AARoads Forum

ODOT is apparently very fond of bubble shields for its three I-x05's, I've found today while driving on I-105 in Eugene and seeing them all over on I-205 and I-405 on a regular basis.

This leads to the question: Which is more aesthetically pleasing? I vaguely recall (on m.t.r?) that the bubble shields weren't well liked though allegedly the best suited for I-H201 and possible 4dis...

Personally, I like the bubble shields over the standard design. The standard design looks as though the 2di shield got stretched from the top along the crown points while the bubble looks like the sides got stretched out -- a better representation of the 2di shape, if you will, as the 2di shield rounds the crown out.

(And then there are the CalTrans designs -- what were they thinking? -- and the Rand McNally abominations...)

Given the existing system, I-H201 is the only route suited for bubble shields.

There's occasional ones up here...mainly in the District.  Not a huge fan of them.

I consider the bubble shield an error shield.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 17, 2010, 10:19:14 AM
I consider the bubble shield an error shield.

Kansas is guilty, too. Seems like I saw a bunch in I-135 a few years back.

There's a reason that the FHWA created a separate 3di template that's not the 2di template.  It looks much better.

I am not a fan at all of bubble shields. They swarm I-495 in Delaware and there are many on the small BGS's at the entrances to I-295 in Maine. Too ugly.

I actually don't mind them as long as the shield is neutered. They started popping up on I-5 through Tacoma for I-705 as they've reconfigured the SR 16 and I-705/SR 7 interchanges with I-5, and I don't find them that bad. That said, in this case they were neutered shields which aren't too bad. I think it makes the numbers more legible.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F16%2F163to5%2F4.JPG&hash=499dab1c76a755eb0467e6c0f4ac0f31361cc9f9)

Now, the ones on I-225/I-270 in Colorado are terrible. Having the state name on it makes it look terrible, I think
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2Fco%2F70%2F70busto225%2F7.JPG&hash=6c7ce24115a0c6716fe961439ba0cddee340d005)

I'm a strong proponent of the standard three-digit shield.

Quote from: corco on January 17, 2010, 01:17:32 PM
I actually don't mind them as long as the shield is neutered.

Yea, if they're neutered they can't reproduce!  :sombrero:  :rofl:

I saw my first one in person on I-180 in PA.  That puts the UG in ugly.  The only thing that would make it worse is if the numbers were in Clearview.

Excuse me for my ignorance but what exactly is a bubble shield?

Quote from: Truvelo on January 17, 2010, 04:02:52 PM
Excuse me for my ignorance but what exactly is a bubble shield?

This is a bubble shield on I 291 in MA
It looks like a 2-di shield the sides pulled outward from about halfway up the height of the shield, but it curves back in to near-2di width at the top.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fpersonal%2F291ma.JPG&hash=295a8d9650bc632475a3cbfde1397d9c713a407e)


This is a regular 3-di shield on I 291 in CT
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fpersonal%2F291west.JPG&hash=5cf6e8b6582b2ebad06db43de6317f93e8f8c9ac)

Bubble shields are an abomination, and a sign of laziness. Using vector programs like Adobe Illustrator, it's too easy, too tempting, to just take a 2di shield and widen it 120-125%, instead of using the 3di shield template created by FHWA for the purpose.  It's the same as when you see compressed fonts being used.

I think the best wide shield design is the 42x36 (or 21x18, exactly proportional) design, with the 1970 specifications (15" numbers on the 42x36 shield) or 1961 (12" on the 42x36) specs.  For some reason, when they designed the wide shield to replace the original 1957 specification, they made the midsize shield 30x25, instead of the more logical 28x24, and the proportions got thrown off.

here is a classic 1961 spec wide shield (21x18 size):

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19611051i1.jpg)

and a 1970 spec (42x36 size):

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/ME/ME19794951i1.jpg)

both with state name of course - neutered shields in general suck.  The '61 is preferable for aesthetics, because of the wider white margins and generally better-balanced proportions between the legend text elements, but the '70 is more legible from a distance.

and yes, the bubble shield is an abomination born of laziness.  They indeed do match up with a stretched 24x24 or 36x36 shield shape.  

as for Hawaii H-201, here is the best one I have seen in the wild:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/HI/HI19882015i1.jpg)

note the classic ('61 spec) margins.  It is actually a 30x25 shield, which turns out to look okay without the state name... but adding a state name would make it look even better ;)  here it is in the 21x18 scale. 

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/interstate_hawaii_h201.png)

H201 is an awkward number - I had to take out the hyphen so I didn't have to make the number in Series B.  Maybe just signing it "201" would be the way to go?  I know the children of *suffixed* routes dropped the letter, like I-180 in Boise.  But that's a discussion for a different thread.

in conclusion ... down with bubble shields, down with mis-proportioned fonts, down with the 30x25 shield size ... down with non-proportional scaling in general  :sombrero:

I'm guessing this is a bubble shield:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F101_1054.jpg&hash=8ce73306638059d70aa49b39ce4f5bd590b51d7d)

Quote from: AgentSteele53in conclusion ... down with bubble shields,

Had FHWA issued this design instead of the standard back in '61, I've the feeling we'd be partial to the bubble design.

Quotedown with mis-proportioned fonts,

Hear hear!

Quotedown with the 30x25 shield size ... down with non-proportional scaling in general  

And amen.

Quote

Could this be the best hybrid of the standard spec and the bubble? If so, if this were the generally adopted 3di spec, would it be acceptable or still eschewed for the standard spec?

Corco: Addressing your comment on neutered/non-neutered bubbles: As a rule, like AgentSteele said, neutered shields are annoying. They're fine on BGSs, but not as reassurance markers. However, wtf was Colorado doing with that shield? Talk about misproportioned -- the font for both 'Colorado' and for 'Interstate' are too small and barely legible.

How about these? These are my creation, and obviously not up to FHWA spec.

Quote from: jdb1234 on January 17, 2010, 08:08:07 PM
I'm guessing this is a bubble shield:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F101_1054.jpg&hash=8ce73306638059d70aa49b39ce4f5bd590b51d7d)

Yup, and that is one hell of a marker next to it!

