Random sign design questions

[noelbotevera]

Some of these may have "duh!" answers that I'm missing, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

1. Why is bolding, underlining, or italicizing text so uncommon?
Some states, such as Michigan and Vermont (from Alps' Roads VT I-91 page, shot by Doug Kerr) underlined cardinal directions to highlight them. These signs no longer exist, which I find to be a shame. Isn't the direction the most important piece of info, given we capitalize it and use a larger font for the first letter?

Massachusetts (again from Alps' Roads, but on the MA US 1 page) also italicized instructions (NEXT LEFT in this case) which again emphasizes them. Here was where the sign used to be posted; it highlights (along with the obvious fence in the back) that you should really go left if you want to get anywhere.

I have no theories on why this is so, aside from simple inertia. It probably took more effort to bold / italicize / underline text when signs were manually designed and assembled - and even now in the age of digital design, standards haven't really changed.

2. Why are directions superscript to route shields, and not centered?
There's also inconsistencies in where directions are placed in respect to shields. Do they go on top, or to the side? I don't think there's much of a difference on whether you center or superscript. This paddle sign is about the same size as this other one. I can read both just fine, since the order of information (from top to bottom) is the same.

A possible theory is that since we read from top to bottom, superscripting directions means we read the direction first before any other text. But since there's usually green space between directions and destinations / street names, the direction is almost always the first text we read (aside from an exit tab). It makes a negligible difference overall, in my opinion.

[Scott5114]

1. Why is bolding, underlining, or italicizing text so uncommon?

To do bold and italic text properly, you have to redraw the entire alphabet by hand. If you look in the fonts folder on your computer, you'll see that for the really good fonts that came with your OS, there are multiple files for each font: the regular (roman) weight, bold, bold italic, and then maybe even more versions than that. That's because the font designer went back and redrew each of those versions of the characters and shipped them as a separate font file. When you highlight text in that font and click "Italic", it's actually changing the font file it's pulling from, from "Nimbus Sans" to "Nimbus Sans Italic". A computer program can make passable fakes if the correct style isn't installed, but they won't be as good as a truly designed font.

There kind of is a bold version of Series E, of course...that's E(M). The bold weight of E(M) causes problems with halation making the text less readable on more reflective backgrounds, which led to...Clearview and the idea of Enhanced E Modified. So bold text probably isn't a direction FHWA is interested in continuing along in the future.

Italic text probably doesn't have the same specific readability problems as bold text, but in order for it to be approved for usage, it would have to be tested, and for it to be tested, it has to be drawn up, and for it to be drawn up it has to be worth the expense to draw it up, and for it to be worth the expense it'd have to be approved for usage . . . (And they can't just use the old MA letterforms, because that's technically not FHWA Series, it's a custom font. MA may not even have the specs for those letterforms around anywhere anymore.) So FHWA has never hired someone to go back and redraw the FHWA Series fonts in italic. There's probably italic versions of ClearviewOne, the non-road-sign version of Clearview, but it would take some effort to adapt those letterforms to the road-sign version, and since italic isn't in the MUTCD, Meeker hasn't bothered.

Underlining is a bit more tricky to explain away, since it probably doesn't affect readability quite as much as bold does, and it doesn't have the issues of the other two of requiring effort to design. As you mention, MDOT used it for quite a while to denote cardinal directions. I think what happened here was FHWA studies simply found out that the small-caps style that Kansas DOT invented did the job better than underlining and considered it to set off the cardinal direction from destination text sufficiently that underlining wasn't needed. And there's been no proposed application for underlining since then, so we haven't seen it since then.

2. Why are directions superscript to route shields, and not centered?

So this starts to get into the part of graphic design that is basically arbitrary, where you have to make a judgement call and just stick with it. When you have two graphical elements that have a logical relationship, like a route shield and the direction that goes with it, good design is to establish a visual relationship between those two elements, so the mind will see the visual relationship and instinctively say "Aha! This goes with that." Aligning the shield and the cardinal direction to one line that is clearly not related to anything else on the panel is an effective way of doing that. Then it becomes a design question of whether they should be top-aligned or center-aligned with that imaginary line.

