what is "counter space"?
Clearview in general is just not a particularly attractive font. I've seen plenty of custom state fonts ... some ridiculous (Maryland), others quite nice (New York) - why couldn't they have adopted the New York numbers??
IIRC, Clearview was not meant to be used in route shields. More often than not, it isn't.
(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MI/MI19880962i1.jpg)...I'm surprised that "INTERSTATE" wasn't converted to Clearview to make it a 100% Clearview shield. :rolleyes:
So unappealing...
That's a good question. My best guess: people don't like change.
Clearview is becoming quite extensive in Michigan, although it varies from freeway to freeway. The only thing that I don't like about Clearview is that numbers look really ugly. Look:
(snipped image)
I've seen a few of these shields in Detroit and I think I-69 has some as well.
IIRC, Clearview was not meant to be used in route shields. More often than not, it isn't.
For me, I like clearview more at night. I've noticed that I'm able to see all the signs rather than those with light near them.I don't think the font contributes to this as much as the reflectivity on the signs - wait until they age with time, then check again :P
For me, I like clearview more at night. I've noticed that I'm able to see all the signs rather than those with light near them.I don't think the font contributes to this as much as the reflectivity on the signs - wait until they age with time, then check again :P
I wonder if there was some road signs tested with Comic Sans MS? :poke:
I wonder if there was some road signs tested with Comic Sans MS? :poke:
(http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/4003/482comicsans.png)
I wonder if there was some road signs tested with Comic Sans MS? :poke:Good Lord I hope not, but there sure are a lot of speed limit signs in Helvetica in my area.
I wonder if there was some road signs tested with Comic Sans MS? :poke:
It was still there when I was in Hopewell last weekend.I live 5-10 minutes from that craziness but haven't gotten my own photo of that yet :no:
Virginia Beach uses some strange font on most of its speed limit signs (most notably on Shore Drive for the quick drop from 45 MPH to 25 MPH).
Hopewell...um, don't get me started with them.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2969966023_10079e3796.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2969966023/)
Proof that this monstrosity really exists (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.296622,-77.278776&spn=0,359.98071&z=16&layer=c&cbll=37.296453,-77.278872&panoid=50wxRJOis6r0efxSE06fTw&cbp=12,48.07,,1,-1.65)
It was still there when I was in Hopewell last weekend.
I think the lower case "L's" are cool, the gothic "L's" are fine too, but i like Clearview's the best
I think the lower case "L's" are cool, the gothic "L's" are fine too, but i like Clearview's the best
I see.
Even though VDOT didn't put it up, it still looks like something from a trash can.
It may be easier to read, but did any of the past fonts have readability issues to begin with? Not that I know of.
Clearview annoys the hell out of me like Comic Sans MS does. :angry:
if you can't read signs, you're not seeing various other features that are not optimized for legibility, oh like pedestrians and deer and whatnot. Maybe you should just stop driving.
Oh, you apparently didn't get the memo about Texas Transportation Institute's new Cleardeer. The greatest thing is instead of blood their veins are filled with windshield washer fluid, so you're advised to actively try to run over them for a wonderful streak-free shine.
Here's the crazy sign from Hopewell on VA 36 approaching VA 10 http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/VA36EASTNEARVA10.jpg (http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/VA36EASTNEARVA10.jpg)
Here's the crazy sign from Hopewell on VA 36 approaching VA 10 http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/VA36EASTNEARVA10.jpg (http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/VA36EASTNEARVA10.jpg)
There are two of them? :-o
Looks much more like DIN1451 to me.But the DIN1451 "e's" are different than the "e's" in the alltel logo.
But the DIN1451 "e's" are different than the "e's" in the alltel logo.
BigMatt
I didn't see the word after the DIN1451 at first( i don't know what it is off the top of my head) so there really isn't a diffeneceBut the DIN1451 "e's" are different than the "e's" in the alltel logo.
BigMatt
if there is a difference, I do not see it. The difference between those two and Clearview's "e" is colossal, by contrast.
I didn't see the word after the DIN1451 at first( i don't know what it is off the top of my head) so there really isn't a diffenece
BigMatt
It's still strange how a phone company uses a highway font. But i guess those font weren't made just for BGS's and other highway signs.
that font is way too nice to be Clearview.Thus is why i said the closest thing to Clearview :-o
the real Clear is found here:
http://www.triskele.com/roadgeek-fonts (http://www.triskele.com/roadgeek-fonts)
check Series 1B-6B and 1W-6W. The B fonts are for dark text on a light background, and the W for the opposite. The B fonts are a bit bolder to offset the effect of light colors being perceived to blur slightly outward.
Why would you want clearview at all...
They can't position the exit tabs consistently, either. :-/
that font is way too nice to be Clearview.The current version of the 1W-6W font has some serious spacing issues. I would recommend downloading the True Type version of the font which is available through a link in the far-left column under "Other Fonts". To see what I'm talking about, here are some examples of the Series 6WR font...
the real Clear is found here:
http://www.triskele.com/roadgeek-fonts (http://www.triskele.com/roadgeek-fonts)
check Series 1B-6B and 1W-6W. The B fonts are for dark text on a light background, and the W for the opposite. The B fonts are a bit bolder to offset the effect of light colors being perceived to blur slightly outward.
IF states are going to switch to Clearview, they need to keep the FHWA Series numbers (at least on the route markers).
I don't mind the Clearview letters so much - it's the numbers that bug me.
IF states are going to switch to Clearview, they need to keep the FHWA Series numbers (at least on the route markers).
Matt, are you using Vista? I don't have Gisha.
There's another Clearview sign for Electronics Parkway going eastbound:
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_6zDqXUkKvc0/ScguvvI_8_I/AAAAAAAAAl8/8YcaJlDvIUA/100_2143.JPG)
Credit: deanej's Picasa albums (http://picasaweb.google.com/deane.jon/RoadSignsNewYorkSyracuse#5316550757753811954)
This was the first Clearview sign I saw in New York. I really miss the old Series E Modified signs!
I wonder if there was some road signs tested with Comic Sans MS?
And there are even still people blocking the intersection! :-DThey're blocking it because they are smart enough to not take a sign printed in Comic Sans seriously.
And there are even still people blocking the intersection! :-DThey're blocking it because they are smart enough to not take a sign printed in Comic Sans seriously.
what does the hourglass mean?
I wonder if there was some road signs tested with Comic Sans MS?
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have an answer to this question, and the answer is yes:
(http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/2803/dscn5956.jpg)
The new questions is... who's responsible? CONNDOT, or the town of Greenwich? (this is on Route 1)
what does the hourglass mean?
That shape is painted on the pavement on the spot you're not supposed to block in each of the northbound lanes. You can see them the lower left of my photo. They're also visible on Google's satellite view (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.033779,-73.623827&spn=0.000967,0.002411&t=h&z=19) and Bing's "birds eye" view (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=qv52838vy67g&style=o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&scene=15478613&encType=1) (the sign is visible but not legible in street view (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.033694,-73.624084&spn=0,359.995177&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.033593,-73.624183&panoid=bp7JFaJfQdIHGZjlK8NLVg&cbp=12,63.67,,1,1.25)).
It's still strange how a phone company uses a highway font. But i guess those font weren't made just for BGS's and other highway signs.A story I remember vaguely from a newsmagazine/newspaper type story I read on the net a long time ago, probably linked from MTR. One of the designers of Clearview (IIRC the article had an interview with him) left the word processor on his computer set to use Clearview as he was designing it. His son then used it to write a paper for school. It came back from the teacher with a remark to the effect of "Something about it just made it easy to read."
I wonder if there was some road signs tested with Comic Sans MS?
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have an answer to this question, and the answer is yes:
(http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/2803/dscn5956.jpg)
The new questions is... who's responsible? CONNDOT, or the town of Greenwich? (this is on Route 1)
100% town of Greenwich.
If ConnDOT posted that, then surely they have gone crazy. :crazy:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Here is one of the first overhead BGS in Birmingham to sport Clearview:
Ugh! Carbon copy (minus the arrow), replaced button copy, and removed overhead lighting fixtures. Triple whammy!
My eyes!!!!!
It should be illegal to have such ugly font. :ded:
There are also a few I-75 shields done in Clearview in the UP. Interstate 96 has several on the drive leading west from its beginning. Interstate 696 eastbound has at least two as well. All look bad...
(http://www.aaroads.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_images/midwest/bl-075_sb_end.jpg)
I'm not a big fan of the new interstate shields with the oversized number ie: I-75 on the left. It looks too big...almost border to border. The Loop I-75 looks more proportionate but the clearview ruins it!
Who ever came up with this font should be hanged. X-(
There are also a few I-75 shields done in Clearview in the UP. Interstate 96 has several on the drive leading west from its beginning. Interstate 696 eastbound has at least two as well. All look bad...
(http://www.aaroads.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_images/midwest/bl-075_sb_end.jpg)
There are also a few I-75 shields done in Clearview in the UP. Interstate 96 has several on the drive leading west from its beginning. Interstate 696 eastbound has at least two as well. All look bad...Is that in FL? If so what part of FL
(http://www.aaroads.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_images/midwest/bl-075_sb_end.jpg)
seriously, if Clearview is oh-so-legible, why don't they use it on stop signs? (Don't get any ideas, anyone.)
The designers of Clearview have however tried to promote the use of Clearview Bold typefaces in positive-contrast situations, including conversion from all-uppercase to mixed-case legends on light-background warning and regulatory signs. I am not aware that they have found any state DOTs or transportation research institutes willing to fund testing, however. The impression I receive is that there is a growing backlash to Clearview as the high cost of switching over to it bites into shrinking state DOT construction budgets.
Pennsylvania also uses black-on-yellow Clearview extensively for safe driving reminders. ("Buckle Up Next Million Miles")
The designers of Clearview have however tried to promote...
Clearview adorning this westbound main line reassurance shield in Detroit.
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/i-696_eb_exit_005_01.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/i-696_eb_exit_005_01.jpg)
2di-width Clearview fonted eastbound main line shield for Interstate 696.
agentsteel53: What's the exact font for the numbering for the 1957 state-name 3di shield? I assume it got phased out due to being less readable than the "wide" shield but I really like the consistency of look that that offered alongside the 2di shields...
If the states, or the contractors they employ to make signs, already have a font license for Clearview, why would it be more expensive than the standard "highway gothic" font?
Kentucky is using some black-on-white Clearview for some regulatory signs, specifically the "move over for stopped emergency vehicles" and "move damaged vehicles from the roadway" signs.
I personally have not found a legibility advantage in Clearview - even correctly designed W-series on green backgrounds.
This comes from mainly Texas experience in various conditions (sunrise, sunset, fog, night, clear, etc).
it is offset for me by the fact that the font is ugly as sin, and that perfectly good signs are being replaced, which is a colossal waste of money.
"1 0 0 0 0 N ü f ü s,"
I've had similar quantities of trouble reading retroreflective white on retroreflective green, especially in situations of frost where both foreground and background ice over in patches, yielding some very inconsistent reflectivity.
And yes, I know they do not make button copy anymore. If an old sign falls down, replace it with retroreflective white on non-reflective green, which to me is the best color scheme.
Or even microprismatic HI on engineer grade green.
I can read button copy on non-reflective much better than retroreflective on retroreflective, and in the very very few instances where I have seen retroreflective white on non-reflective green (Virginia, Montana, Kansas, etc), it has been similar in legibility to button copy, except slightly improved because the letters were not individual dots, but solid forms.
Negative 1st Avenue. Awesome.
Negative 1st Avenue. Awesome.
Where is it? I don't see a -1st Street on any of these pictures.
To be honest, the lettering of Clearview I actually kind of like, its mostly the numbers that are so hideous that even makes a blind person's eyes bleed. :-DI used to but now that I see more and more of it around San Angelo and all around Texas I seem to like it ALOT less...
There's ongoing construction on the Bronx River Parkway in southern Westchester County.My eyes! My eyes! :crazy:
The County DPW is showing it's absolute brilliance with the new signs:
(http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7069/dscn6089.jpg)
Not only are they using Clearview, but they're borrowing NYSDOT's "box the street name" technique. Double fail! :pan:
To be honest, the lettering of Clearview I actually kind of like, its mostly the numbers that are so hideous that even makes a blind person's eyes bleed. :-D
"they're putting up new signs on 77, and they're a lot easier to read when driving through."
"they're putting up new signs on 77, and they're a lot easier to read when driving through."
Yes, because they're so ugly you can't help but notice them! :pan:
^^ Looks like ALDOT is replacing all older button-copy signage with the Clearview signs along US 31/Red Mountain Expressway.
LOL! As far as I can see it, the increased readability seems to be due to the sheeting, not the font. I'm sure that FHwA font at the same size and reflectivity would be just as legible as Clearview. Problem is, I've never seen the two ever put side-by-side at the same font size and reflectivity when one is promoting Clearview.I don't know about reflectivity, but you can get same size on I-90 east at exit 37 - the 1 mile advance sign has not yet been made Clearview, but the next one has.
There's ongoing construction on the Bronx River Parkway in southern Westchester County.My eyes! My eyes! :crazy:
The County DPW is showing it's absolute brilliance with the new signs:
(http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7069/dscn6089.jpg)
Not only are they using Clearview, but they're borrowing NYSDOT's "box the street name" technique. Double fail! :pan:
I'm sorry but that sign looks absolutely hideous!
LOL! As far as I can see it, the increased readability seems to be due to the sheeting, not the font. I'm sure that FHwA font at the same size and reflectivity would be just as legible as Clearview. Problem is, I've never seen the two ever put side-by-side at the same font size and reflectivity when one is promoting Clearview.
But the field and tachistoscope testing of Clearview is hard to argue with (except where digits are concerned--as far as I can tell, the testing never looked at Clearview digits in detail), and the preference of the opinion-formers in the type community for humanist typefaces in general makes it difficult to argue that Clearview should not be used because it is ugly.
Except I think there has been a study showing either no benefit or even detriment to Clearview if used on dark-on-light installations, thus why the B series hasn't been approved by FHWA. If that is true, is there really much benefit to having the font, considering it would make the look and feel of positive-contrast signage completely different from negative-contrast? (Road signing is all about consistency, or should be, in any event.)
I believe that more field testing should be done. I conducted some informal tests during my senior year of high school, where I had someone stand across the room and I held up two sheets of paper, one with Series E Mod, and one with the equivalent Clearview, and lo and behold, most people said E(M) was more legible.
Also, as a free software/open-source enthusiast, and taxpayer to boot, I find it objectionable for the government to spend $600 per workstation on a copyrighted typeface when a public domain typeface exists that can do the same job and has for the past 50 years.
QuoteI believe that more field testing should be done. I conducted some informal tests during my senior year of high school, where I had someone stand across the room and I held up two sheets of paper, one with Series E Mod, and one with the equivalent Clearview, and lo and behold, most people said E(M) was more legible.
For characters printed in black on a nonreflective white surface, one would expect Series E Modified to be more legible.
Keep in mind also that you were working with young eyes, and probably some advance familiarity with the legend unless you went to a lot of trouble to hide your test cards, all of which are factors which had to be controlled in the various Clearview studies by expanding the sample size and using nonsense words (e.g. "Player" on the TTI test signs).
The real acid test, of course, is when I don't know what the signs say, and I can't do this myself as long as I make up the signs.
There isn't really any difference between Clearview and the FHWA alphabet series from this point of view....
I do have to wonder though what you mean by "young" eyes. I personally find the FHWA Series typefaces easier to read. However, though I am young, I am far from possessing 20/20 vision; in fact, at work I often find I cannot read the credit meter on a slot machine when standing one bank of machines away (about 4-6 feet or so).
Could you script your graphics programs to produce random text output of random length and capitalize the first letter? It would be for the most part unpronounceable gibberish, but you would have the benefit of not seeing the legend beforehand. If you wanted to spend some time on it you could probably create a simple algorithm for creating pronounceable nonsense words.
That may be how the sausage is made, but I don't have to like it. :)
I would like government at all levels to use more open technologies, as they in general are cheaper, better, and less prone to obsolescence than their copyrighted counterparts.
Unfortunately, I think that corporate voices carry too much power with government for change to ever be realized in this matter.
...I do not know of a single open-source CAD program.
I don't mind the Clearview letters so much - it's the numbers that bug me.
IF states are going to switch to Clearview, they need to keep the FHWA Series numbers (at least on the route markers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCad
Apparently it is an AutoCAD clone (uses DXF format both internally and externally) and development began in 1999. Ports to Windows are unofficial, and only the "community" edition is made available through the GNUPL--the functionality it offers is restricted compared to the full version. 3-D is not supported in any version (though highway design professionals like my friend would say, "You don't need it").
However it looks like that MTO might switch to clearview in the future, according to this article about clearview from their website. (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/transtek/roadtalk/rt15-4/#a12) Their halation sample looks like it was done in arial though. :-D
Saw this link on Yahoo! Groups Northeast Roads this morning:
PennDOT: New signs clearly are much better (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09363/1024257-147.stm)
Saw this link on Yahoo! Groups Northeast Roads this morning:
PennDOT: WHAT WE ARE DOING IS GOOD. WE WILL CONTINUE. DO NOT LOOK AT ME LIKE THAT.
Saw this link on Yahoo! Groups Northeast Roads this morning:
PennDOT: New signs clearly are much better (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09363/1024257-147.stm)
Boo-ya! Why am I the only person on this board that likes the ClearView font? Maybe 'cuz my eyes are starting to suck and it's harder for me to read the Highway Gothic at night vs. Clearview. :banghead:
After I recovered from several days of tracing the characters, I found that I didn't hate Clearview.
the fact is, the best-looking highway sign fonts (FHWA 1926, FHWA 1948, Transport (Britain), Mittelschrift (Germany)) - they are all of uniform stroke width.
Maybe that's what I want my federal tax dollars going towards - making signs actually be visible when they are frosted, not replacing perfectly good older signs with newer ones when they remain ineffective under sub-optimal highway conditions. Clearview is a waste - concentrate on blasting frost using the fonts you have had available since 1943.
Maybe that's what I want my federal tax dollars going towards - making signs actually be visible when they are frosted, not replacing perfectly good older signs with newer ones when they remain ineffective under sub-optimal highway conditions. Clearview is a waste - concentrate on blasting frost using the fonts you have had available since 1943.
For example, in California, brand new retroreflective signage (not Clearview in this case, but still new) at the East LA interchange ... same 1949 ramp system that makes it impossible to stay on I-5 southbound unless you're Mario Andretti.
They require lighting to comply with the similar-appearance requirement in the MUTCD (and lighting is itself a significant running cost), and without retroreflective sheeting they have poor target value. A commitment to maintain signs in place for over 50 years is also not consistent with the adaptations that may eventually become necessary to accommodate older drivers. So systematic sign rehabilitation is in effect an attempt to purchase a higher level of service at a somewhat higher cost, while cutting down on technological risk.hmm, maybe it's time to re-evaluate that similar-appearance requirement? what are the benefits of having that?
hmm, maybe it's time to re-evaluate that similar-appearance requirement? what are the benefits of having that?
also, all this accommodating of drivers with poor eyesight... if drivers cannot see the signs, what else are they not seeing? Deer aren't getting more reflective as technology improves, and nor are tires in the road, stalled cars, and other things to be noticed and avoided.
Older drivers become less likely to encounter the other hazards you mention because they tend to elect not to drive where they are likely to encounter them.
I was in the Texas panhandle around Nov of this year and when I saw the frosted-over signs at dawn I really had trouble reading them and that was independent of whether they were Highway Gothic or Clearview - they just had the reflectivity frosted to the point where the signs yielded blobs of color and did not denote their legend at all...
A while back when they changed one of the Glendo exit signs, I put together this before/after animation. Which is better? Well, with that lowercase L in there, it's no contest for me. ;-)
-Andy
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/GlendoSignChange2.gif)
Welcome to the forum! Thanks for posting this animation...I'm going to have to be honest though...I like the Clearview better. As you'll learn, I'm about the only person on this forum that actually likes Clearview. :) However, I would like to state that I think either of the fonts that you've shown are easily readable. My issue is with the much more difficult-to-read ancient button-copy compared to Clearview, which is the majority of the replacements here in Ohio.
I love Clearview.....letters. :-P
The numbers are absolutely hideous, but overall if Clearview is done right I generally like it better.If I was in charge of the entire highway I would indeed adopt Clearview, but keep the old numbers.I especially love the little "tails" the lower case L's have in Clearview as well.
A high point of Clearview I like is the fact that the letters are aren't as bold and skinnier than standard font, making the sign seem less cluttered.
I love Clearview.....letters. :-P
The numbers are absolutely hideous, but overall if Clearview is done right I generally like it better.If I was in charge of the entire highway I would indeed adopt Clearview, but keep the old numbers.I especially love the little "tails" the lower case L's have in Clearview as well.
A high point of Clearview I like is the fact that the letters are aren't as bold and skinnier than standard font, making the sign seem less cluttered.
well, standard E with EM spacing is also not quite as bold and makes the sign seem less cluttered.
and yes, the numbers are the worst. Most of the uppercase letters aren't bad, but the lowercase are a mixed bag and the numbers I just can't stand. They took some good ideas (curved top for 6, bottom for 9 - see New York font) and somehow ruined them!
(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2008_Michigan_Day_2/Images/66.jpg)
First exit north of the Indiana state line in Michigan.
I love Clearview.....letters. :-P
The numbers are absolutely hideous, but overall if Clearview is done right I generally like it better.If I was in charge of the entire highway I would indeed adopt Clearview, but keep the old numbers.I especially love the little "tails" the lower case L's have in Clearview as well.
A high point of Clearview I like is the fact that the letters are aren't as bold and skinnier than standard font, making the sign seem less cluttered.
I agree that the numbers are terrible. However, look at the following two examples.
Here's TERRIBLE (illegible at night as well)
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S0QSGDpVp3I/AAAAAAAAA3U/cseo-yt5AFs/s720/IMG_1229.JPG)
I agree that the numbers are terrible. However, look at the following two examples.I see nothing wrong with that I-275 shield. Interstate shields with that sized numbers are pretty common in California...
Here's TERRIBLE (illegible at night as well)
if done right, that style of number can flow quite well.
(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19700661i1.jpg)
I don't have an example of a 96 (gee I wonder what font the shield generator needs!); that will have to do for now. Those numbers are fundamentally identical to clearview 6es but look so much better!
Although I'm still amazed that no company in China or some other 3rd world country didn't step in to produce a comparable product after the old supplier quit making them - I've seen such opportunism in many things before, especially auto parts.
Clearview or not, I just want to be able to read the danged sign when I'm on the freeway! I was on a recent trip to the Los Angeles area, and my gosh! There are still quite a large number of the old button-copy signs in southern California, some probably older than I am (I'm 48), and those old signs are so filthy, dirty, nasty and grungy you can't even read them during broad daylight, let alone at night, during which Caltrans decides not to light up the signs at all. I grew up there so I know the L.A./Orange County freeway system like the back of my hand, but what about the people who are just passing through or are otherwise new to the area?
According to some folks, we just need to be in awe of their historical value and not worry too much about "function". Sorry, couldn't resist :sombrero:
There is the occasional one that is just plain wrong, or lacks critical information (see: East LA Interchange, I-5 southbound) but if the information on them is correct, I think they work just fine!
Which sign in particular on I-5 are you referring to, out of curiosity?
Looking at the photos on AARoads, it looks like you can stay in either the #2 or #3 lanes to remain on I-5 south. The #1 lane will take you to CA-60, the #2 lane will keep you on I-5, the #3 lane is an option lane (I-5 or I-10) and the #4 and #5 lanes are for I-10.Which sign in particular on I-5 are you referring to, out of curiosity?
all of them. They are technically correct, but too close together to allow for merging. There is no single lane to take to stay on I-5 southbound - the best option is to stay in the #2 lane to avoid getting on I-10 westbound, and then switch quickly over to the #3 lane to not get on the 60 by accident. Usually, by the time you realize you are in the wrong lane, it is too late to switch given how heavy traffic is usually through there.
(this of course does not prevent people from executing a classic Jackass Merge (tm)... Southern California: More Important than You, since 1903.)
^ I think the street name sign for McEwen Drive off of I-65 sports Clearview.
Here's another Wyoming before/after Clearview animation I just made up. Not the same exact same sign, but the same business loop (one has been replaced, the other has not) This one doesn't bother me very much, but I do wish the 135 was in FHWA numerals and not Clearview.
-Andy
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/DouglasLoopChange1.gif)
I still like the Clearview text best although I would agree that I'm not crazy about the numerals. Especially the 135.
As one might expect, the Illinois Tollway north of Rockford uses Clearview for the signs it replaced. One thing I didn't notice until today was the US-51 shield... in Clearview. I don't have a picture, but it looks like whoever made the sign made sure that the "hat" on the 1 was extra long. Not a pleasant thing to see while dodging semis and Illinois drivers.
Shoot, the exit numbers are Clearview. Atleast the shields aren't
Shoot, the exit numbers are Clearview. Atleast the shields aren't
Lets keep it this way ;-)
What does the "CH" on the IH 71 BGSes in Ohio stand for?
I've been through there recently, and couldn't understand what it meant.
What does the "CH" on the IH 71 BGSes in Ohio stand for?
I've been through there recently, and couldn't understand what it meant.
Isn't that an abbreviation for the place name "Washington Courthouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Court_House,_Oh)"?
What does the "CH" on the IH 71 BGSes in Ohio stand for?
I've been through there recently, and couldn't understand what it meant.
Here are the northbound versions of signs in December before they were changed:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/4283629955_3e1fded777_o.jpg)
Notice South Solon instead of Washington Court House as a control point.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2626/4229908445_3fbc9dbd53_b.jpg)
They at least had the C and H separated! And, no mention of Xenia. (Of course, the correction of the signs and adding "TO" on US 35 was necessary.)
I'll miss ol' button copy signs! :-(
It wouldn't look so bad if the letters weren't entirely too large.
Here are the northbound versions of signs in December before they were changed:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/4283629955_3e1fded777_o.jpg)
I've noticed that too. The I-71 north exit to US
Notice South Solon instead of Washington Court House as a control point.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2626/4229908445_3fbc9dbd53_b.jpg)
They at least had the C and H separated! And, no mention of Xenia. (Of course, the correction of the signs and adding "TO" on US 35 was necessary.)
I'll miss ol' button copy signs! :-(
ODOT has had a general practice of not placing cities on BGS where you would have to 'drive back' to get to that town. That was why you see no mention of Xenia on that Ohio 435/US 35 BGS.....by their thinking, US 68 was the Xenia exit for I-71 north. But when you drive south on I-71, 435/35 is Xenia....but no real mention on the US 68 exit
There are exceptions, but not many
Okay, so am I the only one who thinks if an areas highway signage is gonna be in Clearview, the rest of it should be in Clearview, and not Gothic? They seem to do that a whole lot here in Angelo...
BigMatt
Okay, so am I the only one who thinks if an areas highway signage is gonna be in Clearview, the rest of it should be in Clearview, and not Gothic? They seem to do that a whole lot here in Angelo...
BigMatt
Not really. I mean, each sign has a right to stay put up until its lifespan is done or if it is damaged or badly faded.
Ok, let me explain, here in Angelo they built Houston Harte Expressway, all the signs (except for one) are in Clearview, then theres this one sign that was put up at the same time as the other ones, that is in Gothic, I don't really get where that came in, I'm saying that if you're gonna do new signage wouldn't you expect all the signs to be in the same font...Okay, so am I the only one who thinks if an areas highway signage is gonna be in Clearview, the rest of it should be in Clearview, and not Gothic? They seem to do that a whole lot here in Angelo...
BigMatt
Not really. I mean, each sign has a right to stay put up until its lifespan is done or if it is damaged or badly faded.
BigMatt
any photos of US or state route shields with buttons on the shields? There is apparently a US-40 in Columbus somewhere but each time I remember to look for it, I'm in another state.
I've never seen any state route shields here with buttons, but I have seen a US-40 shield. I believe that its on the Broad Street exit off I-670 East. I'll check next time I'm over there...
These two were installed a few year ago but I think they really made the signs look bad by using this huge lettering size. I don't mind the Clearview as much by could they size the signs better?
(http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/443/dvpbloor.jpg)
(http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/6629/dvpdonmills.jpg)
These two were installed a few year ago but I think they really made the signs look bad by using this huge lettering size. I don't mind the Clearview as much by could they size the signs better?
(http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/443/dvpbloor.jpg)
(http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/6629/dvpdonmills.jpg)
It looks like these signs use Clearview 6-W instead of 5-W (which is recommended for freeway guide signs). It is a bit like using mixed-case Series F instead of Series E Modified.
I've never seen any state route shields here with buttons, but I have seen a US-40 shield. I believe that its on the Broad Street exit off I-670 East. I'll check next time I'm over there...
that sounds familiar. Any chance you can grab a picture for us? From what I've heard, it's a nasty interchange.
Here's a before and after shot of the mileage signage just past the Harrisburg, OH exit heading south on I-71. It seems that ODOT also decided that the mileage to I-275 needed to be modified :)
Before (Button-Copy)
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S7dYjgSQSVI/AAAAAAAABcs/kw926cjVm6g/s512/IMG_1224.JPG)
Here's a before and after shot of the mileage signage just past the Harrisburg, OH exit heading south on I-71. It seems that ODOT also decided that the mileage to I-275 needed to be modified :)
Before (Button-Copy)
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S7dYjgSQSVI/AAAAAAAABcs/kw926cjVm6g/s512/IMG_1224.JPG)
I'll miss that old sign. <sniff> :-(
That sign was always a bit of a glimmer of hope on one of (In my opinion) the most boring sections of highway I've ever been on.
That sign was always a bit of a glimmer of hope on one of (In my opinion) the most boring sections of highway I've ever been on.
Not only is the sign still there in the same exact place....I think that the I-275 shield looks much better than the letters spelling out I-275.
That sign was always a bit of a glimmer of hope on one of (In my opinion) the most boring sections of highway I've ever been on.
Way to go, NYSTA . . . . that sign is horrendous, and I can't believe I live within an hour of it.
If you're gonna do Clearview, take a look at Texas. They do it right.
Way to go, NYSTA . . . . that sign is horrendous, and I can't believe I live within an hour of it.
If you're gonna do Clearview, take a look at Texas. They do it right.
I strongly disagree. The Clearview in Oklahoma is far less unattractive than the Texas Clearview. They're both ugly but the Texas signs are really ugly.
Here's some proof that Texas Clearview signs are ugly:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/4441757904_12f46c7912.jpg)
Anyone who gets a glimmer of hope from seeing a mileage sign for Louisville is a sick puppy -- unless you're seeing it in reverse in your rear view mirror as you're driving away from Kentucky's biggest cesspool.
The exit tabs are what kills them. The EXIT just doesn't look right and Clearview numerals by nature suck. :P The sign is fine; however, why is Denison and Greenville on the same line? Couldn't they shove the text, "SOUTH" adjacent to US-69 instead of above it?Way to go, NYSTA . . . . that sign is horrendous, and I can't believe I live within an hour of it.
If you're gonna do Clearview, take a look at Texas. They do it right.
I strongly disagree. The Clearview in Oklahoma is far less unattractive than the Texas Clearview. They're both ugly but the Texas signs are really ugly.
Here's some proof that Texas Clearview signs are ugly:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/4441757904_12f46c7912.jpg)
Way to go, NYSTA . . . . that sign is horrendous, and I can't believe I live within an hour of it.
If you're gonna do Clearview, take a look at Texas. They do it right.
I strongly disagree. The Clearview in Oklahoma is far less unattractive than the Texas Clearview. They're both ugly but the Texas signs are really ugly.
Here's some proof that Texas Clearview signs are ugly:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/4441757904_12f46c7912.jpg)
Woof! Woof! Cough! Cough! :sombrero:
I strongly disagree. The Clearview in Oklahoma is far less unattractive than the Texas Clearview.
Ugh. Terrible. Are all the signs in OK being converted to Clearview? The last time I was in OK was 3 years ago, and I didn't see any. Of course I only clipped the panhandle through Cimarron and Texas Counties so they may not have made it out there yet, or they may not have started yet statewide.I strongly disagree. The Clearview in Oklahoma is far less unattractive than the Texas Clearview.
(http://www.denexa.com/roadgeek/road-photos/main.php?cmd=image&var1=ok%2Fcotton%2Fimg_1953.jpg&var2=700_85)
You were saying?
Ugh! That sign is pretty horrible.
Really, the ONLY application of Clearview I've yet seen that I like, as I probably mentioned before, is in Fort Collins, CO, where I lived for many years. They use ONLY capitol letters, and they usually do not use Clearview numbers. Here's a gallery of street signs I compiled - the first one is particularly ironic, eh?
The bad thing here is a lot of those are the incorrect weight of Clearview. If CV-5W doesn't fit, rather than knocking it down to 4W, they're just compressing it. Think of using the sideways arrow handles in Inkscape...
Here's the latest Clearview sign in Ontario I think this one was installed within these two weeks:
images omitted
I wonder if MTO is switching to Clearview or is just installing more test signs as most new signs put this year were still done in FHWA.
MTO should consider making the signs from scratch rather than overlaying them. It looks much better.
wow, that 5-W has some extraordinarily sparse kerning.
The bad thing here is a lot of those are the incorrect weight of Clearview. If CV-5W doesn't fit, rather than knocking it down to 4W, they're just compressing it. Think of using the sideways arrow handles in Inkscape...
I much prefer the 5-W-R kerning, though I'm not looking at it from several hundred feet away at 80 mph...
I don't have any problem with all-uppercase Clearview - that's part of why I posted that gallery of street signs from Fort Collins. It is frustrating though there, about the city's lack of consistancy. About the only consistant thing is all-uppercase, but Ft Collins has never used lowercase their road signs.
The bad thing here is a lot of those are the incorrect weight of Clearview. If CV-5W doesn't fit, rather than knocking it down to 4W, they're just compressing it. Think of using the sideways arrow handles in Inkscape...
Actually, no. If the sideways arrow control had been used, the result would have been something like this:
(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/6/60/Randlett-5w-distorted-glyphs.png)
Rather than this:
(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/d/d5/Randlett-overtight-kerning.png)
I much prefer the 5-W-R kerning, though I'm not looking at it from several hundred feet away at 80 mph...
"On paper" (or, rather, on computer screen) I like them about equally. On the open road 5-W-R appeals to me fractionally more than 5-W, because it looks less snaggle-toothed. On the other hand, I suspect 5-W would put less strain on my eyes if it were late and I was tired.
Frankly, to me the distinction between the two is less important than:
* Keeping Clearview out of route marker digits
* Keeping Clearview out of negative-contrast situations such as white and yellow panels on guide signs...
It's worth noting that FHWA still has a "conditional approval" (can't remember the exact term) for Clearview. Clearview is not mentioned in the 2009 MUTCD at all. FHWA could revoke that approval at any time, thus banning further Clearview signage.
I think that the majority of public opinion has been positive towards Clearview
It's worth noting that FHWA still has a "conditional approval" (can't remember the exact term) for Clearview. Clearview is not mentioned in the 2009 MUTCD at all. FHWA could revoke that approval at any time, thus banning further Clearview signage.
Which is one of my pet peeves about the MUTCD and FHWA. Why should they be in the business of regulating or dictating fonts? If a state wants to use Helvetica on its signs, why not? Why a federal standard? It's not like 50 different standards for a "merge" or "divided highway ends" sign if states use different fonts.
When non-standard fonts are used (and not used consistently) it makes a sign look "unofficial" an "unprofessional".
really? I've had numerous non-roadgeek friends of mine ask me (as their local roadgeek who is supposedly an expert at interpreting all things sign-related) "what's with the ugly font on recent signs?"
In 2003, TxDOT decided to implement Clearview as the standard font for all freeway guide signs (white on green, white on blue, and white on brown).
when they overlay, are they putting a new hard substrate (metal? fiberglass?) over the old layers? Or just new soft/flexible sheeting?
there appears to be some rippling with the new Clearview sign, but I am thinking that if they put a thin layer of material (maybe 030 aluminum) over the old sign, and put the new vinyl on top of that, you'd get the combined advantage of the old sign structure (which I am sure is in good condition) and the new legend, thereby saving money.
Inconsistency only looks bad when it's not the norm. Highway guide signs previously used FHWA Series EM pretty much exclusively, so the presense of Clearview or Helvetica or anything else on them becomes quite jarring. On the other hand, MTA's signage in the NYC subway is set exclusively in Helvetica. Seeing Highway Gothic there would be equally jarring!
Meanwhile, street signs always have looked wildly different from town to town, even within the same town (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2175.0), so "different" things don't really stand out so much.
It look like MTO is using diamond grade sheeting and making the whole sign diamond grade instead of the old arrangement with engineer grade background and high intensity legend. I'm kind of more partial towards the old sheeting arrangement and the FHWA fonts. I wonder if MTO is starting to phase in Clearview and diamond grade signs?
JN, do you know the absolute numbers? I have heard High Intensity - both honeycomb and prismatic - is 3x as bright as old-school Engineer Grade, and diamond is 10x.
Are you sure it is diamond grade, as opposed to prismatic high-intensity, which has a very similar diamond pattern? The way to tell prismatic apart from diamond is the distinct alternating "striping" about 1/2 wide that is seen from particular angles.
The guide signs MTO will install this fall, along with the many sites where we use high performance Type XI sheeting, will be offered as potential evaluation sites for human factors studies.
Quote from: MTO webpageThe guide signs MTO will install this fall, along with the many sites where we use high performance Type XI sheeting, will be offered as potential evaluation sites for human factors studies.
Quote from: MTO webpageThe guide signs MTO will install this fall, along with the many sites where we use high performance Type XI sheeting, will be offered as potential evaluation sites for human factors studies.
I do not know the distinction between all the Type-and-roman-numeral classifications of sheeting. Does anyone know?
I think that the majority of public opinion has been positive towards Clearview
really? I've had numerous non-roadgeek friends of mine ask me (as their local roadgeek who is supposedly an expert at interpreting all things sign-related) "what's with the ugly font on recent signs?"
Wow...that third sign is hard to read with the sun shining on it thanks to the reflective sheeting...
Most of the people I talk to that go from here towards Akron on 77 (most of 77 south of Akron in Summit County has converted to Clearview) like it more than the signs that were there (which unlike on 76 weren't all that old and still reasonably reflective).
Yeah, part of me thinks that the halation issues are caused more by the newer high reflectance reflective sheeting being used instead of problems with the FHWA fonts. I for one like how Ontario does their signs with a EG grade background and High Intensity legend. The newer signs especially the high reflectance type seem too reflective and even blinding to me especially when viewed in direct sunlight.
Yeah, part of me thinks that the halation issues are caused more by the newer high reflectance reflective sheeting being used instead of problems with the FHWA fonts. I for one like how Ontario does their signs with a EG grade background and High Intensity legend. The newer signs especially the high reflectance type seem too reflective and even blinding to me especially when viewed in direct sunlight.
This, pretty much. Reflective sheeting wasn't around when they came up with highway gothic - and the only reflective part of the lettering was the buttons. As long as the b/c lettering was maintained, there was no problem reading it.
Just part of why b/c never should have gone away.
[image]
[image]
God that is ugly.
Agreed. Maybe Wyoming DOT should scale down on the font size.(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/DouglasGillette.jpg)God that is ugly.
These Pennsylvania signs on US 22 seem to have a larger Clearview font than many:
[snip]
These Pennsylvania signs on US 22 seem to have a larger Clearview font than many:
[snip]
Hmm...These don't look bad after all!!!
Back in 2001 WYDOT was trying out some oddball typeface - similar to some I’ve seen in other states, sort of a modified-mixed-case, but was pretty weird. There’s not a whole lot of these signs up around Wyoming though. I only post this example here because at Exit 57, it has the arrow sign in that oddball lettering, but the 1-mile sign has been changed to Clearview (and they did a bit better with this sign than those examples above):
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/ChugwaterTYOldOddballTypeface.jpg)(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/ChugwaterTYClearview.jpg)
And it's still more attractive than the pure Clearview sign.Back in 2001 WYDOT was trying out some oddball typeface - similar to some I’ve seen in other states, sort of a modified-mixed-case, but was pretty weird. There’s not a whole lot of these signs up around Wyoming though. I only post this example here because at Exit 57, it has the arrow sign in that oddball lettering, but the 1-mile sign has been changed to Clearview (and they did a bit better with this sign than those examples above):
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/ChugwaterTYOldOddballTypeface.jpg)(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/ChugwaterTYClearview.jpg)
The pic on the left almost seems like it was created with two separate type faces. The left and right sides look like FHWA, and the middle seems like a bastardized version of Clearview...horrendous!
The pic on the left almost seems like it was created with two separate type faces. The left and right sides look like FHWA, and the middle seems like a bastardized version of Clearview...horrendous!
And then I found this photo of another oddball mixed-case sign, however the lowercase g is not handled the same was as it was in that Chugwater sign.
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/DouglasCasperOddballTypeface.jpg)
it looks to me like the "g" in Douglas is the same as the "g" in Chugwater, just compressed vertically. I don't recognize the font offhand, but my first guess would be horizontally stretched Series C.
I just don't see why the background of the sign needs to be reflective.
button copy is very expensive (especially nowadays, given that it's no longer being manufactured). I'd say make high-intensity foreground on engineer grade background as an acceptable compromise (like Texas did for a few years), but EG is also not being made anymore.
Some states create large guide signs by using a highly-reflective white base covered with translucent green film, with the white legend being cut out of the green film. With that production method, the background cannot be a different reflective material. However, other production methods would possibly get the job done.
Maryland tried a few different sheeting combinations but they are moving to all Diamond Grade 3M on the BGS. I was happy to find out that the sign shop guys dislike shields with clearview route numbers and that they are not going to move to clearview on anything other then a guide sign. A clearview related video tour of the shop...Some states create large guide signs by using a highly-reflective white base covered with translucent green film, with the white legend being cut out of the green film. With that production method, the background cannot be a different reflective material. However, other production methods would possibly get the job done.
you can diminish the permeability of the green layer, thereby cutting down its reflectivity.
all Diamond Grade 3M on the BGS.
They wanted something that is visible in all conditions and so they picked DG. He told me it is resists fading better then other material and are a few test signs dying out in the sun. Seeing rolls and rolls in brown boxes, it was pretty cool but that money comes from somewhere.all Diamond Grade 3M on the BGS.
that sounds really expensive. what do they have against prismatic high intensity?
I don't have a photo, but I believe there are Speed Limit signs in clearview in my area.
Out for a drive today to the "big city" (20 miles to our closest traffic light), I noticed new signs along VT 100... and they're CLEARVIEW! Text has gone from all upper-case to upper/lower case and in a bigger font.
No pics today since it was raining and I didn't have a camera... but I'll try to get some next time.
So I finally got the pic today... not the best since I was driving (and it was raining again), but you can pretty much get the point...
This was taken on VT 100 South approaching the intersection with VT 100B. On VT 100 North at this intersection, 2 of the 4 signs have been replaced - that's the one I need to get a picture of so that the new vs the old can be compared, within the same assembly.
Looks like mixed case FHWA-C to me... note the tail-less lowercase l's and the slanted top of 'd', 'l' and 't'. If it really is Clearview and my glasses aren't playing tricks on me, I'm really glad the numerals are still in FHWA :]
Lefty JR, that last one looks like it is in Louisylvania. :colorful:
/It's got a typical Louisiana sign bridge.