Here is Maine's version of the bubble shield...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FSpxgimWwQOI%2FAAAAAAAANEU%2FkxAc1lE_1bw%2Fs640%2FIMG_9785.JPG&hash=6d3dcf8fa6bf136c88501de070d0a9a5a7ab5787)

Hey I gotta ask this, what do we call a 3di shield with a 2di number inside like this one?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FSqCTNlcn8PI%2FAAAAAAAAN0I%2FpFZO14axDsA%2Fs640%2FIMG_0371.JPG&hash=7d9dc4e06ec17c10b808b0de12e3c8297e660b64)
(though, this shield covers I-495, so this one can't help it)

dunno but it's nothing new.  this shield dates to about 1963.  21x18

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WA/WA19580901i1.jpg)

Quote
Corco: Addressing your comment on neutered/non-neutered bubbles: As a rule, like AgentSteele said, neutered shields are annoying. They're fine on BGSs, but not as reassurance markers. However, wtf was Colorado doing with that shield? Talk about misproportioned -- the font for both 'Colorado' and for 'Interstate' are too small and barely legible.

Regrettably, that seems to now be the "standard" Colorado 3di shield, with several examples of that type on both 225 and 270

Quote from: Bickendan on January 17, 2010, 08:09:11 PM
Had FHWA issued this design instead of the standard back in '61, I've the feeling we'd be partial to the bubble design.

FHWA has, as far as I know, ever used an elliptical (as opposed to circular) arc in any standard shield design since 1926.  The thought of a bubble shield would not have ever crossed their mind.

QuoteCould this be the best hybrid of the standard spec and the bubble? If so, if this were the generally adopted 3di spec, would it be acceptable or still eschewed for the standard spec?

that is a standard 30x25 shield shape.  The main thing wrong with the state-named 30x25 is the extra inch of height that puts too much space between the state name and the number.  In this neutered one, this is not a problem.  

The 1961 spec did have this shield shape, but with the state name of course - here the numbers are moved up some to accommodate the width.  For a four-digit shield it looks perfectly acceptable, and may very well have been made a standard if the possibility of four-digit routes were discussed back then.

QuoteHow about these? These are my creation, and obviously not up to FHWA spec.

the elliptical!  the goggles, they do nothing!

lol
How about the font spacing and proportions? Or the mixed case in the words?

what font is that?  the "405" seems to be a bit wide of a font and a bit more far-apart spaced than standard

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2010, 08:21:55 PM
dunno but it's nothing new.  this shield dates to about 1963.

Texas uses them a lot
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2344%2F2528987372_6bedb2b4bb.jpg&hash=8c3ddc8f31e14838cdf7878625749b860ea24288)

Quote from: US71 on January 17, 2010, 10:51:42 AM
Kansas is guilty, too. Seems like I saw a bunch in I-135 a few years back.

Both KDOT and the KTA use them, although the KTA has so far been the biggest offender on I-335 and I-470.  There are some enhanced location reference markers on I-235 in Wichita which have bubble shields.  (I am not going to set myself up as a defender of guide signing in Kansas--for starters, I really hate the Arial-digit shields which KDOT uses as knockdown replacements.)

I think it is valuable to differentiate between the true bubble shields, which Jake calls "elliptical" because they do not have fixed-radius curves and are clearly a result of horizontally stretching a 24" x 24" shield to fit in a 24" x 30" space, and the standard 21" x 18", 25" x 30", etc. shields which were used in various states back in the 1960's and are designed with fixed-radius curves.

Quote from: US71 on January 17, 2010, 09:12:25 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2010, 08:21:55 PM
dunno but it's nothing new.  this shield dates to about 1963.

Texas uses them a lot
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2344%2F2528987372_6bedb2b4bb.jpg&hash=8c3ddc8f31e14838cdf7878625749b860ea24288)

Not quite the same--what the picture shows is a standard 24" x 30" three-digit shield with two digits.  It was TxDOT policy for many years to use three-digit shields for two-digit routes and vice versa on guide signs, though not on independent-mount signs such as those shown in the picture.

Bubble shields are just further evidence of America's obesity problem. :-P

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2010, 08:52:23 PM
what font is that?  the "405" seems to be a bit wide of a font and a bit more far-apart spaced than standard

Blue Highway, most likely bold. Done in Adobe Fireworks a few years back, so I can't remember if it was bold or regular or the size (it's a .gif now).

Also, the blue is brighter than specs.

California went through the bubble phase too...

I-880 Bubble shield and newer "Angular" shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images237/ca-237_eb_exit_009a_03.jpg)

I-880 and I-580 Bubble shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/i-080_wb_exit_008b_01.jpg)

Fortuantely, the bubble phase seems to have passed.  Below are signs installed over the past couple of years...

"Normal" I-680 shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/i-080_wb_exit_040_02.jpg)

"Normal" I-780 shield and "Slightly Angular" I-680 shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images680/i-680_nb_exit_058a_29.jpg)

It seems like the states around here (Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Indiana) seem to all use the standard spec 3di shields, which look MUCH better in my opinion to these "bubble-shields".  I'm happy to say that I agree with the group when I say that I think the bubble shields are generally stupid and ugly looking.  Although I'm sure that if I look hard enough, I might find an example of one of these in Ohio...I'm pretty sure we have at least one of everything else. :)

I have, however, seen these bubble shields in Pennsylvania.  Here's one in Pittsburgh -- not sure if they used bubble-shield on the I-376 replacement?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_vV2-Fg-7T40%2FSzatq5ck1AI%2FAAAAAAAAAa4%2FbRWPolY6Kwo%2Fs576%2FPIT-I279N.jpg&hash=3c0fd7f56522f1ee2f3d9ddd488806d848068bc0)

Hawaii interstate renumbering schemes may be found in the Fictional Highways section.

Quote from: shoptb1 on January 18, 2010, 03:26:47 PM
I have, however, seen these bubble shields in Pennsylvania.  Here's one in Pittsburgh -- not sure if they used bubble-shield on the I-376 replacement?