One thing that does work in favor of top-aligning shields and directions is that shields usually have other text below them, like control cities and action messages like distances. Centering the text to the shield may weaken the association with the shield, because it places it closer to the other text on the panel, so it's less clear that this text goes with this shield. If you top-align it, the alignment line is as far away from the other text on the panel as possible, so it further emphasizes that the shield-and-direction combo is it's own separate logical category.

[kphoger]

Isn't the direction the most important piece of info ...

No, not necessarily.  Depending on how you navigate, the most important piece of info might be either (a) the name/number of the road or (b) the destination legend.

For example, in Mexico, cardinal directions are hardly ever used on signage.  I've driven probably close to 8000 total miles in Mexico, in five states, and I can count the number of cardinal directions I've seen there on one hand.  Furthermore, many guide signs have either no route shield or the wrong shield or a blank shield.  As you can imagine, most people there navigate by destination legend.  When I'm driving in Mexico, therefore, I generally ignore route shields and would find any use of cardinal directions more of a novelty than actual useful information.

[vdeane]

(And they can't just use the old MA letterforms, because that's technically not FHWA Series, it's a custom font. MA may not even have the specs for those letterforms around anywhere anymore.)

If they actually found a use case where they wanted to test it, I would think the MA letterforms would be a good workaround to get preliminary results to see whether it's even worth bothering to create an italic series of the FHWA fonts... presuming they actually still have the specs, at least.

[Mr Kite]

On a different tack: are ONE WAY signs where the sign edge follows the arrow shape actually allowed?..

4347 Long Beach Ave
https://maps.app.goo.gl/LbjuzS9UFRu6MPHm6


Did Canadian signs ever officially have ONE WAY, YIELD and DO NOT ENTER text on them?

Why do so many junctions off the Trans-Canada Highway in British Columbia have US-style DO NOT ENTER signs?..

Abbotsford, British Columbia
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aJFSGgMq35dh2PLh6

[Occidental Tourist]

On a different tack: are ONE WAY signs where the sign edge follows the arrow shape actually allowed?..

4347 Long Beach Ave
https://maps.app.goo.gl/LbjuzS9UFRu6MPHm6

Yes and no.  Both the national MUTCD and the California MUTCD specify a squared off sign.  But the City of LA can pretty much do whatever the hell they want and who's going to stop them.

[Scott5114]

I remember when I was a kid I got a sticker pack that had a one-way sign sticker like that and thinking it was really cool. Never knew it was L.A.-exclusive; I just assumed it was an old spec.

[noelbotevera]

Actually this is an excellent answer - thank you for nerding out of me.

1. Why is bolding, underlining, or italicizing text so uncommon?

A computer program can make passable fakes if the correct style isn't installed, but they won't be as good as a truly designed font.

Because of the scale of highway signage, would the errors made by the computer actually impact readability? If not, then I don't see what's stopping further experimentation.

There kind of is a bold version of Series E, of course...that's E(M). The bold weight of E(M) causes problems with halation making the text less readable on more reflective backgrounds, which led to...Clearview and the idea of Enhanced E Modified. So bold text probably isn't a direction FHWA is interested in continuing along in the future.

Weren't there other modified variants of Series C and D? Your answer also implies that E(M) was mainly used for button copy and therefore nobody updated the specs when reflective backgrounds became common. I'm spitballing, though.

So FHWA has never hired someone to go back and redraw the FHWA Series fonts in italic. There's probably italic versions of ClearviewOne, the non-road-sign version of Clearview, but it would take some effort to adapt those letterforms to the road-sign version, and since italic isn't in the MUTCD, Meeker hasn't bothered.

I wonder if the FHWA considered italic fonts back when the Highway Series was being developed. This is likely a case of nobody thinking about it (since the MUTCD has never provided instructions on bold, italics, and underlining text), and the few who did never drummed up enough attention to cause change. I can't find any justification on why Michigan or Massachusetts abandoned attempts on italics or underlining - the latter probably because it stopped using its custom font, the former because of further studies as you mentioned.

2. Why are directions superscript to route shields, and not centered?

So this starts to get into the part of graphic design that is basically arbitrary, where you have to make a judgement call and just stick with it. When you have two graphical elements that have a logical relationship, like a route shield and the direction that goes with it, good design is to establish a visual relationship between those two elements, so the mind will see the visual relationship and instinctively say "Aha! This goes with that." Aligning the shield and the cardinal direction to one line that is clearly not related to anything else on the panel is an effective way of doing that. Then it becomes a design question of whether they should be top-aligned or center-aligned with that imaginary line.

