News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

NUTCD Proposal: arbitrary color schemes for Logo Sign panels

Started by Dustin DeWinn, April 22, 2018, 07:04:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dustin DeWinn

I cam across this and it really has been getting me upset for about a week so I thought I should discuss it here:

http://www.ncutcd.org/Documents/Meetings/January_2018/Attach%202%2017B.GMI.01%20Word%20Message%20Logo%20Sign%20Panels.pdf

Now, I'm perfectly okay when I see Blue pit stop / rest stop signs that have the logos overlaid on top of the blue. I've also seen things like wildlife conservatories that have their logo overlaid on top of the brown. in both instances there is no confusion or miscommunication.

As I understand it, what this issaying that Blue and Brown panels aren't suitable for branding. So now we can have Red/white; yellow/green; purple/orange, etc signage on the highway that PERFORMS THE SAME FUNCTION as the blue and brown signs.

NOW if these new logos were on top of blue and brown so we see them as blue and brown, i wouldn't have a problem.

But it seems like they're using the MUTCD as a way to make BILLBOARDS used as road signs.

This really aggravates me. There are no standards now. Any sign can use any readable color combo and it's up to the driver to figure out what to do with it; what type of signal is being sent.

Am i reading this wrong?  :banghead:


MNHighwayMan

No. What the proposal is saying is that those services/businesses without logos, using only the name of their business, which were previously limited only to white text on blue in a rectangle, are now permitted to use other color combinations so long as they meet legibility requirements. These text-only service logos are still going to be put on blue background panels.

J N Winkler

My understanding is that the option to use a color combination other than white on blue applies only to the logo panel itself, not to the logo sign as a whole.  The current guidance calls for a business that does not have a logo, or whose logo is not suitable for advertising use, to receive an "outline" treatment:  white-on-blue logo panel with a text message instead of a graphic design.  This proposed rule change would allow a "full color" treatment, but the combination of foreground and background color within the logo panel would still have to meet the luminance ratio requirement.  In both cases the color scheme of the overall sign remains white on blue.

Edit:  MNHighwayMan posted just as I was composing the foregoing.

Edit (again):  This proposal originates from Minnesota, which makes me wonder if "full color" has already been tried there.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

MNHighwayMan

#3
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 22, 2018, 10:07:30 PM
Edit (again):  This proposal originates from Minnesota, which makes me wonder if "full color" has already been tried there.

You made me curious, so I checked the current MN version of the MUTCD, and it has the same language for that section as the national version. So unless there was some state-wide interim approval of these (and I honestly don't think I've seen one such sign in the field–I could be wrong, though, as I don't pay attention too closely to logo signs), this is the state making a proposal for national approval without having done any in-field testing of its own.

Edit: Link added to the MN MUTCD page on MnDOT's website, for the curious.

Dustin DeWinn

I apologize for the confusion, typos, and incoherence in my original post.

I'm still a bit confused so I illustrated where this is.

In the top images, That's how signs currently are.

The middle ones I've seen, and they are a box overlaid on top of the sign with the blue and brown still prominent. Sometimes I see text written in yellow over brown or it's a logo in minimal high-contrast colors, but it's unmistakable.

The bottom row is where I'm confused.

Is Fig C what is being proposed, or is it Fig F?

Thanks


J N Winkler

Quote from: Dustin DeWinn on April 23, 2018, 11:08:04 AMIs Fig C what is being proposed, or is it Fig F?

It is Figure F.

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 22, 2018, 10:22:43 PMYou made me curious, so I checked the current MN version of the MUTCD, and it has the same language for that section as the national version. So unless there was some state-wide interim approval of these (and I honestly don't think I've seen one such sign in the field–I could be wrong, though, as I don't pay attention too closely to logo signs), this is the state making a proposal for national approval without having done any in-field testing of its own.

I was thinking an experiment might have been carried out in an isolated location, possibly with FHWA approval.

MnDOT has traffic work orders on its EDMS (search phrase "traffic work order"):

http://dotapp7.dot.state.mn.us/eDIGS_guest/DMResultSet/ContentSearch

I wrote a script to pull them in some months ago because these work orders include pattern-accurate sign panel detail sheets, at least for District 6 and the Metro District.  (I presume other districts generate TWOs, but those are the only two for which I have so far found specimens.)  The usual purpose of a TWO is to update a TODS sign when its retroreflective sheeting is deemed life-expired, and in-kind replacement (at the expense of the signed business or other entity--there are an awful lot of TODS signs for WELS churches in rural areas) is the usual outcome, but often the TWO file includes extended policy discussion in unusual or difficult cases, e.g. where an intersection is being reconfigured in such a way that the existing TODS provision cannot be replaced directly, or a casino is seeking signing from further afield.

I have never seen a TWO for logo signs on a freeway, which is the topic at hand, and I think MnDOT may have an arm's-length entity to handle logo signs.  But I envision a scenario where a business would want a "full color" text treatment in lieu of a logo that is unsuitable for use on signs, and the signing unit at MnDOT HQ would judge it expedient to try to accommodate that desire, initially through a supervised experiment.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

US71

Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

roadman

Quote from: US71 on April 23, 2018, 11:32:26 AM
F looks ugly. C would be seen easier, IMO.
F is correct.  The blue portion represents the background panel, not the LOGO itself.  Although I can't imagine a national chain wanting to use a text message instead of their LOGO.

BTW, use of white on blue for text LOGOS is a should condition, not a shall requirement.  And one of the 'supplemental panel on LOGO' examples has a white on green text LOGO, not white on blue.  So I'm curious as to why this is suddenly an issue.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

myosh_tino

Is this what a new all-text logo sign could look like based on what I've read in this thread...



From what I understand, the sign is still blue but the all-text logos can have different colored legend and backgrounds.  Am I right?
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

Dustin DeWinn

Quote from: myosh_tino on April 23, 2018, 02:07:57 PM
Is this what a new all-text logo sign could look like based on what I've read in this thread...



From what I understand, the sign is still blue but the all-text logos can have different colored legend and backgrounds.  Am I right?

Yeah this really isn't that different from these:


MNHighwayMan

#10
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 23, 2018, 02:07:57 PM
Is this what a new all-text logo sign could look like based on what I've read in this thread...



From what I understand, the sign is still blue but the all-text logos can have different colored legend and backgrounds.  Am I right?

That is correct, but with the minor addition that each logo would also have a color-appropriate border around it, too (e.g. Joe's Crab Shack would have a black border).

Also important to note that the proposal does not allow just any two color choices for background and border/legend; it sticks to the "luminance ration of 3:1 already utilized in the MUTCD to establish acceptable legibility combinations." (quote from the proposal.) Meaning, that one's choices are probably limited to those already used by other signs.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.