For the signs that are being replaced/updated due only to the I-376 renumbering, they've used standard shields.
However, at about the same time, separately, there is a rehab project on the stretch of Parkway East from Penn Hills to the Turnpike where the contractor doing it decided to put up brand new "bubble" 376 shields.

Quote from: Mr_Northside on January 19, 2010, 09:41:11 AM
However, at about the same time, separately, there is a rehab project on the stretch of Parkway East from Penn Hills to the Turnpike where the contractor doing it decided to put up brand new "bubble" 376 shields.

I'm guessing that PennDOT doesn't have strict standards for contractors to adhere to regarding signage?

Quote from: shoptb1 on January 18, 2010, 03:26:47 PM
It seems like the states around here (Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Indiana) seem to all use the standard spec 3di shields...

Yeah, I don't recall ever seeing one of these beasts around here.  What I have seen, and which bugs the hell out of me, are on free-hanging signs and some pole-mounted signs, the 2di shields are cutout, but the 3di shields aren't.  WTF?  Sometimes they really phone it in, and even the 2di shield isn't cutout either.  http://maps.google.com/maps?gl=us&om=0&ie=UTF8&ll=39.099593,-84.502979&spn=0,359.995118&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.099686,-84.502842&panoid=faC10uKgLgvSclKGKahsVg&cbp=12,289.76,,0,-2.75

At least that's a white border... here's a hairbrained 2di ODOT put up on I-5: a black non-cutout.
http://maps.google.com/maps?gl=us&om=0&ie=UTF8&layer=c&cbll=45.491519,-122.674361&panoid=_pzNWLmFGqfVqcSQBeDhug&cbp=12,245.18,,1,3.26&ll=45.491617,-122.674308&spn=0,359.99858&t=h&z=20

(Lovely non-HD resolution, Google.)

Quote from: Bickendan on January 19, 2010, 03:22:28 PM
At least that's a white border... here's a hairbrained 2di ODOT put up on I-5: a black non-cutout.

(Lovely non-HD resolution, Google.)

Yeah, these are starting to crop up in a few places in Oregon.  In fact, there's one of these monstrosities just down the road from my house here in Salem.  I agree, a white background would look much better!

There's a few on the Banfield as well
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F30bypto30%2F1.JPG&hash=213e5f51f0f1d91cccb1b90a8d7e811b43070a42)

I actually prefer the black to the white. When I think white non-cutout interstate shields I always think about the Washington monstrosities

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F82%2F97to22%2F3.JPG&hash=d41026630313e18e6a047030cdcf29810a619fec)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F82%2F22to223%2F1.JPG&hash=8af8a3a9b2851d486067f1613cc8a7446060e145)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F90%2F405to900%2F3.JPG&hash=b4d79bba0c0beab8723377b8a7dff00db519c574)

Quote from: corco on January 19, 2010, 08:12:56 PM
There's a few on the Banfield as well
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F30bypto30%2F1.JPG&hash=213e5f51f0f1d91cccb1b90a8d7e811b43070a42)

I actually prefer the black to the white. When I think white non-cutout interstate shields I always think about the Washington monstrosities

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F82%2F97to22%2F3.JPG&hash=d41026630313e18e6a047030cdcf29810a619fec)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F82%2F22to223%2F1.JPG&hash=8af8a3a9b2851d486067f1613cc8a7446060e145)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F90%2F405to900%2F3.JPG&hash=b4d79bba0c0beab8723377b8a7dff00db519c574)

I think of Rhode Island when I see those...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FSePYlC7KG0I%2FAAAAAAAAGK8%2FtazwzDPWtGc%2Fs640%2FIMG_3553.JPG&hash=c5d866ea83d796ba2b595909caf0967e8129285c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FSePY2CyPtSI%2FAAAAAAAAGLU%2FgsXhINp74pE%2Fs640%2FIMG_3558.JPG&hash=b355df274c283a737661804dbf075c1ea8e24b55)

At least those are formatted somewhat correctly, not with the ugly Series E (or is that F?) fonts

That said, RIDOT is probably the most notorious for not using cutouts

Quote from: corco on January 19, 2010, 08:17:00 PM
At least those are formatted somewhat correctly, not with the ugly Series E (or is that F?) fonts

I dunno, this one's pretty darn awful, offensive even.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F82%2F22to223%2F1.JPG&hash=8af8a3a9b2851d486067f1613cc8a7446060e145)

The fun part is that last time I was on I-82 (mid 2008) there were at least 8 of those bad boys (formatted in that godawful way)

These bubble shields deserve a:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lolblog.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F08%2Fdoublefacepalm.jpg&hash=6173085c5effc3ca43eb3fa0a40edab8dee0188d)

Quote from: jjakucyk on January 19, 2010, 01:55:41 PM

Quote from: shoptb1 on January 18, 2010, 03:26:47 PM
It seems like the states around here (Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Indiana) seem to all use the standard spec 3di shields...

Yeah, I don't recall ever seeing one of these beasts around here.  What I have seen, and which bugs the hell out of me, are on free-hanging signs and some pole-mounted signs, the 2di shields are cutout, but the 3di shields aren't.  WTF?  Sometimes they really phone it in, and even the 2di shield isn't cutout either.  http://maps.google.com/maps?gl=us&om=0&ie=UTF8&ll=39.099593,-84.502979&spn=0,359.995118&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.099686,-84.502842&panoid=faC10uKgLgvSclKGKahsVg&cbp=12,289.76,,0,-2.75

I think some of the signage at that intersection is leftover temporary contractor signage from a project there a few years ago.

They're all over downtown though.  The I-75 shield is an odd one, but while all the I-71 shields are cutout, the I-471 shields are not. 

We're talking about non-cutout shields?

Wisconsin.