It does seem there aren't explicit instructions when it comes to sign arrangement, as evidenced by the examples I posted above and the numerous "odd and interesting signs" threads. I wonder if there's an emphasis on conserving material and space - placing directions above a shield would use more material than beside it (and center aligned probably saves just a tiny bit more, since you could probably get away with shrinking the shield). I'm guessing such would be a concern when placing signs inside a tunnel or on a bridge.

[Scott5114]

1. Why is bolding, underlining, or italicizing text so uncommon?

A computer program can make passable fakes if the correct style isn't installed, but they won't be as good as a truly designed font.

Because of the scale of highway signage, would the errors made by the computer actually impact readability? If not, then I don't see what's stopping further experimentation.

Well, this is running off into the typography weeds, but the problem is that a computer cannot actually create italics because those require artistic input. Instead, it can create obliques.




Above is a roman font, an italic, and an oblique, in that order. (Note that the italic of this particular font, Garamond, is quite a bit more exaggerated than most italics are.) A true italic adds calligraphic characteristics to certain characters to emphasize them when merely slanting them isn't visually distinctive enough. (Note how the oblique "x" barely looks any different than roman "x", but the italic "x" is instantly recognizable.) Granted, it's unlikely that the calligraphic characteristics of a true italic would be desirable in the context of a road sign, but I could imagine an italic FHWA Series featuring, perhaps, a descender on the lowercase f, Clearview-like "feet" on lowercase L, etc.

   

    There kind of is a bold version of Series E, of course...that's E(M). The bold weight of E(M) causes problems with halation making the text less readable on more reflective backgrounds, which led to...Clearview and the idea of Enhanced E Modified. So bold text probably isn't a direction FHWA is interested in continuing along in the future.
   

Weren't there other modified variants of Series C and D? Your answer also implies that E(M) was mainly used for button copy and therefore nobody updated the specs when reflective backgrounds became common. I'm spitballing, though.

There were typeface variants that have come to be referred to as Series C(M) and D(M), but I'm not sure if those names were ever used in official parlance. In any case, they never appeared in the MUTCD–they were the creation of vendors selling prefabricated button-copy elements to state DOTs. If you ordered Series D digits from a button-copy vendor like Stimsonite, you'd functionally get D(M).

And yes, E(M) has been specified in the MUTCD since the button-copy era, and the specs have  never been updated.

[Dirt Roads]

Well, this is running off into the typography weeds, but the problem is that a computer cannot actually create italics because those require artistic input. Instead, it can create obliques.

Actually, some of us old-timers can remember the days before computers used fonts.  There were plenty of programs that created artistic text: some were pre-canned pixelated designs and some actually were hand-programmed art using stroke and Bézier curves.  I still believe that better signage can be made using these techniques, but manipulating font text in Windows or Mac applications is cheap (and sometimes looks cheap).

[J N Winkler]

There were typeface variants that have come to be referred to as Series C(M) and D(M), but I'm not sure if those names were ever used in official parlance. In any case, they never appeared in the MUTCD–they were the creation of vendors selling prefabricated button-copy elements to state DOTs. If you ordered Series D digits from a button-copy vendor like Stimsonite, you'd functionally get D(M).

"D Modified" at least was used in official documents, though I am not aware of any examples that are currently downloadable online.  Arizona DOT had sign drawings in a paper edition of its Manual of Approved Signs (probably the last before they put it on the Web) that referenced D Modified.  I've also been told that older paper editions of MnDOT's Standard Signs and Markings Manual referred to D Modified too.

In the case of Caltrans, I've never seen "D Modified" in a sign spec.  I think this is because, at the time of the Great Redrawing in the early 1970's, Caltrans had its own alphabet series that were essentially bolded versions of the FHWA series.  Caltrans Series C and D were thus functionally C Modified and D Modified respectively.  In California and other states with a history of font bolding, such as Nebraska, these weren't necessarily used just with button copy--they were also stencilled or silkscreened in black against light backgrounds.  I think Nebraska still has examples of shields with bolded and unbolded route marker digits on the same post, and as recently as the early noughties in California, it was possible to find signs that mixed FHWA and Caltrans letters randomly in the same word (e.g., "FLOODED").