I don't have a photo, but I believe there are Speed Limit signs in clearview in my area.
That's Helvetica. Not even close to Clearview.
I don't have a photo, but I believe there are Speed Limit signs in clearview in my area.
I finally got a photo. Maybe not the best quality in the world.
<Helvetica speed limit sign>
Yeah, I cringe whenever I've seen Helvetica on speed limit signs.
That's Helvetica. Not even close to Clearview.
Okay, thanks. Never seen Helvectia on a roadsign before.
Is it Clearview? (Interstate 89 Northbound, Vermont, sign installed 7/2010)
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_LdJssxlEuTQ/TE5Re1DiQXI/AAAAAAAALJU/apVa1pY9Oro/s720/022.JPG)
Yup, thats clearview :ded:
Is it Clearview? (Interstate 89 Northbound, Vermont, sign installed 7/2010)
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_LdJssxlEuTQ/TE5Re1DiQXI/AAAAAAAALJU/apVa1pY9Oro/s720/022.JPG)
Yup, thats clearview :ded:
Bear-eee..... Not Bear
Bear-eee..... Not Bear
really? long A? as if it were spelled "baree"? here I've been pronouncing it "bar" for years, because since when does long A result from having two consonants between the vowels? Oh wait, this is English.
I really don't think Clearview is that bad if it's used well. The Vermont Clearview signs don't look that bad. NYSTA, on the other hand...All things considered, I don't think Ohio is doing a horrible job either. As others have said, it is growing on me, but I hate having the piecemeal approach to replacing them, especially when we have some really *really* old signs still up.
...though, I still prefer good ol' FHWA Series E(M)!
I really don't think Clearview is that bad if it's used well. The Vermont Clearview signs don't look that bad. NYSTA, on the other hand...All things considered, I don't think Ohio is doing a horrible job either. As others have said, it is growing on me, but I hate having the piecemeal approach to replacing them, especially when we have some really *really* old signs still up.
...though, I still prefer good ol' FHWA Series E(M)!
If Ohio had done Clearview as button copy, I might have gone for it. :sombrero:One of these days I'm going to take some photos of I-270 on the south side of town. I've seen a couple on this site, but those are the good ones. One I'm thinking of is faded as all hell and just says "Cincinnati" with a missing shield and arrow. For the longest time one of the BGS'es on I-270 on the east side had a 270 shield hanging off the sign.
As an aside, why have lighted signs if you don't light them? UGH
Sorry, I should have been more clear - we still have lighted signs here, but many of them have burned out bulbs. Sometimes only one of the lights work, other times neither do. It's a shame, really. Seems like it happens on the best signs, too. The worst ones have a permanent fluorescent glow, as if God himself said all shall see the mistake of man and ODOT. :)
As an aside, why have lighted signs if you don't light them? UGH
at some point, they were lit. Probably before the energy crisis of 1973 - that is when California started phasing out the underlighting.
One I'm thinking of is faded as all hell and just says "Cincinnati" with a missing shield and arrow. For the longest time one of the BGS'es on I-270 on the east side had a 270 shield hanging off the sign.
Also, kind of along the same lines...ODOT's work on OH-315 this summer is probably going to replace the majority of older (and honestly much-in-need of replacement) button-copy signs on the freeway segment between I-670 and No. Broadway. As I was driving around today, I noticed this OH-315 sign on Ackerman Rd, which just might be the oldest looking sign on the entire freeway. Pretty interesting...very thin font used on the shield itself. Reminds me of the button-copy US-40 shield on the Broad Street exit off of I-670 East.
Those overhead signs on 315 (between Bethel and Ackerman) would make Caltrans blush. But after almost 30 years, they need to go.
2000 to 2010, that's ten years, not two...
Still, I have no idea why that sign was replaced, it looked fine in January, and I noticed no issues with it after then. But that's one of several brand new shiny 2010 Clearview signs put up this summer...
Here's another before/after from Wyoming - photos taken Jan 16 and August 15 2010. You can't see the date codes in the low-res version I have below, but the signs were from 2000 and 2010.Well, we can't fault a sign for putting on a little weight in winter, now can we? :biggrin:
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Cheyenne25Denver125.jpg)
The other day I spotted a new clearview sign for I-95 north on I-695 under Washington Blvd. I guess MdDOT got tired of the old button copy sign that used to be there.
Was it put up recently (within the past few months)? I've seen a bunch of new NYSTA signs that were in Series E(M) (the new signs EB at Exit 39 come to mind, along with the new signs at the Woodbury toll barrier)...they still look off, but they aren't Clearview.
NYSTA definitely got way too Clearview-happy for their own good...I saw warning signs, and even a "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS" sign in Clearview (and a "PLEASE RECYCLE" sign at a service area in Clearview that made me want to take a Post-it Note and write "please don't use Clearview" and put it under the sign)...if they're still putting up Clearview signs that's a shame.
The real problem with NYSTA Clearview (heck, most NYSTA signage in general) is that the lettering is way too big. It's not quite as noticeable with E(M), but it's definitely noticeable with Clearview.
The other day I spotted a new clearview sign for I-95 north on I-695 under Washington Blvd. I guess MdDOT got tired of the old button copy sign that used to be there.
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/i-695_il_exit_011.jpg)
Found this image in my queue from 12-30-08 of that particular sign. For what its worth, the Exit 11B sign ahead of the southbound off-ramp was Clearviewized by then...
So was the original intent of that button copy sign to direct all traffic into the right-hand lane for Interstate 95? Or did the original interchange design call for Exit 11 to depart in unison before splitting?
I did not get on the inner loop during that stretch last month, but noted new Clearview signs on the outer loop for Exits 36, 33 of course, and 32 (those were still Hwy Gothic at the beginning of last year).
(http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/3436/ughpersand.jpg) (http://img715.imageshack.us/i/ughpersand.jpg/)Is what it looks like to me.
chest :banghead:
Here's a not-so-good cell phone picture of the Clearview sign on IH 90 EB @ Exit 48A in Pembroke, NY:
I've looked at some of the error Interstate shields in Michigan that use Clearview numerals and it appears that the "75" and "96" are 2-W, which is what I've found does look best within a shield.
and your shields look a lot less grotesque because you are using the 10" numbers on the 24" shield, as opposed to the horrid 12".Yeah, when I do my concepts, I always bump up the outer margins, usually a good 20-40px when blown up to 1,000px or so. I just grabbed some shield off Wikipedia and changed the numbers really quick. If I was doing a full conceptual set of shields I'd usually spend a bit of time getting the edges right.
10" 3W doesn't look too too bad. but still looks worse than '61 neutered if you're going to go for a no-state-name shield.
(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/ID/ID19830901i1.jpg)
it's all about the wide white margins.
Yeah, when I do my concepts, I always bump up the outer margins, usually a good 20-40px when blown up to 1,000px or so. I just grabbed some shield off Wikipedia and changed the numbers really quick. If I was doing a full conceptual set of shields I'd usually spend a bit of time getting the edges right.
Do you have a vector of the original 1957 shield specs? I don't like working with raster images, it's easier to do concepts with vectors.
I'm not sure what exact spec of shield is on Wikipedia, but it's probably the 1970 one that you mentioned.
...though, I still prefer good ol' FHWA Series E(M)!
Florida toll road shield concept... Clearview + gold and brown color scheme...
(http://www.quillz.net/misc/florida_toll_road.png)
Nah, I've just been experimenting with various color schemes recently. Wanted to see how brown and gold worked out. Here's a couple more concepts, the Quebec provincial routes, using Clearview numerals and the Australian National Highway shield colors:Florida toll road shield concept... Clearview + gold and brown color scheme...
(http://www.quillz.net/misc/florida_toll_road.png)
Is UPS sponsoring the toll roads now?
Yes it does.I'm just curious why so many people seem to hate it. Is it because you're used to the FHWA series, or is there an actual reason?
Scott, I hereby damn you to hell.
I'm just curious why so many people seem to hate it. Is it because you're used to the FHWA series, or is there an actual reason?
I'm just curious why so many people seem to hate it. Is it because you're used to the FHWA series, or is there an actual reason?
Oh Lord - did I miss something or did negative contrast get approved now? Or are these signs "illegal"?
Do I have to change my avatar to this now? :banghead: No way!
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/RumbleBarsCVsmall.jpg)
Well, it probably will as time goes on.Oh Lord - did I miss something or did negative contrast get approved now? Or are these signs "illegal"?
Do I have to change my avatar to this now? :banghead: No way!
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/RumbleBarsCVsmall.jpg)
Ontario's MTO may have approved negative contrast. I know that NYSTA uses Clearview on those mileage signs at the U-turns, posted under the "No U-Turn" symbol sign.
I really, really hope CV doesn't make it to other signs.
I am going to hell for this.
(http://www.denexa.com/forum_img/signs/cv-int.png)
It's really not that bad at all, although I think 2-W works better for double-digit numbers.I am going to hell for this.
(http://www.denexa.com/forum_img/signs/cv-int.png)
You know what...that's not as bad as I imagined.
I'd rather see Helvitica numerals used over Clearview numerals.
I'm asking for comments on this fractional distance sign, on H-1 W Exit 3 near North-South Road (Kualakai Pkwy)
I reckon that the froction should be smaller and not look like 'one or two miles'.
It hasn't been approved... Only light text against a dark background is approved, on an interim basis.
Well there are many errors shields and signs all over the country. I believe Michigan uses Clearview highway shields quite extensively even though those aren't current approved.It hasn't been approved... Only light text against a dark background is approved, on an interim basis.
It may not be approved, but I've seen it being used extensively. Yes, ISTHA, I'm looking squarely at you.
Well there are many errors shields and signs all over the country. I believe Michigan uses Clearview highway shields quite extensively even though those aren't current approved.
Clearview still has only interim approval? I'm not familiar with the process; what does it take to get full approval? It sees like, at this point, rejecting Clearview would be very costly for the many states that use it on their signs.
Ontario's MTO may have approved negative contrast. I know that NYSTA uses Clearview on those mileage signs at the U-turns, posted under the "No U-Turn" symbol sign.
I really, really hope CV doesn't make it to other signs.
TAC has amended the MUTCD for Canada to allow the use of ClearviewHwy fonts
If FHWA decided to abolish one or the other type system, I would expect a phaseout period for the abolished type system to be set quite long--probably as long as the sheeting lifetime of existing signs which use it. But, at this point, I don't think either of the abolition options is likely. What I would personally like is guidance in the MUTCD which more or less aligns with the current interim approval, except that it makes it explicit that Clearview is unacceptable in route shields and in all dark-on-light situations.
Further, the use of the Clearview alternative lettering style is subject to the terms of an Interim Approval, which was issued based on a modest legibility improvement under certain nighttime viewing conditions for mixed-case destination legends composed of Series 5-W of this alternative alphabet on signs using microprismatic retroreflective sheeting in a positive-contrast color orientation only.
They may as well have said "This new font is a modest legibility improvement between 9:59 PM and 10:33 PM on Saturdays in June while traveling westbound on an odd-numbered highway going between 57 and 66 MPH, in the southernmost 16 counties in Arkansas or Tennessee, when the moon is a waxing gibbous, the driver is between 5'3" and 5'6" and has exercised twice or more in the past three weeks, and driving a Ford or Hyundai manufactured no more that than 17.3 years ago."
Georgia had EM until recently. certainly during the button copy era, they were buying EM letters and numbers from AGA, just like the other states.
AGA = American Gas Accumulator Co. = one of the earliest manufacturers of letter-frame button copy. It was subsequently absorbed into Stimsonite.
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/exit_071_2010-08-11.jpg)
Clearview numbers have appeared in Kansas. Jeff Royston pic.
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/exit_071_2010-08-11.jpg)I really don't think the sign looks bad at all. But aren't these signs technically not allowed, as Clearview hasn't yet been approved for negative contrast signs (black text against non-white backgrounds?)
Clearview numbers have appeared in Kansas. Jeff Royston pic.
Regarding Arizona, I think there is at least the possibility of a Clearview backlash unfolding on Arizona DOT infrastructure. The plans I have seen for recent sign rehabilitations have called for Series E Modified digits to be substituted for Clearview digits in distance expressions on advance guide and interchange sequence signs, but not in exit numbers and not on post-interchange confirmation (distance) signs.
Where exactly have you seen these signs?
"Homer"? How about a "Simpson"? (laughs)
Actually, I think those aren't that terribly bad. The way they tightened up the kerning (spacing between letters) it kind of fools you into thinking it isn't Clearview. Although I thought that the Clearview kerning was part of the design of that typeface.You know, I think you're right, the wide kerning is something I never put my finger on but these definitely look better.
No, 5-W-R is not a bolded version of 5-W; in fact the two have the same glyphs. 5-W-R has narrower intercharacter spacing ("R" for reduced spacing) so that words in 5-W-R will be the same width as the same words in Series E Modified. Its main purpose is as a drop-in replacement for Series E Modified in situations where the overall sign panel size is not to change (e.g., when the intention is to reuse the same supports).Makes me wonder if you'll find a sign in Highway Gothic that needs to be updated and ends up with a patch/greenout in Clearview. I'm sure there are a few of these mixed-case examples.
That's interesting to note. So, then, new guide signs that wholly use Clearview are using 5-W, then?
Wow, no posts in this thread since December?!You sure that wasn't a nightmare?
I had a dream last night that NYSDOT switched to Clearview.:banghead: I wasn't happy.
After spending the weekend in eastern Ohio, I saw a few clearview signs on both I-70 and I-77. To be honest, they don't look that bad, at least compared to other states.I really have no qualms with Clearview as long as it's used properly (i.e. it's designed to be mixed-case) and the signs it's used on are laid out well. Signs with poor layouts are going to look bad regardless of the font.
I found Clearview -- in mixed case, at that -- on a diamond sign in Cedar Falls, IA, earlier this year...*gasp* Look awful! I like it better if they were all caps or only on guide signs.
Clearview warning sign photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iowahighways/5349802271)
But the whole point of Clearview is it's specifically designed to be mixed-case. Having all caps Clearview defeats the purpose, you might as well stick with the FHWA Series.I found Clearview -- in mixed case, at that -- on a diamond sign in Cedar Falls, IA, earlier this year...*gasp* Look awful! I like it better if they were all caps or only on guide signs.
Clearview warning sign photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iowahighways/5349802271)
EDIT: I do like Clearview fonts and FHWA Fonts (somewhat.) but I still think Clearview should be strictly only for guide signs, not every other signs such as warning signs or regulatory signs. Do you have any idea how awful a stop sign look if it got clearview spelling Stop like that?
I found Clearview -- in mixed case, at that -- on a diamond sign in Cedar Falls, IA, earlier this year...
Clearview warning sign photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iowahighways/5349802271)
U-G-L-Y, you ain't go no alibi, you ugly, yeah, yeah, you ugly, whoo!
More Clearview news: judging by construction plans sets, FDOT is still sticking stubbornly to Series E Modified, but OOCEA has succumbed to Clearview.I hate to be a noob here, but what does OOCEA stands for?
More Clearview news: judging by construction plans sets, FDOT is still sticking stubbornly to Series E Modified, but OOCEA has succumbed to Clearview.I hate to be a noob here, but what does OOCEA stands for?
I found Clearview -- in mixed case, at that -- on a diamond sign in Cedar Falls, IA, earlier this year...
Clearview warning sign photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/iowahighways/5349802271)
Doesn't surprise me--the plans set I received this afternoon was just the first one I had gotten recently with guide signing content. The last OOCEA plans set with any signing content was about a month ago, but had just warning and regulatory signs (all in FHWA alphabet series).
Are those available online somewhere?
Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that Clearview looked too "friendly". This sign is a perfect example of that.That reminds me of the uproar in my AP American class when the slide on Indian removal was made in Comic Sans. The fond was "too happy".
http://www.comicsanscriminal.com/Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that Clearview looked too "friendly". This sign is a perfect example of that.That reminds me of the uproar in my AP American class when the slide on Indian removal was made in Comic Sans. The fond was "too happy".
Good site.http://www.comicsanscriminal.com/Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that Clearview looked too "friendly". This sign is a perfect example of that.That reminds me of the uproar in my AP American class when the slide on Indian removal was made in Comic Sans. The fond was "too happy".
Possible additional Clearview victim: Nevada DOT.
On the US 395 northbound widening project in Reno, the first new sign installed with this project appears to have been done in Clearview. I didn't get a real good look as I wasn't expecting new signs...I'll have to go back at some point and see if I can get a picture.
On the US 395 northbound widening project in Reno, the first new sign installed with this project appears to have been done in Clearview.
A couple of things I noticed. Although the legend is clearview, the numerals for the exit numbers and route shields are still FHWA Series E (for exit numbers) and Series D for the I-80 shield. Also, the EXIT ONLY legend is still FHWA Series E which is to be expected since dark-on-light clearview isn't approved for use yet.
One main question I have is what typeface should I be using for the Clearview legend? 5W? 5WR? 4W? On the signs above, I chose to use 5W to try to make it match the photos.
Finally, I was pretty shocked and surprised to see Nevada using Clearview. Now, I'm wondering how much longer will it be before California converts to Clearview. I'm hoping it never happens but, then again, I never thought Nevada would use it... :-(
Are you sure the exit numbers are Clearview. I'm no font guru, but it doesn't quite look the same to me...I think you misunderstood what I said in my last post. I said the numerals for the exit and route numbers are still FHWA Series E and D. This I am 100% certain!
I think I just hit on the reason why I dislike Clearview so much. It just looks inappropriate in some way. Regardless of its supposed better legibility, it looks to me like something somebody did just to "pretty up" road signs. They just don't look real to me, and I'm not sure they ever will. Whenever I see a sign in Clearview, I always want to know what it looked like in FHWA. Fortunately, since a good number of the states that use Clearview have just switched over in the last few years, most signs in Google Street View photos outside of the earliest states to switch over are still in FHWA.Good site.http://www.comicsanscriminal.com/Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that Clearview looked too "friendly". This sign is a perfect example of that.That reminds me of the uproar in my AP American class when the slide on Indian removal was made in Comic Sans. The fond was "too happy".
I knew Thruway signs were ugly, but I had no idea it could get this bad:
I knew Thruway signs were ugly, but I had no idea it could get this bad:
Are you sure the exit numbers are Clearview. I'm no font guru, but it doesn't quite look the same to me...I think you misunderstood what I said in my last post. I said the numerals for the exit and route numbers are still FHWA Series E and D. This I am 100% certain!
Those Nevada signs have the PennDOT curse: exit tabs in FHWA gothic with the control cities in clearview. They don't look too horrible, plus I like that cantilever.
So the word "EXIT" is in Clearview while the numbers are FHWA gothic? I'm wondering why they'd use FHWA numerals in the exit tab (other than the fact that most roadgeeks dislike the Clearview numbers more than anything)...
Is the word "EXIT" really in Clearview? I couldn't really tell to be honest.
PennDOT is very odd with their clearview, they seem to only use it on the control cities and THAT'S IT. Even the distances are in FHWA gothic!
So the word "EXIT" is in Clearview while the numbers are FHWA gothic?
In both of the Nevada signs, "EXIT" is in fact in Clearview.To me, it was very difficult to determine if the word "EXIT" was clearview or FHWA. FWIW, on my sign drawings, the word "EXIT" is still FHWA Series E.
After spending the weekend in eastern Ohio, I saw a few clearview signs on both I-70 and I-77. To be honest, they don't look that bad, at least compared to other states.
Those Nevada signs have the PennDOT curse: exit tabs in FHWA gothic with the control cities in clearview. They don't look too horrible, plus I like that cantilever.
Those Nevada signs have the PennDOT curse: exit tabs in FHWA gothic with the control cities in clearview. They don't look too horrible, plus I like that cantilever.
The hell are you calling that a 'curse' for? They're keeping the Clearview to a minimum. That's about the only way I can tolerate its implementation.
I completely 100% disagree. What's wrong with creating a hybrid alphabet with Clearview letters and FHWA numbers? Like some others here, I can somewhat tolerate Clearview letters but I absolutely despise the numbers. If a compromise has (and I stress HAS) to be made, then I'm willing to accept Clearview letters but keep the FHWA numbers.Those Nevada signs have the PennDOT curse: exit tabs in FHWA gothic with the control cities in clearview. They don't look too horrible, plus I like that cantilever.
The hell are you calling that a 'curse' for? They're keeping the Clearview to a minimum. That's about the only way I can tolerate its implementation.
Without advocating one font over the other, you've gotta keep it consistent on signage. If you're going to go Clearview, make everything (route shields exempted) in the new typeface. A mix of the two looks ugly, in my opinion.
A mix of the two looks ugly, in my opinion.
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/3di_fhwaD.png) (http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/3di_cv4w.png)
the Clearview 369 has the "9" a thinner weight than the "36". Also, I'd move the digits to the left so that they are centered more correctly.I noticed that too. It must be a quirk in the Roadgeek fonts for Series 4W because I didn't tweak anything except for the inter-character spacing (-50 for the Series D shield and -75 for the Series 4W shield).
Not that it would make it look anywhere near as good as the one on the left, but it would help.
The hell are you calling that a 'curse' for? They're keeping the Clearview to a minimum. That's about the only way I can tolerate its implementation.
I noticed that too. It must be a quirk in the Roadgeek fonts for Series 4W because I didn't tweak anything except for the inter-character spacing (-50 for the Series D shield and -75 for the Series 4W shield).
[diagram omitted]
The biggest problem I have with the clearview digits are the 2, 6 and 9 and, to a lesser extend, the 4 and 5.
I completely 100% disagree. What's wrong with creating a hybrid alphabet with Clearview letters and FHWA numbers? Like some others here, I can somewhat tolerate Clearview letters but I absolutely despise the numbers. If a compromise has (and I stress HAS) to be made, then I'm willing to accept Clearview letters but keep the FHWA numbers.Those Nevada signs have the PennDOT curse: exit tabs in FHWA gothic with the control cities in clearview. They don't look too horrible, plus I like that cantilever.
The hell are you calling that a 'curse' for? They're keeping the Clearview to a minimum. That's about the only way I can tolerate its implementation.
Without advocating one font over the other, you've gotta keep it consistent on signage. If you're going to go Clearview, make everything (route shields exempted) in the new typeface. A mix of the two looks ugly, in my opinion.
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/3di_fhwaD.png) (http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/3di_cv4w.png)
Seriously, which one of these two shields looks better?
Both of those posted shields don't look very good in the first place, though.
Both of those posted shields don't look very good in the first place, though. I think a well-designed route shield (i.e. the numbers are sized in proper proportion to the rest of the shield, etc.) can look fine when using Clearview numerals.Actually, the shields I posted are California-spec 3-digit Interstate shields for use on guide signs which differs significantly from the FHWA-spec shield. The California-spec use 15" numerals on a 45x38 shield.
The Roadgeek imitations of the Clearview fonts are off quite a bit. It was noted in another topic. If you would like the real Clearview fonts, contact me and I can send you a copy.
6 and 9 are my least favorite Clearview digits (I like the 1-x iteration best.) The 5 looks fine to me.Both of those posted shields don't look very good in the first place, though. I think a well-designed route shield (i.e. the numbers are sized in proper proportion to the rest of the shield, etc.) can look fine when using Clearview numerals.Actually, the shields I posted are California-spec 3-digit Interstate shields for use on guide signs which differs significantly from the FHWA-spec shield. The California-spec use 15" numerals on a 45x38 shield.
Edit: Here are three current California-spec 2-digit Interstate sheilds (essentially 1957-spec shields). The first uses the normal FHWA fonts (Series C and D). The second one uses all Clearview but keeps the all caps INTERSTATE and state name. The third one uses mixed case for INTERSTATE and state name...
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/2di-caps_fhwa.png) (http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/2di-caps_cv.png) (http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/2di-mixed_cv.png)
I also made Clearview and FHWA versions of the California state route shield...
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/2d-ca_fhwa.png) (http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/2d-ca_cv.png)
The Interstate shields are all 36x36 with 12-inch numerals. The California state route shields are 30x31.25 and also use 12-inch numerals. These are all route marker shields and are not to be used on guide signs.
On the Clearview signs, I never noticed before this that the lower case "L" is taller than the upper case letters. That, IMHO, is a major style violation! :pan:
On the Clearview signs, I never noticed before this that the lower case "L" is taller than the upper case letters. That, IMHO, is a major style violation! :pan:
That lends further support to my theory that many of the things that make Clearview ugly to most of us are done on purpose!
Because it is not normal, it stands out and draws the eye to it.
As the main goal is readability, it succeeds.
But, does it really have to be readability vs. aesthetics? I think not.
I don't mind Clearview in general, but the signs shown in the pictures below are hideous. They're all relatively new Clearview signs found on VA-27 between the Pentagon and the interchange with US-50. The initial capital letters are simply way too big compared to all the others. When I see the US-50 sign shown in the third picture, my eye sees the "WFC" more than any of the other text. The signs in the fourth picture, while still ugly, are in my view the least offensive of this bunch because they have the fewest words per sign. That is, I think having multiple disproportionately large uppercase letters on multiple lines on a single sign draws too much attention to the uppercase letters at the expense of the rest of the sign.
In particular, compare "Clarendon" as seen here to the points made by mightyace and J N Winkler further up the thread about some of the lowercase letters being taller than the uppercase.
I don't mind Clearview in general, but the signs shown in the pictures below are hideous. They're all relatively new Clearview signs found on VA-27 between the Pentagon and the interchange with US-50. The initial capital letters are simply way too big compared to all the others. When I see the US-50 sign shown in the third picture, my eye sees the "WFC" more than any of the other text. The signs in the fourth picture, while still ugly, are in my view the least offensive of this bunch because they have the fewest words per sign. That is, I think having multiple disproportionately large uppercase letters on multiple lines on a single sign draws too much attention to the uppercase letters at the expense of the rest of the sign.
In particular, compare "Clarendon" as seen here to the points made by mightyace and J N Winkler further up the thread about some of the lowercase letters being taller than the uppercase.
Maybe it was the first?
*about the least grotesque font you can imagine. no idea why they call it that.
I don't mind Clearview in general, but the signs shown in the pictures below are hideous. They're all relatively new Clearview signs found on VA-27 between the Pentagon and the interchange with US-50. The initial capital letters are simply way too big compared to all the others. When I see the US-50 sign shown in the third picture, my eye sees the "WFC" more than any of the other text. The signs in the fourth picture, while still ugly, are in my view the least offensive of this bunch because they have the fewest words per sign. That is, I think having multiple disproportionately large uppercase letters on multiple lines on a single sign draws too much attention to the uppercase letters at the expense of the rest of the sign.
In particular, compare "Clarendon" as seen here to the points made by mightyace and J N Winkler further up the thread about some of the lowercase letters being taller than the uppercase.
Are the capital letters also heavier in addition to being bigger, or is that just an illusion of them being taller? My first instinct was to say that the capital letters were bolded rather than taller, but then I realized the L in Clarendon, and I was set straight.
Either way, they're ugly.
Are the capital letters also heavier in addition to being bigger, or is that just an illusion of them being taller? My first instinct was to say that the capital letters were bolded rather than taller, but then I realized the L in Clarendon, and I was set straight.
Either way, they're ugly.
Clearview is pretty bad, but it is worlds ahead of Helvetica/Arial/Univers/Grotesque*/etc.
Why the dislike of Helvetica/Arial/Univers?
My point is proven. The surefire way to make Clearview ugly is to use a too-large font size.
Horrible clearview usage:It looks like the original signs using Highway Gothic weren't any better...
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-TPRFc8f4al8/TPQ8IvuWbJI/AAAAAAAAkck/D5GQFeU7mYk/s640/IMG_0713.JPG)
Horrible clearview usage:It looks like the original signs using Highway Gothic weren't any better...
http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=38.821471,-77.127864&spn=0.002014,0.003449&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.821567,-77.127735&panoid=ukLUvb0nzn4AOZ_57Q05mQ&cbp=12,226.82,,1,-7
Horrible clearview usage:It looks like the original signs using Highway Gothic weren't any better...
http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=38.821471,-77.127864&spn=0.002014,0.003449&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.821567,-77.127735&panoid=ukLUvb0nzn4AOZ_57Q05mQ&cbp=12,226.82,,1,-7
Carbon copying for you...
BTW, in one of my earlier comments further up the thread I mentioned the use of fractions done as if they were on a typewriter instead of in the normal style. Those VA-236 signs on I-395 shown above are two examples of what I was saying there.
I knew Thruway signs were ugly, but I had no idea it could get this bad:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-syx1hket474/TevCpyZ8TXI/AAAAAAAAIC4/clxWTLc1mew/s800/100_5431.JPG)
I also made Clearview and FHWA versions of the California state route shield...
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/2d-ca_fhwa.png) (http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/2d-ca_cv.png)
We now have a couple of Clearview overhead street signs over in Springfield. The one shown below was erected this spring to replace a Gothic version that was damaged by wind over the Washington's Birthday weekend. This sign looks reasonably good to me, although it's interesting to see that this sign is white-on-green (as are others in that immediate area). If you go a short distance east of there, the overhead street signs of this sort are white-on-blue, which is Fairfax County's standard street sign color scheme (although the overhead signs like these are rather inconsistent on the whole). I don't know how responsibility for the pole-mounted street signs versus the overhead ones like these is determined or how they decide which color to use. I imagine froggie probably knows.
I am still shocked that Nevada has Clearview up. I am wondering whether this is a trial thing or if it's a design/contractor goof that wasn't caught.
There's actually Clearview scattered all over the place in Fairfax County, and most of the BGSes on I-395 are Clearview now.
There's actually Clearview scattered all over the place in Fairfax County, and most of the BGSes on I-395 are Clearview now.I know, I live in Fairfax County. I just haven't seen many Clearview street signs (as opposed to BGSs or other guide signs). There's even a yellow "right lane ends" overhead warning sign that uses Clearview on I-395 at the southbound lane drop at the VA-236 exit.
I'm in the Miami area as I type this and I don't think I've seen any Clearview anywhere in Florida so far. Seems weird not to see ANY once you get used to it!
Michigan has a lot of Clearview. I can think of one freeway that doesn't have a lot of Clearview on it (M-6), and that is because it was finished right before MDOT started using Clearview.There's actually Clearview scattered all over the place in Fairfax County, and most of the BGSes on I-395 are Clearview now.
I know, I live in Fairfax County. I just haven't seen many Clearview street signs (as opposed to BGSs or other guide signs). There's even a yellow "right lane ends" overhead warning sign that uses Clearview on I-395 at the southbound lane drop at the VA-236 exit.
I'm in the Miami area as I type this and I don't think I've seen any Clearview anywhere in Florida so far. Seems weird not to see ANY once you get used to it!
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit25-2011-SeriesE.jpg)
so..... Once Upon A Time there were Three Gores (signs), One was a Big
Gore, one was an Little Gore and one was and Ugly Gore..... Here's
photos of all three:
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit25Gore-BigSmallUgly.jpg)
^ Another question in relation to that sign: Why is Wyoming DOT using that ugly design for the exit gore sign?
There's actually Clearview scattered all over the place in Fairfax County, and most of the BGSes on I-395 are Clearview now.I know, I live in Fairfax County. I just haven't seen many Clearview street signs (as opposed to BGSs or other guide signs). There's even a yellow "right lane ends" overhead warning sign that uses Clearview on I-395 at the southbound lane drop at the VA-236 exit.
I'm in the Miami area as I type this and I don't think I've seen any Clearview anywhere in Florida so far. Seems weird not to see ANY once you get used to it!
Florida's Clearview is limited to the Orlando area. OOCEA uses it extensively. I've never seen FDOT use it.
Be sure to try Cuban food while you're in Miami. Good stuff!
[Fixed mangled quote. -S.]
^ Another question in relation to that sign: Why is Wyoming DOT using that ugly design for the exit gore sign?
If you're referring to the exit number being put on a separate line at the top, other states have done this, too. Back when Georgia still had sequential exit numbers (the '90s), this was pretty common for three-digit exit numbers.
They probably modeled it after the MUTCD example of a exit number plaque being added to the top of a non-numbered exit gore sign, but that was designed for situations where the exit number is applied later. The 2009 MUTCD has a narrow version of the exit gore sign (E5-1c) designed for narrow lateral offsets, but it's actually not pictured in there or SHS--in any case, there's one in Reno designed with "EXIT" on top, the number below, then an arrow below that (Google Street View (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=reno,+nv&hl=en&ll=39.534357,-119.774709&spn=0.006115,0.011362&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.956929,93.076172&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.534367,-119.774842&panoid=wrAyujRe7xJgPTAKdNRkLg&cbp=12,289.62,,0,-0.34)), which makes better sense from a design perspective.The exit gore sign in the Street View image kind of looks like California's 3 and 4 digit exit gore signs including the use of the shorter shaft arrow...
what is the font that Georgia uses on most of its BGSs?
what is the font that Georgia uses on most of its BGSs?
I seem to recall them using mixed-case Series C or D... can you provide a photo and if so I may be able to identify the font.
I don't have any pictures I've taken, but here's an unfortunately-grainy image from Google Street View from NB I-95 at I-16. It doesn't look quite like Series C or Series D to me.Here's a picture of that same sign bridge from the AARoads' Gallery...
http://maps.google.com/?ll=32.069884,-81.248059&spn=0.027929,0.066047&z=15&layer=c&cbll=32.069966,-81.248019&panoid=tgudlPnXjr5vaW6mru4TAw&cbp=12,42.22,,0,-24.44
That looks much better. The old sign had way too much spacing between the letters, and the type was too thin. This is an example of how Clearview can improve old signage, under certain circumstances.
What's wrong with the arrow?
What's wrong with the arrow?
I just got glasses for the first time ever. I can see signs in any font perfectly clearly now, which makes me wonder really why we're bothering with Clearview when better glasses would probably fix the problem for most people.
In that AL sign, is the spacing between the 2 green control points all right, or should they be separated slightly (vertically spaced, I mean)? Just to the first glance, they look a bit close; but otherwise overall the sign looks all right.
Speaking of other fonts on roadway signs, both BGS signs on gantries and LGS signs on the shoulders: What would the font be on the Merritt Parkway (CT Route 15), between Greenwich and Stratford, CT? Signs with this type of lettering do not appear in the rest of the state. Here's an example:
http://goo.gl/maps/IG9z
I saw a sign with your namesake on the Capital Beltway yesterday that looked like it was in Clearview.
I was reading the Wikipedia article on RIROs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-in/right-out) last night, and one of the pictures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2007_09_14_-_MD355_@_NIH_Visitor_Access_2.JPG) was geotagged, so I opened it in Google Maps. After going into Street View, I noticed this sign for the National Institutes of Health (http://maps.google.com/?ll=38.997697,-77.096654&spn=0.001432,0.00284&t=h&layer=c&cbll=38.997922,-77.096824&panoid=CYoFGvl43NC1H1TbFkRfTg&cbp=12,205.79,,1,1.64&z=19) at the intersection. To see the intersection itself, zoom out from the sign, then turn the view 90º to the right.Now THAT is good looking Clearview. Maybe because it's not on a highway sign.
I was reading the Wikipedia article on RIROs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-in/right-out) last night, and one of the pictures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2007_09_14_-_MD355_@_NIH_Visitor_Access_2.JPG) was geotagged, so I opened it in Google Maps. After going into Street View, I noticed this sign for the National Institutes of Health (http://maps.google.com/?ll=38.997697,-77.096654&spn=0.001432,0.00284&t=h&layer=c&cbll=38.997922,-77.096824&panoid=CYoFGvl43NC1H1TbFkRfTg&cbp=12,205.79,,1,1.64&z=19) at the intersection. To see the intersection itself, zoom out from the sign, then turn the view 90º to the right.Now THAT is good looking Clearview. Maybe because it's not on a highway sign.
I wonder if there was some road signs tested with Comic Sans MS? :poke:
There are construction signs stating, "Slow down my daddy works here" in that horrible font. It's messy, little-kid scrawl, and reminds me of high school.
Apologies for bringing this particular one back up... but, the fact that it's "little-kid scrawl" is the point of that particular sign. It's designed to make you think that some kid's dad does work in that area, and that you should want them to be able to see their children.We worked that out, thanks. Still doesn't make it acceptable.
Most people's opinions just seem to boil down to "it's not aesthetically pleasing to me, therefore I don't think it belongs on a road sign". That doesn't seem like a roadgeek's response to me.
Most people's opinions just seem to boil down to "it's not aesthetically pleasing to me, therefore I don't think it belongs on a road sign". That doesn't seem like a roadgeek's response to me.
Actually, it is a perfectly valid roadgeek's response. What it is not is a valid engineer's response. Roadgeeks are free to have aesthetic preferences; engineers are expected to rely on objective criteria in formulating a design policy with regard to choice of typefaces on signs. This is why most engineers on here who have commented on Clearview have tended to focus on findings showing that Clearview does not have the promised advantages over the FHWA series (at least under situations typically encountered on the highway system), or that the advantages it does have do not justify the cost of changing all signs over to Clearview.
- The methodology used in the studies saying Clearview is better seem to me to be tilted in favor of Clearview by giving it advantages not afforded to the FHWA Series application it is being tested against. I seem to recall reading that in the test, the Clearview sample was X% bigger than the FHWA Series sample. How can we state for sure that the difference is not due to the font size?
- Clearview is copyrighted. FHWA Series is public domain. You have to pay a font license to use Clearview. This line item doesn't matter much to state DOTs, and gets amortized to nothing fairly rapidly, but for local governments, the cost is a greater percentage of the budget and applied to fewer signs. Cost per sign goes up.
- To use Clearview "correctly" according to the federal guidelines, you are restricted to using it to basically "road and location names with no numerals in mixed case on dark backgrounds" since that is the only situation in which Clearview is considered more legible than its competitor. If this is the only thing you are using it for, why bother? It is something of an aesthetic argument, but mixing fonts together willy-nilly like this is considered a general design flaw outside of road contexts.
I guess my point is that, even when Clearview is not used correctly, and even if its perfect-application legibility (given the study corrections you put forth) is somewhat less than its comparable FHWA font–the negative reactions to it I read on this forum far outweigh the real-world disadvantages to its use. That is, Clearview from an engineering perspective might be slightly worse than FHWA fonts, but the negative reactions to it are far from slight.
Regarding copyright, I think a detail has to be underlined here:
Typeface designs are not protected by copyright under the United States law. However, the ClearviewHwy font files are protected by copyright because they are computer programs.
This means that if someone makes their own implementation of Clearview by copying or tracing over renders, specs or pictures (like Mike did for the Roadgeek font set), they are not violating the copyright law.
Keep in mind, kphoger, these are the rational arguments for which there is some attempt being made to be logical about it. These might be combined with a more intense emotional or aesthetic response.
Personally, my mind interprets the larger counter spaces on Clearview to be more "happy" and "inviting", which makes it seem dissonant on road signs, which are frequently telling you to not do X action. It's like seeing Comic Sans on your 401(k) statement.
This was the first time I'd seen a Clearview mixed-case distance sign. Aside from the numbers, it looks surprisingly decent.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-XUq9Zp9G-6c/UM8__CT0gcI/AAAAAAAAE28/JBxabd-in50/s640/IMG_0607.JPG)
This was the first time I'd seen a Clearview mixed-case distance sign. Aside from the numbers, it looks surprisingly decent.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-XUq9Zp9G-6c/UM8__CT0gcI/AAAAAAAAE28/JBxabd-in50/s640/IMG_0607.JPG)
You don't see that in Virginia very often with non-Clearview fonts. Offhand, I can't recall seeing a "mileage board" that wasn't in all caps.
Hey, at least those don't have numbers. Clearview numbers should never ever be used on anything under any circumstances. Ever.I've never understood the hate for clearview numbers. They don't seem to have any issues the letters don't have.
Hey, at least those don't have numbers. Clearview numbers should never ever be used on anything under any circumstances. Ever.I've never understood the hate for clearview numbers. They don't seem to have any issues the letters don't have.
there was never really a documented problem with the FHWA numbers to begin with (nor all uppercase letters),
This was the first time I'd seen a Clearview mixed-case distance sign. Aside from the numbers, it looks surprisingly decent.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-XUq9Zp9G-6c/UM8__CT0gcI/AAAAAAAAE28/JBxabd-in50/s640/IMG_0607.JPG)
You don't see that in Virginia very often with non-Clearview fonts. Offhand, I can't recall seeing a "mileage board" that wasn't in all caps.
On this CV sign, and also the newer interstate mileage signs that have gone up in Kentucky, the numbers are the height of the lower case letters.
can anyone corroborate these observations?
Corroborate, no. But I was thinking exactly what you were, but it's hard to tell with the photo given. It looks to me that there are three heights: (A) lowercase letters, (B) uppercase letters and numbers, and (C) tall lowercase letters; and my hunch is that hbelkins is thrown off because A is a much higher percentage of B than we're used to, and C is also a fair bit taller than we're used to.
* Height of certain lowercase letters with ascenders (f, h, l, and others)
* Height of certain lowercase letters with ascenders (f, h, l, and others)
is this height, as given in the Clearview specification, unusually tall compared to Highway Gothic? i.e. what HB would be used to seeing?
Here's another example of VDOT's transition to proper Clearview. This is on US 60 eastbound in New Kent County. This was taken in November, but an FHWA style sign in all caps was here until July.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-YcjOcu30pME/UPmvYsd9CpI/AAAAAAAAFWw/SxuQYljtw2w/s640/IMG_0316.JPG)
Yates County, NY appears to have adopted clearview. I noticed clearview county and town line signs.
I saw these signs during my trip up to Albany this past week. I'm assuming these are only Albany County installed, as NYSDOT hasn't switched to Clearview as far as I know. I hope I'm right.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8504/8340758640_c1779ca04c_z.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8504/8339698313_875c2caa0f_z.jpg)
Dunno if it's been mentioned before, but it appears Maine may have jumped on the Clearview bandwagon. In Brewer today I spotted a Clearview "downtown" patch on a sign for I-395. Only Clearview I've seen in the state though.
I believe it was that.
From the angle of your picture it looks pretty similar to Clearview but more like a generic computer typeface. When I drove through there it was at sunset so I couldn't really get too close of a look.
What is it?
I'm no font expert, but I think it's Helvetica. If this is what you saw, then I guess MaineDOT isn't using Clearview (phew)! IIRC, this sign's been here for several years.The font on that US 1A Downtown BGS is clearly Helvetica; not too different from what I've seen on DRPA-spec'd signage. I'd be curious to know what was under that Helvetica Downtown sheeting?
That sign is due to the heavy weaving from OH 315 and US 23 traffic. Those interchanges are going to be reconstructed at some point in the short term.
Conditions of Interim Approval: Spacing of Clearview font shall follow the spacing tables for Clearview, and not SHS E-modified. This includes the use of the Clearview 5-W(R) spacing tables for overhead conditions that may not accommodate a Clearview 5-W legend in replacement of existing E-modified legends. Action word messages and cardinal directions shall remain in all upper case letters and the first upper case letter of a cardinal direction shall be 10 percent greater in height for conventional road guide signs as per Table 2E.1 through Table 2E.4 of the 2003 MUTCD for expressway/freeway guide signs. The Clearview font should not be used on negative contrast signs until research demonstrates the effectiveness.
