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

AARoads: Gothic vs. Clearview Page

Started by corco, February 12, 2009, 10:41:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ctrabs74

Quote from: exit322 on August 12, 2009, 09:27:21 PM
Looks like it's in Ohio, but I'm pretty sure those are KY-supplied signs.  Ohio rarely, if ever, uses ALLCAPS in anything like the "5th STREET" on that sign.

That is Ohio. The blue mileage signs are a dead giveaway, as I know of few other states that use blue mileage markers.


Dr Frankenstein

Clearview passed the experimental stage in QC and is now required for positive contrast BGSes. Probably the first state in North America to do so, as it is not bound by a federal authority like FHWA.

KEVIN_224

I've seen a grand total of ONE Clearview sign so far in Connecticut. It's near Exit 22 on I-84 West in Waterbury, in front of the Brass Mill Center Mall. I doubt we'll see more, since there was a major sign project done along parts of I-95 in Fairfield County, mostly in Darien. None of those signs look to have Clearview font at all.

Alps

Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on December 07, 2011, 07:30:40 PM
Clearview passed the experimental stage in QC and is now required for positive contrast BGSes. Probably the first state in North America to do so, as it is not bound by a federal authority like FHWA.
Clearview is unlikely to pass through the experimental stage in the US. I've heard that the FHWA isn't thrilled with it.

DaBigE

Update for Wisconsin:
The question was brought up in our meeting with WisDOT: What is the status of Clearview in Wisconsin?

Back in 2008, as part of a sign maintenance project, 44 guide signs were replaced along the Madison beltline between US 51 (Stoughton Rd) and Park Street (US 14).  As part of this replacement, WisDOT decided to test out the Clearview font on these signs (in addition to the super-high intensity sheeting).

Mid-replacement:


According to WisDOT, their testing (data unknown) did not reveal a significant improvement to warrant the change.  So for the foreseeable future, Wisconsin highways will be graced by the FHWA Standard fonts.  The signs along the test corridor will remain for the rest of the signs' useful service life (guaranteed by the installer for ~15 years).  Super-high intensity sheeting will, however, be the norm for freeway guide signs.  Becuase of this change and the data they collected, there will not be any new sign lighting.  Existing sign lighting (mostly in the Milwaukee metro area) will be turned off as signs are replaced/upgraded.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

Alps

Quote from: DaBigE on March 04, 2012, 04:22:32 AM
According to WisDOT, their testing (data unknown) did not reveal a significant improvement to warrant the change.  So for the foreseeable future, Wisconsin highways will be graced by the FHWA Standard fonts.  The signs along the test corridor will remain for the rest of the signs' useful service life (guaranteed by the installer for ~15 years).  Super-high intensity sheeting will, however, be the norm for freeway guide signs.  Becuase of this change and the data they collected, there will not be any new sign lighting.  Existing sign lighting (mostly in the Milwaukee metro area) will be turned off as signs are replaced/upgraded.
Good good good. Let's not point out they forgot to increase the spacing between letters 50% in their test run.

DaBigE

Quote from: Steve on March 04, 2012, 07:13:50 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on March 04, 2012, 04:22:32 AM
According to WisDOT, their testing (data unknown) did not reveal a significant improvement to warrant the change.  So for the foreseeable future, Wisconsin highways will be graced by the FHWA Standard fonts.  The signs along the test corridor will remain for the rest of the signs' useful service life (guaranteed by the installer for ~15 years).  Super-high intensity sheeting will, however, be the norm for freeway guide signs.  Becuase of this change and the data they collected, there will not be any new sign lighting.  Existing sign lighting (mostly in the Milwaukee metro area) will be turned off as signs are replaced/upgraded.
Good good good. Let's not point out they forgot to increase the spacing between letters 50% in their test run.
I might be wrong, but that might be one of the signs with the 5-W(R) reduced width font signs due to overhead support restrictions.  But I wouldn't be surprised if it was wrong...wouldn't be the first mistake their contractor has made (future topic).