Actually, some of us old-timers can remember the days before computers used fonts.  There were plenty of programs that created artistic text: some were pre-canned pixelated designs and some actually were hand-programmed art using stroke and Bézier curves.  I still believe that better signage can be made using these techniques, but manipulating font text in Windows or Mac applications is cheap (and sometimes looks cheap).

Back in pre-Clearview days, TxDOT had a MicroStation bolt-on that was used for designing conventional-road guide signs.  I think it may still be available for download somewhere, but it's been at least five years since I last played with it.  Only Series D was available, and the glyphs were stored as outlines, with a macro to retrieve and lay out each letter once you'd keyed in a legend block.  Positioning and space padding were determined according to one of a small number of stored layouts.  This was probably designed for use in the sign shop, but it was also available for creating sign sketches for insertion in plans.  The simplicity and the (presumably intentional) lack of flexibility resulted in signs that were very uniform in appearance.  When it adopted Clearview in 2003, TxDOT overhauled its conventional-road guide sign design standards and more or less standardized on SignCAD, so some of this uniformity has been lost.

[Dirt Roads]

Actually, some of us old-timers can remember the days before computers used fonts.  There were plenty of programs that created artistic text: some were pre-canned pixelated designs and some actually were hand-programmed art using stroke and Bézier curves.  I still believe that better signage can be made using these techniques, but manipulating font text in Windows or Mac applications is cheap (and sometimes looks cheap).

Back in pre-Clearview days, TxDOT had a MicroStation bolt-on that was used for designing conventional-road guide signs.  I think it may still be available for download somewhere, but it's been at least five years since I last played with it.  Only Series D was available, and the glyphs were stored as outlines, with a macro to retrieve and lay out each letter once you'd keyed in a legend block.  Positioning and space padding were determined according to one of a small number of stored layouts.  This was probably designed for use in the sign shop, but it was also available for creating sign sketches for insertion in plans.  The simplicity and the (presumably intentional) lack of flexibility resulted in signs that were very uniform in appearance.  When it adopted Clearview in 2003, TxDOT overhauled its conventional-road guide sign design standards and more or less standardized on SignCAD, so some of this uniformity has been lost.

Which reminds me of another example.  In the old days before MicroStation, we used a variety of Intergraph products which could flip back-and-forth between fonts and curve-based lettering.  CSX had a time where we worked with both Intergraph and Bentley PseudoStation side-by-side, and I had to help some folks render basemap text correctly under MicroStation when the files were developed in Intergraph.  Anyhow, I was at an Intergraph users group conference where somebody was selling a sign maker program similar to that MicroStation bolt-on.  And that certainly had Bézier curve font rendering.  For all I know, those were the same guys.

All of which reminds me that Bentley has never developed a good "copy parallel" feature that would allow me to take a complex line with Bézier curves and turn it into a "divided highway" on a map.  Makes one long to go back to the old Intergraph days.

[noelbotevera]

Was about to start a new thread when I remembered "oh hey, I have this one!"

Why are shields mounted and riveted onto signs instead of drawn onto them?
In other words, why not design a sign with the shield already printed on it, instead of having to mount one onto the sign?

Pros:
-Time saved with a DOT / contractor crew; no need to rivet shields onto a sign at the shop or on the field
-Possibly a drag and drop solution? If you already know the specs of the shields required, and the size of the sign, you could plop the shield onto the sign in software; think of adding an image to say, a Google Doc or Word Document
-Thanks to digital design, easy to resize shields to meet specs (assuming it's a scalable image and not actually hand drawn)

Cons:
-May not be possible depending on software used
-A mistake in designing or drawing the shields results in the whole sign being tossed and redesigned

Is sign design software similar to CAD or photo editing software?
Amateur sign designers (based on the Road-Related Illustrations board and Redesign This! thread) use photo editing software such as Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop. However, it seems like DOTs use their own file system for spec sheets -  which is then compiled into PDFs for ease of use (ex. resigning projects). This implies that CAD software is used - probably not something off the shelf and possibly proprietary software.

It's also entirely possible that I'm mistaken and sign design software is a fancy version of Photoshop with a focus on exporting images with the highest possible image quality. Entirely spitballing here.