Quote from: Riverside Frwy on January 19, 2010, 09:05:05 PM
These bubble shields deserve a:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lolblog.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F08%2Fdoublefacepalm.jpg&hash=6173085c5effc3ca43eb3fa0a40edab8dee0188d)

Disagree. They're worthy of one if you dislike them -- which seems to be the consensus here.
The non-cutout interstate shields, the CalTrans interstate shields, and the Rand McNally interstate shields? Yeah, those are worth of a double facepalm.

Quote from: corco on January 19, 2010, 08:12:56 PM
There's a few on the Banfield as well
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F30bypto30%2F1.JPG&hash=213e5f51f0f1d91cccb1b90a8d7e811b43070a42)

For a minute there, it looked like I-84 took a jaunt to Wisconsin.  WisDOT's been using non-cutout shields for interstates for at least 15 years or so.

www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=WI19880391t100390.jpg - I-39
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=WI19880432t100430.jpg - I-43 & I-94
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=WI19880434t100430.jpg - I-43
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=WI19790901t100940.jpg - I-90 & I-94 (even with a state name on I-90)
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=WI19888942t108940.jpg - I-894 (even 3dis get in on the act)

Then there's this bizarre one: www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=WI19880436t100430.jpg - I-43

Quote from: jjakucyk on January 19, 2010, 08:47:01 PM

Quote from: corco on January 19, 2010, 08:17:00 PM
At least those are formatted somewhat correctly, not with the ugly Series E (or is that F?) fonts

I dunno, this one's pretty darn awful, offensive even.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F82%2F22to223%2F1.JPG&hash=8af8a3a9b2851d486067f1613cc8a7446060e145)

If the I-82 shield was a cutout, it would remind me of the New Jersey Turnpike because their I-95 shields have series E (or whatever the font is).

How did we go from these awful Bubble-Shields to the highly-offensive non cut-out shields again?

Awful begets awful, I suppose.  I'll take the blame and accept whatever punishment you wish to administer.

Hey now. I have no qualms about my threads getting hijacked or evolving to other discussions. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lonaf.com%2Fforum%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fthreadjacked.gif&hash=bca8aea88692c5a33642408b6ac2bd8ebcfe4fb9)

Now that I've been forced to pull out the threadjacked smiley on my own thread, I should start a thread about offensive non-cutouts and leave the merely annoying bubbles in here, I guess :/

Quote from: Bickendan on January 20, 2010, 08:30:50 PM
...I should start a thread about offensive non-cutouts and leave the merely annoying bubbles in here, I guess :/

You mean we'd have to look at more of them? 

Quote from: jjakucyk on January 20, 2010, 08:32:16 PM

Quote from: Bickendan on January 20, 2010, 08:30:50 PM
...I should start a thread about offensive non-cutouts and leave the merely annoying bubbles in here, I guess :/

You mean we'd have to look at more of them? 

Yeah, let's stop the bleeding!  It's only crying from here on out.   :-D

Quote from: Bickendan on January 20, 2010, 05:09:40 PM
The non-cutout interstate shields, the CalTrans interstate shields, and the Rand McNally interstate shields? Yeah, those are worth of a double facepalm.

only if you dislike them.  I for one don't mind the white square interstate shields, if they otherwise are up to spec (i.e. have the state name - as the older Washington and Rhode Island examples do)

bubble shields are just the result of an extremely lazy worker playing "stretch horizontal" in their vector graphics program.  I have no idea how the Caltrans triangle shields came into being.

also, to make a fair comparison, can anyone please just find a state-named I-82 already?  I found an I-90 in a white square a few weeks ago, but 82 has been kicking my ass and spitting directly on my spine ... I could find one in neither Washington nor Oregon.  FAIL.  :ded:

I'm also not a fan of the bubble shield there's just something about it that makes it look super ugly. I don't mind the wide shields though they look a lto better than the bubble shield. I hope Ontario dosen't decide to use "bubble crowns" that be even worse than a bubble shield :-D .

Here's a now removed 3di shield up here in Ontario:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg16.imageshack.us%2Fimg16%2F9610%2Fqew61.jpg&hash=93830ff4190a0a22a662ae4ee9fbd9c18e916492)
(from vintagekingshighways.com)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2010, 10:03:48 PM
also, to make a fair comparison, can anyone please just find a state-named I-82 already?  I found an I-90 in a white square a few weeks ago, but 82 has been kicking my ass and spitting directly on my spine ... I could find one in neither Washington nor Oregon.  FAIL.  :ded:

You won't find any from Oregon; its section of I-82 is too recent for that.  But it's possible some were up in the older sections in the Yakima Valley.

I've been off almost every exit on I-82 and have yet to see a state named shield.

There might be one or two floating around random stretches of Yakima or Ellensburg though, I don't get off state-highway in those areas very often.

What city was the square white I-90 in? I feel like I've seen it, but can't pinpoint where

Quote from: Bickendan on January 20, 2010, 05:09:40 PM
The non-cutout interstate shields, the CalTrans interstate shields, and the Rand McNally interstate shields? Yeah, those are worth of a double facepalm.

If you're saying that the standard California Interstate shields with the state name and smaller numerals deserve a "double facepalm", I will disagree with you most strongly. :no:  However, if you're referencing the hideous "angular" interstate shields that popped up a number of years ago, then I'm 100% with you. :clap:  What's worse are the neutered *and* angular I-80 shields in the Sierra Nevada Mountains... ugh! :banghead:

AFAIK, the bubble shields only appeared on guide signs but that era seems to be over (see my earlier post for examples).  The "angular" interstate shields, IMO, are also on the way out as I've seen what looks like newer 2-digit interstate shields on I-5 and I-15 that follow the Caltrans 1971 spec which is based on the FHWA 1958 spec for Interstate shields.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2010, 09:56:37 PM
bubble shields are just the result of an extremely lazy worker playing "stretch horizontal" in their vector graphics program.  I have no idea how the Caltrans triangle shields came into being.

I was messing around with Photoshop and I think I found out how the triangle/angular shields came to be.  If you take a standard 3-digit interstate shields and squeeze it horizontally to the width of a 2-digit shield you'll get...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FgetAngular2.png&hash=64f84ea81b1e2be4b85a3f8c8a61c0327a96ab4a)
Voila!  A hideous angular interstate shield.

