", but some use the wider Series E variant. I always thought it was mistake.

Here's (IMO) an excellent Series C shield, along with the proper INTERSTATE text. Other than the smaller 16" Series D variants posted sparingly, this is definitely the best-looking 405 shield along the route (it's filled with bubble shields)...

[odditude]

For what it's worth, this is the exact variant specified in the federal MUTCD. (Note also that the word "INTERSTATE" is in series E; this is a detail that most states skip over, keeping the Series C specified on the two-digit shield.)

my personal preference is Series C for "INTERSTATE" regardless of shield width, as it used to be specified. the first time I saw E on a 3DI shield, I was convinced it was a contractor error.

[ekt8750]

I'm not sure which series is which, but I do know that the marker on the right looks a lot better than the one on the left in this photo:

Incidentally enough the one on the left is ironically a PennDOT produced shield (note the white dot at the very bottom of the blue area, that's the old PennDOT logo) using the PennDOT font. There's a ton of those lining the various interchanges of the PennDOT portion of 476. I'm a bit surprised one found its way onto a PTC sign though.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

During the button-copy era(s); Series E(M) was mostly used for numerals on I-shields:


Occasionally, some button-copy I-shields (even 3dis) did feature Series D (modified(?)) numerals.

Clearview

Not/never allowed per FHWA.

what is wrong with the 7 and 6 on the 3di adjacent (right).

[Pink Jazz]

As for button copy on Interstate shields, I think ADOT stopped producing button copy Interstate shields in the 1980s, even though ADOT continued to use button copy until 2000.

[DJStephens]

Why the discontinuation?  Expense?  There is still some on the 17 Freeway (Black Canyon) Viewed it earlier this week.   

[jakeroot]

Why the discontinuation?  Expense?  There is still some on the 17 Freeway (Black Canyon) Viewed it earlier this week.

Of button copy? It was superseded, in terms of readability, by retroreflective signage. Not sure which year the changeover started (probably earlier in some places, later in others), but the last state to dump button copy was Arizona, in 2000.

During the button-copy era(s); Series E(M) was mostly used for numerals on I-shields:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2127/1653841717_077c705e37_b.jpg

what is wrong with the 7 and 6 on the 3di adjacent (right).

Things look fine to me. What appears wrong?

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

Why the discontinuation?  Expense?  There is still some on the 17 Freeway (Black Canyon) Viewed it earlier this week.

Of button copy? It was superseded, in terms of readability, by retroreflective signage. Not sure which year the changeover started (probably earlier in some places, later in others), but the last state to dump button copy was Arizona, in 2000.

During the button-copy era(s); Series E(M) was mostly used for numerals on I-shields:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2127/1653841717_077c705e37_b.jpg

what is wrong with the 7 and 6 on the 3di adjacent (right).

Things look fine to me. What appears wrong?

Maybe the 6 is fine, but the seven seems as if there was an error in it's scaling or alginment. The upper branch off the seven appears thicker than the other shield or the 6 accompanying the 7 on the right sign.

[SignGeek101]

Why the discontinuation?  Expense?  There is still some on the 17 Freeway (Black Canyon) Viewed it earlier this week.

Of button copy? It was superseded, in terms of readability, by retroreflective signage. Not sure which year the changeover started (probably earlier in some places, later in others), but the last state to dump button copy was Arizona, in 2000.

During the button-copy era(s); Series E(M) was mostly used for numerals on I-shields:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2127/1653841717_077c705e37_b.jpg

what is wrong with the 7 and 6 on the 3di adjacent (right).

Things look fine to me. What appears wrong?

Maybe the 6 is fine, but the seven seems as if there was an error in it's scaling or alginment. The upper branch off the seven appears thicker than the other shield or the 6 accompanying the 7 on the right sign.

I don't see anything either.

[jakeroot]

During the button-copy era(s); Series E(M) was mostly used for numerals on I-shields:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2127/1653841717_077c705e37_b.jpg

what is wrong with the 7 and 6 on the 3di adjacent (right).

Things look fine to me. What appears wrong?

Maybe the 6 is fine, but the seven seems as if there was an error in it's scaling or alginment. The upper branch off the seven appears thicker than the other shield or the 6 accompanying the 7 on the right sign.

I think your eyes are deceiving you -- I don't see anything wrong. Or maybe my eyes suck!?

The 476 is slightly smaller than the 76 next to it, if that's something you're noticing. But that's only to cram it in the 3di shield. The digits inside the 476 shield appear to be scaled appropriately, at least compared to each other.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

During the button-copy era(s); Series E(M) was mostly used for numerals on I-shields:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2127/1653841717_077c705e37_b.jpg

what is wrong with the 7 and 6 on the 3di adjacent (right).

Things look fine to me. What appears wrong?

Maybe the 6 is fine, but the seven seems as if there was an error in it's scaling or alginment. The upper branch off the seven appears thicker than the other shield or the 6 accompanying the 7 on the right sign.

I think your eyes are deceiving you -- I don't see anything wrong. Or maybe my eyes suck!?

The 476 is slightly smaller than the 76 next to it, if that's something you're noticing. But that's only to cram it in the 3di shield. The digits inside the 476 shield appear to be scaled appropriately, at least compared to each other.

Man, no tellin' what I've inhaling through the air nowadays! So, you may be right, but at first the 7 did look a little jank.

[JoePCool14]

Well, I think we can at least all agree on one way not to do it.



Personally, I prefer using Series D on all Interstate shields.

[Quillz]

I've come around to Series B. I used to dislike it, but in the right application, it can look fine. But for 3di interstate shields, I generally prefer Series C. I think it looks the most "balanced" in terms of aesthetics and readability, and its what is recommended in the MUTCD. However, Series B can look good if it's a bit taller (perhaps 12'' vs 10''), and the shield itself is a bit thinner. Of course, the latter part usually means something that isn't an 3di shield. Quebec actually uses a one-size-fits-all autoroute shield, which calls for Series B for three-digit numbers, and I think it looks pretty nice. Mexican autopista shields also use Series B exclusively, although there seems to be less standardization there.

[PHLBOS]

Well, I think we can at least all agree on one way not to do it.



Personally, I prefer using Series D on all Interstate shields.

I'm assuming your beef with the above is with the I-290 shield.  Actually, if one looks closer (click on the photo for enlargement); those 290 numerals look more like Elongated/stretched Series D rather than Series C.  See my earlier post showing the various numeral fonts used for I-476 shields.

290 in Series C are slightly narrower than the above-example.

An older, example of an I-290 shield in Series C numerals (faded shields have since been replaced):