[Scott5114]

This is because BGSes and LGSes (and things like standalone shields and warning signs) are made through completely different processes. Smaller signs are indeed made through processes similar that which are used in a commercial print shop: silkscreening and offset printing. BGSes, however, are way too big to fit in the machinery that is required to use these processes. Instead, green reflective sheeting is adhered to the aluminum, forming the background, and then the legend is cut out of white reflective adhesive sheeting with a computerized plotter (think a robotic box cutter knife and you have basically the right idea). The legend is then stuck to the green background. Voila, white text and borders on a green background.

The problem is that shields require at least 2 colors (black and white), while Interstate shields (and some state shields) require three (red, white, blue). Getting three differently-colored stickers to line up is a pain. So it's easier to just print up the shield like you would a standalone shield, and affix that to the sign with rivets.

Most states use either GuidSIGN or SignCAD for making signs. These are both much more similar to CAD software than something like Illustrator or Photoshop. That's mostly because to actually fabricate a sign, you need more measurement information than something like Illustrator is designed to provide–you have to know the exact inch coordinates of where to put each letter, the square footage of the sign panel (so you know how much aluminum to buy), the weight of the sign to know what sort of posts to put it on... Plain graphics software isn't equipped for making these calculations, so it's not suited to the task.

[J N Winkler]

Why are shields mounted and riveted onto signs instead of drawn onto them?

In other words, why not design a sign with the shield already printed on it, instead of having to mount one onto the sign?

Scott has already addressed the process issues, but I'd just note that demountable legend--the kind made out of aluminum cut to shape, with the design applied to one side, and riveted to the sign panel--is becoming less common.  Most foreground elements are either direct-applied (sheeting with an adhesive backing is cut to shape and stuck on the sign panel) or fabricated by cutting holes of the required shapes in a colored background film so that the retroreflective white underlayer shows through.

Is sign design software similar to CAD or photo editing software?

Amateur sign designers (based on the Road-Related Illustrations board and Redesign This! thread) use photo editing software such as Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop. However, it seems like DOTs use their own file system for spec sheets -  which is then compiled into PDFs for ease of use (ex. resigning projects). This implies that CAD software is used - probably not something off the shelf and possibly proprietary software.

No.  Just to clear up a few things before moving on to the meat of the answer:

*  Programs like Photoshop, Corel Photo-Paint, ImageMagick, the Paint app in Windows, etc. are raster editors:  they work with graphics as arrays of dots, each of which has a color.

*  Programs like CorelDraw, Adobe Illustrator, Inkscape, etc. are vector editors:  they work with graphics as collections of instructions for drawing geometric shapes such as lines and curves, which have color attributes.

Although several on here prepare sign drawings in Paint and Photoshop, most use vector editors because the resulting graphics can be scaled to various sizes without loss of detail.  These programs typically have an export-to-raster function and that is used to output raster images for display on the forum (typically sized to fit on an 800 pixel x 600 pixel canvas).

The standard vector editors like CorelDraw and Adobe Illustrator are extremely powerful and flexible, so people who understand them well can do amazing things with them.  For example, CorelDraw can do area measurements (useful for quantity takeoffs) and measurement markings similar to those that appear in SignCAD and GuideSign output.  There isn't a graphic you can construct in either program that you can't also build in a general-purpose vector editor.  However, specialist signing CAD software is designed to provide automation support for the traffic sign designer's workflow.  Thus, there are typically template layouts to speed up design of commonly used signs, as well as CAD integration (to allow sign designs to be inserted in plan sheets, which are generally produced using either AutoCAD or Bentley MicroStation, the two leading CAD programs for civil engineering) and sometimes also support for computer-aided manufacturing (SignCAD used to have a companion product, SignCAM, that was designed to run equipment that cuts sheeting to fit).

There are isolated examples of agencies using general-purpose vector editors for sign design work--for example, at one point the Kansas Turnpike used FlexiSign, and the Ministry of Transportation Ontario used CorelDraw--but as a rule, state DOTs in the US have standardized on SignCAD, GuideSign, or a mixture of both (the latter typically as a result of allowing districts or engineering consultants to choose the software they use).