Seeing if I could make a "bubble" shield, I took a standard 2-digit interstate shield and stretch it horizontally to the width of a 3-digit shield you'll get...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FgetBubble2.png&hash=97cb08f5263d874351598225cc38ac65b3131b47)
Voila #2!  A hideous bubble interstate shield.

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 20, 2010, 11:48:21 PM

Quote from: Bickendan on January 20, 2010, 05:09:40 PM
The non-cutout interstate shields, the CalTrans interstate shields, and the Rand McNally interstate shields? Yeah, those are worth of a double facepalm.

If you're saying that the standard California Interstate shields with the state name and smaller numerals deserve a "double facepalm", I will disagree with you most strongly. :no:

Not these.

QuoteHowever, if you're referencing the hideous "angular" interstate shields that popped up a number of years ago, then I'm 100% with you. :clap:

These.  

QuoteWhat's worse are the neutered *and* angular I-80 shields in the Sierra Nevada Mountains... ugh! :banghead:

What.

QuoteI was messing around with Photoshop and I think I found out how the triangle/angular shields came to be.  If you take a standard 3-digit interstate shields and squeeze it horizontally to the width of a 2-digit shield you'll get...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FgetAngular2.png&hash=64f84ea81b1e2be4b85a3f8c8a61c0327a96ab4a)
Voila!  A hideous angular interstate shield.

Seeing if I could make a "bubble" shield, I took a standard 2-digit interstate shield and stretch it horizontally to the width of a 3-digit shield you'll get...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FgetBubble2.png&hash=97cb08f5263d874351598225cc38ac65b3131b47)
Voila #2!  A hideous bubble interstate shield.

Hmm. Would it be as bad if the 2di weren't stretched out so far and a smaller font series used instead? I suspect not, but I'm curious.

Quote from: shoptb1 on January 20, 2010, 08:35:01 PM

Quote from: jjakucyk on January 20, 2010, 08:32:16 PM

Quote from: Bickendan on January 20, 2010, 08:30:50 PM
...I should start a thread about offensive non-cutouts and leave the merely annoying bubbles in here, I guess :/

You mean we'd have to look at more of them? 

Yeah, let's stop the bleeding!  It's only crying from here on out.   :-D

LOL, no. I just had a good excuse to use the threadjack smiley.

Quote from: Bickendan on January 21, 2010, 01:08:09 AM

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 20, 2010, 11:48:21 PM
What's worse are the neutered *and* angular I-80 shields in the Sierra Nevada Mountains... ugh! :banghead:

What.

I was able to find this picture from the AARoads gallery...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/i-080_eb_exit_194_01.jpg)

I suspect that these shields won't be around very long due to the harsh winter conditions of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.  Also, it looks like a number of I-80 shields are getting replaced with more standard looking ones...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/i-080_eb_exit_174_01.jpg)

Quote from: Bickendan on January 21, 2010, 01:08:09 AM

Hmm. Would it be as bad if the 2di weren't stretched out so far and a smaller font series used instead? I suspect not, but I'm curious.

I think any deviation away from circular arcs is bound to look somewhat goofy.  A 1 or 2% deviation is unnoticeable but a bit more than that and there's something subtly off-kilter about the shield, and at the 15% error of the standard bubble shield, the problem is obvious.

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 20, 2010, 11:48:21 PM

I was messing around with Photoshop and I think I found out how the triangle/angular shields came to be.  If you take a standard 3-digit interstate shields and squeeze it horizontally to the width of a 2-digit shield you'll get...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FgetAngular2.png&hash=64f84ea81b1e2be4b85a3f8c8a61c0327a96ab4a)
Voila!  A hideous angular interstate shield.

Seeing if I could make a "bubble" shield, I took a standard 2-digit interstate shield and stretch it horizontally to the width of a 3-digit shield you'll get...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FgetBubble2.png&hash=97cb08f5263d874351598225cc38ac65b3131b47)
Voila #2!  A hideous bubble interstate shield.
[/quote]

That, then, would explain the looks of some of the 2di shields on overheads in the OKC area.

Ugh that angular 2di's hard on the eyes.

I'm probably the only person here who feels this way, but I personally like the bubble shields better. I've always thought the standard 3di shield is too "pointy". The bubble shields are sleeker IMO.

Now I do respect the fact that the bubble shields are non-standard, and I'm not advocating that anyone intentionally break the standards (they're there for a reason), but that doesn't mean I can't like them!

the 3di shield is a tad pointy compared to the 2di shield, but the bubble shield overcompensates for that by maybe a factor of five.  Keeping circular arcs, and moving the top outer points in by about a quarter to a half inch (on a 30x25 inch blank) should be sufficient.  

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2010, 09:13:13 AM
the 3di shield is a tad pointy compared to the 2di shield, but the bubble shield overcompensates for that by maybe a factor of five.  Keeping circular arcs, and moving the top outer points in by about a quarter to a half inch (on a 30x25 inch blank) should be sufficient.  

Would you mind sketching an example so that we can see the difference?

if I haven't done so in a couple days, ping me again - busy doing some back-end work with the SQL database of the shield gallery.  Oh sweet painful Jesus...

Someone's eyes are gonna bleed, but that's price that's gotta be paid to ping Jake for the request reminder...

Quote from: realjd on January 22, 2010, 09:10:37 AM
I'm probably the only person here who feels this way, but I personally like the bubble shields better. I've always thought the standard 3di shield is too "pointy". The bubble shields are sleeker IMO.

IMO, the late-1950s 3di shield shape (slightly taller 2di shield, but not wider) which CalTrans uses is a great solution to avoiding the pointy edge at bottom, without creating a bloated bubble.

Quote from: Bickendan on August 07, 2010, 04:33:13 PM
Someone's eyes are gonna bleed, but that's price that's gotta be paid to ping Jake for the request reminder...

remind me what I was trying to do?  especially given what I have learned about interstate shields in the last few months (which can be summed up as 'there are far too many standards') - I may just be able to pull a standard shield from some state or another for you.