The Wyoming examples showed that the DOT really didn't understand kerning and other typography principles, and the proper usage of fonts. I think that the Clearview examples stand out so nicely only because the 'prior' examples provided showcased some of the worse FHWA Series used.
The Wyoming examples showed that the DOT really didn't understand kerning and other typography principles, and the proper usage of fonts. I think that the Clearview examples stand out so nicely only because the 'prior' examples provided showcased some of the worse FHWA Series used.
The "previous" signs on two of my WY examples, Exit 78 and 39, were, at last to my eyes, pretty standard-fare Highway Gothic signs. Now, maybe I'm wrong about that, as people nitpick little stuff in this thread that I probably would never notice!... (and I thought I was "anal" about that sort of thing!!).. but those two examples looked pretty 'normal' to me...
-Andy
You're correct. From the interim approval memo (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_clearview_font.htm) itself (emphasis mine):That certainly hasn't stopped PennDOT nor PTC from doing the above on many of their signs. They've since gotten a little better w/such in recent years but there's still some non-conforming negative contrast signs w/Clearview being fabricated and erected out there.QuoteConditions of Interim Approval: Spacing of Clearview font shall follow the spacing tables for Clearview, and not SHS E-modified. This includes the use of the Clearview 5-W(R) spacing tables for overhead conditions that may not accommodate a Clearview 5-W legend in replacement of existing E-modified legends. Action word messages and cardinal directions shall remain in all upper case letters and the first upper case letter of a cardinal direction shall be 10 percent greater in height for conventional road guide signs as per Table 2E.1 through Table 2E.4 of the 2003 MUTCD for expressway/freeway guide signs. The Clearview font should not be used on negative contrast signs until research demonstrates the effectiveness.
In case someone hasn't noticed, Ohio DOT has been doing things like this from time to time:
(http://vidthekid.info/imghost/badsign-cvreg.jpg)
(I-270 EB approaching OH 315 and US 23)
Unpremeditated experience -- I was in Vermont Friday night and had an uncharacteristically difficult time reading the signs (to be fair, it was a rental with a different headlight profile that that to which I'm accustomed).
Sure enough, the whole state seems to have gone Clearview.
I can't see the use of Clearview on an Interstate shield. It's just ugly.
...despite the fact that several eastern states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas are already applying Clearview, Highway Gothic will still be in service and won't be completely outserved by Clearview...
Someone in another thread mentioned that Clearview was a lot like New Coke. It may have tested better than Highway Gothic, but it faced a negative reaction by the public (in this case the forum) due to nostalgia.
Nexus 7 now Free (http://'http://tapatalk.com/m?id=10')
He may have meany Illinois or Kentucky....despite the fact that several eastern states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas are already applying Clearview, Highway Gothic will still be in service and won't be completely outserved by Clearview...
Indiana does not use Clearview.
3) It seemed to be a solution in search of a problem
2) Immense waste by some states to replace a large number of perfectly good signs
...despite the fact that several eastern states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas are already applying Clearview, Highway Gothic will still be in service and won't be completely outserved by Clearview...
Indiana does not use Clearview.
...despite the fact that several eastern states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas are already applying Clearview, Highway Gothic will still be in service and won't be completely outserved by Clearview...
Indiana does not use Clearview.
And indeed, there have been many places I've seen perfectly good signage replaced in order to make it Clearview; Michigan did a lot of this especially. I am glad that two states I have lived in (Massachusetts and Indiana) have declined to use it; I wish Ohio would knock it off.
And indeed, there have been many places I've seen perfectly good signage replaced in order to make it Clearview; Michigan did a lot of this especially. I am glad that two states I have lived in (Massachusetts and Indiana) have declined to use it; I wish Ohio would knock it off.
I don't think Ohio is replacing signs just for the sake of switching to Clearview. I think they're attempting to replace signs that are old, not reflective enough, or otherwise deficient. The new signs are Clearview because that's the policy for new signs in most districts, but this is not the reason the replacement is happening. The main problem is ODOT seems to be terrible at identifying and prioritizing the deficient signs, so relatively new signs get replaced needlessly while very old signs that are faded or falling apart remain in service.
Am I the only one who DOESN'T notice a legibility improvement with Clearview?
Not that Highway Gothic is all that great. I wouldn't have a problem with legibility of Arial or Helvetica on guide signs.
And as for this:Clearview numerals aren't half as bad as it gets...
(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2008_Michigan_Day_2/Images/65.jpg)
Bleh! That's exactly what I mentioned about the Clearview numbers. GACK! :P Well, now that I've seen this photo of an Interstate shield with Clearview applied to it, this proves my point of just how ugly it looks. Something like a Maine-styled font face would work in conjunction with Clearview, but then again, I highly doubt it.
Am I the only one who DOESN'T notice a legibility improvement with Clearview?
Not that Highway Gothic is all that great. I wouldn't have a problem with legibility of Arial or Helvetica on guide signs.
(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Int99entranceFromUS220Bus.jpg)
Yes. It's ten times worse than clearview.(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Int99entranceFromUS220Bus.jpg)
What the Series F?
Yes. It's ten times worse than clearview.
Finally got a picture of one:Yates County, NY appears to have adopted clearview. I noticed clearview county and town line signs.
NYSDOT signs, or local ones?
I've seen a few Clearview NYSDOT signs around...one that comes to mind is US9 southbound at the northern terminus of NY9D in Wappingers Falls. I've seen a Clearview sign on NY104 as well.
And as for this:Clearview numerals aren't half as bad as it gets...
(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2008_Michigan_Day_2/Images/65.jpg)
Bleh! That's exactly what I mentioned about the Clearview numbers. GACK! :P Well, now that I've seen this photo of an Interstate shield with Clearview applied to it, this proves my point of just how ugly it looks. Something like a Maine-styled font face would work in conjunction with Clearview, but then again, I highly doubt it.
(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Int99entranceFromUS220Bus.jpg)
Clearview numerals aren't half as bad as it gets...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7093/27087728603_2d9ffa18cc_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HgDFZv)
It is less about nostalgia and more about:
1) Overblown claims of benefits
2) Immense waste by some states to replace a large number of perfectly good signs
3) It seemed to be a solution in search of a problem
It is less about nostalgia and more about:
1) Overblown claims of benefits
2) Immense waste by some states to replace a large number of perfectly good signs
3) It seemed to be a solution in search of a problem
Come on now this is AAroads where a very significant number of members believe if it doesn't look like something from 1963 then it is automatically shit. Outside of this forum, however, I agree with the quoted post. (Even though I like Clearview aesthetically.)
First thing I thought of when I saw it was "no shit, do people really not fucking know that?"Ther's a lot of those "O RLY?" signs all over the U.S. (but that's for another board topic...)
First thing I thought of when I saw it was "no shit, do people really not fucking know that?"
There's a lot of those "O RLY?" signs all over the U.S. (but that's for another board topic...)
Is there in fact another board topic for that? Because I have a few things to say about those signs.
Is there in fact another board topic for that? Because I have a few things to say about those signs.
Not that I know of, although we have had an extended discussion of bridge icing signs and whether they are really necessary.
It would be worth starting a thread to deal with signs that state the bleeding obvious, possibly with this (spoof) one:
(http://www.onstarconnections.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Wacky_Water_FB.jpg)
Is there in fact another board topic for that? Because I have a few things to say about those signs.
Not that I know of, although we have had an extended discussion of bridge icing signs and whether they are really necessary.
It would be worth starting a thread to deal with signs that state the bleeding obvious, possibly with this (spoof) one:
(http://www.onstarconnections.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Wacky_Water_FB.jpg)
This is on the front page of today's Washington Post. First thing I thought of when I saw it was the Clearview.
(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/4B4F860F-436E-46E7-BF6B-A4F8399ECE57_zpsa5qeasgv.jpg)
Is it just me, or would that look a lot better if SMUGGLING were the same size text as the rest of the words? As is, it looks like a header or something.
all caps (which looks ugly), Clearview on negative contrast (hard to read)
Tbh I have to agree with hbelkins. I don't hate Clearview, and I don't hate Highway Gothic. I'm fine with both.I agree with you.
and I don't find negative contrast Clearview hard to read at all.
I completely hate clearview. I hope whoever made it dies a slow and painful death.
Okay I was joking with the second part but the first sentence is 100% true.I completely hate clearview. I hope whoever made it dies a slow and painful death.
That's a bit much. It's one thing to say that you have an issue with Clearview and whatnot, but to throw in a death curse along with that is just flat overkill. I mean, I have concerns for Clearview myself, but I'm not that stupid to wish death on whoever made Clearview because it's not just one person we're talking about. We're talking a whole group of DoT officials, FHWA, and more.
Please use better judgement next time.
Curious why French is above the English, it seems odd for the English speaking part of Canada.
3) FHWA has a branch office in each state. Like any establishment with multiple sub-units, culture and best practices will vary from unit to unit (you can clearly see this in certain chain stores). Some FHWA offices are stricter than others. I believe there is some policy of rotating the management from office to office to prevent them from forming too strong of a bond with the folks at the state DOTs, but some degree of that doubtlessly happens anyway, especially if the junior staff is not similarly rotated. Regional culture may also come into play. Forum regular H.B. Elkins of Kentucky has argued several times that the MUTCD shouldn't regulate typeface at all, because he believes the federal government should have no power to dictate the design of traffic control devices to the individual states. I am not well-versed in Kentucky politics, but from what I do know I would imagine he's not the only person in Kentucky that would take that stance if the issue came up. The Kentucky FHWA office, then, would most likely be quite a bit more lax than, say, the New York one, simply because New Yorkers are much more tolerant of federal government involvement in local affairs than Kentuckians are. There's little desire to gin up a political fight over something so trivial as a road sign typeface.
(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Int99entranceFromUS220Bus.jpg)(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Int75nAASign-SeriesFtall.jpg)
And that's why we don't put Series E on route markers!
These trailblazers are also shocking... :ded:
3) FHWA has a branch office in each state. Like any establishment with multiple sub-units, culture and best practices will vary from unit to unit (you can clearly see this in certain chain stores). Some FHWA offices are stricter than others. I believe there is some policy of rotating the management from office to office to prevent them from forming too strong of a bond with the folks at the state DOTs, but some degree of that doubtlessly happens anyway, especially if the junior staff is not similarly rotated. Regional culture may also come into play. Forum regular H.B. Elkins of Kentucky has argued several times that the MUTCD shouldn't regulate typeface at all, because he believes the federal government should have no power to dictate the design of traffic control devices to the individual states. I am not well-versed in Kentucky politics, but from what I do know I would imagine he's not the only person in Kentucky that would take that stance if the issue came up. The Kentucky FHWA office, then, would most likely be quite a bit more lax than, say, the New York one, simply because New Yorkers are much more tolerant of federal government involvement in local affairs than Kentuckians are. There's little desire to gin up a political fight over something so trivial as a road sign typeface.That might explain the NY welcome sign situation. The FHWA's version of events is "thou shalt not use URLs on road signs you must remove them at once" and NYSDOT's is "but other states have URLs on signs and you don't care about those".
I remember about two weekends or so ago where I saw construction warning signs in Clearview, along the construction zones on CA-1 in Santa Cruz. As much as I don't dislike Clearview, it just looks really ugly on anything that's not BGS. It's just too thin to be effective on warning signs or whatnot.
I remember about two weekends or so ago where I saw construction warning signs in Clearview, along the construction zones on CA-1 in Santa Cruz. As much as I don't dislike Clearview, it just looks really ugly on anything that's not BGS. It's just too thin to be effective on warning signs or whatnot.
Well, I'll say that many of the street signs in Somerset County that use Clearview that aren't negative contrast are very legible from a distance. However, some of the street sign blades tend to look disproportionate because the legend takes up more than 85% of the total sign height.
I remember about two weekends or so ago where I saw construction warning signs in Clearview, along the construction zones on CA-1 in Santa Cruz. As much as I don't dislike Clearview, it just looks really ugly on anything that's not BGS. It's just too thin to be effective on warning signs or whatnot.
Well, I'll say that many of the street signs in Somerset County that use Clearview that aren't negative contrast are very legible from a distance. However, some of the street sign blades tend to look disproportionate because the legend takes up more than 85% of the total sign height.
At a reader meetup yesterday (25th of October, 2014), Alps, Kacie Jane, and I met and drove around Seattle. We spotted these Clearview warning signs near the Port of Seattle. None of us could tell that they were Clearview until we were right up close. I suppose that means they're working, right?
(http://i.imgur.com/BLMrIUe.png)
In French, the name of the airport is “Aéroport international Pearson,” and in English, it’s “Pearson International Airport.” Putting the French on top avoids having to repeat the “Pearson” part.
A first for Quebec (at least from what I've seen). Look at the left shield. (NOT my pic)Well... it doesn't actually look too bad (*ducks tomatoes*) but to me the Clearview shield isn't as instantly decipherable as the regular shields next to it. Something to do with the shape of the '2' maybe...
IMO, this stems more from problems with the Autoroute shield than with font choice. They are far too busy.A first for Quebec (at least from what I've seen). Look at the left shield. (NOT my pic)Well... it doesn't actually look too bad (*ducks tomatoes*) but to me the Clearview shield isn't as instantly decipherable as the regular shields next to it. Something to do with the shape of the '2' maybe...
I've seen a few Quebec provincial route shields on BGS done in Clearview too, but they're few and far between and most likely production errors.
I remember about two weekends or so ago where I saw construction warning signs in Clearview, along the construction zones on CA-1 in Santa Cruz. As much as I don't dislike Clearview, it just looks really ugly on anything that's not BGS. It's just too thin to be effective on warning signs or whatnot.
Well, I'll say that many of the street signs in Somerset County that use Clearview that aren't negative contrast are very legible from a distance. However, some of the street sign blades tend to look disproportionate because the legend takes up more than 85% of the total sign height.
At a reader meetup yesterday (25th of October, 2014), Alps, Kacie Jane, and I met and drove around Seattle. We spotted these Clearview warning signs near the Port of Seattle. None of us could tell that they were Clearview until we were right up close. I suppose that means they're working, right?
(http://i.imgur.com/BLMrIUe.png)
The first bad installation I've seen in a while for Kentucky: https://goo.gl/maps/8RCG4
Virginia Beach uses some strange font on most of its speed limit signs (most notably on Shore Drive for the quick drop from 45 MPH to 25 MPH).
Hopewell...um, don't get me started with them.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2969966023_10079e3796.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2969966023/)
Proof that this monstrosity really exists (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.296622,-77.278776&spn=0,359.98071&z=16&layer=c&cbll=37.296453,-77.278872&panoid=50wxRJOis6r0efxSE06fTw&cbp=12,48.07,,1,-1.65)
It was still there when I was in Hopewell last weekend.
The first bad installation I've seen in a while for Kentucky: https://goo.gl/maps/8RCG4
Looks like a candidate for the redesign this thread.
I don't know if I like this or not. It doesn't look too bad; looks better than helvetica. I'm okay with it. What's the width on the letters, 3W?
I see that some of the signs in the document still use FHWA fonts. Is this still the case in BC with those signs, or are those just older drawings?
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg36/jcm9572/IMG_4617_zpsfa931920.jpg)
This was posted about a month ago, but it looks like Virginia is now becoming more strict on its use of Clearview, allowing them only for mixed case legends on positive contrast signs:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font.pdf
That means no more Clearview exit gore signs, logo signs, cardinal directions, or worded directional signs in Virginia.
I didn't tell you this, but from what I heard at a conference, the folks at FHWA aren't too happy when they see something that doesn't use the Standard Alphabets. The FHWA engineers are far worse than everyone else I've ever heard when it comes to hating on Clearview.
I didn't tell you this, but from what I heard at a conference, the folks at FHWA aren't too happy when they see something that doesn't use the Standard Alphabets. The FHWA engineers are far worse than everyone else I've ever heard when it comes to hating on Clearview.
Just a thought, but do they feel like they might be responsible for creating a mess? I mean, Clearview had potential, it was just horribly rolled out.
What was their previous policy (besides their in-the-field informal practice)?
This was posted about a month ago, but it looks like Virginia is now becoming more strict on its use of Clearview, allowing them only for mixed case legends on positive contrast signs:If one reads further down the memorandum, there still will be some new VDOT signs erected containing more (than allowed) Clearview only because the design documents & shop drawings predate this memo.
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font.pdf
That means no more Clearview exit gore signs, logo signs, cardinal directions, or worded directional signs in Virginia.
Future contracts: These standards should be implemented on all projects for which the sign fabrication layout details have not yet been completed. Projects issued for advertisement on or after July 15, 2015 shall be in full compliance.
**except when the numerals are a part of a destination name, e.g. “91st Ave”Along I-83 near Harrisburg, PA; I've seen BGS' for 2nd St. in both all-Clearview (http://goo.gl/maps/6gGWE) and mixed FHWA/Clearview (http://goo.gl/maps/rgBef) for the 2ND St. lettering. Of course, the ND & ST listings are in all-caps (vs. lower-case); which makes a more cohesive/logical use of mixed fonts for the same line.
What was their previous policy (besides their in-the-field informal practice)?
I don't think it's FHWAs fault too much based on the fact that when Clearview was rolled out in the Interim Approval, there were very strict guidelines on where it should be used.
Now, apparently, that memo was not received too well, because in states like Pennsylvania and Texas (which have gotten much better with Clearview usage nowadays if I do say so myself) there were a lot of signs that violated that Interim Approval rules for Clearview.
Studies have shown that, if letter size, spacing, and retroreflectivity are equal, the standard alphabet is equally or more legible as/than Clearview. Remember- even with the initial studies, Clearview was only better for mixed-case positive-contrast signage Clearview would have had potential if it was used only as allowed and intended. Clearview was only allowed for mixed-case positive-contrast signs and it was greatly abused, being utilized in ways that actually decreased legibility.
You won't find I bigger proponent of Clearview than I. I'm a huge fan of it. That's why I hold the FHWA completely responsible for botching the roll-out.
[...]The FHWA choosing to no longer adopt Clearview tells me that they are not as interested in readability as they lead on, given that they are falling back on the (in some cases) slightly less legible font. By piecemeal-ing the roll-out, they were setting themselves up for failure. They know full well that some states already don't exactly follow guidelines set forth by the FHWA. What made them think they'd follow these guidelines any better?
The interim approval including equivalencies between FHWA typefaces and Clearview typefaces was just asking for trouble. The IA shows that table and probably doesn't in retrospect emphasize enough that ONLY 5-W and 5-W-R are approved for use at all.
The table in the IA saying that 3-W is essentially equivalent to Series D was just asking for trouble with people using it when they shouldn't. The result was predictably signage with all sorts of too-narrow Clearview, in all-caps even. Ohio's design manual makes use of all different series of Clearview for certain signs with destination legend, with the only info about Clearview buried in an appendix which in turn refers the reader to the IA online. Nothing in the manual about using 5-W/5-W-R _only_ or anything like that.
There is no reason for sign design sheets dated 2013 and 2014 to be using the narrower series. The date on the sheets for both signs above is July 18, 2014. There is NO reason that any Clearview belongs on a spec sheet less than a year old for a sign with all caps and numerals that isn't designable. The FAQ has been around long enough, with anyone who cares able to see it (and those designing signs probably should be aware of it), that it's obvious that the Clearview doesn't belong on either sign. If the IA wasn't clear, more recent FHWA guidance has been clear. A 2014 design sheet has no business ignoring the guidance and using anything but what is called for.
Virginia was smart enough to come out with something to straighten out the problems. Ohio seems to not have gotten the memo--seeing stuff like those Safety Patrol signs day in and day out which never were intended to be Clearview in the first place drives you crazy when you know that the rollout was botched and butchered needlessly.
It seems like the CFEA has utilized those new super-hi-tech VMS to... display text in Clearview???
[img snipped]
Compare the 4 in the I-4 shield to the 4 in the 1/4 text - you'll notice it's different. I can guarantee with certainty that it's Clearview, and I'm sure the EAST/WEST is also Clearview.
What's the point of those Safety Patrol signs, besides creating an opportunity for ODOT to take in ad revenue from State Farm?
Beats me. I know that I once had mechanical issues on I-77 just outside Akron and never saw the Safety Patrol for the hours I was with the vehicle. And I have State Farm!!
Bad usage back in 2004 is understandable. Bad usage today, not understandable.
Words like "Acceptable" vs. "NOT Acceptable" on the FAQ page titled "Design and Use Policy for Clearview Alphabet" with the word "Policy" may not be regulatory, but it sure sounds damned close to saying Do this, not that.
^^ That's a sign you'll never see in Illinois. He got his ass bounced out of the governor's office last November.
^^ That's a sign you'll never see in Illinois. He got his ass bounced out of the governor's office last November.
Evidently, there's a few more Pat Quinn's than I thought (five more, to be exact, according to Wikipedia).
^^ That's a sign you'll never see in Illinois. He got his ass bounced out of the governor's office last November.
Evidently, there's a few more Pat Quinn's than I thought (five more, to be exact, according to Wikipedia).
Some Toronto Clearview:
(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/Ontroads/Clearview_Gdr_west_Mar15_1.jpg)
(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/Ontroads/Clearview_Gdr_west_Mar15_2.jpg)
(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/Ontroads/Clearview_Gdr_west_Mar15_3.jpg)
Some Toronto Clearview:
[images snipped]
This can't be from the MTO, they dont use Clearview, right? Must be from the city.
Going back to the subject of Virginia, it appears that most of the logo signs on I-64 on the Virginia Peninsula have been replaced by new ones in Clearview fairly recently. I wonder if these were installed or fabricated before or after Virginia updated its policy on its use of Clearview. Perhaps Virginia's logo sign contractor (Interstate Logos subsidiary Virginia Logos) hasn't yet gotten the word on the state's current policy on the use of Clearview.
I know the "policy" changed but I'm not convinced the practice is changing. I don't think any state has, in writing, a directive to use Clearview outside of destination legends, but it happens anyway. I think Clearview on blue/purple/etc will continue until Clearview is discontinued altogether, policy be-damned.
I know the "policy" changed but I'm not convinced the practice is changing. I don't think any state has, in writing, a directive to use Clearview outside of destination legends, but it happens anyway. I think Clearview on blue/purple/etc will continue until Clearview is discontinued altogether, policy be-damned.
Well, it seems that this policy is being followed for BGS, since the new signs at the I-85/I-95 interchange have Clearview only for the destination legends and Highway Gothic for everything else. There are also reports of a new sign on I-95 southbound at Exit 161 (Woodbridge) that uses Highway Gothic Series D.
Hello Matthew,
Thank you for contacting the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). NJDOT is aware of all signs in the field using Clearview font. FHWA gave NJDOT interim approval in 2007 for the use of Clearview lettering on I-676 and I-76 as a test case. Based on positive feedback, Clearview font was installed on additional signs on Rt. 18, Rt. 295, and Rt. 195. A representative from FHWA has reached out to us recently and told us that they will no longer be pursuing the standardization of the Clearview font. Based on this direction, NJDOT will not be fabricating or installing more signs using Clearview. These signs will be replaced in the future with signs using the EC* Modified font.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact the office of Community and Constituent Relations at (609) 530-2110.
NJ DOT Correspondence Unit
Crossposted from the New Jersey thread. A week or two ago, I emailed NJDOT asking them if Clearview was intended to be present on new sign installs on I-195/I-295 in the Trenton area. While the email confirmed that, it also brought to light the future of the typeface:QuoteHello Matthew,
Thank you for contacting the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). NJDOT is aware of all signs in the field using Clearview font. FHWA gave NJDOT interim approval in 2007 for the use of Clearview lettering on I-676 and I-76 as a test case. Based on positive feedback, Clearview font was installed on additional signs on Rt. 18, Rt. 295, and Rt. 195. A representative from FHWA has reached out to us recently and told us that they will no longer be pursuing the standardization of the Clearview font. Based on this direction, NJDOT will not be fabricating or installing more signs using Clearview. These signs will be replaced in the future with signs using the EC* Modified font.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact the office of Community and Constituent Relations at (609) 530-2110.
NJ DOT Correspondence Unit
* Note - I believe "EC" was intended to be either EM or E.
It should seem that Clearview is effectively dead at this point. I wonder how many states will begin to re-transition to the FHWA fonts? Big ones that come to mind near me are Pennsylvania and Delaware, as well as the New York Thruway Authority.
Crossposted from the New Jersey thread. A week or two ago, I emailed NJDOT asking them if Clearview was intended to be present on new sign installs on I-195/I-295 in the Trenton area. While the email confirmed that, it also brought to light the future of the typeface:QuoteHello Matthew,
Thank you for contacting the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). NJDOT is aware of all signs in the field using Clearview font. FHWA gave NJDOT interim approval in 2007 for the use of Clearview lettering on I-676 and I-76 as a test case. Based on positive feedback, Clearview font was installed on additional signs on Rt. 18, Rt. 295, and Rt. 195. A representative from FHWA has reached out to us recently and told us that they will no longer be pursuing the standardization of the Clearview font. Based on this direction, NJDOT will not be fabricating or installing more signs using Clearview. These signs will be replaced in the future with signs using the EC* Modified font.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact the office of Community and Constituent Relations at (609) 530-2110.
NJ DOT Correspondence Unit
* Note - I believe "EC" was intended to be either EM or E.
It should seem that Clearview is effectively dead at this point. I wonder how many states will begin to re-transition to the FHWA fonts? Big ones that come to mind near me are Pennsylvania and Delaware, as well as the New York Thruway Authority.
It should seem that Clearview is effectively dead at this point. I wonder how many states will begin to re-transition to the FHWA fonts? Big ones that come to mind near me are Pennsylvania and Delaware, as well as the New York Thruway Authority.
Crossposted from the New Jersey thread. A week or two ago, I emailed NJDOT asking them if Clearview was intended to be present on new sign installs on I-195/I-295 in the Trenton area. While the email confirmed that, it also brought to light the future of the typeface:QuoteHello Matthew,
Thank you for contacting the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). NJDOT is aware of all signs in the field using Clearview font. FHWA gave NJDOT interim approval in 2007 for the use of Clearview lettering on I-676 and I-76 as a test case. Based on positive feedback, Clearview font was installed on additional signs on Rt. 18, Rt. 295, and Rt. 195. A representative from FHWA has reached out to us recently and told us that they will no longer be pursuing the standardization of the Clearview font. Based on this direction, NJDOT will not be fabricating or installing more signs using Clearview. These signs will be replaced in the future with signs using the EC* Modified font.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact the office of Community and Constituent Relations at (609) 530-2110.
NJ DOT Correspondence Unit
* Note - I believe "EC" was intended to be either EM or E.
It should seem that Clearview is effectively dead at this point. I wonder how many states will begin to re-transition to the FHWA fonts? Big ones that come to mind near me are Pennsylvania and Delaware, as well as the New York Thruway Authority.
What about E with EM spacing? I forget what the name is.It should seem that Clearview is effectively dead at this point. I wonder how many states will begin to re-transition to the FHWA fonts? Big ones that come to mind near me are Pennsylvania and Delaware, as well as the New York Thruway Authority.
I guess Manitoba isn't on that bandwagon. But I don't expect anything more coming from my end of the fence.
(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b551/slik_sh00ter/Untitled_zpscojypy3j.png)
I wonder if Texas will comply. My suspicion is that they will not until funding is threatened.
I wonder if Texas will comply. My suspicion is that they will not until funding is threatened.
Comply with what? Not pursuing is not the same as an outright ban on it. If FHWA has given approval to Texas, that approval could be good for several years. In terms of things to withhold money for, I would think this is going to be pretty low on the list.
I wonder if Texas will comply. My suspicion is that they will not until funding is threatened.
Comply with what? Not pursuing is not the same as an outright ban on it. If FHWA has given approval to Texas, that approval could be good for several years. In terms of things to withhold money for, I would think this is going to be pretty low on the list.
But with the highway trust fund how it is, the feds might try anything to try and lessen the money they have to pay out.
* Note - I believe "EC" was intended to be either EM or E.
What about E with EM spacing? I forget what the name is.
It should seem that Clearview is effectively dead at this point.
It should seem that Clearview is effectively dead at this point.
A lot of people said that after the interim approval was denied to Gray's Harbor. So far, I haven't seen a slowdown.
It should seem that Clearview is effectively dead at this point.
A lot of people said that after the interim approval was denied to Gray's Harbor. So far, I haven't seen a slowdown.
I have--Iowa DOT has definitely thrown it overboard.
Crossposted from the New Jersey thread. A week or two ago, I emailed NJDOT asking them if Clearview was intended to be present on new sign installs on I-195/I-295 in the Trenton area. While the email confirmed that, it also brought to light the future of the typeface:QuoteHello Matthew,
Thank you for contacting the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). NJDOT is aware of all signs in the field using Clearview font. FHWA gave NJDOT interim approval in 2007 for the use of Clearview lettering on I-676 and I-76 as a test case. Based on positive feedback, Clearview font was installed on additional signs on Rt. 18, Rt. 295, and Rt. 195. A representative from FHWA has reached out to us recently and told us that they will no longer be pursuing the standardization of the Clearview font. Based on this direction, NJDOT will not be fabricating or installing more signs using Clearview. These signs will be replaced in the future with signs using the EC* Modified font.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact the office of Community and Constituent Relations at (609) 530-2110.
NJ DOT Correspondence Unit
* Note - I believe "EC" was intended to be either EM or E.
It should seem that Clearview is effectively dead at this point. I wonder how many states will begin to re-transition to the FHWA fonts? Big ones that come to mind near me are Pennsylvania and Delaware, as well as the New York Thruway Authority.
What about E with EM spacing? I forget what the name is.It should seem that Clearview is effectively dead at this point. I wonder how many states will begin to re-transition to the FHWA fonts? Big ones that come to mind near me are Pennsylvania and Delaware, as well as the New York Thruway Authority.
I guess Manitoba isn't on that bandwagon. But I don't expect anything more coming from my end of the fence.
(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b551/slik_sh00ter/Untitled_zpscojypy3j.png)
Canada operates under different standards. FHWA showed Clearview the door.
Saw some brand-new BGSes on a new sign structure over I-190 in Buffalo. Might just be because the project is part of something done by NYSDOT, but I-190 (maintained by NYSTA) recently got some new signs that weren't Clearview. First non-Clearview signs in years. Maybe this is the beginning of the end?Good
Saw some brand-new BGSes on a new sign structure over I-190 in Buffalo. Might just be because the project is part of something done by NYSDOT, but I-190 (maintained by NYSTA) recently got some new signs that weren't Clearview. First non-Clearview signs in years. Maybe this is the beginning of the end?Maybe. There's also this relatively new sign down in Yonkers:
Just as a thought, does anyone find Clearview to be more "feminine" than Highway Gothic? I wonder if the FHWA doesn't want American road signs to be in a girly font.
Just as a thought, does anyone find Clearview to be more "feminine" than Highway Gothic? I wonder if the FHWA doesn't want American road signs to be in a girly font. It seems that humanist sans-serif fonts are sometimes viewed as more feminine than grotesque or neo-grotesque fonts.
Just as a thought, does anyone find Clearview to be more "feminine" than Highway Gothic?
Figured you guys would appreciate this...
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05/19/d992b7fc0f15d7a82d3b8fd9160c764f.jpg)
Figured you guys would appreciate this...
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05/19/d992b7fc0f15d7a82d3b8fd9160c764f.jpg)
Just as a thought, does anyone find Clearview to be more "feminine" than Highway Gothic?
I can totally see that. Clearview is curvier than Highway Gothic, and there is definitely an association that blocky = masculine while curvy = feminine. This not only matches the forms of men's and women's bodies, it also mirrors their handwriting. I've noticed that women's handwriting is usually curvier than men's.
Of course it's a chicken-egg problem. Do we perceive curvy text as feminine because women have curvy writing, or do girls develop curvy writing when they learn to write because it's perceived as more feminine?
Also, I think in part because of those larger loops, there's an optical illusion in effect (to me at least) where lower case letters look larger as a whole in Clearview than they do in Highway Gothic,
While driving across Southern Arizona, I noticed a subtle inconsistency on a handful of BGS's. They are clustered along I-10 east of Downtown Tucson. All legend on the BGS's is in Clearview EXCEPT the numeral or fraction indicating mileage to the exit.
(http://i907.photobucket.com/albums/ac274/martinbartlett/27ad33bb-39e9-4412-8366-add8f82a7f2e_zpsccqaqocf.jpg) (http://s907.photobucket.com/user/martinbartlett/media/27ad33bb-39e9-4412-8366-add8f82a7f2e_zpsccqaqocf.jpg.html)
(Sorry about the glare; It is Arizona, after all.)
Those Arizona signs remind me of the Thruway ones, especially the exit tab.
I seem to recall reading about an early complaint Arizona had regarding Clearview, their sign design software, and composing fractions. I would guess they made it a policy to make their fractions in EM because they had so much trouble getting them to look right in Clearview.
The current solution--using Series E Modified for all numerals, not just ones in fraction rectangles--came later and seems to have been driven by a general dissatisfaction with Clearview numerals.
^ Are surrounding signs in Clearview? Maybe it's a case of it looking better to not have one Clearview sign in a stretch of E Modified signage...?
Could it be a carbon copy of a previous sign plan?
I drove to the Cleveland area last week from Dayton. In recent years, just about everything on 70 from Dayton to just outside Springfield, then on I-71 from the Delaware County line until I exited the highway in West Salem has been changed to Clearview...the more I see it, the more I hate it.
Looks like most of the logo signs have gone up on the US 60 Superstition Freeway, and to my surprise, they are still in Clearview. I have seen a few new BGS that use Series E Modified in the interim until ADOT finalizes its new signage specifications, which will use plain Series E for freeways and Series D for non-freeway roads.
Looks like most of the logo signs have gone up on the US 60 Superstition Freeway, and to my surprise, they are still in Clearview. I have seen a few new BGS that use Series E Modified in the interim until ADOT finalizes its new signage specifications, which will use plain Series E for freeways and Series D for non-freeway roads.
I'm no DOT employee, but AFAIK signage specifications can take a long time to develop and implement when a font change occurs.
As for Series E, is it just plain "E", or is it EE(M), which is plain Series E with wider spacing? Like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/RWMvkWI.png)
I noticed a crew replacing signs along Loop 202 Red Mountain in Mesa last night. I drove by today to check them out. They are all Clearview, replacing the original Highway Gothic signs that were installed during initial construction of Loop 202.
(http://s22.postimg.org/v65qd40h9/image.jpg)
(http://s22.postimg.org/ry1902e7h/image_1.jpg)
This sign used to read "Val Vista Dr 1/4 Mile". Does anyone know about ADOT's policy on listing exit distances?
(http://s22.postimg.org/5ktid9d9p/image_2.jpg)
ADOT has plans to install signs several more nights this week so we can probably expect more Clearview.
Looks like most of the logo signs have gone up on the US 60 Superstition Freeway, and to my surprise, they are still in Clearview. I have seen a few new BGS that use Series E Modified in the interim until ADOT finalizes its new signage specifications, which will use plain Series E for freeways and Series D for non-freeway roads.
I'm no DOT employee, but AFAIK signage specifications can take a long time to develop and implement when a font change occurs.
Interesting that even the numerals on that distance sign are in Clearview. Early Clearview distance signs used Clearview for all distance numerals including the fractions, but this resulted in the fractions being taller than the whole numbers when using the SignCAD software.
The AHTD rep that sometimes posts here said, in Arkansas at least, switching back to the traditional fonts is as easy as the engineer clicking a button.
I would imagine it's simpler to go from Clearview back to FHWA Series than the other way around because the FHWA fonts are in the MUTCD, there's no approvals outside of the agency that have to be obtained, the old standards for most signs probably still exist in the archives, etc.
(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/PQ/A/15/A15_dv_62_north.jpg)
I know the Wiki isn't the most reliable source, but it's been updated recently to state that the interim Clearview permits are going to be canceled, implying Clearview will no longer be allowed in the future.
I know the Wiki isn't the most reliable source, but it's been updated recently to state that the interim Clearview permits are going to be canceled, implying Clearview will no longer be allowed in the future.
It seems this might be the case, although districts that got permission in the past can probably keep using it.I know the Wiki isn't the most reliable source, but it's been updated recently to state that the interim Clearview permits are going to be canceled, implying Clearview will no longer be allowed in the future.
So clearview font no longer being used on MUTCD? :hmmm:
I know the Wiki isn't the most reliable source, but it's been updated recently to state that the interim Clearview permits are going to be canceled, implying Clearview will no longer be allowed in the future.
Looks like most of the logo signs have gone up on the US 60 Superstition Freeway, and to my surprise, they are still in Clearview. I have seen a few new BGS that use Series E Modified in the interim until ADOT finalizes its new signage specifications, which will use plain Series E for freeways and Series D for non-freeway roads.
I THINK this is breaking news...
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/01/25/2016-01383/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-the-manual-on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for?utm_campaign=subscription+mailing+list&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov
I believe there were rumblings before, but the notice was posted today, making it official.
So now all of the Clearview signs get thrown out, and whatever sign plans were in place to put up Clearview signs after Feb. 24th, are then thrown out after being mounted? Well, now Clearview is gonna be a rarity, so I can't complain.
It will definitely be interesting to see new signs that pop up in Clearview-heavy states (Maryland, New York Thruway, etc.) that will utilize the FHWA series again. Maybe this will help curtail the ugly sign population.
My guess would be that signage plans w/Clearview already approved but not yet erected will still proceed as scheduled. OTOH, signage plans still under design and not yet submitted for bids will be impacted by this rescinding.So now all of the Clearview signs get thrown out, and whatever sign plans were in place to put up Clearview signs after Feb. 24th, are then thrown out after being mounted? Well, now Clearview is gonna be a rarity, so I can't complain.
No. Signs in service can remain. Knowing how PennDOT and NYSTA do things, we'll still be seeing Clearview for a long time. I don't know if this applies to signs that have plans out but will not be installed before the deadline.
NYSTA has a new batch of signs in Buffalo that are FHWA. They look quite sharp.I was wondering what the new FHWA Thruway signs would look like. Are they made to the modern standards, just without the clearview, or did they go back to older standards or something completely different? Maybe I'll have to swing by on the way to the Toronto meet.
NYSTA has a new batch of signs in Buffalo that are FHWA. They look quite sharp.I was wondering what the new FHWA Thruway signs would look like. Are they made to the modern standards, just without the clearview, or did they go back to older standards or something completely different? Maybe I'll have to swing by on the way to the Toronto meet.
Cool. Looks just like what NYSDOT puts up these days. Glad they got rid of all that nonreflective stuff too (though I'll withhold final judgement until later - often for these bigger projects, contractors will build the signs to NYSDOT specs instead of NYSTA specs, so that could be why; the same thing happened to the EB signs for I-690 during the exits 39-40 rebuild). I wouldn't be surprised if the second one was installed by the Peace Bridge. Looks like a misunderstanding how how APL signs are supposed to work.NYSTA has a new batch of signs in Buffalo that are FHWA. They look quite sharp.I was wondering what the new FHWA Thruway signs would look like. Are they made to the modern standards, just without the clearview, or did they go back to older standards or something completely different? Maybe I'll have to swing by on the way to the Toronto meet.
Modern. They look a lot like the signs where the Thruway was widened. They are fully reflective. Near Exit 9, mostly NB. Have a look at one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8966203,-78.8959602,3a,15y,327.04h,91.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOF4ekD5v9Cc5lFaxRwFc-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8995824,-78.8987631,3a,15.9y,359.67h,90.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sChlR6_YB0xJngfOp7OoPgA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), put up by God knows who, is quite the oddity in the US, though.
Modern. They look a lot like the signs where the Thruway was widened. They are fully reflective. Near Exit 9, mostly NB. Have a look at one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8966203,-78.8959602,3a,15y,327.04h,91.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOF4ekD5v9Cc5lFaxRwFc-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Modern. They look a lot like the signs where the Thruway was widened. They are fully reflective. Near Exit 9, mostly NB. Have a look at one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8966203,-78.8959602,3a,15y,327.04h,91.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOF4ekD5v9Cc5lFaxRwFc-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
The arrows on that I-190 pull-through sign are still much too small, though!
Cool. Looks just like what NYSDOT puts up these days. Glad they got rid of all that nonreflective stuff too (though I'll withhold final judgement until later - often for these bigger projects, contractors will build the signs to NYSDOT specs instead of NYSTA specs, so that could be why; the same thing happened to the EB signs for I-690 during the exits 39-40 rebuild). I wouldn't be surprised if the second one was installed by the Peace Bridge. Looks like a misunderstanding how how APL signs are supposed to work.NYSTA has a new batch of signs in Buffalo that are FHWA. They look quite sharp.I was wondering what the new FHWA Thruway signs would look like. Are they made to the modern standards, just without the clearview, or did they go back to older standards or something completely different? Maybe I'll have to swing by on the way to the Toronto meet.
Modern. They look a lot like the signs where the Thruway was widened. They are fully reflective. Near Exit 9, mostly NB. Have a look at one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8966203,-78.8959602,3a,15y,327.04h,91.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOF4ekD5v9Cc5lFaxRwFc-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8995824,-78.8987631,3a,15.9y,359.67h,90.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sChlR6_YB0xJngfOp7OoPgA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), put up by God knows who, is quite the oddity in the US, though.
I wonder if most Clearview states will go back to Series E Modified for most signage, or will they use another FHWA variant? ADOT has decided to use plain Series E instead of Series E Modified on freeways, Series D on non-freeways, and Series C on street blades. I also wonder if the FHWA will approve Enhanced E Modified.
I wonder if most Clearview states will go back to Series E Modified for most signage, or will they use another FHWA variant? ADOT has decided to use plain Series E instead of Series E Modified on freeways, Series D on non-freeways, and Series C on street blades. I also wonder if the FHWA will approve Enhanced E Modified.
Since the FHWA insisted on going back to Series Gothic they really ought to take the existing type design, clean it up a bit (because some of the characters are really clunky) and expand it into a range that is more acceptable for modern type use. IIRC some of the weights in Series Gothic didn't even have any lower case characters until the Series 2000 release. The current Series Gothic fonts have no foreign language support due to the very limited range of punctuation and next to nothing in terms of diacritic marks.
I wonder if most Clearview states will go back to Series E Modified for most signage, or will they use another FHWA variant? ADOT has decided to use plain Series E instead of Series E Modified on freeways, Series D on non-freeways, and Series C on street blades. I also wonder if the FHWA will approve Enhanced E Modified.Enhanced E Modified? Can I see a pic of this?
I don't know why the FHWA font for use on roadsigns in the USA needs 4300 glyphs. If we can cover English, French, and Spanish characters (for Puerto Rico and signing destinations in Quebec and Mexico), and whatever punctuation is allowed in the MUTCD, that is sufficient.
I wonder if most Clearview states will go back to Series E Modified for most signage, or will they use another FHWA variant? ADOT has decided to use plain Series E instead of Series E Modified on freeways, Series D on non-freeways, and Series C on street blades. I also wonder if the FHWA will approve Enhanced E Modified.
So while lots of road geeks are seeing this bit of news as a victory, I see this as a functional step backward. Series Gothic is a very deficient type family that needs a radical overhaul.
What really turned me off on Clearview was that some states were so eager to switch out BGSs which were only a few years old with new Clearview signs, while there are other BGSs which are well over 15-20 years old that are still standing.
