Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scott5114]

About a month ago, I went to Hays for the weekend and spent some time driving around the area. Most of the signs that I saw had been replaced at some point between 2009 and now, so they used mixed-case Series D. I noted that they looked pretty sharp since they didn't use the official FHWA implementation of Series D. I didn't think much of it at the time, though, since I assumed they were using the typical non-federal "chocolate" glyph set that has floated around for a few decades, often under the PIXYmbols or Page Studio Graphics names.
 
(from GSV)

Today I had reason to look at it a bit closer, and cracked open the latest KDOT plans set, 106 KA 6106-01. What I found was pretty shocking. Much like the LeHay fonts of yore, but way, way more subtle, I discovered that KDOT has a unique Series D implementation of its very own.




You can see on the first image that there are some very subtle, but noticeable, differences between Kansas's Series D and both of the other Series D implementations when they're overlaid. I'm actually pretty impressed that someone took the time to draw these glyphs up; they fix pretty much all of the awkwardness of vanilla Series D, open up some of the counter spaces to reduce the impact of halation, and are just all around a very tasteful implementation of the typeface.

One caveat is that KDOT plans of course come from PDFs generated from SignCAD, and these have some very noticeable "plotteritis", being made up of all corner nodes and not actually smooth edges. Also, there are Series C and B glyphs in this plan set that are very weird and clearly not intended to be used as-is. However, the D glyphs seem to match the signs I saw in western Kansas more or less exactly, and could be reworked to create vector-quality illustrations without much effort. Of course, I'm missing f, j, x, and z, so I'll need to procure those before I could make a font or anything like that. (Too bad there's no conventional-road signage for Fairfax...)

Anyway, there you have it. A modern-day custom font, actively in use in 2021.

[Henry]

At least they're doing it right, unlike GA.

[J N Winkler]

Did you try overlaying sign designs featuring lowercase w and s?  That appears to be where FHWA Series D deviates most sharply from the custom fonts in circulation.

I have also learned that SignCAD, which has been bought out by Bentley (publisher of MicroStation, InRoads, etc.) sometime in the past few years, now makes the FHWA series available in 2K and non-2K versions.  Although lowercase glyphs for alphabet series other than E Modified were not approved by FHWA prior to release of the 2000 Series, I wonder if the SignCAD non-2K fonts have them.  Some state DOTs, such as Minnesota DOT, have felt the need to be very specific in their recently published sign design guidance as to whether 2K fonts are to be used.

[Scott5114]

And indeed Kansas deviates here. Red is Kansas D, green is chocolate/non-2K D, blue is vanilla federal/2K D. w is fairly close to chocolate D, while s differs significantly from both of the others.


I can't imagine the what the purpose of including non-2K fonts would be if they didn't have lowercase letters. The capitals of pre- and post-2K fonts should be identical.

[ran4sh]

At least they're doing it right, unlike GA.

Where have you seen Georgia signs that use FHWA series D ?

[apeman33]

Words with "W", such as "Dwight" in the example above, appear more aesthetically pleasing than in Federal/vanilla D. Seeing a wide "W" crammed into a space would make me think that someone did something wrong when making the sign.

[Scott5114]

Funny this thread should get bumped now...

[InfamousMFD478]

How does anyone download this Chocolate D font?? The sites I found them on wanna charge me $65. Anyone wanna fill me in on something??

[Sani]

So I was checking out the website for SignCAD, and I was a little surprised with the photo they used. "Yes, you too can design ugly, misaligned overlays with far too much open space, just like the pros at FDOT!"

[J N Winkler]

So I was checking out the website for SignCAD, and I was a little surprised with the photo they used. "Yes, you too can design ugly, misaligned overlays with far too much open space, just like the pros at FDOT!"

That is certainly an unfortunate choice of stock photo.  There are a few Florida DOT guide sign worksheets (as they call their sign panel detail sheets) that have clearly used SignCAD, but overall I think they've standardized on GuideSign.