Quote from: PennDOTFan on January 17, 2010, 08:16:20 PM
Hey I gotta ask this, what do we call a 3di shield with a 2di number inside like this one?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FSqCTNlcn8PI%2FAAAAAAAAN0I%2FpFZO14axDsA%2Fs640%2FIMG_0371.JPG&hash=7d9dc4e06ec17c10b808b0de12e3c8297e660b64)
(though, this shield covers I-495, so this one can't help it)

We call it a "cute shield"...a former GF saw my 18x21 VT I-91 years ago and called it 'cute'....

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 08, 2010, 12:25:43 AM

Quote from: Bickendan on August 07, 2010, 04:33:13 PM
Someone's eyes are gonna bleed, but that's price that's gotta be paid to ping Jake for the request reminder...

remind me what I was trying to do?  especially given what I have learned about interstate shields in the last few months (which can be summed up as 'there are far too many standards') - I may just be able to pull a standard shield from some state or another for you.

I think it's this:

Quote from: mightyaceQuote from: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2010, 09:13:13 AM
the 3di shield is a tad pointy compared to the 2di shield, but the bubble shield overcompensates for that by maybe a factor of five.  Keeping circular arcs, and moving the top outer points in by about a quarter to a half inch (on a 30x25 inch blank) should be sufficient. 

Would you mind sketching an example so that we can see the difference?

Quote from: ctsignguy on August 09, 2010, 08:08:19 PM

Quote from: PennDOTFan on January 17, 2010, 08:16:20 PM
Hey I gotta ask this, what do we call a 3di shield with a 2di number inside like this one?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FSqCTNlcn8PI%2FAAAAAAAAN0I%2FpFZO14axDsA%2Fs640%2FIMG_0371.JPG&hash=7d9dc4e06ec17c10b808b0de12e3c8297e660b64)
(though, this shield covers I-495, so this one can't help it)

We call it a "cute shield"...a former GF saw my 18x21 VT I-91 years ago and called it 'cute'....

I call it ugly - Mass has em for I-95 all over - and they're friggin HUGE!!!!

Quote from: Master son on August 09, 2010, 10:38:49 PM
I call it ugly - Mass has em for I-95 all over - and they're friggin HUGE!!!!

that is because Mass lacks the state name and uses the oversize numbers.

Quote from: TheStranger on August 09, 2010, 09:56:07 PMQuote from: agentsteel53 on January 22, 2010, 09:13:13 AM
the 3di shield is a tad pointy compared to the 2di shield, but the bubble shield overcompensates for that by maybe a factor of five.  Keeping circular arcs, and moving the top outer points in by about a quarter to a half inch (on a 30x25 inch blank) should be sufficient. 

see the 30x25 shield shape, as opposed to the 21x18 or 42x36, then.

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 20, 2010, 11:48:21 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FgetAngular2.png&hash=64f84ea81b1e2be4b85a3f8c8a61c0327a96ab4a)
Voila!  A hideous angular interstate shield.

I thought maybe those were made by Underwood's Deviled Ham  :D

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 20, 2010, 11:48:21 PM
Seeing if I could make a "bubble" shield, I took a standard 2-digit interstate shield and stretch it horizontally to the width of a 3-digit shield you'll get...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FgetBubble2.png&hash=97cb08f5263d874351598225cc38ac65b3131b47)
Voila #2!  A hideous bubble interstate shield.

I should have mentioned in that particular post that California only used the bubble shield on guide signs.  While it appears the use of bubble shields on guide signs has stopped (thankfully), they're now using them for route markers (reassurance markers) on southbound I-680 between CA-238/Mission Blvd and Auto Mall Pkwy... ugh! :banghead:

I don't have a picture as of yet but plan on getting one soon.

Quote from: Master son on August 09, 2010, 10:38:49 PM

Quote from: ctsignguy on August 09, 2010, 08:08:19 PM

Quote from: PennDOTFan on January 17, 2010, 08:16:20 PM
Hey I gotta ask this, what do we call a 3di shield with a 2di number inside like this one?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FSqCTNlcn8PI%2FAAAAAAAAN0I%2FpFZO14axDsA%2Fs640%2FIMG_0371.JPG&hash=7d9dc4e06ec17c10b808b0de12e3c8297e660b64)
(though, this shield covers I-495, so this one can't help it)

We call it a "cute shield"...a former GF saw my 18x21 VT I-91 years ago and called it 'cute'....

I call it ugly - Mass has em for I-95 all over - and they're friggin HUGE!!!!

I think this section used to be I-495, and they just slapped a 95 over it!

That's what the pic's caption says!

Quote from: Bickendan on August 10, 2010, 04:07:42 PM
That's what the pic's caption says!

DUH!!  I am not paying attention!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg651.imageshack.us%2Fimg651%2F6443%2Fdscn7619.jpg&hash=6ea7e70bd0821f661234f31dcbec8a8e3512b2b0)

The 279 is a bubble shield like any other, but what the hell is up with the 376?

It's trying to make bubble shields palatable!

Having learned that the "bubble shield" is actually what a normal two-digit Interstate shield looks like when it is stretched proportionally, I officially can say I prefer the bubble shield to the "regular" 3di shield, which when compacted to two-digit size, looks like the head of a shovel and can be found on a few overheads in the OKC area.

Quote from: hbelkins on August 22, 2010, 10:44:37 PM
Having learned that the "bubble shield" is actually what a normal two-digit Interstate shield looks like when it is stretched proportionally, I officially can say I prefer the bubble shield to the "regular" 3di shield, which when compacted to two-digit size, looks like the head of a shovel and can be found on a few overheads in the OKC area.

it's all over California, and when distorted looks utterly hideous.

the best 3-digit interstate shield shape is the classic 21x18/42x36.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19570081i1.jpg)

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 10, 2010, 01:35:32 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FgetBubble2.png&hash=97cb08f5263d874351598225cc38ac65b3131b47)

I should have mentioned in that particular post that California only used the bubble shield on guide signs.  While it appears the use of bubble shields on guide signs has stopped (thankfully), they're now using them for route markers (reassurance markers) on southbound I-680 between CA-238/Mission Blvd and Auto Mall Pkwy... ugh! :banghead:

I don't have a picture as of yet but plan on getting one soon.