<Church Lady Mode ON> Well, I wonder what state I could be speaking of...I don't know, could it be, ummmmm.....OHIO??? </Church Lady>
I don't know why the FHWA font for use on roadsigns in the USA needs 4300 glyphs. If we can cover English, French, and Spanish characters (for Puerto Rico and signing destinations in Quebec and Mexico), and whatever punctuation is allowed in the MUTCD, that is sufficient.
If somebody needs to expand the font to cover more than that, I'm not sure why the FHWA needs to fund that, unless it is for use on signs in the United States. We're not going to start using interrobangs on road signs or start dual signing things in Cyrillic at any time in the foreseeable future...
We're not going to start using interrobangs on road signs or start dual signing things in Cyrillic at any time in the foreseeable future...What if we build the tunnel under the Bering Strait?
I found Clearview in Connecticut...send help.For those who don't want to parse out the street view link from the img tag: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7102675,-72.759674,3a,37.5y,318.84h,95.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sE8D6ykU3w5XBHNfrp1ApvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7102675,-72.759674,3a,37.5y,318.84h,95.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sE8D6ykU3w5XBHNfrp1ApvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Come to think of it, I've never been able to figure out where those exit 6A signs came from (the exit 39 ones came from the 39-40 reconstruction project and are likely contractor installs), especially since it's all of them, even on a gantry with other signs in a different style. Makes me wonder if they were a test installation.
As far as diacritics go, does Mexico use them on their signs?
FHWA is the official sign font for Mexico as well.
Why just don't borrow the accented characters from the Mexican MUTCD and add them to the American MUTCD to accommodate for Spanish?
As far as diacritics go, does Mexico use them on their signs?
Mexico uses all-uppercase for direction signing and the almost ubiquitous white-background general informatory signs. Spanish allows diacritics except for the tilde to be omitted when uppercase letters are used, so it is fairly rare to see accented characters on Mexican signs. However, the tilde is always used, and is typically rendered as a macron with bias-cut ends (as in Spain), not as an elongated S-curve as on American signs that try to be correct with Spanish placenames.
For me, it's going to be interesting to see what happens in other jurisdictions (outside the US) that currently use Clearview. Will they continue to use it, or revert back?
I made a thread about this a while back:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13684.msg2012851#msg2012851
In Canada, Quebec will probably stick with Clearview since they have actually made it mandatory, but other Canadian provinces may consider a reversion to FHWA.
For me, it's going to be interesting to see what happens in other jurisdictions (outside the US) that currently use Clearview. Will they continue to use it, or revert back?
I made a thread about this a while back:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13684.msg2012851#msg2012851
In Canada, Quebec will probably stick with Clearview since they have actually made it mandatory, but other Canadian provinces may consider a reversion to FHWA.
This has already been discussed to death...BC will probably stick with Clearview but other provinces may switch. For reasons that have been discussed here:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13684.msg2012851#msg2012851
Mexico uses all-uppercase for direction signing and the almost ubiquitous white-background general informatory signs. Spanish allows diacritics except for the tilde to be omitted when uppercase letters are used, so it is fairly rare to see accented characters on Mexican signs. However, the tilde is always used, and is typically rendered as a macron with bias-cut ends (as in Spain), not as an elongated S-curve as on American signs that try to be correct with Spanish placenames.
What really turned me off on Clearview was that some states were so eager to switch out BGSs which were only a few years old with new Clearview signs, while there are other BGSs which are well over 15-20 years old that are still standing.
<Church Lady Mode ON> Well, I wonder what state I could be speaking of...I don't know, could it be, ummmmm.....OHIO??? </Church Lady>
Michigan was a lot worse than Ohio for replacing perfectly good signs with Clearview signs just because.Add Pennsylvania to the list as well. They were one of the first states to offer & adopt such.
Hooray!^^This. The varied implementation of Clearview was indeed user-error. While some newer PennDOT & PTC installations, to their credit, got better at it (in terms of proper use of Clearview per FHWA Guidelines); such was too little too late.
I wonder if agencies who bought the license for Clearview, especially recently, might be looking for their money back because they were sold a dud.
The statements in the FHWA reasoning for yanking Clearview are not a surprise. It has seemed that a lot of places have had sign layout quality go way downhill at the same time they introduced Clearview, which is probably not a coincidence. I like how they basically called out the offenders who either would not or could not read the explicit limits on Clearview usage and used it all over the place. Those offenders probably are what really caused it to fail in the end. Had Clearview only ever been used as approved, it might have survived.
Since the FHWA insisted on going back to Series Gothic they really ought to take the existing type design, clean it up a bit (because some of the characters are really clunky) and expand it into a range that is more acceptable for modern type use.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/FBInter.svg)
If they have to stick with the existing Series Gothic design the FHWA just needs to expand it. The character set is puny even by freebie font standards. Actually there are some open source typefaces that have huge character sets. Check out a newly released typeface, Tehuti at Font Squirrel. It's not appropriate for traffic sign use, but it has an exhaustive character set. Over 4300 glyphs per font weight.
http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/tehuti (http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/tehuti)
Series Gothic doesn't have to be expanded to those extremes. But it does need to satisfy a check list of modern typeface requirements, otherwise it's only going to be good for use in the United States writing out only American sounding terms and not even being properly functional for that.
Hooray!
I wonder if agencies who bought the license for Clearview, especially recently, might be looking for their money back because they were sold a dud.
The statements in the FHWA reasoning for yanking Clearview are not a surprise. It has seemed that a lot of places have had sign layout quality go way downhill at the same time they introduced Clearview, which is probably not a coincidence. I like how they basically called out the offenders who either would not or could not read the explicit limits on Clearview usage and used it all over the place. Those offenders probably are what really caused it to fail in the end. Had Clearview only ever been used as approved, it might have survived.
Kudos to INDOT and MassDOT, agencies of two states I have a relationship with, for never jumping on the bandwagon.
I always felt, even back in the mtr days, that Clearview was being pushed very hard by its creators when no such real need for a new font existed. The comparisons I always saw showing FHWA versus Clearview always had slightly taller Clearview letters (I'd say they were bigger) on newer reflective sheeting next to an older FHWA sign on older reflective sheeting. Then the claim was about how much better Clearview was to see. Well, of course it's easier to see, it's on the newer reflective sheeting with bigger letters. Match them up one to one, then compare. Use the same height letters and the same reflective sheeting. Any apparent advantages of Clearview disappear as they're due to the sheeting and size, not any inherent properties of the font.
Don't get me wrong, Clearview isn't a bad font, it's still ugly, IMHO, and almost as ugly as Transport (which I disdain), but not as bad for roads as Arial or Helvetica. But don't give the new font all the advantages when making a comparison. That is unfair advertising and smacks of a bad infomercial.
I wonder if agencies who bought the license for Clearview, especially recently, might be looking for their money back because they were sold a dud.
I wonder if agencies who bought the license for Clearview, especially recently, might be looking for their money back because they were sold a dud.
They weren't sold a dud. They were sold an experiment. There was no expectation, no requirement, to use Clearview. The agencies that paid for their licence were fully aware of what they were buying into. The experiment failed, and that's that. Sucks to be them, I guess.
I wonder if agencies who bought the license for Clearview, especially recently, might be looking for their money back because they were sold a dud.
They weren't sold a dud. They were sold an experiment. There was no expectation, no requirement, to use Clearview. The agencies that paid for their licence were fully aware of what they were buying into. The experiment failed, and that's that. Sucks to be them, I guess.
The Clearview marketing was quite slick in not saying it was an experiment in progress but was a finished product that improved legibility. As shown on their ordering page, (http://www.terminaldesign.com/fonts/clearviewhwy-complete-family/) they showed Clearview in dark-on-light applications that were never approved in any interim approval, just inviting users to deploy it inappropriately. 5-W was the only series that should have been in the wild but they were happy to sell all the series and let users deploy them. Seems like they were selling stuff they knew wasn't fully vetted or tested along with 5-W.
I always felt, even back in the mtr days, that Clearview was being pushed very hard by its creators when no such real need for a new font existed. The comparisons I always saw showing FHWA versus Clearview always had slightly taller Clearview letters (I'd say they were bigger) on newer reflective sheeting next to an older FHWA sign on older reflective sheeting. Then the claim was about how much better Clearview was to see. Well, of course it's easier to see, it's on the newer reflective sheeting with bigger letters. Match them up one to one, then compare. Use the same height letters and the same reflective sheeting. Any apparent advantages of Clearview disappear as they're due to the sheeting and size, not any inherent properties of the font.
All this!!! Clearview's "advantages" were largely due to taller/larger letters and different reflectivity. Even a middle school science fair project does a better job holding all the other variables constant while changing just one thing.
I wonder if agencies who bought the license for Clearview, especially recently, might be looking for their money back because they were sold a dud.
They weren't sold a dud. They were sold an experiment. There was no expectation, no requirement, to use Clearview. The agencies that paid for their licence were fully aware of what they were buying into. The experiment failed, and that's that. Sucks to be them, I guess.
The Clearview marketing was quite slick in not saying it was an experiment in progress but was a finished product that improved legibility. As shown on their ordering page, (http://www.terminaldesign.com/fonts/clearviewhwy-complete-family/) they showed Clearview in dark-on-light applications that were never approved in any interim approval, just inviting users to deploy it inappropriately. 5-W was the only series that should have been in the wild but they were happy to sell all the series and let users deploy them. Seems like they were selling stuff they knew wasn't fully vetted or tested along with 5-W.
First off, the initial studies to come out (AFAIK) showed Clearview to have better legibility than the comparable FHWA font, so it should be no surprise that their website promotes the typeface as a one-size-fits-all replacement for Highway Gothic. Second, their examples are not wrong everywhere. Only the US denies negative-contrast use. Western Canada has been using Clearview for some time now, in both negative and positive contrast (my point is that the US is not Clearview's only customer). Third, the agencies that purchased Clearview licences should not be looking to the people who developed it for guidance, but rather the agency that permitted their use to begin with, if only because the interim approval came with massive caveats anyways.
Clearview certainly has the advantage over Series Gothic in Quebec since it has diacritics for upper and lowercase characters.
In Spain their highway signs do use diacritics for more uppercase characters than Ñ. Their typeface looks a lot like Series Gothic, but there are some subtle differences. As far as using a slightly altered macron for Ñ that practice might work okay until you get into a situation where the characters like Ũ and Ū come into play.
...another was Georgia DOT's flirtation with what it called "D Georgia," essentially a mixed-case version of Series D (glyphs never published and probably vendor-developed) intended to be used at 20" UC/15" LC in lieu of 16" UC/12" LC Series E Modified with some change in sign proportions but approximately the same overall area per panel. Now Georgia DOT has given up and is spending more (including on new structures) for 20" UC/15" LC Series E Modified and a straight-up, no-nonsense 25% gain in reading distance.
If nothing else, since the death of button copy there's no good reason to for anyone to continue using E(M) rather than reverting to basic Series E, particularly at GDOT's outlandish type sizes.
Question - Has there been any other example of an interim approval being recinded where the practice allowed by said interim approval was not incorporated into the MUTCD?
Question - Has there been any other example of an interim approval being recinded where the practice allowed by said interim approval was not incorporated into the MUTCD?
Possibly this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15399103@N00/3154192609
Ohio tried a new style of railroad crossbuck in the early 00s at unsignaled crossings. They were later replaced by normal YIELD signs, and as of Fall of 2015, all crossings without signals or gates in Ohio must have a STOP sign below the crossbucks instead of a YIELD sign (or nothing at all). The most recent law is Ohio's doing and may or may not be at the urging of the MUTCD.
I believe they do, but the number of daily trains the line gets, speed of traffic (on both the road and rail), and visibility probably have to be factored in.Question - Has there been any other example of an interim approval being recinded where the practice allowed by said interim approval was not incorporated into the MUTCD?
Possibly this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15399103@N00/3154192609
Ohio tried a new style of railroad crossbuck in the early 00s at unsignaled crossings. They were later replaced by normal YIELD signs, and as of Fall of 2015, all crossings without signals or gates in Ohio must have a STOP sign below the crossbucks instead of a YIELD sign (or nothing at all). The most recent law is Ohio's doing and may or may not be at the urging of the MUTCD.
I could have sworn that the MUTCD allows yield signs, but I might be wrong
Question - Has there been any other example of an interim approval being recinded where the practice allowed by said interim approval was not incorporated into the MUTCD?
Possibly this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15399103@N00/3154192609
Ohio tried a new style of railroad crossbuck in the early 00s at unsignaled crossings. They were later replaced by normal YIELD signs, and as of Fall of 2015, all crossings without signals or gates in Ohio must have a STOP sign below the crossbucks instead of a YIELD sign (or nothing at all). The most recent law is Ohio's doing and may or may not be at the urging of the MUTCD.
I could have sworn that the MUTCD allows yield signs, but I might be wrong
Question - Has there been any other example of an interim approval being recinded where the practice allowed by said interim approval was not incorporated into the MUTCD?
Possibly this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15399103@N00/3154192609
Ohio tried a new style of railroad crossbuck in the early 00s at unsignaled crossings. They were later replaced by normal YIELD signs, and as of Fall of 2015, all crossings without signals or gates in Ohio must have a STOP sign below the crossbucks instead of a YIELD sign (or nothing at all). The most recent law is Ohio's doing and may or may not be at the urging of the MUTCD.
I could have sworn that the MUTCD allows yield signs, but I might be wrong
They do, I was speaking of the "Ohio" Crossbucks, like the one in the picture. I have seen the use of a standard YIELD sign used in conjunction with standard crossbucks in many states, but the crossbucks alone are all that is needed at an unsignaled crossing. YIELD or STOP signs are optional.
I wonder if agencies who bought the license for Clearview, especially recently, might be looking for their money back because they were sold a dud.
They weren't sold a dud. They were sold an experiment. There was no expectation, no requirement, to use Clearview. The agencies that paid for their licence were fully aware of what they were buying into. The experiment failed, and that's that. Sucks to be them, I guess.
The reason for this, of course, is because FHWA Series is a public-domain typeface that has existed since the 1950s as a series of mathematically-plotted definitions in the MUTCD/SHS books. FHWA didn't develop any diacritics because the MUTCD requires leaving them off, so what would be point in specifying them?
Perhaps if engineers and other designers stopped treating GuidSIGN and SignCAD as glorified word processors and actually designed the signs to spec perhaps Clearview would have stood a chance. While the misuse of Clearview has certainly had a large contribution to the degradation of the quality of signs on our roadways, automation in general plays a bigger part of that. "Eh, the computer did it, close enough."
...was Georgia DOT's flirtation with what it called "D Georgia," essentially a mixed-case version of Series D (glyphs never published and probably vendor-developed) intended to be used at 20" UC/15" LC in lieu of 16" UC/12" LC Series E Modified with some change in sign proportions but approximately the same overall area per panel.
What is the reasoning for the MUTCD forbidding the use of diacritics over/under letters? There certainly can't be any legitimate excuse from the perspective of design and fabrication.i don't recall the source, but it's due to legibility at highway speeds. a letter with a diacritic can be easily misinterpreted at a glance as another letter, especially since diacritics are very rarely seen in English.
Quote from: Scott5114The reason for this, of course, is because FHWA Series is a public-domain typeface that has existed since the 1950s as a series of mathematically-plotted definitions in the MUTCD/SHS books. FHWA didn't develop any diacritics because the MUTCD requires leaving them off, so what would be point in specifying them?
What is the reasoning for the MUTCD forbidding the use of diacritics over/under letters? There certainly can't be any legitimate excuse from the perspective of design and fabrication.
Word messages should not contain periods, apostrophes, question marks, ampersands, or other punctuation or characters that are not letters, numerals, or hyphens unless necessary to avoid confusion.
Regarding fonts in the public domain, there is quite a few open source typefaces that blow away Series Gothic in terms of language support and other typographical features. Quite a few type designers release some of their typefaces for nothing in a bid to make them popular and get attention from commercial foundries who might sell some of their other typefaces. It is certainly possible for private companies, such as Google for instance, to take on a type development project for traffic signs and make the results open source.
The relevant section is §2A.13¶4:QuoteWord messages should not contain periods, apostrophes, question marks, ampersands, or other punctuation or characters that are not letters, numerals, or hyphens unless necessary to avoid confusion.
I have the "Georgia D" font - it's basically Page Studio Graphics "Highway Gothic D" (the older Mac BMAP version, not the current TrueType/OpenType version) without dots on the i and j. I really think more attention needs to be put into studying readability of that lettering. The glyphs are close enough to Series E/EEM/E(m) that the letter forms looks familiar but different enough to allow for larger lettering on reasonably sized panels.
I have the "Georgia D" font - it's basically Page Studio Graphics "Highway Gothic D" (the older Mac BMAP version, not the current TrueType/OpenType version) without dots on the i and j. I really think more attention needs to be put into studying readability of that lettering. The glyphs are close enough to Series E/EEM/E(m) that the letter forms looks familiar but different enough to allow for larger lettering on reasonably sized panels.
Don't forget the square D (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7143555,-84.2690068,3a,75y,259.21h,104.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snyi-hwBeRGsKy99WXfcDwA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). I've never really understood why that's a thing.
This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8995824,-78.8987631,3a,15.9y,359.67h,90.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sChlR6_YB0xJngfOp7OoPgA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), put up by God knows who, is quite the oddity in the US, though.NYSTA has a new batch of signs in Buffalo that are FHWA. They look quite sharp.I was wondering what the new FHWA Thruway signs would look like. Are they made to the modern standards, just without the clearview, or did they go back to older standards or something completely different? Maybe I'll have to swing by on the way to the Toronto meet.
This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8995824,-78.8987631,3a,15.9y,359.67h,90.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sChlR6_YB0xJngfOp7OoPgA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), put up by God knows who, is quite the oddity in the US, though.NYSTA has a new batch of signs in Buffalo that are FHWA. They look quite sharp.I was wondering what the new FHWA Thruway signs would look like. Are they made to the modern standards, just without the clearview, or did they go back to older standards or something completely different? Maybe I'll have to swing by on the way to the Toronto meet.
eww
This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8995824,-78.8987631,3a,15.9y,359.67h,90.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sChlR6_YB0xJngfOp7OoPgA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), put up by God knows who, is quite the oddity in the US, though.NYSTA has a new batch of signs in Buffalo that are FHWA. They look quite sharp.I was wondering what the new FHWA Thruway signs would look like. Are they made to the modern standards, just without the clearview, or did they go back to older standards or something completely different? Maybe I'll have to swing by on the way to the Toronto meet.
eww
It is the standard in much of Canada, hence why vdeane theorized (and I completely agree) that it is likely a PBA install. I like it, just not standard (and odd placement because it is over what I think is the new connection from surface streets to the bridge).
Again, though, the potential customer base for a FHWA Series typeface would primarily be traffic sign designers–anyone else would be using Interstate–and those designers will likely not be using many diacritics due to the above-quoted MUTCD passage, so where's the business case for paying a typographer to design it?
Why not be the change you want to see in the world, load up Roadgeek 2014, and design diacritics for it? If you know how to use a vector graphics program like Illustrator (which, being in the commercial sign industry, I'd imagine you would be) it would be dead simple to learn a font editor.
“Helen Keller can tell you from the grave that Clearview looks better,” Meeker says.
“This is a burr in somebody’s saddle,” says Meeker, who adds that he’s preparing a rebuttal to the news. “They don’t understand design.”
Meeker sounds like a whiny little bitch because the FHWA is going to cost him a lot of money. But how much money did his company already make by selling the full sets of Clearview for $795?I bought it...
I would like to register a few complaints about this article. It seems to miss the point that Clearview's interim approval was only ever meant to be used for experimental purposes, instead going for an 'anachronistic government incompetence' angle. They leave out most of the later research showing that Clearview had little to no benefit over Highway Gothic, only to be said by a FHWA person, who've they'd already established as the 'bad guy' in the piece. Furthermore, they also try to establish the idea that Clearview somehow became the FHWA's favored font in 2004 when again, it was only meant to be used experimentally. The comments from Meeker make little sense, as he should have known that the rug could pulled out from under them at any time. The experiment failed, so he can quit his crying now.
Judging one typeface against another is in the end a mostly SUBJECTIVE exercise. It mostly comes down to visual preference. That has certainly been the case in the Series Gothic versus Clearview debate. Not only is the visual preference thing a factor, but sentimentality and nostalgia play into it too. For every shortcoming that is present in the Series Gothic type family there is someone there to defend it.
I even have to question to whether those subjective preferences came into play to bias re-testing between Clearview and Series Gothic.
$750 is a pretty steep price for a single Clearview license (which includes both the W and B series weights). For that kind of price the fonts should have been full featured OpenType "pro" typefaces rather than TrueType with a slightly extended character set. It is common for professional quality, commercial type families to cost beyond $1000 or even $2000 per license.
The very limited character set and arguably crudely drawn glyphs of Series Gothic hardly justify it being worthy of rising above freebie font status. Yet I have seen type vendors charge money for those fonts. They're not freely available at Font Squirrel, dafont or any other free font web site.
Series Gothic is worthless for other kinds of graphic design uses due to all its limitations. Interstate works better, but it sure ain't free if you want to use it legally. It costs $900 for the complete family of 36 fonts. Being an early 1990's design, Interstate has no extended OpenType style features, just 245 glyphs per font, including Western European diacritics, Euro and a handful of ligatures. You can get a lot more for $900 in a lot of other modern type families.
Clearview developers sound very hurt (http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/01/official-united-states-highway-sign-font-clearview/427068/) by the news.Quote“Helen Keller can tell you from the grave that Clearview looks better,” Meeker says.Quote“This is a burr in somebody’s saddle,” says Meeker, who adds that he’s preparing a rebuttal to the news. “They don’t understand design.”
It's not a burr in somebody's saddle or someone not understanding design, Mr. Meeker. It's that further research beyond 2004 showed that Clearview wasn't an improvement and was in fact a detriment in many applications, and FHWA doesn't amend standards allow equal alternatives, only to make improvements. Clearview turns out to not have been an improvement and thus it goes.
The sign examples credited to Meeker and Associates shown in the article (PA 412 exit off I-78) illustrate misuses of Clearview as well--shield numerals, exit tab, exit distance line. Apparently it's OK with him to use it where-ever you like, research results be darned.
Amusingly, there is a link to another thread right here on AARoads where the article refers to the site in an odd way. "Font forum posters report seeing Clearview in Orange County....." I never knew that this was a "font forum". I know there's a lot about Clearview and other fonts discussed in certain threads, but still, I never thought this was a "font forum".
That's not a lot of money for a font.
Neither Clearview or Series Gothic had [...] native small capitals character sets, despite elements like cardinal direction signs and elements requiring large cap/small cap treatment.
I THINK this is breaking news...
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/01/25/2016-01383/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-the-manual-on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for?utm_campaign=subscription+mailing+list&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov
I believe there were rumblings before, but the notice was posted today, making it official.
A layman's opinion, from Jalopnik. Thought it was an interesting take.
http://jalopnik.com/decade-long-federal-plan-to-replace-highway-sign-font-m-1757227026
I THINK this is breaking news...
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/01/25/2016-01383/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-the-manual-on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for?utm_campaign=subscription+mailing+list&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov
I believe there were rumblings before, but the notice was posted today, making it official.
That's bad news for brand new signs in Bamberg, Barnwell and Orangeburg counties in S.C. Bamberg just started installing proper case Clearview on their signs. Barnwell and Orangeburg both use Arial and Helvetica.
I never quite understood why the roadgeek community seemed to have such an aversion to Clearview as a concept. The FHWA Series were designed at a time when button copy or non-reflective signs were the norm; it seems reasonable to me to say "what if we could make signs more legible by designing a font with modern reflective sheeting in mind?"
I find Clearview aesthetically pleasing, albeit not as much as the FHWA Series. Of course, even then, Interstate does the "Highway Gothic" aesthetic even better, when it comes to uses other than traffic signs.
I can't speak for the entire roadgeek community, but I never had an aversion to the concept of Clearview and what it attempted to achieve. I think the ire mainly comes from botched implementation, primarily through a improper sign designs and a general lack of adherence to the interim approval guidelines.
- Some states spent massive amounts of money to replace a large portion of their signs with Clearview ones unnecessarily. At best, it was change for the sake of change, but it was really a gross waste of money in states like Michigan and Illinois.
I never quite understood why the roadgeek community seemed to have such an aversion to Clearview as a concept. The FHWA Series were designed at a time when button copy or non-reflective signs were the norm; it seems reasonable to me to say "what if we could make signs more legible by designing a font with modern reflective sheeting in mind?"Updates for legibility were made to "Highway Gothic" as recently as 2000, to include lowercase letters and alter a few letterforms, among a few other minor things. E(M) existed for button copy, it really shouldn't be used for anything other than that. As noted, seems E with E(M) spacing will eventually become the standard for new signage.
I find Clearview aesthetically pleasing, albeit not as much as the FHWA Series. Of course, even then, Interstate does the "Highway Gothic" aesthetic even better, when it comes to uses other than traffic signs.
As for legibility, I feel I never got a proper chance to judge for myself, since most Clearview signs in Columbus were directly replacing 20-year-old button copy. Obviously I'm going to find a shiny new retroflective sign easier to read at night than a decades-old button copy sign, regardless of what typeface is used.
Updates for legibility were made to "Highway Gothic" as recently as 2000, to include lowercase letters and alter a few letterforms, among a few other minor things. E(M) existed for button copy, it really shouldn't be used for anything other than that. As noted, seems E with E(M) spacing will eventually become the standard for new signage.
Updates for legibility were made to "Highway Gothic" as recently as 2000, to include lowercase letters and alter a few letterforms, among a few other minor things. E(M) existed for button copy, it really shouldn't be used for anything other than that. As noted, seems E with E(M) spacing will eventually become the standard for new signage.
As far as I can tell, the only advocacy for Series E with E(M) spacing (aka EE(M)) has been spitballing by people on this board; I'm not even sure there's been any research beyond a few animated GIFs. Certainly it's something FHWA and others should consider, but we're a long way from it becoming any sort of standard.
Updates for legibility were made to "Highway Gothic" as recently as 2000, to include lowercase letters and alter a few letterforms, among a few other minor things. E(M) existed for button copy, it really shouldn't be used for anything other than that. As noted, seems E with E(M) spacing will eventually become the standard for new signage.
As far as I can tell, the only advocacy for Series E with E(M) spacing (aka EE(M)) has been spitballing by people on this board; I'm not even sure there's been any research beyond a few animated GIFs. Certainly it's something FHWA and others should consider, but we're a long way from it becoming any sort of standard.
Updates for legibility were made to "Highway Gothic" as recently as 2000, to include lowercase letters and alter a few letterforms, among a few other minor things. E(M) existed for button copy, it really shouldn't be used for anything other than that. As noted, seems E with E(M) spacing will eventually become the standard for new signage.
As far as I can tell, the only advocacy for Series E with E(M) spacing (aka EE(M)) has been spitballing by people on this board; I'm not even sure there's been any research beyond a few animated GIFs. Certainly it's something FHWA and others should consider, but we're a long way from it becoming any sort of standard.
ADOT's new signing plans call for plain Series E on freeways and expressways, and Series D on regular roads. Apparently ADOT claims that this will achieve the same benefits as Clearview. I wonder what will be the FHWA's stance on this.
As for EE(M), I have actually read that VDOT has actually shown some interest in the idea when they updated their policy on the proper use of Clearview.
As for EE(M), I have actually read that VDOT has actually shown some interest in the idea when they updated their policy on the proper use of Clearview.
Caltrans has numerous examples, both in the field and on signing plans. Frankly, I am unimpressed.
I objected to this when the rulemaking was in progress and suggested that Series E Modified be required for all mixed-case applications to establish a floor for legibility. In the final rule notice, FHWA disagreed with me, saying that engineers could be trusted to choose the appropriate alphabet series for legibility.
Washington has been dabbling with EE(M) as well. I think it looks better...
(http://i.imgur.com/RWMvkWI.png)
I objected to this when the rulemaking was in progress and suggested that Series E Modified be required for all mixed-case applications to establish a floor for legibility. In the final rule notice, FHWA disagreed with me, saying that engineers could be trusted to choose the appropriate alphabet series for legibility.
Did you suggest using Series E Modified because it was the only logical, immediate choice at the time? Everything I've read thus far has indicated to me that Series E Modified exists only because of button copy, and its phase-out should have marked the end of E Modified.
To me, EE(M) is the next step, because it's like E(M) without the wide stroke for the buttons.
Washington has been dabbling with EE(M) as well. I think it looks better...
http://i.imgur.com/RWMvkWI.png
Actually, the primary destination legend ("Berkeley St") is in Series E Modified.
<clipped>
The way I understand it, Series Eem is pretty close to this. Correct?
To clarify, Em is the thicker variant, EEm is the slimmer variant? EEm looks far superior and the spacing/kerning nicely applied.
Zeffy, what are the RGB values for the shade of green you use in your signs? I believe it looks quite sharp.
(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Signs/NY_SeriesEEM_Example_zpszffprhrt.png)
Zeffy, what are the RGB values for the shade of green you use in your signs? I believe it looks quite sharp.
(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Signs/NY_SeriesEEM_Example_zpszffprhrt.png)
It looks more like its from the default CMYK palate of Illustrator.He uses Inkscape.
Looking at the samples at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Gothic
Is it me or does it appear that Series E and F have a slightly thicker stroke than Series B, C, and D? Series E(m) isn't shown in the samples. Can anyone confirm if E and F really have a thicker stroke than B, C, and D?
Zeffy, what are the RGB values for the shade of green you use in your signs? I believe it looks quite sharp.
(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Signs/NY_SeriesEEM_Example_zpszffprhrt.png)
...something that was not tested properly.
...something that was not tested properly.
The interim approval WAS the test.
Are we looking at a combo Highway Gothic/Clearview sign here for Exit 35 on I-95 NB in CT?I'm not a font person, but I believe that's Series B Highway Gothic. Clearview would be noticeably different.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.206206,-73.1039122,3a,27.8y,88.1h,93.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWcgNQ2stKRb56se9bK5HfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The sign was recently (within the past year or so) modified... the lower half of the Exit 35 (left sign) used to just say "Bic Drive". It's now overlayed with "Subway - Bic Drive" in a different font, though other signs further up have the more traditional highway gothic. (For those that don't know, Subway world HQ is located just off Exit 35, and I believe Bic lighters is/was as well)
Are we looking at a combo Highway Gothic/Clearview sign here for Exit 35 on I-95 NB in CT?I'm not a font person, but I believe that's Series B Highway Gothic. Clearview would be noticeably different.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.206206,-73.1039122,3a,27.8y,88.1h,93.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWcgNQ2stKRb56se9bK5HfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The sign was recently (within the past year or so) modified... the lower half of the Exit 35 (left sign) used to just say "Bic Drive". It's now overlayed with "Subway - Bic Drive" in a different font, though other signs further up have the more traditional highway gothic. (For those that don't know, Subway world HQ is located just off Exit 35, and I believe Bic lighters is/was as well)
Who on earth thought that EXIT ONLY tab looked okay?
Looks like Georgia invaded Connecticut. For a while, many of their BGS' sported Series D (or a variation of such) for control city/destination listings.Are we looking at a combo Highway Gothic/Clearview sign here for Exit 35 on I-95 NB in CT?I'm not a font person, but I believe that's Series B Highway Gothic. Clearview would be noticeably different.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.206206,-73.1039122,3a,27.8y,88.1h,93.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWcgNQ2stKRb56se9bK5HfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The sign was recently (within the past year or so) modified... the lower half of the Exit 35 (left sign) used to just say "Bic Drive". It's now overlayed with "Subway - Bic Drive" in a different font, though other signs further up have the more traditional highway gothic. (For those that don't know, Subway world HQ is located just off Exit 35, and I believe Bic lighters is/was as well)
It's series D Highway Gothic. Same font, just different width.
I'm late to the party, but oh well.
I didn't really see this coming to be honest, but I didn't see them pushing Clearview any further. Either way, I'm glad to see it will start to go away. This is mostly for the sake of DOTs like IDOT and MDOT, who replaced the hell out of perfectly good signs, wasting a lot of money, and making signs less visually appealing. However, ISTHA was getting better using it but the damage still remains. The only area I could expect proper FHWA signs from them up by North Suburbs are on I-90 construction. And finally, for the states like Wisconsin who didn't use it, they are just proving they are still so much better by not following something that was not tested properly.
STARTING this week, a familiar face will begin to disappear from America’s roadside signs. It's not particularly noticeable – certainly not as memorable as the goateed Colonel Sanders or smiling Big Boy or pigtailed Wendy pushing their fried chicken, hamburgers and French fries. Rather, it is a typeface named Clearview, which has graced many of our highway signs and directed us to our destinations since 2004, when it was granted interim approval by the Federal Highway Administration.
Clearview was intended as a big step forward in legibility over the national standard alphabet typefaces that have long dominated highway signs. But late last month the highway agency quietly announced in the Federal Register that henceforth only older typefaces specified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices may be used. The 30-day waiting period required after such announcements ended Wednesday.
Henry Petroski's Clearview obituary in the New York Times (part of which C.P. posted above) fits in the media pattern already established by CityLab of failing to describe what went wrong with the implementation of Clearview. I am tempted to write a think piece to try to present a full and honest account of the view from the trenches.
Henry Petroski's Clearview obituary in the New York Times (part of which C.P. posted above) fits in the media pattern already established by CityLab of failing to describe what went wrong with the implementation of Clearview. I am tempted to write a think piece to try to present a full and honest account of the view from the trenches.
Please do. I'm sick of these op-eds that mourn Clearview while failing to understand its shortcomings, and how it was initially marketed.
That's interesting! I live in Eau Claire and I didn't even notice that. Granted, I've never really seen much clearview so I don't notice the difference without looking online.I'm late to the party, but oh well.
I didn't really see this coming to be honest, but I didn't see them pushing Clearview any further. Either way, I'm glad to see it will start to go away. This is mostly for the sake of DOTs like IDOT and MDOT, who replaced the hell out of perfectly good signs, wasting a lot of money, and making signs less visually appealing. However, ISTHA was getting better using it but the damage still remains. The only area I could expect proper FHWA signs from them up by North Suburbs are on I-90 construction. And finally, for the states like Wisconsin who didn't use it, they are just proving they are still so much better by not following something that was not tested properly.
Wisconsin tested it on a small scale along the Madison Beltline, but that was it. Within a few years when new construction projects along the route were done, the highway gothic returned. WISDOT didn't see a benefit to it before the Feds came to that conclusion. Otherwise, the only BGS outside of Madison in clearview was Eau Claire, and they were obsessive with that font. They even used it on city bus stop signs.
Henry Petroski's Clearview obituary in the New York Times (part of which C.P. posted above) fits in the media pattern already established by CityLab of failing to describe what went wrong with the implementation of Clearview. I am tempted to write a think piece to try to present a full and honest account of the view from the trenches.
Please do. I'm sick of these op-eds that mourn Clearview while failing to understand its shortcomings, and how it was initially marketed.
"Looking at text one foot from my face proves Clearview is better." - New York Times
Henry Petroski's Clearview obituary in the New York Times (part of which C.P. posted above) fits in the media pattern already established by CityLab of failing to describe what went wrong with the implementation of Clearview. I am tempted to write a think piece to try to present a full and honest account of the view from the trenches.
Please do. I'm sick of these op-eds that mourn Clearview while failing to understand its shortcomings, and how it was initially marketed.
"Looking at text one foot from my face proves Clearview is better." - New York Times
It's part of the American societal thinking that anything new and different is much better than anything that is considered old, outdated and established. Change for the sake of change can never be wrong, right?
Henry Petroski's Clearview obituary in the New York Times (part of which C.P. posted above) fits in the media pattern already established by CityLab of failing to describe what went wrong with the implementation of Clearview. I am tempted to write a think piece to try to present a full and honest account of the view from the trenches.
Please do. I'm sick of these op-eds that mourn Clearview while failing to understand its shortcomings, and how it was initially marketed.
"Looking at text one foot from my face proves Clearview is better." - New York Times
It's part of the American societal thinking that anything new and different is much better than anything that is considered old, outdated and established. Change for the sake of change can never be wrong, right?
Dropping millions of dollars into something is enough to convince most people that the new product is better than the old product. I'm still not entirely convinced that the Clearview research was a total loss.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEW!
(http://michiganhighways.org/clearview/Interstate_2di_clearview.gif)
(Chris Bessert, michiganhighways.org)
Even the GO Train diagram, such as this one in any GO Train coach is in clearview:
(http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-slideshow/images/articles/2015/07/16638/16638-55338.jpg)
Even the GO Train diagram, such as this one in any GO Train coach is in clearview:
(http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-slideshow/images/articles/2015/07/16638/16638-55338.jpg)
That's not Clearview; it's FF Meta (or its kissing cousin from the same designer, Fira Sans).
MTO had a few signs in Southern Ontario and many have been replaced. There were a few signs on 406 that are now gone as well as the aforementioned signs on the QEW.
I don't expect Toronto to stop installing Clearview. Many parts of Canada have adopted Clearview as the official font and I don't expect a FHWA ruling in the US to change that.
It's part of the American societal thinking that anything new and different is much better than anything that is considered old, outdated and established. Change for the sake of change can never be wrong, right?
It's part of the American societal thinking that anything new and different is much better than anything that is considered old, outdated and established. Change for the sake of change can never be wrong, right?
It's part of the American societal thinking that anything new and different is much better than anything that is considered old, outdated and established. Change for the sake of change can never be wrong, right?
Then explain the inability of the United States to fully adopt the SI instead of our ancient units of measure based on the time when the 13 colonies were part of the British Empire.
There really is no compelling reason to adopt SI in the everyday.I'd contest that, but this is not the right thread for it.
Even the GO Train diagram, such as this one in any GO Train coach is in clearview:
(http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-slideshow/images/articles/2015/07/16638/16638-55338.jpg)
That's not Clearview; it's FF Meta (or its kissing cousin from the same designer, Fira Sans).
We're leaving out an option, guys.
http://cdn-users2.imagechef.com/photos/160228/uimg2af4c93ae96d1106.jpg (http://cdn-users2.imagechef.com/photos/160228/uimg2af4c93ae96d1106.jpg)Let's just say Peppatown is in serious need of some road signs.With love, from authenticroadgeek.
Even the GO Train diagram, such as this one in any GO Train coach is in clearview:
(http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-slideshow/images/articles/2015/07/16638/16638-55338.jpg)
That's not Clearview; it's FF Meta (or its kissing cousin from the same designer, Fira Sans).
No, that is Clearview. The M in FF Meta is flared and the middle angle goes almost all the way down.
DuPage County, Illinois, even uses Clearview on their bathroom signs!!
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1690/25792647914_69b407ee08_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Fid4C7)
Not so strange when you explain the inability of the UK to do so, Belize, even Canada. Canada may have officially adopted it, but the average Canadian uses a mixture in the everyday, and the building trades never stopped using Imperial measures. There are lots of places that have halfheartedly adopted SI, including Japan, where the building trades, again, use local measures exclusively. There really is no compelling reason to adopt SI in the everyday.I may be late for the party.. But there are 3 countries still officially using imperial system: USA, Liberia and Myanmar (formerly Burma, metrication in progress). Canada is officially metric, with imperial system being phased out of everyday use. You may notice that Canadian folks here quote speeds in km/h, not MPH; and price gas per liter, not per gallon.
Not so strange when you explain the inability of the UK to do so, Belize, even Canada. Canada may have officially adopted it, but the average Canadian uses a mixture in the everyday, and the building trades never stopped using Imperial measures. There are lots of places that have halfheartedly adopted SI, including Japan, where the building trades, again, use local measures exclusively. There really is no compelling reason to adopt SI in the everyday.I may be late for the party.. But there are 3 countries still officially using imperial system: USA, Liberia and Myanmar (formerly Burma, metrication in progress). Canada is officially metric, with imperial system being phased out of everyday use. You may notice that Canadian folks here quote speeds in km/h, not MPH; and price gas per liter, not per gallon.
Imperial is still used for quite a bitI don't think anyone in the world (short of scientific papers - but there may be some exceptions as well) is clear cut metric or non-metric. Electric heaters in US are rated in watts, not BTU/hour, for example.
Another interesting example of metrication (again not strictly metrication - but worldwide issue) is switch to lumens for light bulbs. Most old farts like me are used to 40/60/75 watts, but need to switch to 450/800/110 lm. Interestingly enough, I did see LED headlights and LED headlight replacement bulbs - but I don't remember them rated in lumens, I may stop by at Pep boys to double check.
there is also a distinction that modern bulbs are more stabilized and less affected by fluctuations of grid voltage. Incandescent bulb can visibly change brightness when hairdryer is used in adjacent room.Another interesting example of metrication (again not strictly metrication - but worldwide issue) is switch to lumens for light bulbs. Most old farts like me are used to 40/60/75 watts, but need to switch to 450/800/110 lm. Interestingly enough, I did see LED headlights and LED headlight replacement bulbs - but I don't remember them rated in lumens, I may stop by at Pep boys to double check.
Lumens actually makes it easier to correlate between the newer bulbs which use less wattage (LEDs) and older bulbs (incandescent) that use more wattage. Lumens is a measure of light output, not energy used.
there is also a distinction that modern bulbs are more stabilized and less affected by fluctuations of grid voltage. Incandescent bulb can visibly change brightness when hairdryer is used in adjacent room.Another interesting example of metrication (again not strictly metrication - but worldwide issue) is switch to lumens for light bulbs. Most old farts like me are used to 40/60/75 watts, but need to switch to 450/800/110 lm. Interestingly enough, I did see LED headlights and LED headlight replacement bulbs - but I don't remember them rated in lumens, I may stop by at Pep boys to double check.
Lumens actually makes it easier to correlate between the newer bulbs which use less wattage (LEDs) and older bulbs (incandescent) that use more wattage. Lumens is a measure of light output, not energy used.
But I am using this as an example of how typical measurement system can change - and sky doesn't fall.
there is also a distinction that modern bulbs are more stabilized and less affected by fluctuations of grid voltage. Incandescent bulb can visibly change brightness when hairdryer is used in adjacent room.Another interesting example of metrication (again not strictly metrication - but worldwide issue) is switch to lumens for light bulbs. Most old farts like me are used to 40/60/75 watts, but need to switch to 450/800/110 lm. Interestingly enough, I did see LED headlights and LED headlight replacement bulbs - but I don't remember them rated in lumens, I may stop by at Pep boys to double check.
Lumens actually makes it easier to correlate between the newer bulbs which use less wattage (LEDs) and older bulbs (incandescent) that use more wattage. Lumens is a measure of light output, not energy used.
But I am using this as an example of how typical measurement system can change - and sky doesn't fall.
However, that said, we should maintain a system that actually matches what is on the ground, not some new system that has zero correlation to anything that was originally surveyed out as in the PLSS. Miles and acres fit, meters and hectares don't. Having a dual or split system works just fine as well.
there is also a distinction that modern bulbs are more stabilized and less affected by fluctuations of grid voltage. Incandescent bulb can visibly change brightness when hairdryer is used in adjacent room.Another interesting example of metrication (again not strictly metrication - but worldwide issue) is switch to lumens for light bulbs. Most old farts like me are used to 40/60/75 watts, but need to switch to 450/800/110 lm. Interestingly enough, I did see LED headlights and LED headlight replacement bulbs - but I don't remember them rated in lumens, I may stop by at Pep boys to double check.