Here's some others from the corridor:
 
 
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

Alps

Quote from: DaBigE on March 04, 2012, 03:12:15 PM
Quote from: Steve on March 04, 2012, 07:13:50 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on March 04, 2012, 04:22:32 AM
According to WisDOT, their testing (data unknown) did not reveal a significant improvement to warrant the change.  So for the foreseeable future, Wisconsin highways will be graced by the FHWA Standard fonts.  The signs along the test corridor will remain for the rest of the signs' useful service life (guaranteed by the installer for ~15 years).  Super-high intensity sheeting will, however, be the norm for freeway guide signs.  Becuase of this change and the data they collected, there will not be any new sign lighting.  Existing sign lighting (mostly in the Milwaukee metro area) will be turned off as signs are replaced/upgraded.
Good good good. Let's not point out they forgot to increase the spacing between letters 50% in their test run.
I might be wrong, but that might be one of the signs with the 5-W(R) reduced width font signs due to overhead support restrictions.  But I wouldn't be surprised if it was wrong...wouldn't be the first mistake their contractor has made (future topic).

Here's some others from the corridor:
 
 
They're clearly all like that without the increased spacing. Improper Clearview fail. Then again, if you gave as many bonuses to FHWA font as you did to Clearview (use E instead of E-M, increase spacing, etc.) then I think FHWA would win easily.

J N Winkler

I am sure I have seen WisDOT construction plans showing Clearview with no reduction in intercharacter spacing--"Fish Hatchery Rd" comes to mind.  I incline to think that Clearview has been given a fair shot in Wisconsin.

Speaking of Clearview experiments, upthread Roadfro mentioned some Clearview signage on a length of US 395 in Reno which had recently been reconstructed.  This, I have subsequently determined, was done under Nevada DOT Contract 3401, whose engineer seals have dates mostly in July 2009.  To the best of my knowledge, all Nevada DOT contracts done before and since have called for the FHWA alphabet series, and recent Nevada DOT work has called for conventional-road guide signs with mixed-case lettering in the FHWA series, as is now called for in the 2009 MUTCD.
"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

Alps

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 05, 2012, 04:19:16 AM
I am sure I have seen WisDOT construction plans showing Clearview with no reduction in intercharacter spacing--"Fish Hatchery Rd" comes to mind.  I incline to think that Clearview has been given a fair shot in Wisconsin.

Read what I'm saying (twice) carefully. I never said reduction. I said it's being done without the 50% increase that it's supposed to have.

PurdueBill

Quote from: ctrabs74 on December 07, 2011, 05:12:14 PM
That is Ohio. The blue mileage signs are a dead giveaway, as I know of few other states that use blue mileage markers.

Indiana uses them extensively.  Kentucky also uses them, as seen on Alps I-71 page.  471 also has them.

Regarding Clearview, it's showing up in Akron on street sign blades.  Also, at the now-complete OH 8-Ohio Turnpike interchange, there is some interesting overlap; ODOT signage on the newly completed stretch of 8 is Clearview; the Turnpike doesn't use Clearview but still installs lighting on overheads.  Signage in the newly completed areas that belong to the Turnpike commission is lighted but in Clearview.  Evidently ODOT did the specs for the signs but the Turnpike asked that the signs on their sections be lighted as is their standard.

I-277 was resigned last year, sadly replacing great button copy, but in FHWA, not Clearview. 

J N Winkler

#111
Quote from: Steve on March 05, 2012, 08:02:10 PMRead what I'm saying (twice) carefully. I never said reduction. I said it's being done without the 50% increase that it's supposed to have.

No amount of re-reading will cut through a lack of clarity.  Clearview 5-W comes with standardized letter tiling, as does Clearview 5-W-R.  The design specification (if memory serves) is that legend in Clearview 5-W-R will, on average, be as wide as it is in Series E Modified, while the same legend in Clearview 5-W will be approximately 11% wider.  I have never heard of the distinction between the two being characterized as a 50% reduction or a 50% increase.  Was it your intention to say that 5-W should have been used instead of 5-W-R?  If so, then why not just say that?

The sign photos posted so far for Wisconsin appear to show vanilla 5-W-R.  The Fish Hatchery Rd. plans set I have seen shows vanilla 5-W.
"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

Alps

I have no clue what 5-W or 5-W-R are. All I know is that the spacing in Clearview letters has to be 50% above what is specified in order to match what the FHWA has tested and approved.