Here is a picture of the I-680 bubble shield I snapped with my phone.  This shield is located just after the Washington Blvd exit.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F680bubble.jpg&hash=4728d8301222e631435d7e69876829365b33b868)
All I can say is I hope this is not an indication of what future 3-digit interstate shields in California are going to look like but if it is...  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Quote from: Duke87 on August 22, 2010, 09:18:28 PM
*279/376 construction sign*

The 279 is a bubble shield like any other, but what the hell is up with the 376?

The 376 appears to be some form of horrendous combination between the normal 3di shield and the bubble shield- the crown looks like it's from a bubble shield while the rest of it is standard.

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 23, 2010, 01:45:23 AM

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 10, 2010, 01:35:32 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FgetBubble2.png&hash=97cb08f5263d874351598225cc38ac65b3131b47)

I should have mentioned in that particular post that California only used the bubble shield on guide signs.  While it appears the use of bubble shields on guide signs has stopped (thankfully), they're now using them for route markers (reassurance markers) on southbound I-680 between CA-238/Mission Blvd and Auto Mall Pkwy... ugh! :banghead:

I don't have a picture as of yet but plan on getting one soon.

Here is a picture of the I-680 bubble shield I snapped with my phone.  This shield is located just after the Washington Blvd exit.
http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/680bubble.jpg
All I can say is I hope this is not an indication of what future 3-digit interstate shields in California are going to look like but if it is...  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I saw a bubble 280 shield yesterday somewhere in Daly City or whereabouts, but appeared to be city-installed on a detour route, without a state name...

On the other hand, I think the following sign is one or two years old and shows CalTrans returning to late-1950s 3di shapes!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4134%2F4807126693_036de21ae1_z.jpg&hash=cfa43f6648fd34b83e07941f754f2b0df97048d4)

The bubble shields I'm most familiar with in NorCal are for 580 and 880 at the MacArthur Maze, of which the examples can be counted on about one hand.

Quote from: jdb1234 on January 17, 2010, 08:08:07 PM
I'm guessing this is a bubble shield:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F101_1054.jpg&hash=8ce73306638059d70aa49b39ce4f5bd590b51d7d)

I think they need to make the Alabama 150 shield bigger, I can barely see it.

Also, are bubble shields officially defined by the MUTCD, or are they just modifications that are frowned upon but allowed?

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 04:07:14 AMAlso, are bubble shields officially defined by the MUTCD, or are they just modifications that are frowned upon but allowed?

The MUTCD allows only Interstate shields which have square or 5:4 aspect ratios.  A number of states, including California, have their own designs of Interstate shield which may be used in certain contexts and do not necessarily have square or 5:4 aspect ratios--for instance, California has a 21" x 18" size that can be used on certain G-series guide signs (aspect ratio:  7:6).  These are tolerated and are generally considered aesthetically satisfying because the exterior curved segments are true circular curves.

The error bubble shields, which nobody likes, and which nobody with any pride in his or her work will use, do not have true circular curves in their exterior segments because they were produced by inappropriately stretching the correct designs either horizontally or vertically.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 31, 2010, 04:24:04 AM
The MUTCD allows only Interstate shields which have square or 5:4 aspect ratios.

I thought the 42x36 size was still explicitly allowed?  I am not familiar with the '70 and '78 MUTCDs - I know the '61 allowed 21x18, 30x25, and 42x36 for the wide set and I thought the '70 got rid of only the 21x18.

QuoteA number of states, including California, have their own designs of Interstate shield which may be used in certain contexts and do not necessarily have square or 5:4 aspect ratios--for instance, California has a 21" x 18" size that can be used on certain G-series guide signs (aspect ratio:  7:6).  These are tolerated and are generally considered aesthetically satisfying because the exterior curved segments are true circular curves.

that is the '61 federal standard.  it was abolished officially by '70, but some states kept it.  California still has it as part of their repertoire, but that is because they have not updated their shield standards since 1971.  And bless their hearts for it!

every so often, a brand new 21x18 shield pops up.  

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19611051i1.jpg)

I for one find them significantly better-looking than the 30x25.  

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19721051i1.jpg)

the problem with the 30x25 is that it specifies 8" numbers, which would go with a 24, not 25 inch shield to be proportionate with the 21x18 and 42x36 (and the 18x18, 24x24, 36x36!)  the extra inch of space has to be distributed somewhere, and it is especially easy to make a goofy shield by getting the placements just slightly wrong.  that 105 is about the best you can do, and here is about the worst:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19794051i1.jpg)

that shield also suffers from the manufacturing defect of the red crown tab being placed too high and slightly askew, but its main concern is the excess of space between state name and number.

of course, turning to the wrong page of the 1961 AASHO manual and using the wrong crown height exaggerates the problem even further, but this is not a standard shield anymore.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19794052i1.jpg)

that layout with the shorter crown is to be used for a neutered shield on a green sign, with 10" numbers on the 25" blank.  You can even note a mounting hole at upper right of this shield, as though it were originally manufactured as intended: to be bolted to a green sign by the outer points.

I've always wondered why the '61 spec went with 30x25 instead of the extremely logical choice of 28x24, to be slotted in between 21x18 and 42x36.  

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 04:07:14 AM
Also, are bubble shields officially defined by the MUTCD, or are they just modifications that are frowned upon but allowed?

endorsements by the MUTCD do not imply quality in any form.  note the '70 spec US shield that I posted yesterday (which has been the standard since 1971, no wonder it's everywhere like the plague!) and also the interstate shields from that year look terrible compared to the '57 and '61 specs - state named is passable, but the neutered ones are just awful.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/LA/LA19880491i1.jpg)

I'd rather see a '61 spec bubble shield.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19796781i1.jpg)

there, I've said it.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 11:56:47 AM

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 04:07:14 AM
Also, are bubble shields officially defined by the MUTCD, or are they just modifications that are frowned upon but allowed?

endorsements by the MUTCD do not imply quality in any form.  note the '70 spec US shield that I posted yesterday (which has been the standard since 1971, no wonder it's everywhere like the plague!)