Lumens actually makes it easier to correlate between the newer bulbs which use less wattage (LEDs) and older bulbs (incandescent) that use more wattage. Lumens is a measure of light output, not energy used.
But I am using this as an example of how typical measurement system can change - and sky doesn't fall.
However, that said, we should maintain a system that actually matches what is on the ground, not some new system that has zero correlation to anything that was originally surveyed out as in the PLSS. Miles and acres fit, meters and hectares don't. Having a dual or split system works just fine as well.
You understand that 1 statue mile is legally 5280 feet, and 1 foot is legally 0.3048 meters? And pound is legally 0.45359237 kilograms? There is no separate etalon for foot, pound or mile, by now things are strictly derived from metric. So from the legal perspective 1 mile is 1609.344 meters, where meter is defined through speed of light and cesium clock, and so on. Even for US investment in a separate set of etalons and definitions would quickly become prohibitively expensive.
Again, there really is no problem with having both systems, as we already use them. Milligrams for medicine, liters for pop, pounds for produce, feet and inches for height. Did you know that metric is, gasp, also official in the US, alongside customary? Hence, we do have both systems, use the one you want, but I see no reason to switch to kilometers from miles due to what's already on the ground. It's pointless.Well, questions come if you need to find out how many 2x4" studs are required for 5 meter wall. Given that 2" stud is actually anywhere between 1.25 and 1.75" wide..
No idea if NYSTA has made the switch back yet, as their sign plans have had FHWA for well over a year and every sign installed with those plans was Clearview. No idea if the new (Fall 2015) FHWA signs along I-190 in Buffalo were a one-off or the new NYSTA standard. I'm hoping the latter, as they're quite beautiful, but I'm not holding my breath.
No idea if NYSTA has made the switch back yet, as their sign plans have had FHWA for well over a year and every sign installed with those plans was Clearview. No idea if the new (Fall 2015) FHWA signs along I-190 in Buffalo were a one-off or the new NYSTA standard. I'm hoping the latter, as they're quite beautiful, but I'm not holding my breath.
I noticed a couple of new signs on the Thruway last weekend that were FHWA and not Clearview. I know the Thruway was planning to phase out their use of Clearview before the mandate to do so. I just wish they'd replace those hideous overhead signs along the 90/Mainline in the Buffalo area because they are just about unreadable at night and they're only two years old.
No idea if NYSTA has made the switch back yet, as their sign plans have had FHWA for well over a year and every sign installed with those plans was Clearview. No idea if the new (Fall 2015) FHWA signs along I-190 in Buffalo were a one-off or the new NYSTA standard. I'm hoping the latter, as they're quite beautiful, but I'm not holding my breath.
I noticed a couple of new signs on the Thruway last weekend that were FHWA and not Clearview. I know the Thruway was planning to phase out their use of Clearview before the mandate to do so. I just wish they'd replace those hideous overhead signs along the 90/Mainline in the Buffalo area because they are just about unreadable at night and they're only two years old.
Where are the new signs?
No idea if NYSTA has made the switch back yet, as their sign plans have had FHWA for well over a year and every sign installed with those plans was Clearview. No idea if the new (Fall 2015) FHWA signs along I-190 in Buffalo were a one-off or the new NYSTA standard. I'm hoping the latter, as they're quite beautiful, but I'm not holding my breath.
I noticed a couple of new signs on the Thruway last weekend that were FHWA and not Clearview. I know the Thruway was planning to phase out their use of Clearview before the mandate to do so. I just wish they'd replace those hideous overhead signs along the 90/Mainline in the Buffalo area because they are just about unreadable at night and they're only two years old.
Where are the new signs?
No idea if NYSTA has made the switch back yet, as their sign plans have had FHWA for well over a year and every sign installed with those plans was Clearview. No idea if the new (Fall 2015) FHWA signs along I-190 in Buffalo were a one-off or the new NYSTA standard. I'm hoping the latter, as they're quite beautiful, but I'm not holding my breath.
I noticed a couple of new signs on the Thruway last weekend that were FHWA and not Clearview. I know the Thruway was planning to phase out their use of Clearview before the mandate to do so. I just wish they'd replace those hideous overhead signs along the 90/Mainline in the Buffalo area because they are just about unreadable at night and they're only two years old.
Where are the new signs?
And on the same topic, why are the Clearview signs on the Thruway difficult to read when it gets dark. I was on the Thruway a couple weeks ago and noticed this......I don't see how the fault lies with clearview but how weak the legend on the sign is. What causes the Clearview signs to be so badly legible at night?
A few exit gore sign replacements are in FHWA, westbound Exit 44 being one of them. I also saw a new service area sign in FHWA (don't remember which one) and a supplemental destination sign somewhere in the western part of the state. One thing I noticed between Syracuse and Rochester are the number of faded signs that are starting to peel a little bit. I think that stretch is due for a sign replacement project soon, but I don't see it happening in the near future as many of the signs were just relocated onto new posts.
Exit gore signs were in Clearview up until earlier this year, the new ones I spotted this past weekend were the first I had seen in FHWA in a long, long while.
I noticed the reflectiveness issue as well around Buffalo. It was downright impossible to see some of the letters and numbers because the sign wasn't reflective and what light did bounce off only casted it elsewhere on the sign (with distracting lights hitting it from other vehicles). It's hard to describe, but the sign was overly dark and bright in spots.
There are some older signs in Buffalo that are peeling pretty good but still more reflective than the new signs. Definitely a step backwards.
Well, technically for survey purposes (PLSS), the survey foot is (re)defined as 1200⁄3937 meters rather than 0.3048 meters. But the larger point stands.
In essence, the traditional units (which in some, but not all cases, correspond to the British imperial units) are just labels for certain quantities of metric units, just not arranged in convenient powers of 10 like the "official" ones.
But then again on the ground, even in "metricated" countries, in day-to-day life people regularly use similar labels; the local language equivalent of a "pound" is usually shorthand for 500g, for example (within 10% of the 454g mass of a U.S. pound), while the local word for "foot" is typically a metric length pretty close to whatever the country's pre-metric foot was. The center circle of an association football pitch is still 9.15m in radius - or ten yards, even in countries that never adopted imperial measures (the field itself may be an exact metric size, since FIFA allows variations in pitch size - which is how NYC FC can somehow play games in Yankee Stadium - but all the measured markings are based on imperial lengths). And you'll replace the imperial pint only after grabbing it from the cold, dead hands of the last Briton or Irishman.
The main problem with continuing to use the traditional system is in situations where conversions regularly come into play. I recently went to the hospital for a procedure and was happy to see they weighed me using the metric system - no risk of getting not enough anesthesia or drugs because someone forgot to multiply my weight by 2.2 when calculating the proper dose. Similarly, if you're designing a space probe, make everything metric or make none of it metric; otherwise, you'll learn the lesson of avoiding unnecessary conversions the hard way, as NASA once did.
Otherwise, a mix of hard and soft metric conversions is fine, either way; Canada still has 355 mL cans of soda, and somehow we gringos manage to survive without being confused too much by 16.9 oz bottles.
It would be nice if the customary units were redefined as being more standard.bakers around the world would crucify you.
For example, 1 quart = .946 liters. Keep liters the same size, but increase the quart to be equal to the liter.
The standard units would be slightly changed, but the conversions would be simpler.
(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/i64_va255.png)IMHO, there's nothing wrong with that I-664 shield. 18C should be the standard for 3-digit routes not containing a "1" in them.
No Clearview to be found! All previous "Reach the Beach" signs have had the legend text in Clearview. Now, there is a decent chance that this is simply a contractor error, as evidenced by the non-rounded corners and 18C numerals on the 664 shield (most of these signs use 16D), but this could be a sign that VDOT may be considering ditching Clearview.
I'm not saying it's an error, per se, but literally every other one of these travel time signs uses 16D for 3-digit interstates, meaning that it's possibly just an out-of-spec sign. Here's an earlier example (installed early 2012, per GMSV): https://goo.gl/maps/f6Kdyj3bDjx(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/i64_va255.png)IMHO, there's nothing wrong with that I-664 shield. 18C should be the standard for 3-digit routes not containing a "1" in them.
No Clearview to be found! All previous "Reach the Beach" signs have had the legend text in Clearview. Now, there is a decent chance that this is simply a contractor error, as evidenced by the non-rounded corners and 18C numerals on the 664 shield (most of these signs use 16D), but this could be a sign that VDOT may be considering ditching Clearview.
meaning that it's possibly just an out-of-spec sign.Either that or maybe the specs were modified at the same time that the Clearview font was nixed. One thing I've learned, just because XXDOT or equivalent specs FHWA Series *blank* font for route sign numerals doesn't mean that particular Series is actually used. VDOT has plenty of BGS' that have *ugh* Series B numerals for 3dI-shields.
We may have some movement from VDOT here. On my way to work I spotted a new "Reach the Beach" sign (I don't remember it being there last week, and it's not on the March 2016 GMSV imagery) between exits 255 and 256 on I-64, and noticed something a bit odd about it:
(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/i64_va255.png)
No Clearview to be found! All previous "Reach the Beach" signs have had the legend text in Clearview. Now, there is a decent chance that this is simply a contractor error, as evidenced by the non-rounded corners and 18C numerals on the 664 shield (most of these signs use 16D), but this could be a sign that VDOT may be considering ditching Clearview.
Anybody have any other signing plans for VA?
I certainly hope VDOT is considering ditching Clearview since they don't really have any choice in the matter per the FHWA.
As far as the lettering choice for the 664, I find the marker to be quite readable and the glyphs are within motorist expectations so legibility shouldn't be an issue, therefore I deem it perfectly acceptable.
I certainly hope VDOT is considering ditching Clearview since they don't really have any choice in the matter per the FHWA.
We may have some movement from VDOT here. On my way to work I spotted a new "Reach the Beach" sign (I don't remember it being there last week, and it's not on the March 2016 GMSV imagery) between exits 255 and 256 on I-64, and noticed something a bit odd about it:Interesting. Apart from the use of Highway Gothic instead of Clearview (Yay!), that's the first 'generic' travel time sign installation I've seen that's overhead mounted. Anybody know of similar installations.
(http://roads.wesj.org/photos/i64_va255.png)
I certainly hope VDOT is considering ditching Clearview since they don't really have any choice in the matter per the FHWA.
Oh, they are. They were quick to stop using it when the approval was rescinded.
Virginia had some of the very worst specimens (as featured on the Clearview FAQ page) but cleaned up its act later on, specifying in writing where it was to be used (destination legend only) in its documents, whereas many users (Ohio, Arizona for example--both states who had handsome button copy right up until the end of button copy, ironically) insist on it being used all over signs, except for in route shields too (Michigan, cough cough). Arizona eventually went to traditional numerals for distance legend because of fraction setting problems, but kept Clearview in exit numbers where it doesn't belong. Too much screwball use overall, which is too bad for someplace like Virginia which had finally figured it out and had some actually decent-looking Clearview signgage eventually.
Virginia had some of the very worst specimens (as featured on the Clearview FAQ page) but cleaned up its act later on, specifying in writing where it was to be used (destination legend only) in its documents, whereas many users (Ohio, Arizona for example--both states who had handsome button copy right up until the end of button copy, ironically) insist on it being used all over signs, except for in route shields too (Michigan, cough cough). Arizona eventually went to traditional numerals for distance legend because of fraction setting problems, but kept Clearview in exit numbers where it doesn't belong. Too much screwball use overall, which is too bad for someplace like Virginia which had finally figured it out and had some actually decent-looking Clearview signgage eventually.
As much as I like Clearview, I don't think you should use it unless you're going to use it everywhere, like in the image below (minus the Helvetica in the TCH shield). I've always though that signs with both FHWA and Clearview were sort of Frankenstein installations, where they couldn't decide which font to use, so they just splattered different fonts wherever they want. Obviously this wasn't the reason, but from the perspective of someone who worries far too much about aesthetics, signs like this (http://goo.gl/Jxd4Hv) drive me up the wall. I am lucky enough to live where I get to experience both full use of Clearview (BC, and surrounding provinces), and full use of FHWA (WA, OR), so I don't find my head spinning too often.
(http://i.imgur.com/SounfhD.jpg)
(minus the Helvetica in the TCH shield).
(minus the Helvetica in the TCH shield).
Jake, BC (and the other Prairie provinces) use FHWA for the Trans-Canada shield, not Helvetica. Saskatchewan and Manitoba use a lot of EM. Compare below to your image:
All the BC TCH shields on BGS's are all consistent which leads me to believe that the number (Hwy 1) is part of the design (similarly how the word "INTERSTATE" is part of the design of the interstate shield).
I'm pretty certain that I've seen a TCH shield with Clearview numerals somewhere. I think it was on Vancouver Island, but I'm not totally sure. If I remember where, I'll let you know. But until then, let's just assume that your theory is correct.
Something interesting to note: Despite Alabama seemingly having dropped Clearview (as new signage for the new Exit 7 interchange on I-565 is in Highway Gothic), the new replacement signs on I-565 (with the possible exception of the gore signage) is in Clearview.
Did they design the signs and send the plans to fabrication before the cutoff? If so, they may have just gotten in....I saw crews installing some brand-spanking-new Clearview (long-term "temporary"-or-maybe-not BGSs) signs on I-76, I-77, and I-277 in Akron today--I am hoping that they were fabricated based on plans approved and sent in before the cutoff. If not, shame on ODOT.
To be fair, I wouldn't be surprised if ALDOT did make them in-house, since Alabama seems to be very slow on the uptake of new developments most of the time.Did they design the signs and send the plans to fabrication before the cutoff? If so, they may have just gotten in....I saw crews installing some brand-spanking-new Clearview (long-term "temporary"-or-maybe-not BGSs) signs on I-76, I-77, and I-277 in Akron today--I am hoping that they were fabricated based on plans approved and sent in before the cutoff. If not, shame on ODOT.
Alabama DOT never used Clearview on signing plans, even when Clearview was adopted as the default for new or replacement signs. My suspicion is that while the signing plans showed Series E Modified, the sign drawings actually supplied to the signing contractor used Clearview. In quite a few states the construction plans are only indicative as to how the signs are supposed to look, and the actual control for fabrication purposes is the work order.
AFAIK, Alabama DOT never does pure sign replacements by contract, so the signs Freebrickproduction mentions were likely fabricated in-house.
In Massachusetts, the final design drawings for guide sign panels are prepared by the fabricator and reviewed by either MassDOT or the designer of record for the project.Did they design the signs and send the plans to fabrication before the cutoff? If so, they may have just gotten in....I saw crews installing some brand-spanking-new Clearview (long-term "temporary"-or-maybe-not BGSs) signs on I-76, I-77, and I-277 in Akron today--I am hoping that they were fabricated based on plans approved and sent in before the cutoff. If not, shame on ODOT.
Alabama DOT never used Clearview on signing plans, even when Clearview was adopted as the default for new or replacement signs. My suspicion is that while the signing plans showed Series E Modified, the sign drawings actually supplied to the signing contractor used Clearview. In quite a few states the construction plans are only indicative as to how the signs are supposed to look, and the actual control for fabrication purposes is the work order.
Are these signs (recently installed near me) in Clearview? :hmmm:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1485/26567475345_54f5236755_k.jpg)
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/2/1528/25962425894_904f4df994_k.jpg)
Telltale sign of Clearview is the "feet" on the "l."
Yeah, several different FHWA widths:
(http://ten93.com/2016/fonts.png)
I wish we used more symbols. The use of the train station symbol would make the sign more legible to those who are bilingual - which is highly probable up that way.
I was driving on I-95 north in Delaware yesterday, and I noticed two new signs for the DE 141 south exit that were done in Highway Gothic. I'm guessing (and very much hoping) that DelDOT has finally scrapped Clearview?
(http://i.imgur.com/VtDHNcTl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/VtDHNcTl.jpg)IMHO, the DE 141 shield on the northbound BGS (in Series D) looks better. The Series C numerals on the newer BGS seems to be unnecessarily close together.
(http://i.imgur.com/VtDHNcTl.jpg)IMHO, the DE 141 shield on the northbound BGS (in Series D) looks better. The Series C numerals on the newer BGS seems to be unnecessarily close together.
Maryland has a problem with this as well.
The sign for the Scaggsville exit on I-95 NB is even pictured as a "don't do this!" in an official posting regarding lack of proper whitespace/padding.Maryland has a problem with this as well.
Maryland has the worst looking BGSes I've seen and it got worse when they switched to Clearview. It's like they took the MUTCD and chucked it out of the window.
Don't go to California.Maryland has a problem with this as well.
Maryland has the worst looking BGSes I've seen and it got worse when they switched to Clearview. It's like they took the MUTCD and chucked it out of the window.
Maryland has the worst looking BGSes...It's like they took the MUTCD and chucked it out of the window.
Someone told me that the Highway Gothic on signage looks more official
The exit tab on the left sign looks as if someone from DelDOT held the space bar down when creating it. "EXIT...........................................5B." Maryland has a problem with this as well.IMHO, DelDOT likely copied from Maryland.
The exit tab on the left sign looks as if someone from DelDOT held the space bar down when creating it. "EXIT...........................................5B." Maryland has a problem with this as well.IMHO, DelDOT likely copied from Maryland.
The exit tab on the left sign looks as if someone from DelDOT held the space bar down when creating it. "EXIT...........................................5B." Maryland has a problem with this as well.
IMHO, DelDOT likely copied from Maryland.
Wouldn't surprise me. Their signs are just as gross looking.
Wasn't there a report here or elsewhere a while back that Delaware had indeed adopted the Maryland spec as their official signage standard?
TxDOT's latest highway plans, for August contracts, call for new signs in Clearview. I don't know if they're just ignoring the rescission or if they're using up the rest of whatever license they have. They were quick to adopt the change, and don't seem to be eager to stop.
Texas has its own state MUTCD. I understand that state MUTCDs have to be in substantial compliance with the national MUTCD, however, is the FHWA really going to punish TxDOT for choosing to use Clearview since they have a manual of their own?
Texas has its own state MUTCD. I understand that state MUTCDs have to be in substantial compliance with the national MUTCD, however, is the FHWA really going to punish TxDOT for choosing to use Clearview since they have a manual of their own?
IINM, font is not an item that is negotiable. The different manuals are mainly for state-specific layouts and signs. Items banned in an edition of the MUTCD must be banned by the state in their next revision, which must take place within a couple of years. Take Ohio, for example. Before "dancing arrows" were explicitly banned, their state MUTCD included layouts for them and usage standards. Since the ban, Ohio's MUTCD differs little from the national manual, as this entire section was removed from the manual. If FHWA didn't force them to change, I doubt ODOT would have "officially adopded" APLs for option lanes.
There are plenty of new Clearview signs being installed in other areas of Ohio too. If they truly are burning through their reserve of letters - which was specifically noted back in March (as noted above too), then they would have run out by now. Other states, like Kentucky and West Virginia, are still installing new Clearview signs. And cities...
Anyone seen new FHWA installs in Ohio yet? Last I heard was a Columbus Dispatch article in March saying that ODOT was going to burn up its supply of Clearview letters before switching back. Driving through the almost-finished I-75 Dayton construction I noticed the just hung signs are still Clearview, but interestingly some of them have FHWA exit tabs.
Anyone seen new FHWA installs in Ohio yet? Last I heard was a Columbus Dispatch article in March saying that ODOT was going to burn up its supply of Clearview letters before switching back. Driving through the almost-finished I-75 Dayton construction I noticed the just hung signs are still Clearview, but interestingly some of them have FHWA exit tabs.
According to the anal-retentive FHWA guidelines, Clearview was never supposed to be used in exit tabs anyway, because they are all caps and numbers.
There are plenty of new Clearview signs being installed in other areas of Ohio too. If they truly are burning through their reserve of letters - which was specifically noted back in March (as noted above too), then they would have run out by now. Other states, like Kentucky and West Virginia, are still installing new Clearview signs. And cities...
Some cities here in the Phoenix area have gotten the memo. According to an email that I got from the City of Mesa (one of the first cities in the Phoenix area to use Clearview), they have dropped Clearview in favor of FHWA for new signage. I have also noticed some new signage in FHWA in Gilbert as well.
Count all of the things that are wrong with New York's first set of APLs (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.840669,-78.7930084,3a,75y,210.41h,108.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saLc5jO5smnUrZaIExcHsEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Saratoga County and Saratoga Springs are still installing Clearview street blades. Other than NYSTA, they were some of the only (if not the only) Upstate agencies to adopt the font. If the new watershed signs and last year's I-190 signs are any indication, NYSTA has switched back.
Texas has its own state MUTCD. I understand that state MUTCDs have to be in substantial compliance with the national MUTCD, however, is the FHWA really going to punish TxDOT for choosing to use Clearview since they have a manual of their own?
IINM, font is not an item that is negotiable. The different manuals are mainly for state-specific layouts and signs. Items banned in an edition of the MUTCD must be banned by the state in their next revision, which must take place within a couple of years. Take Ohio, for example. Before "dancing arrows" were explicitly banned, their state MUTCD included layouts for them and usage standards. Since the ban, Ohio's MUTCD differs little from the national manual, as this entire section was removed from the manual. If FHWA didn't force them to change, I doubt ODOT would have "officially adopded" APLs for option lanes.
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0476832,-97.3387713,3a,15y,166.7h,86.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-JlbfmCMAHo-iXVJ4FHFIg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Funny, ironic or a coincidence?
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0476832,-97.3387713,3a,15y,166.7h,86.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-JlbfmCMAHo-iXVJ4FHFIg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Funny, ironic or a coincidence?
Haha, nice, I had a chuckle to myself once when doing an uber run and discovering this street in the City of Toronto in that infamous font.
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g313/MrSG-1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsnqxw75lb.png)
Now, the Clearview exit:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.998761,-90.1780827,3a,17.9y,282.06h,98.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srwV-2NGwb8G6eFGPcgqlZg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Weird how the shield on the right uses Series B, the one on the left uses Series D. Gotta love (lack) of consistency.eh?
Weird how the shield on the right uses Series B, the one on the left uses Series D. Gotta love (lack) of consistency.eh?
in the new sign, both use D.
in the old sign, both use the same number height (with B on the I-shield and C on the keystone).
both are consistent in their own way.
Weird how the shield on the right uses Series B, the one on the left uses Series D. Gotta love (lack) of consistency.eh?
in the new sign, both use D.
in the old sign, both use the same number height (with B on the I-shield and C on the keystone).
both are consistent in their own way.
The typeface is consistent within the sign itself, but not amongst other signs. Why did PennDOT use Series B for the original sign, but not the new sign?
Actually, PTC isn't the only one that uses/used Series B on their 3di shields. I've seen similar installations in other states as well.Weird how the shield on the right uses Series B, the one on the left uses Series D. Gotta love (lack) of consistency.eh?
in the new sign, both use D.
in the old sign, both use the same number height (with B on the I-shield and C on the keystone).
both are consistent in their own way.
The typeface is consistent within the sign itself, but not amongst other signs. Why did PennDOT use Series B for the original sign, but not the new sign?
That's a PTC sign. Sign consistency is not one of their strongsuits.
I prefer series D numerals for interstate shields, yes, including 3dis. I don't like the look of the series C numerals as much; the shields just don't look right IMO. It's too bad NY switched, but at least this sign in series D.
It's nice to see 15'' numerals in PA for once. Normally they use 18'' numerals, which IMO are ugly.
Strange how so many new Clearview signs are still going up. Did the states not get the memo about the interim Clearview approval being rescinded?
If I'm remembering correctly, Oklahoma didn't get off of engineer-grade sheeting until well after the switch to Clearview was under way. Try comparing Clearview with the next new FHWA Series sign you see; you might have a different result.
As we all know, Clearview is seldom seen in Florida except on OOCEA roads. I was rather surprised this morning to see Clearview mileposts, complete with Clearview numerals and all-caps "MILE" and "NORTH," on the Sawgrass Expressway (although the "869" in the shields weren't Clearview). I've seen enough Clearview numerals on signs in Virginia to recognize what certainly looked like them. Seemed really odd to see it in use on mileposts when there was no other Clearview in the area.
As we all know, Clearview is seldom seen in Florida except on OOCEA roads. I was rather surprised this morning to see Clearview mileposts, complete with Clearview numerals and all-caps "MILE" and "NORTH," on the Sawgrass Expressway (although the "869" in the shields weren't Clearview). I've seen enough Clearview numerals on signs in Virginia to recognize what certainly looked like them. Seemed really odd to see it in use on mileposts when there was no other Clearview in the area.
Having just returned from south Florida myself today, I noticed this week the same Clearview mileposts on the Turnpike (at least the mainline, don't remember if they were on the Homestead Extension). I don't remember seeing them anywhere else, though I wasn't on the Sawgrass.
Strange how so many new Clearview signs are still going up. Did the states not get the memo about the interim Clearview approval being rescinded?
Strange how so many new Clearview signs are still going up. Did the states not get the memo about the interim Clearview approval being rescinded?
Basically, if a sign was already in the pipeline using Clearview, it got to stay Clearview.
I caught another Clearview transition yesterday. U.S. 29 southbound near Columbia, Maryland approaching the MD-175 interchange. I didn't take a picture.
I caught a Clearview sign being installed yesterday eastbound on the Pennsylvania Turnpike on approach to the Susquehanna River bridge; this is in between the Harrisburg West and Harrisburg East interchanges. The Highway Gothic sign was still up.
(http://i.imgur.com/CMykec3.jpg)
Strange how so many new Clearview signs are still going up. Did the states not get the memo about the interim Clearview approval being rescinded?
Basically, if a sign was already in the pipeline using Clearview, it got to stay Clearview.
That's only fair. Kudos to states either moving away completely from CV or at least the remaining signs having the proper usage
That's only fair. Kudos to states either moving away completely from CV or at least the remaining signs having the proper usage
It would be interesting to see a list of which states have already stopped using Clearview. ADOT and ALDOT were already phasing out Clearview prior to this year, although with ADOT new logo signs were still using Clearview until very recently. VDOT also seemed to get the memo pretty quickly as well.
I caught another Clearview transition yesterday. U.S. 29 southbound near Columbia, Maryland approaching the MD-175 interchange. I didn't take a picture.
The new signs on US 29 used Clearview or FHWA fonts?
I caught another Clearview transition yesterday. U.S. 29 southbound near Columbia, Maryland approaching the MD-175 interchange. I didn't take a picture.
The new signs on US 29 used Clearview or FHWA fonts?
I don't know the difference. I thought every new sign was Clearview.
I caught another Clearview transition yesterday. U.S. 29 southbound near Columbia, Maryland approaching the MD-175 interchange. I didn't take a picture.
The new signs on US 29 used Clearview or FHWA fonts?
I don't know the difference. I thought every new sign was Clearview.
Yep, as you can see, Clearview has a more feminine appearance.
Yep, as you can see, Clearview has a more feminine appearance.
Yep, as you can see, Clearview has a more feminine appearance.
I caught a Clearview sign being installed yesterday eastbound on the Pennsylvania Turnpike on approach to the Susquehanna River bridge; this is in between the Harrisburg West and Harrisburg East interchanges. The Highway Gothic sign was still up.
(http://i.imgur.com/CMykec3.jpg)
Given that this BGS is along the eastbound lanes; I would've used the sign change as an opportunity to have Lancaster replace the Hershey listing on the primary signs and place Hershey on the supplemental signs; the opposite of what's presently there.I caught a Clearview sign being installed yesterday eastbound on the Pennsylvania Turnpike on approach to the Susquehanna River bridge; this is in between the Harrisburg West and Harrisburg East interchanges. The Highway Gothic sign was still up.
(http://i.imgur.com/CMykec3.jpg)
UPDATE: The Highway Gothic sign is now gone.
(http://i.imgur.com/U2WWSwg.jpg)
To me, the Highway Gothic numbers look a LOT better than the Clearview numbers.Agree. Then again, the supposed readability issues associated with Highway Gothic (which motivated the launch of the Clearview font) was with mixed-cased lettering (mainly w/wider-stroked letters); not numerals.
I have been noticing a few new signs in FHWA here in the Phoenix area, and it appears that there are a few kinks that ADOT needs to work out with its use of FHWA fonts other than Series E(M). It appears that a few of the new FHWA signs have some issues with formatting. Perhaps ADOT's sign contractors are attempting to use FHWA Series D/E in templates that were designed for Clearview as a drop-in replacement. Also, I have seen new exit gore signs using both Series D and Series E, and I even saw one on Loop 202 westbound (Exit 46 McQueen Road) that has the "4" in Series D and the "6" in Series E.
Judging by all the news articles, it looks like he's already fighting a PR campaign. And a bill from Congress included language reversing the revocation and requiring a public comment period; not sure if that got passed or not.
Highway guide sign fonts.--In early 2016, FHWA notified state transportation agencies of its intention to rescind approval for the use of an alternate font on highway guide signs. The decision was made without adequate public consideration and input, and immediately impacted an estimated 26 states that had been given prior approval for alternate font use as a safe way to communicate with the traveling public. FHWA is directed to suspend enforcement of actions terminating the interim approval of this alternate font for highway guide signs until the agency provides an opportunity for public comment on this matter, and documents the safety and cost implications of this decision for affected states. FHWA is directed within 30 days of enactment of this Act to brief the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations regarding the process it will undertake to receive public comment.
It's in both the House and Senate reports accompanying the FY 2017 appropriations bill for DOT. The House version (https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt606/CRPT-114hrpt606.pdf) reads:Was similar consideration given (public consideration, input, etc.) given when the Clearview font first rolled out?QuoteHighway guide sign fonts.--In early 2016, FHWA notified state transportation agencies of its intention to rescind approval for the use of an alternate font on highway guide signs. The decision was made without adequate public consideration and input, and immediately impacted an estimated 26 states that had been given prior approval for alternate font use as a safe way to communicate with the traveling public. FHWA is directed to suspend enforcement of actions terminating the interim approval of this alternate font for highway guide signs until the agency provides an opportunity for public comment on this matter, and documents the safety and cost implications of this decision for affected states. FHWA is directed within 30 days of enactment of this Act to brief the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations regarding the process it will undertake to receive public comment.
Bold emphasis added:It's in both the House and Senate reports accompanying the FY 2017 appropriations bill for DOT. The House version (https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt606/CRPT-114hrpt606.pdf) reads:Was similar consideration given (public consideration, input, etc.) given when the Clearview font first rolled out?QuoteHighway guide sign fonts.--In early 2016, FHWA notified state transportation agencies of its intention to rescind approval for the use of an alternate font on highway guide signs. The decision was made without adequate public consideration and input, and immediately impacted an estimated 26 states that had been given prior approval for alternate font use as a safe way to communicate with the traveling public. FHWA is directed to suspend enforcement of actions terminating the interim approval of this alternate font for highway guide signs until the agency provides an opportunity for public comment on this matter, and documents the safety and cost implications of this decision for affected states. FHWA is directed within 30 days of enactment of this Act to brief the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations regarding the process it will undertake to receive public comment.
Additionally, since the approval was an interim approval and not permanent; to me, such means that it was only being used on a trial basis... i.e. experimental.
IMHO, given the number of states that botched its intended use; the interim approval should've been yanked sooner.
Under the MUTCD interim approval process, FHWA technically did have the discretion to yank Clearview interim approval without any consultation. But considering the amount of money states had invested in Clearview upgrades and the lack of a clear path back to pre-Clearview signing standards owing to the new requirement for mixed-case legend in the 2009 MUTCD, it would have been politic for FHWA to lay the groundwork for Clearview revocation by issuing a notice of intent to do so and taking public and agency comment on the most expeditious way of doing it. Often a straight march to the apparent technocratic solution is tantamount to political malpractice.
Was Series E even focus tested and scientifically vetted? It's 60+ years old. A lot of the issues that were brought up when Clearview was being implemented are still valid; it's no secret that it's not the ideal font choice for reasons that's long been discussed.
I vote on Transport 2012 :)
--
Edit: Answered my own question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Gothic#History).
Bold emphasis added:It's in both the House and Senate reports accompanying the FY 2017 appropriations bill for DOT. The House version (https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt606/CRPT-114hrpt606.pdf) reads:QuoteHighway guide sign fonts.--In early 2016, FHWA notified state transportation agencies of its intention to rescind approval for the use of an alternate font on highway guide signs. The decision was made without adequate public consideration and input
Was similar consideration given (public consideration, input, etc.) given when the Clearview font first rolled out?
Yet another case of politicians inserting themselves where decisions should be made solely by engineers. I don't think it's something that needs public input- the studies showing the font was better were found to be flawed and the font is actually worse under certain conditions.
From a more general standpoint, a few studies saying "Clearview doesn't seem to perform any better than Series E(M)" isn't really in and of itself a good reason to stop allowing people to use Clearview instead of E(M); to my mind, you'd need to demonstrate that Clearview is worse, which FHWA hasn't done (because it isn't). Especially when FHWA is letting people (I'm looking at you, Georgia) do stuff with the FHWA typefaces that has even less validation than the now-dismissed studies that suggested Clearview was better than E(M).
IMO what FHWA should do is organize a shoot-out of Clearview, FHWA series, Frutiger, Transport, DIN 1451, Caractères, and TERN, and allow any other typographers to submit a design as well, and let states and localities adopt whichever typefaces score in the top 2-3 positions overall, with the caveat that at least one of the selected typefaces must have a royalty-free license like FHWA series.
I've recently seen some recently-installed PennDOT D1 (LGS) signs featuring mix-cased Series C and D for control cities. Such were perfectly fine & legible. That said, I would stay away from using Series B; such is too narrow (IMHO) to be read at distances.
^
I understand your concerns about the other mixed case FHWA alphabets, however, what you are proposing might be a bit problematic for smaller signs (such as street name signs) unless smaller font sizes are used. I would think a narrower FHWA font at a larger size would be more legible than Series E Modified at a smaller size.
I remember Wisconsin using mixed case destinations on their two lane roads way back in the 90s but I don't remember which letter form, was it a well spaced Series E? That was very legible as well. Series E(m) is too heavy for these smaller applications.
Since we don't need the extra width for button copy, why can't we go [back?] to Series E, especially since we have upper and lowercase alphabets now? Surely someone at FHWA has thought of this, or are they too lazy/complacent with E(m)?
Since we don't need the extra width for button copy, why can't we go [back?] to Series E, especially since we have upper and lowercase alphabets now? Surely someone at FHWA has thought of this, or are they too lazy/complacent with E(m)?IIRC, some of NJDOT's first post-button copy BGS installs along I-295 were just that... Series E [but spaced like Series E(M) (?)]. Example (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9344995,-74.9659923,3a,75y,35h,95.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfCfeK9J9HTWAh_scLRh3lg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
some of NJDOT's first post-button copy BGS installs along I-295 were just that... Series E [but spaced like Series E(M) (?)]. Example (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9344995,-74.9659923,3a,75y,35h,95.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfCfeK9J9HTWAh_scLRh3lg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
From a more general standpoint, a few studies saying "Clearview doesn't seem to perform any better than Series E(M)" isn't really in and of itself a good reason to stop allowing people to use Clearview instead of E(M); to my mind, you'd need to demonstrate that Clearview is worse, which FHWA hasn't done (because it isn't). Especially when FHWA is letting people (I'm looking at you, Georgia) do stuff with the FHWA typefaces that has even less validation than the now-dismissed studies that suggested Clearview was better than E(M).
RESOLVED, AASHTO respectfully requests FHWA to reinstate the Interim Approval for the Use of Clearview Font on Positive Contrast Legends on Guide Signs (IA-5) and be it further,
RESOLVED, AASHTO requests FHWA to establish a task force to address the concerns cited in the Federal Register and provide a recommendation for each; and be it further
RESOLVED, AASHTO requests FHWA to fully examine any potential termination of an Interim Approval, in coordination with other interested stakeholders.
Found from an AASHTO link (scroll down to page 71) (http://highways.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20AM%20Boston%2c%20MA%20Mtg%20Materials/AM%202016%20Binder/SCOH%20Meeting%20Materials%20AM2016.pdf) in the North Carolina thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg2183511#msg2183511), looks like Clearview may be sticking around:QuoteRESOLVED, AASHTO respectfully requests FHWA to reinstate the Interim Approval for the Use of Clearview Font on Positive Contrast Legends on Guide Signs (IA-5) and be it further,
RESOLVED, AASHTO requests FHWA to establish a task force to address the concerns cited in the Federal Register and provide a recommendation for each; and be it further
RESOLVED, AASHTO requests FHWA to fully examine any potential termination of an Interim Approval, in coordination with other interested stakeholders.
This request is ridiculous. It's the FHWA's right to rescind the interim approval, which is only for testing, no so states can wholesale replace existing practices. Nobody has a "right" to keep making Clearview signs any more than someone who's in a clinical trial for an experimental drug has a right to keep taking the drug after it's found to be less effective than a placebo.
It's only mediocre quality when states can't hire qualified people to operate software to design signs to correct specifications. How many know anything about kerning? Graphic design? Padding and margins? Type height? From the look of some of signs installed in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York and Michigan, basic skills to design signs was not even a consideration. It's a mess of font heights, awful kerning, stretched letters and inadequate margins. Granted some of these issues were prevalent before Clearview, you can't blame a font for the shortcomings of ill-educated workers.
It's only mediocre quality when states can't hire qualified people to operate software to design signs to correct specifications. How many know anything about kerning? Graphic design? Padding and margins? Type height? From the look of some of signs installed in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York and Michigan, basic skills to design signs was not even a consideration. It's a mess of font heights, awful kerning, stretched letters and inadequate margins. Granted some of these issues were prevalent before Clearview, you can't blame a font for the shortcomings of ill-educated workers.
The push for Clearview was Meeker and Associates trying to make a buck. If they truly wanted to improve road sign legibility, they would have designed Clearview under a grant and then made the work public domain or open source and not charge a fee per workstation to use the lettering.
Money talks. I guarantee that someone has a lobbyist in Washington. At least NYSTA won't be switching back regardless of the outcome.They've certainly been raising a stink in the press. How many articles have their been slamming the FHWA for "government overreach" and "oppressing the makers and users of Clearview"? And none on how the initial studies on Clearview were fraudulent in the first place!
It's only mediocre quality when states can't hire qualified people to operate software to design signs to correct specifications. How many know anything about kerning? Graphic design? Padding and margins? Type height? From the look of some of signs installed in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York and Michigan, basic skills to design signs was not even a consideration. It's a mess of font heights, awful kerning, stretched letters and inadequate margins. Granted some of these issues were prevalent before Clearview, you can't blame a font for the shortcomings of ill-educated workers.I don't know if ANY state uses graphic designers to make road signs. In NYSDOT, it tends to be technicians without a college degree or licensed engineers (in other words, whoever they could get to do the work). In any case, signs with issues DO tend to look uglier with Clearview than they would with FHWA; basically, Clearview is less forgiving of mistakes than the FHWA fonts are.
They've certainly been raising a stink in the press. How many articles have their been slamming the FHWA for "government overreach" and "oppressing the makers and users of Clearview"? And none on how the initial studies on Clearview were fraudulent in the first place!
How often are interim approvals closed without MUTCD implementation?
And the interim approval was for positive contrast destination legend ONLY, never for street sign blades, shield numerals, exit number numerals, distance numerals, any kind of numerals actually other than those in a destination proper name (e.g., 96th St), cardinal directions in ALL CAPS, action messages in ALL CAPS, all of which Clearview ran rampant with the tacit encouragement of the makers of Clearview by their photos on their web site.
Clearview has a lot of finicky things that make it more difficult to design with. The biggest one of these that I've run into is that letters with ascenders like 'l' and 'd' reach higher than the capital letters do. Many commercial typefaces share this characteristic, which is fine, because designers tend to set type in a certain number of points and let the software calculate how that translates into physical size. (Think using MS Word–you don't set a line of type as 1" tall, you set it as 72 pt.) However, SHS and MUTCD standards call out specific heights in inches that text must be, and Clearview makes it more difficult to follow that since you have to make an allowance for the ascenders.
Here is the FHWA's official response on the complaints about the termination of the interim approval for Clearview:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-13/html/2016-29819.htm
The FHWA is seeking information from state and local agencies that may have not been available to them when the termination of the interim approval was announced.
I'm just curious what "new" information are they going to get from the state and local agencies? Is it going to be constructive or is it going to descend into a bitch-fest about how much money was sunk into converting to Clearview?
I'm just curious what "new" information are they going to get from the state and local agencies? Is it going to be constructive or is it going to descend into a bitch-fest about how much money was sunk into converting to Clearview?
My guess is that the latter is exactly what FHWA is expecting. Then they can say "We held a comment period and no new technical data justifying the use of Clearview came to light, so our decision stands."
I'm just curious what "new" information are they going to get from the state and local agencies? Is it going to be constructive or is it going to descend into a bitch-fest about how much money was sunk into converting to Clearview?
My guess is that the latter is exactly what FHWA is expecting. Then they can say "We held a comment period and no new technical data justifying the use of Clearview came to light, so our decision stands."
If that happens, I would not be surprised to see the issue end up in litigation.
What would the argument be?
What would the argument be?
Perhaps the FHWA hadn't performed enough research before revoking Clearview. Or, that the overwhelming data available for much of Clearview's life suggested that is was superior (and was worth investing in). Until very recently, there wasn't a lot of data that suggested that Clearview wouldn't have been implemented in the next MUTCD (besides studies showing Clearview superiority up until now, the vast majority (read: ~99%) of interim approvals are implemented into the manual). The FHWA very quickly did a 180 and pulled the plug after some studies suggested inferior readability in some circumstances (keeping in mind that the plug was pulled back in April 2014 when Gray's Harbor County, Washington was denied a Clearview IA). I suspect that some agencies feel cheated, regardless of the interim approval status.
Full disclosure: I like Clearview.
What would the argument be?
Perhaps the FHWA hadn't performed enough research before revoking Clearview. Or, that the overwhelming data available for much of Clearview's life suggested that is was superior (and was worth investing in). Until very recently, there wasn't a lot of data that suggested that Clearview wouldn't have been implemented in the next MUTCD (besides studies showing Clearview superiority up until now, the vast majority (read: ~99%) of interim approvals are implemented into the manual). The FHWA very quickly did a 180 and pulled the plug after some studies suggested inferior readability in some circumstances (keeping in mind that the plug was pulled back in April 2014 when Gray's Harbor County, Washington was denied a Clearview IA). I suspect that some agencies feel cheated, regardless of the interim approval status.
Full disclosure: I like Clearview.
And how about we reverse that argument: not enough research was performed before giving approvals to begin using Clearview. One could say the creation of Clearview was a waste of money without exhaustively testing other variations of the existing FHWA series of fonts, as many have suggested in this topic thread. Were other alternatives developed besides Clearview? How competitive of a process was the decision to go with Terminal Design, Inc for the font development?
And how about we reverse that argument: not enough research was performed before giving approvals to begin using Clearview. One could say the creation of Clearview was a waste of money without exhaustively testing other variations of the existing FHWA series of fonts, as many have suggested in this topic thread.