J N Winkler

What is your source for this 50% increase?
"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

Quillz

Quote from: Steve on March 06, 2012, 05:50:16 PM
I have no clue what 5-W or 5-W-R are. All I know is that the spacing in Clearview letters has to be 50% above what is specified in order to match what the FHWA has tested and approved.
Clearview has 13 families:

1B-6B (slightly thinner letters, I think it's for negative contrast)
1W-6W (slightly thicker, I think it's for positive contrast)

1B/W is more or less equivalent to Series B, and so on. But then there is also 5W-R, I imagine it means "revised," and is more or less the equivalent of E(M).

DaBigE

Quote from: Quillz on March 06, 2012, 07:30:34 PM
Quote from: Steve on March 06, 2012, 05:50:16 PM
I have no clue what 5-W or 5-W-R are. All I know is that the spacing in Clearview letters has to be 50% above what is specified in order to match what the FHWA has tested and approved.
Clearview has 13 families:

1B-6B (slightly thinner letters, I think it's for negative contrast)
1W-6W (slightly thicker, I think it's for positive contrast)

1B/W is more or less equivalent to Series B, and so on. But then there is also 5W-R, I imagine it means "revised," and is more or less the equivalent of E(M).

It's all officially spelled out here:
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

J N Winkler

It is worth noting that unlike the material at the first two links, which has been on the MUTCD website since Clearview received interim approval in September 2004, the FAQ is new.  It stresses many points of Clearview usage which figure prominently in road enthusiast criticism of Clearview.

*  Don't use Clearview in route shields, even in positive contrast such as on Interstate shields (FHWA's rationale:  shields of all types are not designable signs, so Clearview cannot be used for them)

*  Never use Clearview for standard (i.e., non-designable) signs

*  Avoid using Clearview digits in exit tabs and distance expressions

*  Never assume that Clearview uppercase letter height and lowercase loop height are in the same 4:3 ratio that applies to Series E Modified (the true ratio is more like 25:21)--use uppercase letter height only as the sizing control

*  Follow the same rules for interline and margin spacing with Clearview that you would follow with Series E Modified (i.e., uppercase letter height horizontally, and 75% of uppercase letter height vertically)

*  Follow the same rules for building fraction rectangles that you would use with Series E Modified--do not use inline fractions, and do not use software fraction-building routines unless they have purposely been designed to be "Clearview-aware"

*  Do not assume that even "W" Clearview alphabets are uniformly more legible than the corresponding FHWA alphabet series (for example, Clearview 5-W and 5-W-R have a demonstrated legibility advantage over Series E Modified, but Clearview 3-W--positioned as an equivalent to Series D--is actually less legible than Series D)

*  Never use Clearview in negative contrast

*  Never use mixed-case Clearview as a drop-in substitute for all-uppercase legend in the FHWA alphabet series
"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

DaBigE

Thanks JN, I forgot to add that note about the FAQ release...

Also worth noting, is a reply I got to a letter spacing question I posed to the folks that designed the font (regarding if the spacing was automatically correct within the font when placed into design software or if it had to be manually manipulated):
QuoteThe letter spacing is included in the font and is more accurate than the FHWA published letter space data for the Clearview fonts.

Also, do not follow the old methodology that specifies one dimension for the cap height and another for the x height. Scale the Clearview fonts to what ever cap height is required and DO NOT individual modify the lowercase height. One of the reasons Clearview is so successful is the proportion of x-height to cap height. Do not change that relationship.

There is some kerning tables built into the font that will optimize letter fit, if the design program supports kerning. Problematic pairs such as Ta Te To Va Vo etc are adjusted with the kern data. InDesign supports kerning. MS Word supports it, but it is turned off by default (at least it used to be), and can be turned on in the paragraph format. Most commercial sign making applications such as GuidSIGN and SignCAD do not support kerning.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

J N Winkler

DaBigE, thanks for posting this information about how various design packages handle the kerning built into the Clearview typefaces.  SignCAD is supposed to be Clearview-friendly but I have seen quite a few SignCAD-generated sign design sheets with fairly serious letter spacing problems in Clearview blocks.
"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

Alps

It would be wonderful if programs designed to make signs would incorporate mandated kerning...