Neither SignCAD nor GuideSign is free, though demo versions are available.  SignCAD has its own output format (.sgn extension); I've heard there is a viewer for it, but it is not free.  (Occasionally .sgn files become available from state DOTs.)  The company that develops SignCAD was recently bought out by Bentley, while Transoft Solutions has recently changed the name of its signing CAD product from GuidSign to GuideSign.

Internationally, each industrialized country typically uses programs that work similarly to SignCAD and GuideSign, but are designed to work with that country's signing standards.  The market for this software is typically divided among two or three vendors in each country.  Britain has AutoSign and SignPlot, France has Kadri, Sherpa, and Corine, Spain has Lena and CarDim, and so on.

It's also entirely possible that I'm mistaken and sign design software is a fancy version of Photoshop with a focus on exporting images with the highest possible image quality. Entirely spitballing here.

There are multiple export options, and the ones that are used depend on agency practice and designer preference.  Generally it is possible to export a sign design as a raster image, plot it directly to PDF from within the signing CAD application (in which case it generally appears in the PDF as a vector image, but care must be taken to ensure fonts are embedded so that the legend will display correctly on computers that don't have those specific fonts installed--this is a common reason sign drawings downloaded off the Web look janky), or export it to the CAD program that is being used to produce the plans set (it is stored internally as vectors, but CAD programs in general can plot to PDF or raster image formats).

[J N Winkler]

Here are examples of output from the two dominant signing CAD packages in the US, SignCAD and GuideSign.

SignCAD

This is typical of plots direct from within SignCAD to PDF (letter-size page in this case)--full color, with black keylines separating panels and adjacent areas of different color.  These types of plots are sometimes bound into proposal books for sign replacement contracts that do not have a plans set, but they are more commonly used for communication between the owning agency and a consultant or contractor who is either designing the signs or readying them for manufacturing.  Occasionally these drawings are rasterized for inclusion in plans sets, if the agency has really bad CADD standards.

The colors are SignCAD defaults.  Agencies often have different color standards if they choose to present sign sketches in full color in plans sets (only a minority do).  I'd say most US agencies present SignCAD sketches in plans sets with filled black letters, with a dwindling minority presenting them as keylines only.  When SignCAD drawings are included in CAD files, there is often a CAD-conformity process that must be performed (see below for examples).

Not all agencies include the table of letter and object lefts.



Here's a plan sheet from Iowa DOT showing SignCAD sketches conformed to Iowa DOT's plan presentation standards, with no keylines and with colors changed to match agency-specific standards:



Of US agencies that produce sign panel detail sheets in full color, I would say Iowa DOT's are the best, largely because they avoid using RGB basis colors for red, green, and blue.  Basis red and blue are dark enough to contrast well with white legend, but basis green is not, as is evident in this Kansas DOT plan sheet.



Both of these plan sheets have undergone CAD conformity procedures.  For agencies that have standardized on Bentley products, these are often managed through a program called CADconform (a MicroStation companion).  Regardless of the specific software used, this process is designed to ensure that CAD drawings meet the agency's standards for element color and style (e.g., green sign backgrounds use the agency's preferred shade of green), and that information belonging to a given functional discipline is present on the levels assigned to that discipline.  For example, when you are working with a CAD drawing with 64 levels numbered from 0 to 63 and the agency's standard is for traffic engineering information to be on Levels 20-25, you don't want your sign drawings to land on Level 63.

Kansas DOT YouTube video explaining how to place and CAD-conform a SignCAD drawing

Iowa DOT's instructions for the same operation

And here's an example of SignCAD with black-filled letters from a Nebraska DOT plans set:



This tends to be the most common among US agencies.  With modern laser printers, it is easy to print without consuming an inordinate amount of toner or requiring the use of color printers with expensive ink.  (Older plotters with actual pens tend to struggle with the letter fills.  Historically, signing plans tended to use filled letters early in the Interstate era, when they were produced using dupe film and rubber cement.  Then, when plotters came into wide use, keylines tended to dominate.  Filled letters have made a comeback now that inkjets and lasers are more or less universal.)  Also, if the sign design has to be changed and a paper original with details of the modifications is all that is available (no PDF annotation tools or PDF plot available), then it can be scanned without worrying about whether the keylines are too thin to scan well.

Sometimes the borders receive black fills too, but generally speaking, shields and arrows are outlined only.