F. An agreement to restore the site(s) of the interim approval to a condition that complies with the provisions
in this Manual within 3 months following the issuance of a final rule on this traffic control device. This
agreement must also provide that the agency sponsoring the interim approval will terminate use of the
device or application installed under the interim approval at any time that it determines significant safety
concerns are directly or indirectly attributable to the device or application. The FHWA’s Office of
Transportation Operations has the right to terminate the interim approval at any time if there is an
indication of safety concerns.
My point is not that Clearview is better. I believe it's comparable, if not, superior in some cases, inferior in others (likewise, the FHWA fonts are superior and inferior in their own ways). I feel as though states that were granted interim approval to use Clearview were misled as to the supposed benefits of Clearview (as long as the latest studies are to be believed), and they feel cheated after having dumped millions into the font.And how about we reverse that argument: not enough research was performed before giving approvals to begin using Clearview. One could say the creation of Clearview was a waste of money without exhaustively testing other variations of the existing FHWA series of fonts, as many have suggested in this topic thread.
You're convicting the defendant, you know? Even more of a reason to go to court. The FHWA allowed Clearview to explode into this nation-wide phenomenon, even though it was half-baked from the get-go (apparently). At the very least, states may seek refunds for time and money invested into Clearview.
Agencies trying to fight to have Clearview back would have a much stronger leg to stand on if it had been added to the 2009 MUTCD and then backed out in a subsequent issue.
As it stands, Clearview was added through a interim approval. In order to participate in the Clearview IA, the requesting agency had to agree to abide by §1A.10 of the 2003 MUTCD (most likely there is an equivalent section of the 2009 MUTCD, but the majority of the IAs were issued under the 2003 MUTCD). The relevant clause states:
...
Every IA participation request had to include an explicit agreement to comply with this segment. (For example, Oklahoma's IA request states "We further agree to comply with Item F at the bottom of Page 1A-6 of the 2003 MUTCD...") Every road agency who purchased a Clearview license knew what they were getting into.
I liken the dumping of Clearview to a hypothetical situation where the FHWA dumps the flashing yellow arrows (which could be done at any point without warning, apparently). Some states, like Oregon, have very few 5-section signals left. Basically the whole state is littered with FYAs. How would you feel if you were Oregon? Studies were showing all along the benefits of the FYA. Then, out of the blue, a study shows up that shows the FYA to be inferior to the 5-section signal, the FHWA pulls the plug, and you're left with a bunch of non-compliant signals. At the very least, you want your day in court. Even if it proves to be futile, you want to defend your investment.The FHWA isn't requiring any signs to be replaced. The Clearview signs can stay as long as they are otherwise serviceable, at which point, they would need to be replaced regardless of the status of Clearview.
The states should be going after Meeker and Associates for their propaganda surrounding the use of Clearview and their unreasonably high licensing fees. If they were really trying to make the roads safer by designing a new typeface, they should have designed, sought retribution for the design from the FHWA and then released it to the masses for free. They were trying to make a buck and they're now butt-hurt that the Federal Government saw through their ruse. The states that went all crazy with something that had only an Interim Approval should be going after Meeker and Associates, not trying to get mediocrity passed off as a standard.
I liken the dumping of Clearview to a hypothetical situation where the FHWA dumps the flashing yellow arrows (which could be done at any point without warning, apparently). Some states, like Oregon, have very few 5-section signals left. Basically the whole state is littered with FYAs. How would you feel if you were Oregon? Studies were showing all along the benefits of the FYA. Then, out of the blue, a study shows up that shows the FYA to be inferior to the 5-section signal, the FHWA pulls the plug, and you're left with a bunch of non-compliant signals. At the very least, you want your day in court. Even if it proves to be futile, you want to defend your investment.
The FHWA isn't requiring any signs to be replaced. The Clearview signs can stay as long as they are otherwise serviceable, at which point, they would need to be replaced regardless of the status of Clearview.
The states should be going after Meeker and Associates for their propaganda surrounding the use of Clearview and their unreasonably high licensing fees. If they were really trying to make the roads safer by designing a new typeface, they should have designed, sought retribution for the design from the FHWA and then released it to the masses for free. They were trying to make a buck and they're now butt-hurt that the Federal Government saw through their ruse. The states that went all crazy with something that had only an Interim Approval should be going after Meeker and Associates, not trying to get mediocrity passed off as a standard.
I don't agree with that. No state would be allowed to use Clearview if not for the FHWA. Once the FHWA gave Clearview its "blessing", if you will, they put themselves in a position to accept blow-back from any poor performance that was discovered over Clearview's lifetime.
I liken the dumping of Clearview to a hypothetical situation where the FHWA dumps the flashing yellow arrows (which could be done at any point without warning, apparently). Some states, like Oregon, have very few 5-section signals left. Basically the whole state is littered with FYAs. How would you feel if you were Oregon? Studies were showing all along the benefits of the FYA. Then, out of the blue, a study shows up that shows the FYA to be inferior to the 5-section signal, the FHWA pulls the plug, and you're left with a bunch of non-compliant signals. At the very least, you want your day in court. Even if it proves to be futile, you want to defend your investment.
FYA infrastructure also came with new infrastructure modifications. FYAs must be placed over the center of a lane. A five-section signal cannot be (AFAIK).
If an exclusive left-turn, right-turn, or U-turn lane is present on an approach and if a primary separate turn signal face controlling that lane is mounted over the roadway, the primary separate turn signal face shall not be positioned any further to the right than the extension of the right-hand edge of the exclusive turn lane or any further to the left than the extension of the left-hand edge of the exclusive turn lane.
If the FYA was discontinued, they would have to be replaced by protected-only signals, or the mast arm shortened to place the five section signal over the right edge of the lane.
The states should be going after Meeker and Associates for their propaganda surrounding the use of Clearview and their unreasonably high licensing fees. If they were really trying to make the roads safer by designing a new typeface, they should have designed, sought retribution for the design from the FHWA and then released it to the masses for free. They were trying to make a buck and they're now butt-hurt that the Federal Government saw through their ruse. The states that went all crazy with something that had only an Interim Approval should be going after Meeker and Associates, not trying to get mediocrity passed off as a standard.
I don't agree with that. No state would be allowed to use Clearview if not for the FHWA. Once the FHWA gave Clearview its "blessing", if you will, they put themselves in a position to accept blow-back from any poor performance that was discovered over Clearview's lifetime.
And I disagree with that. FHWA is requiring states to use a certain font instead of letting them use any font they choose -- be it Clearview or Arial or Franklin Gothic.
The states should be going after Meeker and Associates for their propaganda surrounding the use of Clearview and their unreasonably high licensing fees. If they were really trying to make the roads safer by designing a new typeface, they should have designed, sought retribution for the design from the FHWA and then released it to the masses for free. They were trying to make a buck and they're now butt-hurt that the Federal Government saw through their ruse. The states that went all crazy with something that had only an Interim Approval should be going after Meeker and Associates, not trying to get mediocrity passed off as a standard.
I don't agree with that. No state would be allowed to use Clearview if not for the FHWA. Once the FHWA gave Clearview its "blessing", if you will, they put themselves in a position to accept blow-back from any poor performance that was discovered over Clearview's lifetime.
And I disagree with that. FHWA is requiring states to use a certain font instead of letting them use any font they choose -- be it Clearview or Arial or Franklin Gothic.
The FHWA had to have been pretty impressed by Clearview to allow its use at all. Or, maybe there's something I don't know (maybe they were forced to permit Clearview? I'm pretty sure that PA and TX heavily pushed the FHWA to permit Clearview, but they still had final say).
I wouldn't be surprised if a small donation to the right campaign account made it possible.The states should be going after Meeker and Associates for their propaganda surrounding the use of Clearview and their unreasonably high licensing fees. If they were really trying to make the roads safer by designing a new typeface, they should have designed, sought retribution for the design from the FHWA and then released it to the masses for free. They were trying to make a buck and they're now butt-hurt that the Federal Government saw through their ruse. The states that went all crazy with something that had only an Interim Approval should be going after Meeker and Associates, not trying to get mediocrity passed off as a standard.
I don't agree with that. No state would be allowed to use Clearview if not for the FHWA. Once the FHWA gave Clearview its "blessing", if you will, they put themselves in a position to accept blow-back from any poor performance that was discovered over Clearview's lifetime.
And I disagree with that. FHWA is requiring states to use a certain font instead of letting them use any font they choose -- be it Clearview or Arial or Franklin Gothic.
The FHWA had to have been pretty impressed by Clearview to allow its use at all. Or, maybe there's something I don't know (maybe they were forced to permit Clearview? I'm pretty sure that PA and TX heavily pushed the FHWA to permit Clearview, but they still had final say).
The states should be going after Meeker and Associates for their propaganda surrounding the use of Clearview and their unreasonably high licensing fees. If they were really trying to make the roads safer by designing a new typeface, they should have designed, sought retribution for the design from the FHWA and then released it to the masses for free. They were trying to make a buck and they're now butt-hurt that the Federal Government saw through their ruse. The states that went all crazy with something that had only an Interim Approval should be going after Meeker and Associates, not trying to get mediocrity passed off as a standard.
I don't agree with that. No state would be allowed to use Clearview if not for the FHWA. Once the FHWA gave Clearview its "blessing", if you will, they put themselves in a position to accept blow-back from any poor performance that was discovered over Clearview's lifetime.
And I disagree with that. FHWA is requiring states to use a certain font instead of letting them use any font they choose -- be it Clearview or Arial or Franklin Gothic.
The FHWA had to have been pretty impressed by Clearview to allow its use at all. Or, maybe there's something I don't know (maybe they were forced to permit Clearview? I'm pretty sure that PA and TX heavily pushed the FHWA to permit Clearview, but they still had final say).
HB's point was a philosophical one. He wants states to have more freedom in their signage practices (among other things). His objection was not about Clearview or another font specifically, but rather the general ability of FHWA to disallow any font.
And while I agree that control of fonts may be a bit too harsh, I am pretty sure someone would use Comic Sans Serif the day after all limitations are lifted. Which may be a bit harsh...
The comparison does not work. Flashing yellow arrows fully made it into the 2009 MUTCD
In terms of typography, both the fonts and the software have been very primitive. On top of that the problem was compounded when road signs were being designed by people who obviously had no talent for sign design. I have absolutely no sympathy at all over that last part, especially when the "designers" had all sorts of existing templates to use. They just had no talent for graphic design and no talent with computers either.
In terms of typography, both the fonts and the software have been very primitive. On top of that the problem was compounded when road signs were being designed by people who obviously had no talent for sign design. I have absolutely no sympathy at all over that last part, especially when the "designers" had all sorts of existing templates to use. They just had no talent for graphic design and no talent with computers either.
I keep reading that the FHWA letters are primitive. This is mind boggling to me. We all do understand that they're not fonts and shouldn't be treated as fonts, correct? They're lines and curves. They were designed specifically for conveying messages on road signs, along a very specific set of guidelines, in a legible manner. The only shapes available in the "font" are the shapes that are required to meet those guidelines.
Do fellow road geeks believe that people are running off the roads, weeping on the shoulders and that chaos is gripping our transportation network because the letters on the road signs look "primitive"? Yes, manufacturing methods of changed and we no longer have metal letters with reflectors embedded in them, but the shape of the lettering used is recognizable, passes many legibility tests and has withstood the test of time.
Road signs are not graphic design projects. They are engineering projects. I know that folks like to make really cute looking road signs on their computers with all sorts of software in hopes of being the Next Greatest Thing for Transportation, but the fact of the matter is, FHWA legend with proper letter placement and spacing is all that you need. If folks took the time to lay out a sign properly on any standard CAD program instead of relying on these mediocre software packages that do nothing but save money with mediocre at best results, signs would have a consistent look and convey their intended messages as expected.
Modify Series E(m) to use a thinner stroke (Series E(em)) and the problem is solved.
In addition, this practice of adding more and more and more legend to signs and moving elements (exit tabs) around and highlighting words (LEFT EXIT) and installing gigantic signs with outrageously large arrows (APL) and using different letter forms on the same sign panel and loading up the sign with graphics is getting ridiculous.
ROUTE 98
Batavia
EXIT 48 1 MILE
It doesn't get any easier than that to understand. Stopping changing things for the sake of change and KISS.
Clearview has an extended Latin/European character set. Neither Clearview or old Series Gothic had a native small capitals character set, even though the MUTCD mandates large cap/small cap use on some items.
I keep reading that the FHWA letters are primitive. This is mind boggling to me.
Road signs are not graphic design projects. They are engineering projects. I know that folks like to make really cute looking road signs on their computers with all sorts of software in hopes of being the Next Greatest Thing for Transportation, but the fact of the matter is, FHWA legend with proper letter placement and spacing is all that you need. If folks took the time to lay out a sign properly on any standard CAD program instead of relying on these mediocre software packages that do nothing but save money with mediocre at best results, signs would have a consistent look and convey their intended messages as expected.
In addition, this practice of adding more and more and more legend to signs and moving elements (exit tabs) around and highlighting words (LEFT EXIT) and installing gigantic signs with outrageously large arrows (APL) and using different letter forms on the same sign panel and loading up the sign with graphics is getting ridiculous.
ROUTE 98
Batavia
EXIT 48 1 MILE
It doesn't get any easier than that to understand. Stopping changing things for the sake of change and KISS.
As I've said before and as you have just reiterated, there are ways the current FHWA series can be modified to fix the minor issues it has. Just because you don't like the design/function of a room or two in your house, do you bulldoze the entire house and start from scratch? No, unless the rest of the house has major flaws, you fix-up just what's wrong.
I have to agree, first letter in "North"/"South" often looks disproportional. But that is more about gradual improvement than anything else. I don't know how much font update would cost, but probably less than a mile of interstate highway...
The FHWA font family needs an update to include Latin/European characters, as well as native small capitals. Non-native small capitals have narrower strokes, because the sign designer took a larger character and shrunk it down. This is most evident when you see a cardinal direction (image via Pop. Mechanics). Notice how the small capitals are narrower strokes? Each letter should have the same stroke width:
You have to be kidding me. Name one thing in the MUTCD that was changed without reason.
The FHWA font family needs an update to include Latin/European characters, as well as native small capitals. Non-native small capitals have narrower strokes, because the sign designer took a larger character and shrunk it down. This is most evident when you see a cardinal direction (image via Pop. Mechanics). Notice how the small capitals are narrower strokes? Each letter should have the same stroke width:
Road signs are not graphic design projects. They are engineering projects. I know that folks like to make really cute looking road signs on their computers with all sorts of software in hopes of being the Next Greatest Thing for Transportation, but the fact of the matter is, FHWA legend with proper letter placement and spacing is all that you need. If folks took the time to lay out a sign properly on any standard CAD program instead of relying on these mediocre software packages that do nothing but save money with mediocre at best results, signs would have a consistent look and convey their intended messages as expected.
Signs are graphic design projects. You can't put them in some special category, just because they relate to the heavily-standardised system that is the MUTCD. It still takes the eye of a graphic designer to make the sure the sign is laid out in the most efficient manner possible. And I'd be willing to be that, if we replaced most sign engineers with graphic designers that are MUTCD-trained (whatever that means), you'd see a lot less poorly-laid-out signs and goofs. Just a guess, though.
And while I agree that control of fonts may be a bit too harsh, I am pretty sure someone would use Comic Sans Serif the day after all limitations are lifted. Which may be a bit harsh...
Quick and dirty Google search...
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1179/1086349294_df82515b13.jpg)
(It's a fake.)
Road signs are not graphic design projects. They are engineering projects. I know that folks like to make really cute looking road signs on their computers with all sorts of software in hopes of being the Next Greatest Thing for Transportation, but the fact of the matter is, FHWA legend with proper letter placement and spacing is all that you need. If folks took the time to lay out a sign properly on any standard CAD program instead of relying on these mediocre software packages that do nothing but save money with mediocre at best results, signs would have a consistent look and convey their intended messages as expected.
It does have native small capitals. Try using a capital in Series E with the small caps in Series EM. Assuming you follow the height ratio the MUTCD prescribes, the stroke widths come out exactly the same. Astonishing.
The fault really isn't with the font, it's with people not knowing or not caring what they're doing with the font.
FHWA is making its way back to Ohio. About two weeks ago, I saw this on 4 south coming into Dayton. This was recently button copy. For whatever reason, they have replaced all signage on 75 and 4 to direct Children's Hospital traffic down Stanley Ave instead of the Troy St exit (the hospital is right next to the Troy St exit). The signs along 75 are also in FHWA but more normal (i.e., dedicated BBS saying "Dayton Children's Hospital EXIT 56" instead of slapping it atop the BGS).
I took a picture because at first I thought this was an example of Enhanced E Modified, but I later realized it's just E(M) with oddly wide spacing.
(http://i.imgur.com/Qm9DJaK.jpg)
I have been noticing that at freeway interchanges, Mesa, AZ has been lately replacing their older illuminated Helvetica street name signs with non-illuminated retroreflective signs in mixed case Highway Gothic Series D. Mesa was one of the first cities in the Valley to use Clearview and is found in a lot of places within the city. Apparently they were quick to get the memo about Clearview since I saw several street name signs in Highway Gothic go up last year. I wonder if they will switch back if the interim approval is reinstated.
Perhaps Mesa could be in the process of phasing out the older pre-Clearview Helvetica signs that were used for signalized intersections.
I doubt the interim approval will be reinstated. It's an interim approval and new data suggested that it was inferior.
Pfft. No.
I doubt the interim approval will be reinstated. It's an interim approval and new data suggested that it was inferior.
I just wonder if the Clearview proponents won't lobby Congress to get use of the font enacted into law?
Here is information on a more recent study on Clearview:Looking at the paper, I would say that best conclusion would be "it really makes so little difference"...
http://agelab.mit.edu/news/jonathan-dobres-leads-award-winning-research-highway-sign-fonts
This study finds Clearview to be more legible in all cases, even in negative contrast orientation.
Here is information on a more recent study on Clearview:
http://agelab.mit.edu/news/jonathan-dobres-leads-award-winning-research-highway-sign-fonts
This study finds Clearview to be more legible in all cases, even in negative contrast orientation.
Looking at the paper, I would say that best conclusion would be "it really makes so little difference"...
Here is information on a more recent study on Clearview:
http://agelab.mit.edu/news/jonathan-dobres-leads-award-winning-research-highway-sign-fonts
This study finds Clearview to be more legible in all cases, even in negative contrast orientation.
Here is information on a more recent study on Clearview:
http://agelab.mit.edu/news/jonathan-dobres-leads-award-winning-research-highway-sign-fonts
This study finds Clearview to be more legible in all cases, even in negative contrast orientation.
I would like to see more info on this "laboratory-based assessment" that is supposedly better than actual signs on a test track.
Do you have a TRB account? I wasn't able to view the paper.
The only thing I can see is the summary, which seems to indicate that Clearview performed better than Highway Gothic across the board.
The only thing I can see is the summary, which seems to indicate that Clearview performed better than Highway Gothic across the board.
That is a very misleading way of putting it. (I am not jumping on you--this is the fault of the abstract.) The only typefaces they tested were FHWA Series E Modified, Clearview 5-W, and Clearview 5-B
I'm going to assume series EEM was not considered in this study...After skimming through the pdf that J N Winkler posted; I would assume not. Which is a shame given that the whole Interim Approval was implemented in response to readability issues associated with the thicknesses of the mixed cased Series EM font (post-button-copy); especially with shorter, lower-case letters involving arcs or loops (letters a, c, & o for examples). The EEM examples I've seen out in the field addresses those readability issues without changing to a completely different font.
Not sure if you meant myself or the abstract when you say that it's misleading, but when I said "across the board", I meant in all cases where Clearview could be used, not that Clearview is superior when comparing similar weights.
I live in Greenwich and no one takes that don't block the box serious.. the sign is crappy lookingwhat does the hourglass mean?
That shape is painted on the pavement on the spot you're not supposed to block in each of the northbound lanes. You can see them the lower left of my photo. They're also visible on Google's satellite view (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.033779,-73.623827&spn=0.000967,0.002411&t=h&z=19) and Bing's "birds eye" view (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=qv52838vy67g&style=o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&scene=15478613&encType=1) (the sign is visible but not legible in street view (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.033694,-73.624084&spn=0,359.995177&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.033593,-73.624183&panoid=bp7JFaJfQdIHGZjlK8NLVg&cbp=12,63.67,,1,1.25)).
The city of Dallas seems to be continuing use of Clearview on street blade signs and guide signs.
As far as the state, so far any new/recent TxDOT green guide signage is still Clearview. I've not seen any kind of return to FHWA style.
MDOT (Michigan) is still using Clearview. A sign replacement project on I-696 started a couple weeks ago and the new BGSs are in Clearview.One has to wonder when were the project drawings approved?
If they are just installing signs now, I would suspect the project design drawings were initially approved prior to FHWA rescinding the IA for Clearview. Even if the project were advertised for bids after the IA was rescinded, MDOT may have made the decision not to revise the sign designs for cost and scheduling reasons.MDOT (Michigan) is still using Clearview. A sign replacement project on I-696 started a couple weeks ago and the new BGSs are in Clearview.One has to wonder when were the project drawings approved?
Here is a document on MDOT's interim guidance on the Clearview termination issue:
http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mdot%20interim%20guidance%20-%20clearview%20termination.pdf
So guess what? A set of traffic signals along Route 24 in Bel Air, Maryland previously had Clearview font on the signs stating the names of the cross-streets. The SHA or whoever is in the process of replacing the wire signals at these intersections with mast-arms. The mast-arms have yet to be switched on, but yesterday, I noticed that they added the street markers, and they're printed in Highway Gothic. I am aware of the Clearview recall and this is obviously a result. The funny thing is, I saw someone joke in a thread in reply to a post from 2005 depicting a Highway Gothic Interstate sign in Michigan being replaced by a Clearview sign. The user's joke was, "If this was 2017, the Clearview sign would be getting replaced by the Highway Gothic sign". And now I'm witnessing some Clearview signs get replaced by Highway Gothic signs. Crazy.
The cities of Fife and Lakewood, WA previously used Clearview for their street blades, but switched back to Highway Gothic well over three years ago, long before the IA was pulled. AFAIK, neither of these cities received approval to use Clearview, so I suspect they stopped using the typeface as a cautionary, "we'd rather not get caught" move, rather than a "Clearview may not be as great as we thought so we're reverting" move.
The cities of Fife and Lakewood, WA previously used Clearview for their street blades, but switched back to Highway Gothic well over three years ago, long before the IA was pulled. AFAIK, neither of these cities received approval to use Clearview, so I suspect they stopped using the typeface as a cautionary, "we'd rather not get caught" move, rather than a "Clearview may not be as great as we thought so we're reverting" move.
We're talking street blades right? If the FHWA starts cracking down on cities using alternate typefaces for their street blades, I would be *really* surprised. While San Jose's new blades use mixed-cased Highway Gothic (the old ones did too), Santa Clara is still using Clearview, Mountain View and Sunnyvale continue to use all-caps Highway Gothic and Cupertino (my hometown) uses Bookman.
The reason why you see such variance in MUTCD compliance with blade signs is because cities are more or less on the honor system to follow the MUTCD. The only mechanism FHWA has to enforce MUTCD compliance is withholding of federal highway funding. Cities usually don't get all that much federal highway funding in the first place, so it's not much of a threat.I guess that's why Cullman has such bad signs that no-one's really done anything about.
I e-mailed MDOT and asked if the sign plans were available for viewing online, but received no reply.
And also explains why Atchison, KS is still putting up brand-new Clearview street blades.The reason why you see such variance in MUTCD compliance with blade signs is because cities are more or less on the honor system to follow the MUTCD. The only mechanism FHWA has to enforce MUTCD compliance is withholding of federal highway funding. Cities usually don't get all that much federal highway funding in the first place, so it's not much of a threat.I guess that's why Cullman has such bad signs that no-one's really done anything about.
I e-mailed MDOT and asked if the sign plans were available for viewing online, but received no reply.
I-696 signing plans can be downloaded here:
http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/eprop/index.cfm?action=showCall&letting=170106&originalLet=170106&sr=5
In order to load the actual project advertisement with the documentation without running into a login redirect, you have to be logged in to the Eproposals site. If you do not have an Eproposals account, you can create one by following the "New user registration" link found here:
http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/eprop/login/index.cfm
Ignore the "Vendor number" field (unless, of course, you have a vendor number); it is not obligatory. Use a throwaway password because the login mechanism is not secure (HTTPS was used in the past, but plain HTTP is used now).
I do have the signing sheets extracted and most if not all of them have 2016-10-28 as a nominal date (probably a plotting date). This project was advertised probably in December 2016 for a letting in early January 2017. I suspect it was not considered a suitable candidate for redesign with FHWA alphabet series because it has high structural content (engineer's estimate of $7 million-$10 million versus the usual $1 million or so when panels only are being replaced).
Oh boy, politicians trying to force through what specialists and engineers didn't approve of. Fun stuff.
Oh boy, politicians trying to force through what specialists and engineers didn't approve of. Fun stuff.There are indeed many studies that show Clearview having an advantage, and what these politicians believe is that the FHWA is selectively choosing the studies showing that Clearview is inferior. In fact, the MAJORITY of studies apparently show Clearview being superior at least in positive contrast application, yet the FHWA is choosing a fringe minority study to rescind its interim approval.
Oh boy, politicians trying to force through what specialists and engineers didn't approve of. Fun stuff.There are indeed many studies that show Clearview having an advantage, and what these politicians believe is that the FHWA is selectively choosing the studies showing that Clearview is inferior. In fact, the MAJORITY of studies apparently show Clearview being superior at least in positive contrast application, yet the FHWA is choosing a fringe minority study to rescind its interim approval.
Yes, studies which many of us have agreed were flawed to begin with.
Yay...more politics getting in the way of real science :clap: :clap: Regardless of how FHWA went about the font IA process, I still have heartburn over something a company will continue to receive profits for beyond the initial contract, in the form of each agency having to buy a license to use the font for public roadways. Great business model for them; more having our hands tied for taxpayers.
And if engineers would be able to have their say, everything would go back to the drawing board...further exploring modifications to the existing FHWA fonts, e.g., utilizing a thinner-stroke series (like D or E), but at a typical E-modified letter height. Remove the E-modified altogether, since its original purpose is not needed any longer (to accommodate reflective buttons). Find a font that works for all instances, instead of Clearview for this FHWA Series for that. As seen in the threads on this forum, designers and fabricators are having a hard enough time following instructions. :pan:
Oh boy, politicians trying to force through what specialists and engineers didn't approve of. Fun stuff.There are indeed many studies that show Clearview having an advantage, and what these politicians believe is that the FHWA is selectively choosing the studies showing that Clearview is inferior. In fact, the MAJORITY of studies apparently show Clearview being superior at least in positive contrast application, yet the FHWA is choosing a fringe minority study to rescind its interim approval.
Yes, studies which many of us have agreed were flawed to begin with.
Yay...more politics getting in the way of real science :clap: :clap: Regardless of how FHWA went about the font IA process, I still have heartburn over something a company will continue to receive profits for beyond the initial contract, in the form of each agency having to buy a license to use the font for public roadways. Great business model for them; more having our hands tied for taxpayers.
And if engineers would be able to have their say, everything would go back to the drawing board...further exploring modifications to the existing FHWA fonts, e.g., utilizing a thinner-stroke series (like D or E), but at a typical E-modified letter height. Remove the E-modified altogether, since its original purpose is not needed any longer (to accommodate reflective buttons). Find a font that works for all instances, instead of Clearview for this FHWA Series for that. As seen in the threads on this forum, designers and fabricators are having a hard enough time following instructions. :pan:
What about the recent MIT study? This study lacks the inherent flaw of the original Clearview study (comparing worn signs in FHWA to brand new signs in Clearview).
To require the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration to issue a final rule that approves the use of Clearview font for positive contrast legends on guide signs, and for other purposes
We will have to wait for actual bill text, which is not yet available, to find out what these "other purposes" are. My guess is that they are unimportant sundries.
"And for other purposes" is standard legislative boilerplate that means (a) the short title doesn't have to be changed if the bill is amended to do something else in the future and (b) nobody can complain that the short title doesn't fully describe what the bill does, since it may do other things beyond those spelled out in the short title.
If it reaches a floor vote I'll be writing my representative to oppose it.
I doubt it will get that far, though. This feels like a "died in committee" type of bill. Even if it makes it further, the current House is dysfunctional enough that they probably couldn't agree on a pizza order.
Oh boy, politicians trying to force through what specialists and engineers didn't approve of. Fun stuff.
There are indeed many studies that show Clearview having an advantage, and what these politicians believe is that the FHWA is selectively choosing the studies showing that Clearview is inferior. In fact, the MAJORITY of studies apparently show Clearview being superior at least in positive contrast application, yet the FHWA is choosing a fringe minority study (the Texas A&M study) as rationale to rescind its interim approval. This is government overreach and grounds for a lawsuit IMO, since they are going against the majority of studies.
I will be keeping track of this bill and will continue to provide updates.
If it reaches a floor vote I'll be writing my representative to oppose it.
I doubt it will get that far, though. This feels like a "died in committee" type of bill. Even if it makes it further, the current House is dysfunctional enough that they probably couldn't agree on a pizza order.
Considering the cosponsors are from both political parties, I am not sure if I would agree with your statement. I think this bill will have both support and opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.
I read that press release and it reads like an advertisement to entice people to buy Clearview.
If it manages to pass, I hope that FHWA makes sure in a document approving Clearview that they make clear what it is to be allowed for
I'd say the opposite. It's easy to unite when the consequences are nil; harder when you have to own what you voted for. Keeping with the AHCA example, note how all the previous bills that were guaranteed an Obama veto passed easily. It was only when the representatives had to own the consequences of repealing/replacing the ACA (in the form of a high profile bill that had an actual chance of becoming law) that the infighting started. The only people other than the FHWA who care about Clearview, however, are the people who created it, the DOTs that enthusiastically implemented it (often incorrectly), and roadgeeks. Two of those three have political influence. Two of those three are also staunch supporters of Clearview. Unfortunately, both of those groupings are the same two!If it reaches a floor vote I'll be writing my representative to oppose it.
I doubt it will get that far, though. This feels like a "died in committee" type of bill. Even if it makes it further, the current House is dysfunctional enough that they probably couldn't agree on a pizza order.
Considering the cosponsors are from both political parties, I am not sure if I would agree with your statement. I think this bill will have both support and opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.
Not to get too far out into the weeds on politics, but the problem is within one party. Paul Ryan is barely holding the Republicans together. They couldn't come to an agreement on the AHCA, which is something the party has been salivating over for seven years, so I'm not really convinced that they could get it together over something like this that nobody actually cares about.
Congress is currently in recess, in any event.
The description says "To require the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration to issue a final rule..." Isn't that a violation of separation of powers? Can the legislative branch actually require an executive branch administrator to do anything this specific?
I realize that this may be folly since we don't have the bill text, and I may be missing something here. But is this even constitutional?Yes? I'm not an expert on constitutional law, but congressional oversight over the federal bureaucracy is a rather important check on the executive branch.
The description says "To require the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration to issue a final rule..." Isn't that a violation of separation of powers? Can the legislative branch actually require an executive branch administrator to do anything this specific?
I realize that this may be folly since we don't have the bill text, and I may be missing something here. But is this even constitutional?Yes? I'm not an expert on constitutional law, but congressional oversight over the federal bureaucracy is a rather important check on the executive branch.
The description says "To require the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration to issue a final rule..." Isn't that a violation of separation of powers? Can the legislative branch actually require an executive branch administrator to do anything this specific?
---
While I generally despise Clearview from an aesthetics standpoint, I'm inclined to support this bill on the grounds that it grants more freedom to states, and since the general scientific consensus is that Clearview is somewhere between equal and slightly better than FHWA, there's not really much harm in letting the two fonts co-exist. (Though MIDOT claiming that Clearview has somehow reduced crashes by 25% is one of the most hilarious misuses of statistics I've ever seen)
MUTCD has never been about offering equal alternatives, but about definite improvements. Congress sticking its nose into MUTCD decisions is a bad precedent.
If Clearview does make it into the MUTCD, no one should be worried (except those that are psychologically opposed to it (many of our users, I suspect)). It's still a very good typeface.
But if it does ever make a comeback, there will be one thing I will always be adamantly opposed to: using it for digits on route markers. I will write some very angry, sternly-worded letters peppered with vague hints of violence towards DOT property if that were to ever happen. ;-)
(Yes I know Clearview was never used/approved for that purpose, you don't need to tell me)
MUTCD has never been about offering equal alternatives, but about definite improvements. Congress sticking its nose into MUTCD decisions is a bad precedent.
Not necessarily. States like California are an example of how the MUTCD really only defines basic parameters, lettings states adjust small things as they see fit. Small things like how the exit tab is designed, to the shape of state route markers, to pavement markings, signal head placement, etc. For the longest time, the typeface for the signs was not one of those things. But that may change.
FHWA Clearview FAQ (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/)
Changes to the MUTCD are made to improve traffic control devices, not to offer equivalent alternatives.
The micromanagement of the FHWA administrator by passing a law is troublesome. It opens the possibility of legislators demanding other changes that they feel are appropriate, data and engineering judgement be damned. It's like a city council passing a law that the speed limit on a street shall be 20 when engineering study shows it should be 30; why have the study and the engineers in the first place if you're going to ignore or preempt them?
The micromanagement of the FHWA administrator by passing a law is troublesome. It opens the possibility of legislators demanding other changes that they feel are appropriate, data and engineering judgement be damned. It's like a city council passing a law that the speed limit on a street shall be 20 when engineering study shows it should be 30; why have the study and the engineers in the first place if you're going to ignore or preempt them?
I guess the flip side to that question is what makes the FHWA administrator's judgment of the appropriate typeface any better than the judgment of the chief engineer or department head of TxDOT or GDOT or Caltrans? Essentially some bureaucrat in Washington is telling Texas, Pennsylvania, and a bunch of other states "our engineers are better than yours" even though the evidence says that, really, the decision is a wash and thus enforcing the use of FHWA series typefaces is basically just Washington imposing an arbitrary preference without any meaningful consultation beforehand. Probably the best analogy would be if FHWA suddenly decided that all enhanced location signs (tenth-mile markers with route numbers - D10-4/5) had to have green backgrounds, even though there's no evidence that the ones with blue backgrounds are worse, without any notice of proposed rulemaking beforehand.
Anyway if anyone is micromanaging here, it's FHWA micromanaging 57 state and territorial transportation agencies.
I guess the flip side to that question is what makes the FHWA administrator's judgment of the appropriate typeface any better than the judgment of the chief engineer or department head of TxDOT or GDOT or Caltrans? Essentially some bureaucrat in Washington is telling Texas, Pennsylvania, and a bunch of other states "our engineers are better than yours" even though the evidence says that, really, the decision is a wash and thus enforcing the use of FHWA series typefaces is basically just Washington imposing an arbitrary preference without any meaningful consultation beforehand. Probably the best analogy would be if FHWA suddenly decided that all enhanced location signs (tenth-mile markers with route numbers - D10-4/5) had to have green backgrounds, even though there's no evidence that the ones with blue backgrounds are worse, without any notice of proposed rulemaking beforehand.
Anyway if anyone is micromanaging here, it's FHWA micromanaging 57 state and territorial transportation agencies.
It's not a wash. There's been three studies on Clearview. Two of them were flawed and those were the two that came out in favor of Clearview. The one that came out in favor of FHWA Series and was the only one that placed the two fonts on equal footing (same size text with the same sheeting on real-life signs). That was the one that FHWA used to make their decision.
It's not a wash. There's been three studies on Clearview. Two of them were flawed and those were the two that came out in favor of Clearview. The one that came out in favor of FHWA Series and was the only one that placed the two fonts on equal footing (same size text with the same sheeting on real-life signs). That was the one that FHWA used to make their decision.
I know one of the flawed studies compared old and new signs, which intrinsically made Clearview easier to read. But what was the other one?
I've gotten the impression over the last several years that there have been far more than three studies on Clearview. If there were in fact just three, that's not enough. The fact that the FHWA (apparently) made their decision based on a single study is/was an abhorrent decision on their part, and any fallout from that decision is probably well deserved. Maybe it's just that I'm from the Seattle area, where everything is studied ten times before a decision is reached. But tossing hundreds of millions of dollars on research away because one study showed the two fonts to be on equal footing is pretty damn insulting to the DOTs who adopted it on their own dime (IA or otherwise, it's still money lost).
It's not a wash. There's been three studies on Clearview. Two of them were flawed and those were the two that came out in favor of Clearview. The one that came out in favor of FHWA Series and was the only one that placed the two fonts on equal footing (same size text with the same sheeting on real-life signs). That was the one that FHWA used to make their decision.
I know one of the flawed studies compared old and new signs, which intrinsically made Clearview easier to read. But what was the other one?
I've gotten the impression over the last several years that there have been far more than three studies on Clearview. If there were in fact just three, that's not enough. The fact that the FHWA (apparently) made their decision based on a single study is/was an abhorrent decision on their part, and any fallout from that decision is probably well deserved. Maybe it's just that I'm from the Seattle area, where everything is studied ten times before a decision is reached. But tossing hundreds of millions of dollars on research away because one study showed the two fonts to be on equal footing is pretty damn insulting to the DOTs who adopted it on their own dime (IA or otherwise, it's still money lost).
Since these are road signs on public highways funded by the government, the governmental agencies designing and installing the signs shouldn't have to pay a private company for the right to use the "font". Engineering studies aside, as long as Clearview has a licensing fee per workstation cost associated with it, I will vehemently oppose any use of Clearview and make my feelings known to any DOT or other agency that adopts it. Highway funding can be used for something better than licensing fonts. If Meeker and Associates really wanted to improve road sign legibility and believed in that cause, they would have put Clearview out there for free.
It's not a wash. There's been three studies on Clearview. Two of them were flawed and those were the two that came out in favor of Clearview. The one that came out in favor of FHWA Series and was the only one that placed the two fonts on equal footing (same size text with the same sheeting on real-life signs). That was the one that FHWA used to make their decision.
I know one of the flawed studies compared old and new signs, which intrinsically made Clearview easier to read. But what was the other one?
I've gotten the impression over the last several years that there have been far more than three studies on Clearview. If there were in fact just three, that's not enough. The fact that the FHWA (apparently) made their decision based on a single study is/was an abhorrent decision on their part, and any fallout from that decision is probably well deserved. Maybe it's just that I'm from the Seattle area, where everything is studied ten times before a decision is reached. But tossing hundreds of millions of dollars on research away because one study showed the two fonts to be on equal footing is pretty damn insulting to the DOTs who adopted it on their own dime (IA or otherwise, it's still money lost).
Anyway if anyone is micromanaging here, it's FHWA micromanaging 57 state and territorial transportation agencies.
Agencies showed that they largely can't handle doing it right, so FHWA finally gave up and took the toys away.
Someone with more patience than me will need to go back and find it, but I think I predicted that someone would try to legalize Clearview by statute. And several others laughed at me and said it would never happen.
It's not a wash. There's been three studies on Clearview. Two of them were flawed and those were the two that came out in favor of Clearview. The one that came out in favor of FHWA Series and was the only one that placed the two fonts on equal footing (same size text with the same sheeting on real-life signs). That was the one that FHWA used to make their decision.
I know one of the flawed studies compared old and new signs, which intrinsically made Clearview easier to read. But what was the other one?
I've gotten the impression over the last several years that there have been far more than three studies on Clearview. If there were in fact just three, that's not enough. The fact that the FHWA (apparently) made their decision based on a single study is/was an abhorrent decision on their part, and any fallout from that decision is probably well deserved. Maybe it's just that I'm from the Seattle area, where everything is studied ten times before a decision is reached. But tossing hundreds of millions of dollars on research away because one study showed the two fonts to be on equal footing is pretty damn insulting to the DOTs who adopted it on their own dime (IA or otherwise, it's still money lost).
There have been far more than 3 studies....the research either way has been inconclusive...I'm completely open to adopting Clearview - IF we can get a decent amount of impartial studies showing it is better. We haven't yet.
The most recent study was done by MIT (IIRC) and just involved people reading text on monitors. I'm sure it goes without saying why that's not an accurate representation of actual field conditions.
...
the most thorough study showed that FHWA Series E-Modified performed slightly better than Clearview, and that Enhanced E-Modified (Series E glyphs with E(M) spacing) performed the best of all three.
But if it does ever make a comeback, there will be one thing I will always be adamantly opposed to: using it for digits on route markers. I will write some very angry, sternly-worded letters peppered with vague hints of violence towards DOT property if that were to ever happen. ;-)
(Yes I know Clearview was never used/approved for that purpose, you don't need to tell me)
Michigan, photo by AlpsRoads.
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/mi/i-69/n38w.jpg)
I am only aware of three studies. There may be more that I don't know about.
Lab testing is important, but when you get to the point that you are deploying the font in active signage, you need field tests that adequately reflect the situation on the ground. In the case of Clearview specifically, one of its selling points was that it countered the effects of halation, and tests on a computer screen do not adequately measure that.
Agencies showed that they largely can't handle doing it right, so FHWA finally gave up and took the toys away.
Yes, yes. They've decided to punish the states for not playing right.
This isn't primary school, Bill. The FHWA doesn't take the "toys away" for not following along. They simply ask for states to do better next time. They *can* punish states in the form of redacting federal funds, but since Clearview was experimental from the beginning, I'd be very surprised to see the FHWA go that route.
If a state decided to start using blue freeway signs, I could see the FHWA pulling federal funds. But putting Clearview in a route shield? That doesn't even deserve a slap on the wrist.
A BILL
To require the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration to issue a final rule that approves the use of Clearview font for positive contrast legends on guide signs, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Safe Innovative Guide signs for the Nation Act” or the “SIGN Act” .
SEC. 2. Clearview font permitted for positive contrast legends on guide signs.
(a) In general.–Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration shall issue a final rule that approves the use of Clearview font on positive contrast legends on guide signs. Such rule shall also be reflected in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD).
(b) Other fonts.–The rule issued pursuant to subsection (a) shall not require the use of such font but allows a jurisdiction to use the Clearview font or any other font approved by the Department of Transportation.
(c) Memorandum.–Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and notwithstanding the notice on January 25, 2016, in the Federal Register terminating the Interim Approval (IA—5) of provisional use of an alternative lettering style for positive contrast legends on guide signs and the memorandum issued by the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation Operations on January 28, 2016, regarding such termination, a jurisdiction may use Clearview font for such guide signs.
FHWA can either hope that the states and Congress go away, get overruled in the next transportation bill, or decide discretion is the better part of valor and issue an NPM to permanently authorize Clearview or reissue the IA. My guess is they'll pick door #3 once a permanent administrator is in place who's empowered to make such decisions, since in general bureaucratic agencies don't pick fights with powerful members of Congress over low-stakes issues because in the end they normally lose.
Hmmm... sounds like another case where politicians think they know more than scientists and/or researchers. :rolleyes:
I guess this is the thing that bugs me about much of this discussion. Who works for whom?
The people (taxpayers) are supposed to run the government through the directives of their elected officials.
The people (taxpayers) are supposed to run the government through the directives of their elected officials.
Do you suppose that the people of TX-3 have been overrunning Sam Johnson's office clamoring for this bill?
The people (taxpayers) are supposed to run the government through the directives of their elected officials.
Do you suppose that the people of TX-3 have been overrunning Sam Johnson's office clamoring for this bill?