DaBigE

#120
Quote from: Steve on March 07, 2012, 07:29:11 PM
It would be wonderful if programs designed to make signs would incorporate mandated kerning...
Mandated?  Last I saw, only standard, specific letter spacing is required.  Kerning and letter spacing are not the same thing (one is a function of the other).  And in the case of GuidSIGN, lack of a kerning function is not necessarily the sign design software's fault.  GuidSIGN operates within a CAD program (as an MDL for the designers/software geeks out there).  All of its functionality is limited by the host CAD software package (generally MicroStation or AutoCAD).  Most, if not all CAD programs are not meant to be used for perfect text layout, therefore you won't find a kerning function as you would in Adobe InDesign or MS Word.  Having fully automatic letter spacing is not necessarily the best thing either.  Sign design (as with any design) should not be completely without human interaction and review.

With regards to the way WisDOT lays out their signs, while slower and arguably antiquated, it still (IMO) one of the best ways of laying out a sign.  Each letter exists as a separate [Microstation] cell with alignment guides (some of which are the little 'dots' you see on their sign plate sheets).  Each letter is placed individually on the plan, as an individual shape, similar to how they're ultimately constructed.  Unlike typing a note in the CAD software, each character's exact placement can be individually controlled.  You can't do that with a note/string of text with the traditional text placement method in most CAD packages.

The mainstream CAD packages are slowly adding more word processing capabilities, but the key word is slowly.  I think it will be quite a while before we see kerning added to CAD.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

Alps

Quote from: DaBigE on March 07, 2012, 09:10:30 PM
Quote from: Steve on March 07, 2012, 07:29:11 PM
It would be wonderful if programs designed to make signs would incorporate mandated kerning...
Mandated?  Last I saw, only standard, specific letter spacing is required.  Kerning and letter spacing are not the same thing (one is a function of the other).  And in the case of GuidSIGN, lack of a kerning function is not necessarily the sign design software's fault.  GuidSIGN operates within a CAD program (as an MDL for the designers/software geeks out there).  All of its functionality is limited by the host CAD software package (generally MicroStation or AutoCAD).  Most, if not all CAD programs are not meant to be used for perfect text layout, therefore you won't find a kerning function as you would in Adobe InDesign or MS Word.  Having fully automatic letter spacing is not necessarily the best thing either.  Sign design (as with any design) should not be completely without human interaction and review.

With regards to the way WisDOT lays out their signs, while slower and arguably antiquated, it still (IMO) one of the best ways of laying out a sign.  Each letter exists as a separate [Microstation] cell with alignment guides (some of which are the little 'dots' you see on their sign plate sheets).  Each letter is placed individually on the plan, as an individual shape, similar to how they're ultimately constructed.  Unlike typing a note in the CAD software, each character's exact placement can be individually controlled.  You can't do that with a note/string of text with the traditional text placement method in most CAD packages.

The mainstream CAD packages are slowly adding more word processing capabilities, but the key word is slowly.  I think it will be quite a while before we see kerning added to CAD.
I think you hit the nail on the head. If WisDOT can do it manually, why can't the program incorporate the same thing? The MUTCD has tables for each letter with the required spacing on either side. All I'm asking is to follow the tables, that should be really easy. Spacing between words, with hyphens, etc. could also easily match MUTCD requirements. This isn't advanced technology. Whatever spacings they have now, change them/fix them.

Central Avenue

Quote from: Quillz on March 06, 2012, 07:30:34 PM1B/W is more or less equivalent to Series B, and so on. But then there is also 5W-R, I imagine it means "revised," and is more or less the equivalent of E(M).

"Revised"? I had always assumed it stood for "reduced", for some reason.

(Not that it really matters either way)
Routewitches. These children of the moving road gather strength from travel . . . Rather than controlling the road, routewitches choose to work with it, borrowing its strength and using it to make bargains with entities both living and dead. -- Seanan McGuire, Sparrow Hill Road

J N Winkler

Yes, "R" in "5-W-R" does stand for "reduced"--this alphabet has the same glyphs as 5-W but at a reduced intercharacter spacing so that it can be used as a drop-in replacement for Series E Modified (legend blocks the same width, etc.) on replacement sign panels which have to match the originals in size.