This Wisconsin DOT plan sheet has SignCAD sign designs in keylines only:



Keylines can be tricky to work with because they are generally nonscaling.  Thus, a keyline that is heavy enough to see well on an 11" x 17" plan sheet may be too fine on a 22" x 34" sheet.  And a keyline that is thick enough for easy scanning or screen reading can obscure fine detail, such as the word "Interstate" in an Interstate shield on a large panel sign.

Kansas DOT is the only agency I am aware of that produces plan sheets that look like this:



It shows true light and dark and differentiates among differently-colored adjacent areas without rendering them in the actual colors, but in terms of toner it is very expensive to print even in B&W.

GuideSign

This New York State DOT signface layout (SFL) is pretty typical of GuideSign's native output.



As with SignCAD, it can be rendered in full color (as above), with filled black letters, or as keylines only.  Generally speaking, the collar--including the details block on the right and the letter positions table along the bottom--is the giveaway that it has been produced using GuideSign.  Often the block and table are omitted when placing the sign drawing on a plan sheet, but they are usually included when the sign is inserted as a page in the proposal book (Connecticut DOT and Alaska DOT, for example, typically provide sign drawings in the proposal book and sign elevations and layouts in the plans set), or in a separate supplementary information distribution (which is how NYSDOT does it).

SignCAD and GuideSign versus general-purpose vector editors

One big difference is that both programs store the finished sign in such a way that rendering it for the preferred form of plan presentation is a simple operation.  Sometimes it is even output simultaneously in each of the three common presentation methods (keyline, filled black letters, and full color), but on different layers, so that choosing one for display in the CAD program or plotting to PDF is a matter of choosing which layers are active.  Vector editors can do the same thing, but this capability isn't built-in and often requires writing scripts.  Similarly, SignCAD and GuideSign automate the production of the metadata, such as dimensioning, tables of letter and object lefts, detail blocks, etc. that are used in manufacturing, inspection, and acceptance of the finished sign.  Again, vector editors have the capability to do this, but it is not built-in.

Finally, unlike vector editors like CorelDraw and Adobe Illustrator, signing CAD programs have no presence whatsoever in the consumer space:  they are strictly enterprise software with a niche market consisting of state DOTs, turnpike agencies, the larger localities, and the civil engineering consultants that service them.  The culture is built around continuing business relationships that are carefully nurtured on both sides.  If Kansas DOT says, "We want the sunflower built in," or Iowa DOT says, "We want an end to dimensioning printing as white on white," the CAD developers rush to accommodate.  It's a completely different world from the one in which makers of consumer software insulate themselves from their end users and attempt to shape user behavior by adding and withdrawing features, a process that power users often see as both an insult and as a threat to established workflows.

SignCAD versus GuideSign

Practitioners can talk for hours on the advantage one package offers over the other.  However, the two have competed successfully in the North American market for over 20 years without one driving out the other.

They both have weaknesses in how they handle fonts.  SignCAD stores sign fonts in a workspace file called signcad.rsc:  I suspect it is specific both to the SignCAD version and to the agency.  A mismatch between the copy of signcad.rsc actually in the workspace and the one used to develop the drawing can result in the following symptoms:

*  Clearview 5-W/5-W-R legend rendering as widely kerned mixed-case Series D

*  Dimensioning rendering as Clearview

*  Odd fractions in distance expressions (e.g., "57/64" rather than "3/4")

With GuideSign, it is possible to screw up in such a way that sign legend (usually Clearview) plots with filled black letters in a generic sans-serif font over "ghost letters" (keylines only) in the typeface actually specified.  I don't know the precise mechanism by which this happens, but I suspect (like signcad.rsc version mismatches) it involves a CAD file travelling between different workspaces.

Ultimately, as with any other type of software, the key to high-quality results is nailing down the various elements of the workflow.  Agencies that standardize on either SignCAD or GuideSign, and require their consultants to use their preferred program when doing business with them, tend to produce cleaner-looking plans than ones that allow free choice at the district/division level and among consultants.  It's also possible to have great-looking sign drawings in the plans and garbage signs in the field, especially if there is no system for passing on the native-format signing CAD files to contractors who can use them to manufacture the signs.

[odditude]

Here are examples of output from the two dominant signing CAD packages in the US, SignCAD and GuideSign.

thank you very much for putting in the time and effort to craft this reply!