As of the 2003 MUTCD, was the state name mandated, or merely recommended, for Interstate shields?

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 12:39:29 PM

As of the 2003 MUTCD, was the state name mandated, or merely recommended, for Interstate shields?

neither.  it's optional.

EDIT: Had a change of heart. Now I like 3di shields the best.

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 12:42:22 PM
Off-topic, but I'm really not a fan of bubble or 3di shields at all. I've always preferred to just see three-digit numbers shrunk down to fit a standard two-digit Interstate shield.

I tend to think most wide shields are hideous - especially those like Arkansas and Alabama that distort the state outline to ridiculous proportions.

the only standard wide shields I like are two that appear in the 1961 MUTCD: the 21x18/42x36 interstate, and the 28x24 "California style" US cutout.  (I also like the 1930s Mass and NY US three-digit shields, but those were never standardized.)

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19564661i1.jpg)

now THAT is a good-looking wide shield!

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 11:49:36 AM

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 31, 2010, 04:24:04 AMThe MUTCD allows only Interstate shields which have square or 5:4 aspect ratios.

I thought the 42x36 size was still explicitly allowed?  I am not familiar with the '70 and '78 MUTCDs - I know the '61 allowed 21x18, 30x25, and 42x36 for the wide set and I thought the '70 got rid of only the 21x18.

I can't talk about any MUTCD edition before 2000 with certainty, but I am not aware of any recent MUTCD which has allowed off-square other than 5:4.  2003 does not, 2009 does not, etc. (just checked).  Even the specification for post-interchange distance signs requires 22.5" x 18" (5:4) for three-digit routes when shields instead of text designations are used on such signs (many states don't bother).

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 12:42:22 PM
Off-topic, but I'm really not a fan of bubble or 3di shields at all. I've always preferred to just see three-digit numbers shrunk down to fit a standard two-digit Interstate shield.

Here's one of my favorite 3di-in-2di shield examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4801461694/sizes/o/in/set-72157624519667042/

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:32:27 PM

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 12:42:22 PM
Off-topic, but I'm really not a fan of bubble or 3di shields at all. I've always preferred to just see three-digit numbers shrunk down to fit a standard two-digit Interstate shield.

Here's one of my favorite 3di-in-2di shield examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4801461694/sizes/o/in/set-72157624519667042/

Yeah, that's how California does 3di shields for the most part. Every I-405 shield I've ever seen has looked like that. CalTRANS loves Series D... They shrink it down for everything rather than using Series C.

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:45:15 PM
Yeah, that's how California does 3di shields for the most part. Every I-405 shield I've ever seen has looked like that. CalTRANS loves Series D... They shrink it down for everything rather than using Series C.

Here's a recent Series C sign, I think:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4807126693/in/set-72157624519667042/

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:51:28 PM

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:45:15 PM
Yeah, that's how California does 3di shields for the most part. Every I-405 shield I've ever seen has looked like that. CalTRANS loves Series D... They shrink it down for everything rather than using Series C.

Here's a recent Series C sign, I think:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/4807126693/in/set-72157624519667042/

But those lack the state name. They use shrunken-down Series D on the shield with the state name, which make up the majority of Interstate shields for both 2di and 3di in California.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 31, 2010, 04:24:04 AM

The error bubble shields, which nobody likes...

I like them. Better than the "regular" 3di shield.

Quote from: hbelkins on September 01, 2010, 05:50:21 PM

I like them. Better than the "regular" 3di shield.

how do you feel about the 21x18/42x36?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 01, 2010, 06:10:50 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on September 01, 2010, 05:50:21 PM

I like them. Better than the "regular" 3di shield.

how do you feel about the 21x18/42x36?

Not sure. Would have to see examples labeled as such to compare and judge.

Quote from: hbelkins on September 01, 2010, 06:19:09 PM

Not sure. Would have to see examples labeled as such to compare and judge.

scroll up about 20 posts in this thread.  the California I-105s I highlight are 21x18 and 42x36; the 405s are 30x25

Would these be considered bubble shields?

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/RI/RI19882951i1.jpg)

To me, these look like the shapes of frogs feet.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbrescher.net%2Ffark%2FMTG%2Fthe_goggles_do_nothing.jpg&hash=09639873a241a0fa3371e70eb63aa227e4d758fd)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 11:56:47 AM

I'd rather see a '61 spec bubble shield.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19796781i1.jpg)

there, I've said it.

I thought I saw one of the Four Horsemen the other day, but I wasn't sure why.

Sorry to revive this topic, but I'm actually starting to like the non-standard angular shields that are fairly common in California and some other states. I first noticed one when driving on I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Castaic the other day, and, like most things, didn't think much of it or even care much for it at first. But now that I've seen it a few times, I think it has some merit.

But then I've looked at other shield shapes that I like and I noticed that those, and the angular Interstate shields, have a fairly common bond of having sharp joints, straight points, etc. I found that all the shields I prefer have a more squared or angled appearance than round, hence why I think I'm really preferring the angular shields to the standard.

(I figured it was better to post this comment in this well-established topic rather than my other one.)

Another bump to an ancient topic, but here's a "bubble 3dus" shield that I made:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv45%2FNidoking%2FHighway%2520Shields%2520and%2520Concepts%2FUS%2520Numbered%2520Highways%2Fth_395.png&hash=ab16ecf5b4525320974bd552b5a718c808572409) (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v45/Nidoking/Highway%20Shields%20and%20Concepts/US%20Numbered%20Highways/?action=view&current=395.png)

As far as non-standard bubble shields go, I actually think it looks nice and has a fairly good aesthetic layout. Though this isn't a real standard, I have noticed it's very similar looking to a lot of the cutout 3dus shields in California.

Compare it to this:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19593951i1.jpg)

They are very similar, although that one is (obviously) based on a real standard.