Part of the problem with intercharacter spacing these days is that it is no longer supposed to be based entirely on specified distances between one character and the next, as it was with the classic FHWA series.  The FHWA 2000 series use the same letter spacing system as modern computer fonts (and, for that matter, the Transport alphabets used in Britain)--each character is considered to be on its own imaginary "tile" with a predetermined space cushion on either side, and legend is meant to be composed by butting tiles against each other.  So when a font is advertised as having "kerning pairs" or "kerning built-in," what this really means is that the font file contains a list of letter pairs together with a spacing adjustment for each pair which is a correction to the spacing that would be naïvely produced by butting the two letters' tiles against each other.  The kerning pairs included in a font are typically those letter combinations which look very unpleasing with the default spacing.

Tiling (new method) and spacing tables (old method) are essentially two different routes to the same goal.  The use of letter tiles and kerning pairs, in combination, allows a precise match with old-style spacing tables.  But that is not actually the goal of tiling the FHWA alphabet series.  Rather, it is to have the FHWA series as fonts with letter tiles but no kerning pairs, because many software programs don't implement kerning pairs.  Thus, the dimensions of the letter tiles have been chosen so as to minimize the kerning pairs that would be required for a precise match with the old spacing tables.

DaBigE's correspondence with the Clearview designers suggests that they have similarly designed the fonts to be tilable but are using kerning pairs extensively (certainly far more extensively than the FHWA 2000 fonts), and many software packages just don't implement these pairs.  This is thus another way in which Clearview is much less fail-safe than the FHWA alphabet series.  (Other ways:  letters with ascenders which are taller than capital letters; lowercase loop height which does not match the interline spacing specified for both Clearview and FHWA legend.)  The practical result is that it takes more steps and more awareness of a font's properties for a sign designer to produce a correctly dimensioned sign in Clearview, and those in turn become additional opportunities for a designer to make mistakes, particularly when working in haste without adequate training by his or her state DOT.
"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

PurdueBill

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 07, 2012, 07:09:36 AM
It is worth noting that unlike the material at the first two links, which has been on the MUTCD website since Clearview received interim approval in September 2004, the FAQ is new.  It stresses many points of Clearview usage which figure prominently in road enthusiast criticism of Clearview.

*  Don't use Clearview in route shields, even in positive contrast such as on Interstate shields (FHWA's rationale:  shields of all types are not designable signs, so Clearview cannot be used for them)

*  Never use Clearview for standard (i.e., non-designable) signs

*  Avoid using Clearview digits in exit tabs and distance expressions

*  Never assume that Clearview uppercase letter height and lowercase loop height are in the same 4:3 ratio that applies to Series E Modified (the true ratio is more like 25:21)--use uppercase letter height only as the sizing control

*  Follow the same rules for interline and margin spacing with Clearview that you would follow with Series E Modified (i.e., uppercase letter height horizontally, and 75% of uppercase letter height vertically)

*  Follow the same rules for building fraction rectangles that you would use with Series E Modified--do not use inline fractions, and do not use software fraction-building routines unless they have purposely been designed to be "Clearview-aware"

*  Do not assume that even "W" Clearview alphabets are uniformly more legible than the corresponding FHWA alphabet series (for example, Clearview 5-W and 5-W-R have a demonstrated legibility advantage over Series E Modified, but Clearview 3-W--positioned as an equivalent to Series D--is actually less legible than Series D)

*  Never use Clearview in negative contrast

*  Never use mixed-case Clearview as a drop-in substitute for all-uppercase legend in the FHWA alphabet series

All of which makes me ask the inevitable question--why bother using Clearview if it is improper in all those cases?
(It's become pervasive around here, including in various ways that violate the above--negative contrast in places like EXIT ONLY and LEFT plaques/fields, exit numbers and distances, etc. etc.)

I agree very much with the statement above that if FHWA lettering were given the bonuses that Clearview gets, FHWA would win.  Wasn't E-Modified modified so as to fit button reflectors?  If the button reflectors aren't used anymore, why not use Series E?

Some of the ODOT Clearview is okay but there are some pretty bonkers examples.  Why wasn't this sign wider, for example?  Steve's site has pics of the old signage, with a properly wide sign for this exit.  They used a wider font and a narrower sign?  "Firestone Blvd N" is incredibly squished.




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.