Probably not. But Mr Johnson has to make decisions that he believes will benefit his district. In his eyes, this bill benefits not only his district, but the entire US.
The people (taxpayers) are supposed to run the government through the directives of their elected officials.
Do you suppose that the people of TX-3 have been overrunning Sam Johnson's office clamoring for this bill?
Probably not. But Mr Johnson has to make decisions that he believes will benefit his district. In his eyes, this bill benefits not only his district, but the entire US.
Why does Mr Johnson feel he is more qualified to make that determination than an engineer?
The people (taxpayers) are supposed to run the government through the directives of their elected officials.
Do you suppose that the people of TX-3 have been overrunning Sam Johnson's office clamoring for this bill?
Probably not. But Mr Johnson has to make decisions that he believes will benefit his district. In his eyes, this bill benefits not only his district, but the entire US.
Why does Mr Johnson feel he is more qualified to make that determination than an engineer?
Because Mr. Johnson is empowered to make such determinations via the Constitution of the United States. Elected officials, rather than engineers (or economists or just about any other profession you can imagine) are the ones who are acknowledged in our governing document as having that power.
Indeed. They are often called "representatives" for a reason: they represent the opinions of their constituents. I'm not totally sure who asked Sam Johnson to write a bill that reinstates Clearview, but he's obliged to follow through with that request if he feels that it's in his district's best interest.
IMO elected officials should limit themselves to the overall direction (if they can even do that well; given the recent track record, count me skeptical) and leave the details to the people who actually know what they're doing.
IMO elected officials should limit themselves to the overall direction (if they can even do that well; given the recent track record, count me skeptical) and leave the details to the people who actually know what they're doing.
That's not just an opinion, that's how the government is supposed to function. Legislatures set a general goal with their legislation, and specific departments and other governmental bureaus determine and do all the micro-level implementation of the legislation.
Back in 1958, green was chosen as the background for guide signs not on the basis of controlled legibility testing, but rather through a glorified popularity contest.
Back in 1958, green was chosen as the background for guide signs not on the basis of controlled legibility testing, but rather through a glorified popularity contest.
However, note that the human eye is most sensitive to green and yellow wavelengths. This may have some effect on the legibility of signs compared to other background colors.
The popularity of green was actually a frustration to Bertram Tallamy (then BPR head) at a personal level, since he had a visual impairment that made it difficult for him to read white text on green background.
I'm not arguing whether or not Congress has the ability–it totally does. They pretty much have total free reign. What I'm arguing is whether or not it's a good idea (I don't think it is), and whether or not it's appropriate for Congress to descend into such nitty-gritty details like highway sign typefaces (I think that's a total waste of Congressional time and effort.)
The popularity of green was actually a frustration to Bertram Tallamy (then BPR head) at a personal level, since he had a visual impairment that made it difficult for him to read white text on green background.
I guess that begs the question: is there a similar visual impairment for white-on-blue?
I'm not arguing whether or not Congress has the ability–it totally does. They pretty much have total free reign. What I'm arguing is whether or not it's a good idea (I don't think it is), and whether or not it's appropriate for Congress to descend into such nitty-gritty details like highway sign typefaces (I think that's a total waste of Congressional time and effort.)
Yup. If the elephant wants to stick his trunk into the tent, there's not a lot we can do about it other than try to persuade him that there are better uses for his time.The version told in The Roads that Built America says that AASHTO already selected green and the contest was just to resolve the dispute with Tallamy.Back in 1958, green was chosen as the background for guide signs not on the basis of controlled legibility testing, but rather through a glorified popularity contest.
However, note that the human eye is most sensitive to green and yellow wavelengths. This may have some effect on the legibility of signs compared to other background colors.
The 1958 study didn't get into those human-factors issues. It was literally an exercise in having people drive past signs with blue, green, and black backgrounds, and asking them which color they liked the best. The popularity of green was actually a frustration to Bertram Tallamy (then BPR head) at a personal level, since he had a visual impairment that made it difficult for him to read white text on green background. (He was previously head of the NYS Thruway, which at the time had blue signs.)
Looking at the updated cosponsor list for the SIGN Act, it appears that very few Democratic congressmen have signed onto the bill. I have a feeling that most Democrats in the House are going to vote against it while most Republicans will vote for it.
Because the way things are, if a democrat sneeze, no republican would even think about saying "bless you" - and vice versa.Looking at the updated cosponsor list for the SIGN Act, it appears that very few Democratic congressmen have signed onto the bill. I have a feeling that most Democrats in the House are going to vote against it while most Republicans will vote for it.
Why in the world would this be a partisan issue?
Looking at the updated cosponsor list for the SIGN Act, it appears that very few Democratic congressmen have signed onto the bill. I have a feeling that most Democrats in the House are going to vote against it while most Republicans will vote for it.
Why in the world would this be a partisan issue?
Because the way things are, if a democrat sneeze, no republican would even think about saying "bless you" - and vice versa.
Looking at the updated cosponsor list for the SIGN Act, it appears that very few Democratic congressmen have signed onto the bill. I have a feeling that most Democrats in the House are going to vote against it while most Republicans will vote for it.
Why in the world would this be a partisan issue?
Because the way things are, if a democrat sneeze, no republican would even think about saying "bless you" - and vice versa.
That's true for some things, like healthcare, but not generic legislation like Clearview.
Also not true for driverless cars for some reason. They're working together on a bill that would deregulate driverless cars, to the point of preempting existing state regulations.Because the way things are, if a democrat sneeze, no republican would even think about saying "bless you" - and vice versa.That's true for some things, like healthcare, but not generic legislation like Clearview.
The House Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill, released earlier this month, would allow jurisdictions to choose between using Clearview or Highway Gothic for their roadway signs in the FY18 fiscal year. The bill report states that its provision on highway guide sign fonts “prohibits funds from being used to enforce actions terminating the interim approval of [Clearview] during fiscal year 2018.”
The report also requires FHWA to conduct a comprehensive review of prior research on Clearview as well as the safety and cost implications of FHWA’s 2016 decision to terminate its approval of the Clearview font. The agency is required to report back to the committee within 90 days of enactment. ...
[Update: July 31, 2017] The Senate Transportation-HUD Appropriations Committee also jumped into the debate with the release of its FY18 bill in late July. While Clearview was not mentioned in the bill itself, the accompanying report directed FHWA “to reinstate Interim Approval IA—5 unless there is sufficient information to demonstrate no improvement in the overall effectiveness of signs from the use of Clearview.”
SEC. 125. For this fiscal year, the Federal Highway Administration shall reinstate Interim Approval IA-5, relating to the provisional use of an alternative lettering style on certain highway guide signs, as it existed before its termination, as announced in the Federal Register on January 25, 2016 [(81 Fed. Reg. 4083)].
As a minor trivia item, Georgia DOT has (accidentally, I think) posted some signs using Clearview - but nobody would notice them unless they're looking very, very closely.
Specifically, the fractional enhanced location markers on I-75 along the new express lanes south of Atlanta are in FHWA. But the ones every mile use Clearview, not FHWA, for the word "MILE." You can definitely tell it's not an FHWA "M" because the center "v" doesn't drop down as far - in FHWA it goes down to the baseline, but in Clearview it only makes it down halfway.
Compare an integer mile marker (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4788693,-84.2161613,3a,17y,297.62h,90.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOaWHPouz2IstGo10KEHBww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (Clearview) and a fractional mile marker (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4703811,-84.2131966,3a,15y,296.14h,90.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfCvSBlQvxzMhNlRZjENfgA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (FHWA).
Sheesh, can't we at least finish one statewide font update before we go changing it again? (Also, I shudder to think what GDOT signs intentionally using Clearview would be like.)
So which states have completed the switch back to FHWA font on the new signage? I see that IDOT and ISTHA have gotten back to the regular font. Even DuPage County, a huge proponent of Clearview, is back to installing signs with the superior font.
In terms of recent construction plans sets from the states that routinely used Clearview on their state highways (a proper subset of those that took out Clearview interim approvals), I am seeing reversion to the FHWA series in AZ, WY, OK, AR, IA, and VA, but not TX. For IL, MI, PA, and OH, I have too little information to make a determination.Newer installs in PA are now Highway Gothic; such started appearing almost 2 years ago.
I've also noticed that West Virginia is back to using FHWA for new or replacement signage in areas where Clearview replacements have been done, such as I-64 between the state line and Barboursville.
In terms of recent construction plans sets from the states that routinely used Clearview on their state highways (a proper subset of those that took out Clearview interim approvals), I am seeing reversion to the FHWA series in AZ, WY, OK, AR, IA, and VA, but not TX. For IL, MI, PA, and OH, I have too little information to make a determination.
TxDOT is by far the largest holdout in terms of annual volume of sign panel detail sheets. It is now making early review plans available online, at completion percentages ranging from 30% to 95%, and the ones that have signing still have Clearview.
In the case of MI I am seeing Clearview signing plans that post-date Michigan DOT's Clearview phaseout memo by more than a year. I can't tell whether that is because they just have a lot of signing plans on the shelf, or if they are counting on being able to change typeface after contract award.
Can't remember the last time I saw a Clearview speed limit sign in the US. This was taken in Phoenix, at the Jackson Street overpass downtown (here (https://goo.gl/frWn2C)). The Phoenix suburbs appear to have quite a few of these...(installed 2010, AFAICT)...
(https://i.imgur.com/0JEDeAl.jpg)
Can't remember the last time I saw a Clearview speed limit sign in the US. This was taken in Phoenix, at the Jackson Street overpass downtown (here (https://goo.gl/frWn2C)). The Phoenix suburbs appear to have quite a few of these...(installed 2010, AFAICT)...
<image removed>
Can't remember the last time I saw a Clearview speed limit sign in the US. This was taken in Phoenix, at the Jackson Street overpass downtown (here (https://goo.gl/frWn2C)). The Phoenix suburbs appear to have quite a few of these...(installed 2010, AFAICT)...
<image removed>
Eh, I can live with that I suppose. The nearby city of Mountain View, CA uses Helvetica for its speed limit signs.
Can't remember the last time I saw a Clearview speed limit sign in the US. This was taken in Phoenix, at the Jackson Street overpass downtown (here (https://goo.gl/frWn2C)). The Phoenix suburbs appear to have quite a few of these...(installed 2010, AFAICT)...
https://i.imgur.com/0JEDeAl.jpg
Phoenix did have a short-lived negative contrast Clearview phase in the early 2010s; not just with speed limit signs, but with its black on white street blades at non-signalized intersections as well when it switched them to mixed case. This was eventually corrected; I think they switched the negative contrast signs back to FHWA around 2012, with the street blades now in mixed-case FHWA. However, I am not sure about what is their current status on the illuminated street blades at signalized intersections (which are white on green). I have yet to see an illuminated sign in FHWA in Phoenix. For comparison, Mesa, Gilbert, and Queen Creek are now using FHWA for overhead street blades, and Chandler apparently recently switched to FHWA this year after a short-lived experiment with thin-stroked Helvetica as a replacement for Clearview.
In terms of recent construction plans sets from the states that routinely used Clearview on their state highways (a proper subset of those that took out Clearview interim approvals), I am seeing reversion to the FHWA series in AZ, WY, OK, AR, IA, and VA, but not TX. For IL, MI, PA, and OH, I have too little information to make a determination.
TxDOT is by far the largest holdout in terms of annual volume of sign panel detail sheets. It is now making early review plans available online, at completion percentages ranging from 30% to 95%, and the ones that have signing still have Clearview.
In the case of MI I am seeing Clearview signing plans that post-date Michigan DOT's Clearview phaseout memo by more than a year. I can't tell whether that is because they just have a lot of signing plans on the shelf, or if they are counting on being able to change typeface after contract award.
Ohio has switched back to FHWA. New signage installed this year on I-70 in Madison County & east Columbus, parts of OH 315, and U.S. 33 from Marysville to Dublin all use FHWA. This also applies to other parts of the state where construction projects have recently been completed (ie. I-76 near Barberton, I-71 just northeast of downtown Cincinnati).
As much as I dislike Clearview, I also dislike wasting money on replacing signs that are not very old and have probably a couple decades of life in them still. (The signs from just west of US 30 to nearly the Indiana line on 30 fit this description as well, less than 10 years old and very reflective--and being replaced now.)IIRC, VA's reaction to the switch back to Highway Gothic was that the existing Clearview signs would remain until such either are worn (due to age), damaged and/or the legend(s) on the signs need to be changed for some reason. I'd assume that other states would have a similar approach.
As much as I dislike Clearview, I also dislike wasting money on replacing signs that are not very old and have probably a couple decades of life in them still. (The signs from just west of US 30 to nearly the Indiana line on 30 fit this description as well, less than 10 years old and very reflective--and being replaced now.)IIRC, VA's reaction to the switch back to Highway Gothic was that the existing Clearview signs would remain until such either are worn (due to age), damaged and/or the legend(s) on the signs need to be changed for some reason. I'd assume that other states would have a similar approach.
SEC. 125. For this fiscal year, the Federal Highway Administration shall reinstate Interim Approval IA—5, relating to the provisional use of an alternative lettering style on certain highway guide signs, as it existed before its termination, as announced in the Federal Register on January 25, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 4083).
Clearview is back, baby! From the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180319/BILLS-115SAHR1625-RCP115-66.pdf), which just passed the House (page 1604):QuoteSEC. 125. For this fiscal year, the Federal Highway Administration shall reinstate Interim Approval IA—5, relating to the provisional use of an alternative lettering style on certain highway guide signs, as it existed before its termination, as announced in the Federal Register on January 25, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 4083).
Clearview is back, baby! From the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180319/BILLS-115SAHR1625-RCP115-66.pdf), which just passed the House (page 1604):QuoteSEC. 125. For this fiscal year, the Federal Highway Administration shall reinstate Interim Approval IA—5, relating to the provisional use of an alternative lettering style on certain highway guide signs, as it existed before its termination, as announced in the Federal Register on January 25, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 4083).
It's not really back until it's passed both houses and is signed by Trump...right?
Clearview is back, baby! From the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180319/BILLS-115SAHR1625-RCP115-66.pdf), which just passed the House (page 1604):QuoteSEC. 125. For this fiscal year, the Federal Highway Administration shall reinstate Interim Approval IA—5, relating to the provisional use of an alternative lettering style on certain highway guide signs, as it existed before its termination, as announced in the Federal Register on January 25, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 4083).
It's not really back until it's passed both houses and is signed by Trump...right?
Clearview is back, baby! From the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180319/BILLS-115SAHR1625-RCP115-66.pdf), which just passed the House (page 1604):QuoteSEC. 125. For this fiscal year, the Federal Highway Administration shall reinstate Interim Approval IA—5, relating to the provisional use of an alternative lettering style on certain highway guide signs, as it existed before its termination, as announced in the Federal Register on January 25, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 4083).
It's not really back until it's passed both houses and is signed by Trump...right?
Clearview is back, baby! From the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180319/BILLS-115SAHR1625-RCP115-66.pdf), which just passed the House (page 1604):QuoteSEC. 125. For this fiscal year, the Federal Highway Administration shall reinstate Interim Approval IA—5, relating to the provisional use of an alternative lettering style on certain highway guide signs, as it existed before its termination, as announced in the Federal Register on January 25, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 4083).
It's not really back until it's passed both houses and is signed by Trump...right?
If Trump vetoes it and asks them to fix what he doesn't like, I assume Clearview won't be on his list of things to address.
What would FHWA do with it? It serves no purpose. The studies justifying trying it were fraudulent, and even then only showed improvement for mixed cast positive contrast, and IMO signs shouldn't be a mix of fonts. That alone justifies not using it, but for some reason Clearview also causes states to put out poor signage. The only places in the entire world that I've seen erect Clearview signs that don't make me want to throw up are Vermont, Arizona, and Québec. Additionally, it requires a licensing fee, which IMO should have been enough to disqualify Clearview in and of itself.
Thus, Québec aside, Clearview needs to die. Naturally, Congress managed to do the opposite. What makes them think they know more about this stuff than the civil servants who actually know what they're doing? :pan:
British Columbia also uses Clearview extensively (in all contrast situations), with rather good results in my opinion. There's a few bad apples, but I'd give them an A overall.Honestly, I can't say that I find British Columbia's signage to be aesthetically pleasing.
British Columbia also uses Clearview extensively (in all contrast situations), with rather good results in my opinion. There's a few bad apples, but I'd give them an A overall.
Honestly, I can't say that I find British Columbia's signage to be aesthetically pleasing.
It's not really back until it's passed both houses and is signed by Trump...right?
Right.
I'm curious as to who decided this section needed to be added to this bill, however, and why.
Not sure there's major differences between how Quebec and BC use it, although BC uses it across the whole sign (minus route shields). Don't you prefer one typeface for the whole sign? I do, which is why I think signs like this are much better than the same sign with a mix of fonts:I can't put my finger on it, but I think it's the arrows and the exit tabs. What's weird is that these signs in West Virginia (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0720074,-80.7271411,3a,75y,254.51h,84.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siELvlLwJfYKIm6xn9Yby8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (looks like we can add WV to the list of places that make decent-looking Clearview signs) also use Clearview exit numbers and they actually look pretty good to my eyes.
(https://i.imgur.com/SounfhD.jpg)
The one thing BC pretty consistently fails at is using properly-sized cardinal directions. I'm not sure what the provincial standard is, but I've seen a wide range of sizes.
It's not really back until it's passed both houses and is signed by Trump...right?
Right.
I'm curious as to who decided this section needed to be added to this bill, however, and why.
"For this fiscal year" implies that the new Clearview IA would have a sunset date of September 30, 2018. If that's the case, what's the fucking point? Especially if agencies have to re-apply for the new IA, as they have to for the new RRFB IA.
Some legislator wanted to make Meeker & Associates think they were helping without actually doing so.
What would FHWA do with it? It serves no purpose. The studies justifying trying it were fraudulent, and even then only showed improvement for mixed cast positive contrast, and IMO signs shouldn't be a mix of fonts. That alone justifies not using it, but for some reason Clearview also causes states to put out poor signage. The only places in the entire world that I've seen erect Clearview signs that don't make me want to throw up are Vermont, Arizona, and Québec. Additionally, it requires a licensing fee, which IMO should have been enough to disqualify Clearview in and of itself.
Thus, Québec aside, Clearview needs to die. Naturally, Congress managed to do the opposite. What makes them think they know more about this stuff than the civil servants who actually know what they're doing? :pan:
It's not really back until it's passed both houses and is signed by Trump...right?
Right.
I'm curious as to who decided this section needed to be added to this bill, however, and why.
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).
Not sure there's major differences between how Quebec and BC use it, although BC uses it across the whole sign (minus route shields). Don't you prefer one typeface for the whole sign? I do, which is why I think signs like this are much better than the same sign with a mix of fonts:I can't put my finger on it, but I think it's the arrows and the exit tabs. What's weird is that these signs in West Virginia (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0720074,-80.7271411,3a,75y,254.51h,84.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siELvlLwJfYKIm6xn9Yby8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (looks like we can add WV to the list of places that make decent-looking Clearview signs) also use Clearview exit numbers and they actually look pretty good to my eyes.
(https://i.imgur.com/SounfhD.jpg)
The one thing BC pretty consistently fails at is using properly-sized cardinal directions. I'm not sure what the provincial standard is, but I've seen a wide range of sizes.
I hope PennDOT doesn't go back to Clearview. Despite being one of its pioneers, they never got the hang of it. Their signage tended to have a lot of problems with character height varying between capital and lowercase letters like in https://goo.gl/maps/ar3WY1vbg7w
"For this fiscal year" implies that the new Clearview IA would have a sunset date of September 30, 2018. If that's the case, what's the fucking point? Especially if agencies have to re-apply for the new IA, as they have to for the new RRFB IA.
Some legislator wanted to make Meeker & Associates think they were helping without actually doing so.
In this case, the old IA has been reinstated, meaning agencies DO NOT have to reapply if they had permission under the old (now active again) IA-5.
It's not really back until it's passed both houses and is signed by Trump...right?
Right.
I'm curious as to who decided this section needed to be added to this bill, however, and why.
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).
I doubt many DOTs are going to jump on this second coming of Clearview with much gusto. They've already had to switch back to FHWA Series once, and switching back to Clearview with the possibility of having to switch back again in September sounds like it wouldn't be too appealing. Safer/cheaper option is to just stay on FHWA Series until at least September and see how things shake out.
Clearview is back, baby! From the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180319/BILLS-115SAHR1625-RCP115-66.pdf), which just passed the House (page 1604):QuoteSEC. 125. For this fiscal year, the Federal Highway Administration shall reinstate Interim Approval IA—5, relating to the provisional use of an alternative lettering style on certain highway guide signs, as it existed before its termination, as announced in the Federal Register on January 25, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 4083).
I hope PennDOT doesn't go back to Clearview. Despite being one of its pioneers, they never got the hang of it. Their signage tended to have a lot of problems with character height varying between capital and lowercase letters like in https://goo.gl/maps/ar3WY1vbg7wTo be fair, that installation was done circa 2009-2010 based on looking through past GSVs for that area. PennDOT, at least in Greater Philly, started getting better with its use of the Clearview font a few years later. One of their worst (and earlier) Clearview examples are along PA 309 just north of I-276/PA Turnpike (but south of Susquehanna Ave.) to Bethlehem Pike in Montgomery County.
While Arizona DOT has gone sour on Clearview in a big way and is now trying out Enhanced E Modified (which I don't think is going to work),Are you saying such won't work just for Arizona DOT or in general? If you meant the latter, why do you believe that the Enhanced E Modified font will not work?
Just because a DOT employee has an opinion, even an informed opinion on the matter, is irrelevant if the agency head feels differently.
I have been told--although I don't think I have ever seen a guide sign design manual--that BC MOTH carbon-copied Dutch standards for its current generation of guide signs.
The Dutch approach can work, but proper space padding and management of color adjacencies (rule of tincture, etc.) is important. The BC sign assembly shown in Jake's picture (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1411.msg2313198#msg2313198) is more bug than feature. Specific criticisms I would make:
* Inadequate space padding in the "Exit" and "Only" patches for the dropped lane
* Use of inset black borders for yellow areas regardless of whether the edge is free or set onto a different-colored background (black border should run out to the edge and be used only for free edges)
* Too-small exit tabs, with insufficient space padding; also, letter suffixes should be at the same size as the digits; tab borders should be merged with main sign panel borders to simplify border treatments and make more effective use of green space
* "HOV Exit" panel on left sign should not have a black bottom border (rule of tincture)
* Cardinal direction word is too small (letter height needs to be at least doubled)
* TCH 1 shield is too small (needs to be at least half again as tall)
* Arrows in general seem unnecessarily tall, and cramp the legend quite a bit--one should expect to see at least three-quarters capital letter height between arrow tops and legend blocks, and between legend blocks and sign borders
All of these are quite aside from the use of negative-contrast Clearview. I would prefer for FHWA Series E Modified to be used for all negative-contrast legend, and the justification for this is not entirely aesthetic since multiple studies have found that negative-contrast Clearview does have inferior legibility. I don't feel using positive-contrast Clearview with negative-contrast FHWA series detracts from a sign's aesthetic appeal; I consider it comparable to a book using one typeface for body text and others for chapter and section headers.
One thing that is particularly frustrating is that it seems obvious to me that the original studies regarding Clearview were fraudulent. They clearly (pun not intended) favored Clearview, with brand-new Clearview signs being tested against aged FHWA signs that were in need of replacement regardless of font merits. Even then, Clearview only barely showed improvement, and only in certain circumstances. No wonder later studies were not in Clearview's favor. Given the current business climate of taking any advantage possible regardless of morality (or sometimes even legality), it's hard to see this as unintentional. Therefore, Meeker should have been punished, not rewarded.
On another note, it's just "MOT" or "MOTI". The "MOTH" name was used up until 2001 (https://goo.gl/NKTEJq), when it was changed to "MOT", before being changed again in 2008 to "MOTI".
- I'm not sure what you mean by "inadequate space padding" in this context.
I'm not trying to defend the MOT, but most of your issues are rooted in standards, not some perceived inadequacy on the part of the sign manufacturer. So, if you don't like the above sign, definitely don't come to BC.
If it helps, here's the initial document that discusses the implementation of Clearview (dated 5th September 2006): https://goo.gl/SNw8it. Why exactly BC decided to adopt Clearview for almost all uses (there are still some situations where the FHWA Series is used), I'm not totally sure. It could be that their initial implementation of Highway Gothic came without updating previous sheeting standards, so when Clearview was implemented, they decided to just go all in and adopt Clearview everywhere, and work with that as a starting point.
I'm sure we can all agree that negative-contrast Clearview is still reasonably easy to read, right? It's not like they're using Comic Sans.
I was in New Mexico last week, and noticed that a few signs on NB I-25 near Raton are in Clearview. Did NMDOT install them?
What would FHWA do with it? It serves no purpose. The studies justifying trying it were fraudulent, and even then only showed improvement for mixed cast positive contrast, and IMO signs shouldn't be a mix of fonts. That alone justifies not using it, but for some reason Clearview also causes states to put out poor signage. The only places in the entire world that I've seen erect Clearview signs that don't make me want to throw up are Vermont, Arizona, and Québec. Additionally, it requires a licensing fee, which IMO should have been enough to disqualify Clearview in and of itself.
Thus, Québec aside, Clearview needs to die. Naturally, Congress managed to do the opposite. What makes them think they know more about this stuff than the civil servants who actually know what they're doing? :pan:
I was in New Mexico last week, and noticed that a few signs on NB I-25 near Raton are in Clearview. Did NMDOT install them?
Believe Raton is in District V, (Las Vegas) which is the only state district that has been on record as having used the clearview font primarily. Have seen it sporadically elsewhere, such as in Lea County, in the city of Hobbs. Hobbs/Lea county is in District II, headquartered in Roswell.
From different business standpoint, I loved the fact that FHWA killed Clearview. It meant that we didn't have to buy $800+ worth of fonts.
From different business standpoint, I loved the fact that FHWA killed Clearview. It meant that we didn't have to buy $800+ worth of fonts.
No one was ever required to buy Clearview. The FHWA font was still perfectly fine. I have my doubts that it would have ever been mandated to replace FHWA, and that it would have remained an option.
If you do business with places that switched to Clearview it does.
The licensing fees for Clearview is a drop in the bucket, especially for bulk license purchases if it isn't a centralized sign shop. Spread that over the hundreds and hundreds of signs that are replaced each year with what should be a common font, it becomes a non-issue.
We pay fees for using fonts all the time - at a much smaller institution. So do ad agencies. And businesses. A DOT spending money on a font is not any different.
The licensing fees for Clearview is a drop in the bucket, especially for bulk license purchases if it isn't a centralized sign shop. Spread that over the hundreds and hundreds of signs that are replaced each year with what should be a common font, it becomes a non-issue.
We pay fees for using fonts all the time - at a much smaller institution. So do ad agencies. And businesses. A DOT spending money on a font is not any different.
On another note, it's just "MOT" or "MOTI". The "MOTH" name was used up until 2001 (https://goo.gl/NKTEJq), when it was changed to "MOT", before being changed again in 2008 to "MOTI".
I've now taken notice of this. I've been writing "MOTH" for years because the agency website was at www.th.gov.bc.ca for years, even while the "H" was dropped.
I'm not trying to defend the MOT, but most of your issues are rooted in standards, not some perceived inadequacy on the part of the sign manufacturer. So, if you don't like the above sign, definitely don't come to BC.
Yes, my disagreement is really with the standards. I've been to BC multiple times, though not since 2003, and frankly I've never really come for the signs--unlike a lot of road enthusiasts, I never particularly liked the BC Font, which was being phased out on the more recent visits.
[snipped for brevity]
It is my belief that the MOT tries to do as little signing as possible in turnkey construction contracts, reserving sign fabrication and erection to Ministry staff connected with the sign shop. I also suspect, though I never got hold of any relevant documentation, that the sign shop privatization took the form of an indefinite-quantity term contract, where a contractor supplied workers and materials to the shop and then undertook to fabricate (and, possibly, install) finished signs in response to work orders issued by Ministry staff.
The licence issue isn't just about costs to DOTs and contractors. It is about a private company mooching profits using a government standard.
My personal view is that Enhanced E Modified amounts to giving Lucy another try with the football. The research is still preliminary and shows only a marginal advantage, which is similar to the position Clearview was in 2004 when the interim approval was originally granted. It also contradicts previous research showing that Series E Modified has higher intrinsic unit legibility than Series E.
The licence issue isn't just about costs to DOTs and contractors. It is about a private company mooching profits using a government standard.
I see. So it's entirely possible that these consistent "errors" (at least as perceived by us, such as undersized cardinal directions (https://goo.gl/6xqKsh), too-small shields, signs without enough padding, etc) are all the result of one sign shop making all the signs Province-wide? Perhaps it would be wise for the MOT to outsource this work once again, since (and I hate to admit this) the MOT has not yet provided any indication that these perceived issues may ever be rectified.
Does anyone else feels that federal mandate for font on signs goes a little too far in terms of regulation?
I can see some things as must-coordinate e.g. meaning of red light (and for that matter - "red" is actually defined in MUTCD through some third party document) or meaning of basic signs - but font is not even a grey area for me...
The licence issue isn't just about costs to DOTs and contractors. It is about a private company mooching profits using a government standard.
How is this different from private-sector contractors making profit through construction contracts?
As HB mentioned earlier, Kentucky has contractors use Clearview for large guide signs, but if the state does any guide signs, then it's in FHWA. And practically all of the smaller signs around the state use FHWA.
IIRC, Washington state applied for IA at that time and it's request was rejected.
Kentucky doesn't do its own guide sign (BGS) fabrication. Replacements and one-offs are contracted out via standing agreeements. There are two contractors they use and they have the state pretty much divided in half. A few years ago I could have told you those contractors' names, but I've since forgotten.
It's been awhile since I've seen a sign replacement project let for bids. One of the more memorable ones I can remember was I-64 from Winchester to the West Virginia state line, and that's been at least 15 years ago. The limited replacements that were done on the Mountain Parkway in Powell County a few years ago were done under price contract and not let for bids. (They're in Clearview.)
The difference is officially sanctioned favoritism. With regards to contracts, those go through a bidding process, where every firm that does business in that area has an opportunity to bid and potentially win the contract. With respect to things like software licences, at least then the government is choosing among a marketplace which one to use. With respect to Clearview, having it allowed at all is basically government-backed favoritism. DOTs would be using either FHWA, or paying Meeker. Nobody else. That is why fonts, devices, etc. that are backed by privately owned intellectual property should not be allowed in the MUTCD. If the federal government is going to allow states to pay Meeker for Clearview, then the only way to resolve the favoritism issue is to stop regulating fonts entirely.The licence issue isn't just about costs to DOTs and contractors. It is about a private company mooching profits using a government standard.
How is this different from private-sector contractors making profit through construction contracts?
I don't think that many road enthusiasts actually like that old font. They just like the uniqueness of it. As a typeface, I think Clearview is far superior to anything BC has used before, both functionally and aesthetically. I don't have many Highway Gothic references to go on, but here's some signs that use the font. The first one has excellent padding for the exit-only patches...I actually think those FHWA font signs look significantly better than their Clearview signs.
https://goo.gl/UKKtYH -- (Hwy 99 at Steveston Hwy)
https://goo.gl/2W1Hb5 -- (Hwy 99 at Bridgeport Road)
https://goo.gl/PEzyzZ (Hwy 91 at Hwy 91A)
Based on these, they had a good thing going, with some familiar issues (undersized exit tabs, too-small shields). But I think the Clearview signs are good enough that bouncing back to Highway Gothic wouldn't be necessary. They ought to work on, and improve what they have already.
The difference is officially sanctioned favoritism. With regards to contracts, those go through a bidding process, where every firm that does business in that area has an opportunity to bid and potentially win the contract. With respect to things like software licences, at least then the government is choosing among a marketplace which one to use. With respect to Clearview, having it allowed at all is basically government-backed favoritism. DOTs would be using either FHWA, or paying Meeker. Nobody else. That is why fonts, devices, etc. that are backed by privately owned intellectual property should not be allowed in the MUTCD. If the federal government is going to allow states to pay Meeker for Clearview, then the only way to resolve the favoritism issue is to stop regulating fonts entirely.
The difference is officially sanctioned favoritism. With regards to contracts, those go through a bidding process, where every firm that does business in that area has an opportunity to bid and potentially win the contract. With respect to things like software licences, at least then the government is choosing among a marketplace which one to use. With respect to Clearview, having it allowed at all is basically government-backed favoritism. DOTs would be using either FHWA, or paying Meeker. Nobody else. That is why fonts, devices, etc. that are backed by privately owned intellectual property should not be allowed in the MUTCD. If the federal government is going to allow states to pay Meeker for Clearview, then the only way to resolve the favoritism issue is to stop regulating fonts entirely.
This is an important point. There are multiple providers for the FHWA alphabet series (URW, SignCAD, . . .) but only one for Clearview. It is my understanding that Meeker had to waive copyright on the Clearview glyphs (though not the fonts, which are separately copyrightable as software) in order for FHWA to issue the Clearview IA. This being the case, why has no-one stepped in to produce an on-spec set of Clearview fonts to provide some competition? If the answer is that Meeker would sue with a good likelihood of prevailing in court, then the implication is that FHWA's enforcement of the use of nonproprietary devices is toothless, which is unconscionable.
Maybe slightly off-topic, but still..
Does anyone else feels that federal mandate for font on signs goes a little too far in terms of regulation?
Point of clarity: Meeker & Associates did not waive copyright on the glyphs, but rather glyphs have been ruled to be public domain by default (if I remember correctly, because the court does not recognize the work in drawing, say, a "G" to be transformative enough to warrant copyright–it is still a G, after all). This is why there are dozens upon dozens of versions of slightly-different versions of Helvetica, for instance.
As an aside, the Clearview IA is still listed as "terminated" even though the appropriations bill that resurrected it presumably took effect immediately.
No. In addition to the reasons others have stated, it remains that the regulations on typeface are directed primarily at other executive-branch government agencies, which owe their entire existence and reason for being to the execution of various laws and regulations. Using a particular font is no burden to them. Putting additional regulations on government agencies is part and parcel of the American form of government–the First Amendment applies to the government but not the private sector, for instance.Indeed. Government can get very particular with respect to fonts. NYSDOT's official signature policy specifies the formatting and content of every line of the signature down to font, point size, color (down to the RGB values!), etc. It's too the point where one can tell how good someone is with Microsoft Outlook based on how many formatting errors their signature has. Oddly enough, the policy is vague on whether there's supposed to be a line between job title and address (the text implies no but the example says yes).
If the federal government was attempting to regulate the font on private-sector businesses' advertising signs, it would be an entirely different kettle of fish.
Maybe slightly off-topic, but still..
Does anyone else feels that federal mandate for font on signs goes a little too far in terms of regulation?
I'm all for uniform colors and symbols on signs across the 50 states, but see no reason that the feds should dictate font. If you see a sign saying it's 20 miles to Ashland, you're going to know what it means no matter what font it's in or what side of the Big Sandy River it's on.
And, lo, again I say unto you: that whatsoever power you shall grant upon your state DOT, you shall likewise grant that power unto Oklahoma DOT...
Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.
Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.Some symbolic signs are also webdings characters.
Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.
I'm down for Impact or Papyrus.
Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.
I'm down for Impact or Papyrus.
How long until the state of Georgia petitions to use Georgia? :biggrin:
(Personally I would be against any serif'd font on a highway sign as it adds extra noise to the letter where it's not needed)
And, lo, again I say unto you: that whatsoever power you shall grant upon your state DOT, you shall likewise grant that power unto Oklahoma DOT...
If I'm not mistaken, OkDOT is an example of an agency that somehow screws up Highway Gothic? The near-impossible-to-botch typeface? :-D
And, lo, again I say unto you: that whatsoever power you shall grant upon your state DOT, you shall likewise grant that power unto Oklahoma DOT...
If I'm not mistaken, OkDOT is an example of an agency that somehow screws up Highway Gothic? The near-impossible-to-botch typeface? :-D
Well, CraIG CoUnty is an ODOT sign using demountable FHWA letter from two different parts bins.
Georgia could try signs in Mkhedruli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_scripts), as in the other Georgia. The 1977 (I think) edition of the Russian GOST standard for traffic signs has an alphabet for it that is all ready for use.
Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.
I'm down for Impact or Papyrus.
How long until the state of Georgia petitions to use Georgia? :biggrin:
(Personally I would be against any serif'd font on a highway sign as it adds extra noise to the letter where it's not needed)
I mean, we are talking about the state that thumbed its nose at everyone and decided to use Series D for 20 years, so I wouldn't really put it past them.
(And if you've seen our route markers, going full Oklahoma is really not out of the realm of possibility.)
Well, CraIG CoUnty is an ODOT sign using demountable FHWA letter from two different parts bins.
Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.
I'm down for Impact or Papyrus.
How long until the state of Georgia petitions to use Georgia? :biggrin:
(Personally I would be against any serif'd font on a highway sign as it adds extra noise to the letter where it's not needed)
I mean, we are talking about the state that thumbed its nose at everyone and decided to use Series D for 20 years, so I wouldn't really put it past them.
(And if you've seen our route markers, going full Oklahoma is really not out of the realm of possibility.)
Oklahoma's hot new trend for their spring lineup is putting Series B in places it doesn't belong, so you're already most of the way there.
TODO: get a picture of that lovely new gore sign that went up, entirely in Series B, complete with upside down letter X.Well, CraIG CoUnty is an ODOT sign using demountable FHWA letter from two different parts bins.
It gives that appearance, but I'm not entirely sure. Demountable copy is fairly rare in Oklahoma aside from button copy. Although it being direct-applied copy would raise some alarming new questions.
Dammit, am I going to have to drive to Big Cabin to find out?
All 50 state AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) representatives as well as the AASHTO Executive board petitioned unanimously for Clearview's reinstatement. There was some new reseach done at MIT that demonstrated Clearview's superiority. There were other issues at play as well.
The problem isn't the licensing model, the problem is the new administrators of the FHWA value uniformity over innovation. Our latest research that was presented last month shows considerable performance by Clearview over the Highway Gothic design.
To point to the license fees for font software as the reason for its demise is bullshit.
My Expressway and Blue Highway font sales were down so I had to do something. It cost me a fortune to bribe all those politicians but I think it'll pay off in the long term.
So basically this James Montalbano has convinced our leading typographers that Clearview is unambiguously superior to FHWA fonts and that every engineer wants to switch to it, and it's only politicians and political appointees that are blocking it.
So basically this James Montalbano has convinced our leading typographers that Clearview is unambiguously superior to FHWA fonts and that every engineer wants to switch to it, and it's only politicians and political appointees that are blocking it.
What a load of bullshit. If that were the case, then why didn't all fifty states apply for approval to use it? What a joke.
I wonder, how much clearer a font can be. After all, those are just the same general shapes as Shakespeare used...
The idea of a clearer font has merit, but Clearview isn't the silver bullet, at least in its current form.
I wonder, how much clearer a font can be. After all, those are just the same general shapes as Shakespeare used...
There was some research means someone found money to fund that work.I wonder, how much clearer a font can be. After all, those are just the same general shapes as Shakespeare used...
Years ago I found a PhD dissertation online that attempted to correlate unit legibility of a typeface to certain intrinsic characteristics of the glyphs. So, yes, there has been basic research oriented at finding the maximum possible unit legibility (given the visual acuity of a given population) and designing a typeface that approaches that maximum.
There was some research means someone found money to fund that work.I wonder, how much clearer a font can be. After all, those are just the same general shapes as Shakespeare used...
Years ago I found a PhD dissertation online that attempted to correlate unit legibility of a typeface to certain intrinsic characteristics of the glyphs. So, yes, there has been basic research oriented at finding the maximum possible unit legibility (given the visual acuity of a given population) and designing a typeface that approaches that maximum.
I'm more questioning if readability can actually be significantly improved once fonts like Comic Sans or script fonts are out of the game. And once sans serif font is chosen over serif one, remaining differences are really not that great.
I'm more questioning if readability can actually be significantly improved once fonts like Comic Sans or script fonts are out of the game. And once sans serif font is chosen over serif one, remaining differences are really not that great.
For example, we no longer have a ban on using Series B for primary destination legend on freeway guide signs. Most practitioners won't do it because they understand intuitively that Series B has far worse unit legibility than Series E Modified or even Series D, but even so the MUTCD technically allows Series B on freeway signs. And while that is a pretty obvious no-no...
For example, we no longer have a ban on using Series B for primary destination legend on freeway guide signs. Most practitioners won't do it because they understand intuitively that Series B has far worse unit legibility than Series E Modified or even Series D, but even so the MUTCD technically allows Series B on freeway signs.When was there a ban on Series B? There was a narrower Series A that has since been taken out of contention.
Some states round all exit numbers down no matter how close to the next mile they are. Given the location of the bridge, if this was taken south or westbound the interchange probably comes out to 106.9x.
When was there a ban on Series B? There was a narrower Series A that has since been taken out of contention.
If there was a ban (re)imposed on Series B, many 3 and 4-digit route shields (regardless of route type) out there today would no longer be MUTCD-compliant.
I think states should be forced to redesign their markers as needed to ensure this legibility floor is met.I wasn't just referring to state and county route shields in my previous comment. Series B numerals on 3-digit Interstate shields have been spreading like wildfire in many areas for some time. Some agencies (I'm looking at you DRPA) have also used Series B numerals for 3-digit US shields as well.
Some agencies (I'm looking at you DRPA) have also used Series B numerals for 3-digit US shields as well.
How long will the Interim Approval be valid?source (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5/faq/index.htm)
Answer:
FHWA has no plans at this time to terminate the use of Clearview as allowed in IA-5 after September 30, 2018 when the appropriations language expires.
Interesting:QuoteHow long will the Interim Approval be valid?source (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5/faq/index.htm)
Answer:
FHWA has no plans at this time to terminate the use of Clearview as allowed in IA-5 after September 30, 2018 when the appropriations language expires.
Yes. My position on this is well-known. This should be something the individual states decide. If West Virginia uses the FHWA font on its signs, but Kentucky wants to use Helvetica or Franklin Gothic, my position is that Kentucky should be able to.And then we would get Comic Sans for sign fonts! :-D
VDOT will likely pursue a return to Clearview
It is distantly possible that Michigan DOT could return to using Clearview, but I just downloaded a major I-696 contract and it shows Series E Modified for new installs.Chances are those contract drawings were made prior to IA being reinstated.
Leave it up to the Feds to cause drama over a typeface! As a passenger, the tails of certain lowercase characters (a), and spacing in Clearview (to me) doesn't make a difference. It has already been stated that Clearview was skewed in it's test results (or inconclusive).
I'm wondering if FHWA figured that doing it this way was the best change to avoid Congress butting in again.Interesting:QuoteHow long will the Interim Approval be valid?source (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5/faq/index.htm)
Answer:
FHWA has no plans at this time to terminate the use of Clearview as allowed in IA-5 after September 30, 2018 when the appropriations language expires.
Very interesting. The IA approval ending so soon after reinstatement would have been a major blow to Clearview advocates. But with the FHWA not having any plans to rescind the IA, even after September, agencies might be more likely to reconsider the typeface, as the risk is much lower. There are many states, I'm sure, that would only use Clearview if it were added to the MUTCD (WA for example, who confirmed as much to me in an email). But agencies that previously used it could very easily start reusing it again.
In states that choose to readopt the typeface, I would expect for there to be a period of FHWA signs popping up again, due to the design of the signs having taken place after the initial rescinding. But, after that, Clearview popping up again.
I'm wondering if FHWA figured that doing it this way was the best change to avoid Congress butting in again.
Leave it up to the Feds to cause drama over a typeface! As a passenger, the tails of certain lowercase characters (a), and spacing in Clearview (to me) doesn't make a difference. It has already been stated that Clearview was skewed in it's test results (or inconclusive).
Well, if they wait long enough, the political winds could change. Certainly better than having Congress write into law that Clearview has equal standing to the FHWA fonts.
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"--although I have been told that VDOT will likely pursue a return to Clearview, TxDOT is the prime mover behind this initiative and may very well remain the only agency using it on a large scale. It is distantly possible that Michigan DOT could return to using Clearview, but I just downloaded a major I-696 contract and it shows Series E Modified for new installs. I cannot think of any US state other than Texas for which I have access to pattern-accurate signing construction plans where the typefaces specified are not the FHWA series.
In the statement "FHWA has no plans at this time to terminate the use of Clearview . . . after the appropriations language expires," I believe the key phrase is at this time, and that the likeliest outcome of this current phase of the Clearview fight is a "Texas exception" rather than Mexico City Policy cycling.
The politically savvy thing for an FHWA insider with an interest in killing Clearview for good to do–and which the "at this time" wording would eminently allow–would be to conduct one more Clearview study to reinforce the case against it and provide cover for deprecating it, allow the IA to stand until February 2019 or so, and try to yank it then. This would be a gambit that the 116th Congress would have a Democratic majority in the House (which current polling suggests is at least plausible), denying the Texas delegation easy access to the House calendar and amendments processes. Road sign fonts probably aren't a partisan issue, but having to plead their case on behalf of Meeker & Associates to a Democratic Speaker (who may well be focused on grappling with parts of the executive branch other than USDOT) most likely isn't worth the hassle.
The politically savvy thing for an FHWA insider with an interest in killing Clearview for good to do–and which the "at this time" wording would eminently allow–would be to conduct one more Clearview study to reinforce the case against it and provide cover for deprecating it, allow the IA to stand until February 2019 or so, and try to yank it then. This would be a gambit that the 116th Congress would have a Democratic majority in the House (which current polling suggests is at least plausible), denying the Texas delegation easy access to the House calendar and amendments processes. Road sign fonts probably aren't a partisan issue, but having to plead their case on behalf of Meeker & Associates to a Democratic Speaker (who may well be focused on grappling with parts of the executive branch other than USDOT) most likely isn't worth the hassle.
I think your analysis is solid. However, I foresee the Texas delegation pressing their case not on behalf of Meeker and Associates (a private interest), but rather protection of their significant investment in Clearview signs. And depending on the extent of the Democratic majority in the House, there may be logrolling opportunities such that it is convenient to buy the votes of representatives from Texas whose partisan affiliations are mildly mismatched with the leans of their districts.
One solution that finesses the issue for all parties concerned is for Texas, and only Texas, to be given authority to use Clearview. [...]
From FHWA's perspective, it is better for Congress to grant Texas a special exception than to overturn decades' worth of traffic control device policy, including typeface uniformity, non-approval of devices whose performance is deemed not substantially better than that of already approved devices, and no addition of regulatory language to the MUTCD without engineering assessment showing that it benefits the traveling public.
Do you actually think donkeys are more expensive than elephants? An issue of minor, if any, interest for general public, no significant impact.... Price is probably low 4-digit regardless of blue or red.The politically savvy thing for an FHWA insider with an interest in killing Clearview for good to do–and which the "at this time" wording would eminently allow–would be to conduct one more Clearview study to reinforce the case against it and provide cover for deprecating it, allow the IA to stand until February 2019 or so, and try to yank it then. This would be a gambit that the 116th Congress would have a Democratic majority in the House (which current polling suggests is at least plausible), denying the Texas delegation easy access to the House calendar and amendments processes. Road sign fonts probably aren't a partisan issue, but having to plead their case on behalf of Meeker & Associates to a Democratic Speaker (who may well be focused on grappling with parts of the executive branch other than USDOT) most likely isn't worth the hassle.
I think your analysis is solid. However, I foresee the Texas delegation pressing their case not on behalf of Meeker and Associates (a private interest), but rather protection of their significant investment in Clearview signs. And depending on the extent of the Democratic majority in the House, there may be logrolling opportunities such that it is convenient to buy the votes of representatives from Texas whose partisan affiliations are mildly mismatched with the leans of their districts.
I would be skeptical of such an argument. It is easily deflated as long as FHWA agrees not to force the removal of Clearview for the sake of being in Clearview, which the agency has never appeared to have an interest in doing. In that case, TxDOT's investments would be allowed to depreciate as any other road sign would until regularly-scheduled replacement. It is hard to see what the Texas delegation's actual motive is, other than to please Meeker lobbyists.
Current thinking on the 2018 election posits that a "blue wave" is within the realm of possibility, wherein the Democratic swing overcomes the usual partisan difference in districts drawn (i.e. gerrymandered) to split the Republican electorate between districts such that they have a slim majority in a large number of districts. If this were the case, such vote-buying by Democratic leadership would not really be necessary. (There is also the problem that such attempts at compromise have been less likely to work in recent Congresses than historically.) Unless, of course, incoming Democratic representatives in Texas were to choose to carry on the pro-Clearview campaign of their predecessors.
That being said, as with seemingly everything in Washington as of late, there is really no way to know how this will ultimately shake out until the results of the midterms are firmly in hand.QuoteOne solution that finesses the issue for all parties concerned is for Texas, and only Texas, to be given authority to use Clearview. [...]
From FHWA's perspective, it is better for Congress to grant Texas a special exception than to overturn decades' worth of traffic control device policy, including typeface uniformity, non-approval of devices whose performance is deemed not substantially better than that of already approved devices, and no addition of regulatory language to the MUTCD without engineering assessment showing that it benefits the traveling public.
Would this not cause other pro-Clearview states, like Virginia, to clamor for their own exemption? There is also the problem that allowing one of the largest states in both land area and population to be exempt from uniformity is not uniformity at all.
I would be skeptical of such an argument. It is easily deflated as long as FHWA agrees not to force the removal of Clearview for the sake of being in Clearview, which the agency has never appeared to have an interest in doing. In that case, TxDOT's investments would be allowed to depreciate as any other road sign would until regularly-scheduled replacement. It is hard to see what the Texas delegation's actual motive is, other than to please Meeker lobbyists.
Current thinking on the 2018 election posits that a "blue wave" is within the realm of possibility, wherein the Democratic swing overcomes the usual partisan difference in districts drawn (i.e. gerrymandered) to split the Republican electorate between districts such that they have a slim majority in a large number of districts. If this were the case, such vote-buying by Democratic leadership would not really be necessary. (There is also the problem that such attempts at compromise have been less likely to work in recent Congresses than historically.) Unless, of course, incoming Democratic representatives in Texas were to choose to carry on the pro-Clearview campaign of their predecessors.
QuoteOne solution that finesses the issue for all parties concerned is for Texas, and only Texas, to be given authority to use Clearview. [...] From FHWA's perspective, it is better for Congress to grant Texas a special exception than to overturn decades' worth of traffic control device policy, including typeface uniformity, non-approval of devices whose performance is deemed not substantially better than that of already approved devices, and no addition of regulatory language to the MUTCD without engineering assessment showing that it benefits the traveling public.
Would this not cause other pro-Clearview states, like Virginia, to clamor for their own exemption? There is also the problem that allowing one of the largest states in both land area and population to be exempt from uniformity is not uniformity at all.
As much as members of this forum like to make the FHWA vs Clearview debate a big deal, I just don't see this debate as being something that Congress wastes its time upon, again, any time soon.
I don't think the top levels of the executive branch (meaning Trump, Pence, or whomever the president is) or even their appointed secretary of transportation, is going to bother with the minutiae of Clearview vs. FHWA. And I don't think it's a partisan issue whatsoever. On matters like these, the federal delegation usually works with the state, regardless of party affiliation, if the state is pressing for something. Even if there is a Democrat president or if the Dems take over Congress, they will work with Texas state officials on things like this.It may be more interesting if, as speculated above, this is private interest - as opposed to state DOT engineering interest.
The only likely reason Clearview got incorporated into the appropriations bill was as a compromise, IE "we'll accept language about reinstating the Clearview IA if you give us [whatever other small thing it was the opposition wanted]." No one in Congress actually cares about what State DOTs want in regards to sign fonts. They simply don't and can't, because big picture it's such a hugely unimportant issue. They might care if it involves campaign contributions, but again, that's still extremely small potatoes (and by extremely small I mean microscopic) in the grand scheme of things.Someone had enough stimulus to include Clearview line into negotiation process. Otherwise it wouldn't get anywhere...
Right, which is why I talked about campaign contributions. (There are other forms of influence, too, but I digress.)More like below threshold of any Congress priorities... Strange that it made it into the law..
My main point is that Clearview's entry into the political process did not come from upon high, or even from the middle. It came from somewhere down low, and made it through the entire process through some form of give-and-take compromise. It is very unlikely to come up again as any sort of even lukewarm political football in the near future, because realistically this kind of thing ranks near the bottom of the list of priorities Congress has.
Such reminds me a bit of how the infamous Wright Amendment (such restricted Southwest Airlines' flight operations at Dallas-Love Field (DAL)) became law circa 1979-1980. The Amendment was named after Congressman Jim Wright, from Fort Worth who would later become Speaker of the House during the 1980s. Similar to the IA reinstatement, it was an eleventh-hour add-on; however unlike IA, it was added to a bill that had nothing to do with aviation nor Southwest.Right, which is why I talked about campaign contributions. (There are other forms of influence, too, but I digress.)More like below threshold of any Congress priorities... Strange that it made it into the law.
My main point is that Clearview's entry into the political process did not come from upon high, or even from the middle. It came from somewhere down low, and made it through the entire process through some form of give-and-take compromise. It is very unlikely to come up again as any sort of even lukewarm political football in the near future, because realistically this kind of thing ranks near the bottom of the list of priorities Congress has.
Upon seeing some of the newer FHWA signs and the Clearview signs side-by-side here in Illinois, it strikes me that Clearview appears very dated and old-looking. The FHWA appears timeless and fresh by comparison, especially on new signage.
I've stated before, probably in this thread, that I while I don't exactly hate Clearview, but I don't like it much either, my own slang name for it is DimView.
"Dimview" is a perfect name for NYSTA's Clearview signs–they all use completely non-reflective lettering on reflective signs, making legibility so remarkably, hilariously bad at night that it needs to be seen to be believed. Every time I drive by Clearview signage on the Thruway I'm shocked at how the authority ever put those signs up in the first place, let alone how they've allow them to stay up. They are as close to unreadable at night as any sign I've ever encountered.Sadly, the NYSTA's newest signs that are in Highway Gothic still uses the non-reflective lettering. One new BGS along the new span of the Tappan Zee Bridge's replacement for Exit 10 (US 9W) is Exhibit A (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0713643,-73.9112202,3a,75y,288.67h,88.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbiLoSEj1J5WMsedNL3ACpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of such.
Does this violate any part of the MUTCD? Can this be court challenged?
The same-appearance rule was designed to eliminate nonreflective backgrounds on unlit guide signs, while the Thruway signs have reflectorization across the entirety of their faces; it is just that the foreground elements get lost in the background.
Assuming that this non-reflectivity issue only exists among one entity/authority (NYSTA); a better approach may to take some good quality night photos of the several signs (granted, such may take time & logistics) and send them to the Thruway Authority itself & comment on the problem.Does this violate any part of the MUTCD? Can this be court challenged?
I think it might be possible to challenge the use of this sheeting combination under the MUTCD clause that requires signs to be retroreflectorized or illuminated so that they have substantially the same appearance by night as they do by day. However, I would not lay high odds on such an action succeeding. The same-appearance rule was designed to eliminate nonreflective backgrounds on unlit guide signs, while the Thruway signs have reflectorization across the entirety of their faces; it is just that the foreground elements get lost in the background.
The same-appearance rule was designed to eliminate nonreflective backgrounds on unlit guide signs, while the Thruway signs have reflectorization across the entirety of their faces; it is just that the foreground elements get lost in the background.
Out of curiosity, do you happen to know why that rule was enacted? I would imagine that nonreflective backgrounds would increase the contrast with the legend, thus aiding in readability. (The photos I have seen of non-reflective-background button copy at night appear much more legible than the reflective-background stuff Oklahoma was posting at the beginning of my driving career.) Is it simply to ensure that the background color is distinguishable? Because it seems like there would be much better ways of doing that (a reflective border, for instance).
Out of curiosity, do you happen to know why that rule was enacted?
In Section 2A.8, paragraph 2, the FHWA proposes to extend the general requirements of sign retroreflectivity or illumination to all signs, not just regulatory and warning signs. This requirement would apply to all signs unless specifically stated otherwise in the MUTCD text for a particular sign or group of signs. The FHWA believes this will improve safety and visibility during adverse ambient conditions. After the FHWA has developed minimum retroreflectivity levels, the FHWA would include this information as GUIDANCE in the proposed new Section 2A.9.
Although I prefer FHWA Highway Gothic, I don’t really mind Clearview for BGSs. But IMO, this is definitely an example of how not to use Clearview:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4771/39136806120_2bf6e01107_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22ComXj)
This is actually really hard to read, especially at freeway speed.
In general, that's not a very good sign design. I'm not sure why we are not using more symbols in the states like Europe, or even accepted symbols. An example is the Hazmat/No Hazmat icon - which is used consistently in some states (Ohio) but not others.The symbol you see there is in the SHS as 'National Network'.
HC stands for Hazardous Cargoes, and was the standard abbreviation for the R14-2 and R14-3 signs until the 2003 MUTCD, when it was changed to HM. Although HM is the current terminology, it's not uncommon to still see signs out there that read HC - this was common in Downtown Boston (signs for the I-90 and I-93 tunnels) until recently.In general, that's not a very good sign design. I'm not sure why we are not using more symbols in the states like Europe, or even accepted symbols. An example is the Hazmat/No Hazmat icon - which is used consistently in some states (Ohio) but not others.The symbol you see there is in the SHS as 'National Network'.
There are three different symbols for roughly the same meaning:
National Network
Hazardous Materials - HM
Hazardous Chemicals - HC - An example of this would be the Little Rock Freeway System. I-30 (Downtown) and all of I-630 effectively ban all truck traffic on those Interstates.
Thanks for the correction! I honestly thought it was Chemicals, but I shall get informed.HC stands for Hazardous Cargoes, and was the standard abbreviation for the R14-2 and R14-3 signs until the 2003 MUTCD, when it was changed to HM. Although HM is the current terminology, it's not uncommon to still see signs out there that read HC - this was common in Downtown Boston (signs for the I-90 and I-93 tunnels) until recently.In general, that's not a very good sign design. I'm not sure why we are not using more symbols in the states like Europe, or even accepted symbols. An example is the Hazmat/No Hazmat icon - which is used consistently in some states (Ohio) but not others.The symbol you see there is in the SHS as 'National Network'.
There are three different symbols for roughly the same meaning:
National Network
Hazardous Materials - HM
Hazardous Chemicals - HC - An example of this would be the Little Rock Freeway System. I-30 (Downtown) and all of I-630 effectively ban all truck traffic on those Interstates.
Is it also standardized that it must be in pounds? Instead of "80,000 RGVW & OVER", it would be "80,000 RGVW & OVER" or "40 TONS & OVER" or "40+ TONS"?It's an enforcement issue. Many agencies specify RGVW (or GVWR in the US) to clarify that it is the entire vehicle weight, and not just the weight of the load. And you are correct, truck weights are normally specified in tons, not pounds.
Kentucky may not have gone back to using Clearview after permission was granted again.
A mileage sign on I-64 westbound at Winchester had been knocked down quite some time ago. It had been down for several weeks. I noticed yesterday that it had been replaced with an FHWA font sign and not a Clearview sign.
Kentucky may not have gone back to using Clearview after permission was granted again.
A mileage sign on I-64 westbound at Winchester had been knocked down quite some time ago. It had been down for several weeks. I noticed yesterday that it had been replaced with an FHWA font sign and not a Clearview sign.
My understanding is that, much like the change from Clearview back to Highway Gothic, it takes more than a few months for sign orders to actually be processed, designed, and installed. So it's possible that the new sign was actually designed before Clearview was reinstated.
Kentucky may not have gone back to using Clearview after permission was granted again.
A mileage sign on I-64 westbound at Winchester had been knocked down quite some time ago. It had been down for several weeks. I noticed yesterday that it had been replaced with an FHWA font sign and not a Clearview sign.
My understanding is that, much like the change from Clearview back to Highway Gothic, it takes more than a few months for sign orders to actually be processed, designed, and installed. So it's possible that the new sign was actually designed before Clearview was reinstated.
Doubtful. This was a one-off replacement. In the past, if an old FHWA sign had to be replaced, it was done in Clearview. This one was knocked down after the reinstatement was done last year.
It's actually been knocked down twice. The first time, it was a Clearview sign that was replaced with FHWA. This time, FHWA got replaced with FHWA.
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"--although I have been told that VDOT will likely pursue a return to Clearview, TxDOT is the prime mover behind this initiative and may very well remain the only agency using it on a large scale. It is distantly possible that Michigan DOT could return to using Clearview, but I just downloaded a major I-696 contract and it shows Series E Modified for new installs. I cannot think of any US state other than Texas for which I have access to pattern-accurate signing construction plans where the typefaces specified are not the FHWA series.
I'd love to know the letting date on that I-696 contract so I can download the plans myself. MDOT just replaced signs in 2017 on the western two-thirds of I-696, and the signs on the eastern third in Macomb County aren't that old. It would be a waste of money to replace them as part of the current freeway reconstruction (unless raised dump truck beds take out half of them).
The contract letting date of last year's I-696 signing contract was 01/16/2017 and the signs are in Clearview. A few new BGSs in Detroit went up last year (southbound M-10 at M-5 Grand River Avenue, and on the ramp from northbound M-39 to I-96) and those signs are in FHWA. A 10/06/2017 contract to replace a dozen or so signs at various metro Detroit locations (work currently in process) shows those new signs also will be in FHWA. But contracts let on 12/01/2017 to replace signs on I-96 in Livingston County and on I-196 between Grandville and Grand Rapids show those signs will be in Clearview. All of which suggests that Michigan very briefly switched back to FHWA but has switched again back to Clearview.
Seems PennDOT does not want to let go of Clearview, even if they can't use it on signs - the car inspection stickers seem to now use it all of a sudden, starting with the stickers expiring in 2019-2020.Really? I just had the stickers replaced last month on my 2011 Crown Vic. I'll have to double-check but I believe the font used for the numerals & two-digit year on those stickers appear to be the font that the PennDOT's DMV always uses... which is neither Clearview nor FHWA. To my knowledge, PennDOT's DMV never used FHWA/Highway Gothic for their inspection stickers.
Seems PennDOT does not want to let go of Clearview, even if they can't use it on signs - the car inspection stickers seem to now use it all of a sudden, starting with the stickers expiring in 2019-2020.Really? I just had the stickers replaced last month on my 2011 Crown Vic. I'll have to double-check but I believe the font used for the numerals & two-digit year on those stickers appear to be the font that the PennDOT's DMV always uses... which is neither Clearview nor FHWA. To my knowledge, PennDOT's DMV never used FHWA/Highway Gothic for their inspection stickers.
The year digits are not Clearview, though they look similar. Real Clearview "1" has an angled cut on the top tail (not vertical) and no bottom crossbar. Real Clearview "9" also has an angled cut on the bottom stroke (not vertical).Additionally, the 8 on the 18 on that sticker, which is covered by the 1 sticker in the above-example, looks nothing like the Clearview 8.
I assume that MDOT is still using the MUTCD-standard small caps format for cardinal directions, and did not return to the practice of underlining directions that they used pre-Clearview?
Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview::banghead: :banghead:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf
Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf
Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf
From reading the sample sign panel layout, I believe VDOT makes a better case why they should NOT go back to Clearview. Everything except the destination message on the sample sign is supposed to be in FHWA font. It makes more sense to me to stick to FHWA.
With the reapproval and VDOT's reinstatement of it, can anyone confirm whether or not PennDOT plans to start using it again? Or, for that matter, the PTC?
With the reapproval and VDOT's reinstatement of it, can anyone confirm whether or not PennDOT plans to start using it again? Or, for that matter, the PTC?
The latest edition of Publication 46 (PennDOT's traffic engineering manual) dates from 2014, when Clearview was still authorized. Recent PennDOT construction plans sets have been using Series E Modified. For the PTC I have no clear indication one way or another; they do sign replacements from time to time, but usually through work order contracts where the sign designs are given to the contractor after contract award rather than being made available to all prospective bidders during the contract advertising period.
Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview::banghead: :banghead:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf (http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf)
My feelings exactly; back to contractors manufacturing whatever they want, and VDOT just checking it off instead of telling them to fix it. Case in point: https://goo.gl/maps/819cszajyGn - This sign was installed around 2016 following the extension of Gloucester Pkwy to the VA-28 / Nokes Blvd interchange. I believe I saw Clearview first pop up in Virginia around 2008 (I-66 east signage for the US-29 / VA-28 south exit (https://goo.gl/maps/DKWAuU5yTuR2)), and there are still errors popping up ten years later.
Having been on the PA Turnpike on a recent trip to Carlisle; I noticed that while the slightly older westbound signage for the Harrisburg-West interchange (I-83) have the control cities in Clearview; the newer (erected within the past year) eastbound signage for it use taller Series E(M) lettering.With the reapproval and VDOT's reinstatement of it, can anyone confirm whether or not PennDOT plans to start using it again? Or, for that matter, the PTC?
The latest edition of Publication 46 (PennDOT's traffic engineering manual) dates from 2014, when Clearview was still authorized. Recent PennDOT construction plans sets have been using Series E Modified. For the PTC I have no clear indication one way or another; they do sign replacements from time to time, but usually through work order contracts where the sign designs are given to the contractor after contract award rather than being made available to all prospective bidders during the contract advertising period.
Yeah, I definitely know PennDOT has been using FHWA again since the interim approval was first revoked (One odd interchange on I-81 near Carlisle reconstructed as early as 2010-2012 features Highway Gothic for some reason.)If you're referring to the signs west of the interchange (along I-76 eastbound) and the one westbound sign at the exit itself (which appears to use Enhanced Series E(M) with the ugly, squished US 11 shield); those were all erected within the past two years. The westbound advance/approach signage are still the much older (~25 years) ones.
but since PennDOT wanted to keep Clearview at first, it would definitely be unpleasantly unsurprising to find out that they're going back to it.At least along I-95 in Philly, one-off replacement signage are all in Highway Gothic.
At least the bulk of the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange signs put up so far seems to have been saved from it, though that's mostly the PTC's doing at this point.Some of the covered signs erected at the interchange itself all appear to be in Highway Gothic (one can see such if the wind catches the tarps a certain way).
I have not been to Virginia in 20 years, so the bulk of my information about VDOT Clearview usage comes from construction plans sets. From that standpoint alone, I wish VDOT would give up Clearview altogether because it has been very hit and miss about ensuring that sign drawings are plotted with the actual Clearview fonts rather than generic sans-serif placeholder fonts. Both it and Ohio DOT are among the worst of the Clearview-using agencies in this regard. Back when VDOT was using FHWA series exclusively, sign drawings were nearly always plotted with the correct fonts.Maybe they're trying to save money on licencing and only certain computers/employees have it? Could also explain why Clearview signs often look so bad, if other agencies are doing the same thing and using placeholder fonts.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that any agency that spent the money for Clearview is going to revert back to it to get a return on their investment.I believe NYSTA switched back for reasons unrelated to the IA being pulled, so they hopefully won't go back.
It's why KYTC continues to use SharePoint for its website authoring -- they spent the big bucks for it and want to get as much use out of it as they can, rather than using some other web authoring tool like Dreamweaver (which is the software that was abandoned in favor of SharePoint) or GoLive.
Heh. An advisory consultant firm suggested using SharePoint as a means of document sharing and control for a large project at NYSDOT. It was abandoned within a month for being just too cumbersome.Would this have perhaps been a reason for the daily clippings suddenly switching to SharePoint?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that any agency that spent the money for Clearview is going to revert back to it to get a return on their investment.
Maybe they're trying to save money on licensing and only certain computers/employees have it? Could also explain why Clearview signs often look so bad, if other agencies are doing the same thing and using placeholder fonts.
Given your listed examples, one has to wonder if designers and/or fabricators will take the over-spaced numerals in that US 250 shield example in VDOT's guide too literally and do such for all 3-digit route signs.Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview::banghead: :banghead:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf (http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf)
My feelings exactly; back to contractors manufacturing whatever they want, and VDOT just checking it off instead of telling them to fix it. Case in point: https://goo.gl/maps/819cszajyGn - This sign was installed around 2016 following the extension of Gloucester Pkwy to the VA-28 / Nokes Blvd interchange. I believe I saw Clearview first pop up in Virginia around 2008 (I-66 east signage for the US-29 / VA-28 south exit (https://goo.gl/maps/DKWAuU5yTuR2)), and there are still errors popping up ten years later. Well, that and inconsistencies with the font size on destination legends. Ever since questions have crept up over Clearview's ease of legibility over FHWA, it seems the response was to jack up the character size. I wouldn't be so against it if VDOT actually enforced the standards they laid out in the first place.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that any agency that spent the money for Clearview is going to revert back to it to get a return on their investment.
I believe NYSTA switched back for reasons unrelated to the IA being pulled, so they hopefully won't go back.
Heh. An advisory consultant firm suggested using SharePoint as a means of document sharing and control for a large project at NYSDOT. It was abandoned within a month for being just too cumbersome.Would this have perhaps been a reason for the daily clippings suddenly switching to SharePoint?
We use SharePoint at work but even with the Modern UI and the cloud-based services that we are subscribed to as part of our A3 plan, it can be a barrier to most. I spent a good part of two calls to our England office to explain how to sync up their document library to the desktop via OneDrive for Business (which really should just be OneDrive) and migrate 300 GB of files from their dying file server to SharePoint. Once the sync happens, it's very easy to move files from the file server to OneDrive - using just the standard Windows File Explorer.
One of the tools we use the most here in our organization is Teams (https://products.office.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/group-chat-software), which is built upon SharePoint - but you'd never know it looking at the interface.
SharePoint has been simplified quite a lot over the past year and the roadmap from Microsoft shows further simplification for cloud-based clients. The old model allowed for granular permission levels and a high amount of customization, but it was oriented towards the 10% of users who may actually "want" those features. For the vast majority - they just need an intranet site to store documents, add versioning and retention control, and create internal pages.
Going back to the topic from Rothman and Vdeane, I wish that public agencies would stop using SharePoint for public-facing websites unless they actually deploy them properly. (I'm looking at you, KYTC (https://transportation.ky.gov/Pages/Home.aspx).) Many of these instances have been so butchered and customized that they are not ADA accessible, which opens the agency up to lawsuits that are very much valid - and something the agency will lose. Many of these sites are also very old and run on on-premise SharePoint 2013 or 2010, which opens them up to security risks.
(Disclosure: I am a SharePoint/Teams consultant and actually did consulting work for KYTC on this very issue.)
We use SharePoint at work but even with the Modern UI and the cloud-based services that we are subscribed to as part of our A3 plan, it can be a barrier to most. I spent a good part of two calls to our England office to explain how to sync up their document library to the desktop via OneDrive for Business (which really should just be OneDrive) and migrate 300 GB of files from their dying file server to SharePoint. Once the sync happens, it's very easy to move files from the file server to OneDrive - using just the standard Windows File Explorer.In my experience, NYSDOT has been very sensitive to ADA issues with public-facing websites. Haven't heard of any legal troubles stemming from that aspect.
One of the tools we use the most here in our organization is Teams (https://products.office.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/group-chat-software), which is built upon SharePoint - but you'd never know it looking at the interface.
SharePoint has been simplified quite a lot over the past year and the roadmap from Microsoft shows further simplification for cloud-based clients. The old model allowed for granular permission levels and a high amount of customization, but it was oriented towards the 10% of users who may actually "want" those features. For the vast majority - they just need an intranet site to store documents, add versioning and retention control, and create internal pages.
Going back to the topic from Rothman and Vdeane, I wish that public agencies would stop using SharePoint for public-facing websites unless they actually deploy them properly. (I'm looking at you, KYTC (https://transportation.ky.gov/Pages/Home.aspx).) Many of these instances have been so butchered and customized that they are not ADA accessible, which opens the agency up to lawsuits that are very much valid - and something the agency will lose. Many of these sites are also very old and run on on-premise SharePoint 2013 or 2010, which opens them up to security risks.
(Disclosure: I am a SharePoint/Teams consultant and actually did consulting work for KYTC on this very issue.)
In my experience, NYSDOT has been very sensitive to ADA issues with public-facing websites. Haven't heard of any legal troubles stemming from that aspect.Private, too. They specifically made sure to have everyone put in alt tags for images put on IntraDOT pages.
I took the opportunity to ask if Kentucky's going to go back to Clearview now that the IA has been reinstated. The answer was yes, but only for mixed-case destinations on panel signs.Which essentially is all the IA allows (on dark backgrounds).
Looking at those signs, I think that upsizing might be the main determinant in whether I think a Clearview sign looks decent or ugly.I took the opportunity to ask if Kentucky's going to go back to Clearview now that the IA has been reinstated. The answer was yes, but only for mixed-case destinations on panel signs.Which essentially is all the IA allows (on dark backgrounds).
Personally, I would go one step further and require that the control city text heights in Clearview not be upsized when used/selected. If the purpose of the new/alternate font is to make the text more readable for the same height; why upsize it?
Such has created unnecessarily large sign-boards and more than one state is guilty of such.
A comparison example of what I'm referring to. Note: the exit-tab heights & legends (in Highway Gothic) below the control cities are the same heights. Signs listing Norristown in both examples is intentional for comparison:
Proper use of the Clearview font but oversized text (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.071267,-75.3448548,3a,75y,308.48h,84.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRjLwyldXhcIXuuH2szKuog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Proper use and size of the Clearview font (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0813758,-75.3129508,3a,75y,36.92h,82.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB-Unzdfy-nJv_JWN53WNIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Malproportionately large text looks bad no matter what font it's in.
Malproportionately large text looks bad no matter what font it's in.True but based on what I've seen (mostly in DE but I've seen examples in PA as well) is that the conversion to Clearview on many signs included usage of larger text for the control cities in the process.
Malproportionately large text looks bad no matter what font it's in.
True but based on what I've seen (mostly in DE but I've seen examples in PA as well) is that the conversion to Clearview on many signs included usage of larger text for the control cities in the process.
The larger text height in this sign upgrade in Delaware was no accident.Malproportionately large text looks bad no matter what font it's in.
True but based on what I've seen (mostly in DE but I've seen examples in PA as well) is that the conversion to Clearview on many signs included usage of larger text for the control cities in the process.
Accidentally, as far as I know. The UC and LC letters should have been the same height as the FHWA Series, but agencies seemed to mess this up. I'm sure there's a reason, but it's not Clearview's fault AFAIK.
Accidentally, as far as I know. The UC and LC letters should have been the same height as the FHWA Series, but agencies seemed to mess this up. I'm sure there's a reason, but it's not Clearview's fault AFAIK.For some reason, Clearview makes the effect more obvious and more ugly. If I had my way, that would be points against it. In an era where signage mistakes are easier than ever to make, we should not be magnifying the effects of such mistakes.
Just because it happens often, does not make it intentional. More than likely, a misunderstanding on the part of the agency, or the software they are using to design the signs is not producing the correct results (but no one notices until after the signs go up).If prior/previous sign specs (in FHWA Series E(M)) call for 16-inch lettering; why wouldn't the Clearview equivalent (5-W(?)) be 16-inches as well?
Accidentally, as far as I know. The UC and LC letters should have been the same height as the FHWA Series, but agencies seemed to mess this up. I'm sure there's a reason, but it's not Clearview's fault AFAIK.
For some reason, Clearview makes the effect more obvious and more ugly. If I had my way, that would be points against it. In an era where signage mistakes are easier than ever to make, we should not be magnifying the effects of such mistakes.
Just because it happens often, does not make it intentional. More than likely, a misunderstanding on the part of the agency, or the software they are using to design the signs is not producing the correct results (but no one notices until after the signs go up).If prior/previous sign specs (in FHWA Series E(M)) call for 16-inch lettering; why wouldn't the Clearview equivalent (5-W(?)) be 16-inches as well?
The lettering from the earlier GSV examples I posted looks to be either 18 or 20 inches high.
Since you replied to my earlier comment; I'm asking/answering you.Just because it happens often, does not make it intentional. More than likely, a misunderstanding on the part of the agency, or the software they are using to design the signs is not producing the correct results (but no one notices until after the signs go up).If prior/previous sign specs (in FHWA Series E(M)) call for 16-inch lettering; why wouldn't the Clearview equivalent (5-W(?)) be 16-inches as well?
The lettering from the earlier GSV examples I posted looks to be either 18 or 20 inches high.
You'd have to talk to someone like Mr Winkler. I don't understand sign making programs, but they are apparently very finicky.
Just because it happens often, does not make it intentional. More than likely, a misunderstanding on the part of the agency, or the software they are using to design the signs is not producing the correct results (but no one notices until after the signs go up).If prior/previous sign specs (in FHWA Series E(M)) call for 16-inch lettering; why wouldn't the Clearview equivalent (5-W(?)) be 16-inches as well?
The lettering from the earlier GSV examples I posted looks to be either 18 or 20 inches high.
You'd have to talk to someone like Mr Winkler. I don't understand sign making programs, but they are apparently very finicky.
Just because it happens often, does not make it intentional. More than likely, a misunderstanding on the part of the agency, or the software they are using to design the signs is not producing the correct results (but no one notices until after the signs go up).If prior/previous sign specs (in FHWA Series E(M)) call for 16-inch lettering; why wouldn't the Clearview equivalent (5-W(?)) be 16-inches as well?
The lettering from the earlier GSV examples I posted looks to be either 18 or 20 inches high.
You'd have to talk to someone like Mr Winkler. I don't understand sign making programs, but they are apparently very finicky.
Since you replied to my earlier comment; I'm asking/answering you.
Sounds like aIIRC, didn't studies find that Series E with Series EM kerning was better than both Series EM and Clearview in terms of legibility?cleardim view to me. Kind of like the typeface. hah.
I sort of was under the impression that Clearview had it's own set of overall usage instructions, but then again, maybe the fact that it was out-sourced means it never quite lined up with FHWA standards? Mix that with whatever locals make up the signs and that road leads to _______
I was an early hater of CV, but while I would CERTAINLY rather see some kind of FHWA, I don't think CV is essentially horrible. I just think that Highway Gothic was never as bad as some thought it was and that its slight faults could be easily fixed (and I think HAVE been fixed, as I've seen in some places over the years)
Sounds like aIIRC, didn't studies find that Series E with Series EM kerning was better than both Series EM and Clearview in terms of legibility?cleardim view to me. Kind of like the typeface. hah.
I sort of was under the impression that Clearview had it's own set of overall usage instructions, but then again, maybe the fact that it was out-sourced means it never quite lined up with FHWA standards? Mix that with whatever locals make up the signs and that road leads to _______
I was an early hater of CV, but while I would CERTAINLY rather see some kind of FHWA, I don't think CV is essentially horrible. I just think that Highway Gothic was never as bad as some thought it was and that its slight faults could be easily fixed (and I think HAVE been fixed, as I've seen in some places over the years)
The TTI study a few years back - which (unlike the initial Clearview testing) used actual drivers in actual vehicles with actual signs mounted overhead on a test track - compared E Modified, Clearview, and Enhanced E Modified. Enhanced E Modified was slightly better than both E Modified and Clearview, but the results weren't statistically significant.Sounds like aIIRC, didn't studies find that Series E with Series EM kerning was better than both Series EM and Clearview in terms of legibility?cleardim view to me. Kind of like the typeface. hah.
I sort of was under the impression that Clearview had it's own set of overall usage instructions, but then again, maybe the fact that it was out-sourced means it never quite lined up with FHWA standards? Mix that with whatever locals make up the signs and that road leads to _______
I was an early hater of CV, but while I would CERTAINLY rather see some kind of FHWA, I don't think CV is essentially horrible. I just think that Highway Gothic was never as bad as some thought it was and that its slight faults could be easily fixed (and I think HAVE been fixed, as I've seen in some places over the years)
That's called Enhanced E Modified. One study involving it did show that, but more independent studies should be done to verify.
This list needs to be updated:
https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/
Speaking of, where does South Dakota use Clearview? Every new sign I've seen in the state uses Em.
I believe only KY, TX & VA have presently indicated that they will be reinstating IA use of Clearview.
I was specifically referring to state DOT agencies. Cities tend to make their own rules regarding what to use.I believe only KY, TX & VA have presently indicated that they will be reinstating IA use of Clearview.
As far as I know the City of Phoenix continued to use it even when the interim approval was rescinded. I haven't seen a non-Clearview illuminated sign in Phoenix at all, although there was one report of some at one intersection, although they might have been a fluke.
PennDOT has gone back to Series E Modified and is sticking with it.
Have they said anything to the effect, or have they just not yet started using Clearview again?
I believe only KY, TX & VA have presently indicated that they will be reinstating IA use of Clearview.
As far as I know the City of Phoenix continued to use it even when the interim approval was rescinded. I haven't seen a non-Clearview illuminated sign in Phoenix at all, although there was one report of some at one intersection, although they might have been a fluke.
The answer to your question is in one of the above-nested quotes (in bold).I believe only KY, TX & VA have presently indicated that they will be reinstating IA use of Clearview.
As far as I know the City of Phoenix continued to use it even when the interim approval was rescinded. I haven't seen a non-Clearview illuminated sign in Phoenix at all, although there was one report of some at one intersection, although they might have been a fluke.
I'd be more interested to know which state DOTs have transitioned back to Clearview after the reinstatement of the IA.
Bodl emphasis added:The answer to your question is in one of the above-nested quotes (in bold).I believe only KY, TX & VA have presently indicated that they will be reinstating IA use of Clearview.
As far as I know the City of Phoenix continued to use it even when the interim approval was rescinded. I haven't seen a non-Clearview illuminated sign in Phoenix at all, although there was one report of some at one intersection, although they might have been a fluke.
I'd be more interested to know which state DOTs have transitioned back to Clearview after the reinstatement of the IA.
I haven't seen any documentation, but I can confirm that Kentucky is going back to Clearview. This was confirmed by someone in Frankfort when I asked directly.I based my KY reference from what you mentioned on a FB thread regarding such.
I haven't seen any documentation, but I can confirm that Kentucky is going back to Clearview. This was confirmed by someone in Frankfort when I asked directly.I based my KY reference from what you mentioned on a FB thread regarding such.
https://i.imgur.com/i1pmWAD.png
Clearview in Sri Lanka?
Currently ADOT's Manual of Approved Signs continue to show FHWA fonts, although mainly with Series D and E instead of E(M). Recent installs also continue to use FHWA fonts, including the first APL sign in the Phoenix area.
Here is a memo from ADOT:
https://www.azdot.gov/docs/default-source/local-public-agency/memo_ia-05.pdf?sfvrsn=2
ADOT has confirmed they have no plans to re-adopt Clearview, however, local agencies within the state are allowed to resume its use. It appears that the City of Chandler has resumed its use at least on its non-signalized blades; not sure on its illuminated blades on its signalized intersections. Mesa and Gilbert though continue to use FHWA based on some recent installations I have seen.
Here is a memo from ADOT:
https://www.azdot.gov/docs/default-source/local-public-agency/memo_ia-05.pdf?sfvrsn=2
ADOT has confirmed they have no plans to re-adopt Clearview, however, local agencies within the state are allowed to resume its use. It appears that the City of Chandler has resumed its use at least on its non-signalized blades; not sure on its illuminated blades on its signalized intersections. Mesa and Gilbert though continue to use FHWA based on some recent installations I have seen.
"Sings design" :-D
BTW, the line for Kansas is "Yes, KTA." However, KTA appears to be using Clearview only for in-house installs of large panel guide signs. KTA contract signing work has never stopped using Series E Modified, to my knowledge. Meanwhile, a few local agencies have been using Clearview and it has therefore made its way into KDOT plans sets for project elements that are matched to local agency standards. This information mostly pre-dates rescinding and then reinstatement of the Clearview interim approval, so I don't have up-to-date information on how Kansas local agencies are reacting.The city of Atchison still uses it on street signs as far as I know.
Speaking of, where does South Dakota use Clearview? Every new sign I've seen in the state uses Em.4 or 5 blocks of East North Street in Rapid City. I haven't seen it anywhere else. There is an IowaDOT sign right near the Big Sewer on I-29, but I don't think we put that up.
Here is a memo from ADOT:
https://www.azdot.gov/docs/default-source/local-public-agency/memo_ia-05.pdf?sfvrsn=2
ADOT has confirmed they have no plans to re-adopt Clearview, however, local agencies within the state are allowed to resume its use. It appears that the City of Chandler has resumed its use at least on its non-signalized blades; not sure on its illuminated blades on its signalized intersections. Mesa and Gilbert though continue to use FHWA based on some recent installations I have seen.
"Sings design" :-D
Spelling errors by large agencies on official documents seem to be becoming quite common. WSDOT has dropped the ball at least a few times.
"Sings design" :-DTo be fair, I have inadvertently typed sing when I meant to type sign from time to time. Fortunately, I caught my error & corrected it.
Oops, I did it again.Only in reverse :colorful:
"Sings design" :-DTo be fair, I have inadvertently typed sing when I meant to type sign from time to time. Fortunately, I caught my error & corrected it.
True story: one time, my boss handed me a review the I needed to sign off on. He placed a Post-It note on top that had a hand-written "Please sing this" (instead of "Please sign this") on it. Needless to say, I got a good chuckle on it; and No, I did not sign to my boss per the Post-It note.
"Sings design" :-DTo be fair, I have inadvertently typed sing when I meant to type sign from time to time. Fortunately, I caught my error & corrected it.
True story: one time, my boss handed me a review the I needed to sign off on. He placed a Post-It note on top that had a hand-written "Please sing this" (instead of "Please sign this") on it. Needless to say, I got a good chuckle on it; and No, I did not sign to my boss per the Post-It note.
"Sings design" :-DTo be fair, I have inadvertently typed sing when I meant to type sign from time to time. Fortunately, I caught my error & corrected it.
True story: one time, my boss handed me a review the I needed to sign off on. He placed a Post-It note on top that had a hand-written "Please sing this" (instead of "Please sign this") on it. Needless to say, I got a good chuckle on it; and No, I did not sign to my boss per the Post-It note.
Did you mean to write "I did not sing to my boss..."? Perhaps I misunderstood something.
I, meanwhile, would have trapped my boss in her office and forced her to listen to me sing the document in its entirety, because I'm that guy.Acapella or choral?
I, meanwhile, would have trapped my boss in her office and forced her to listen to me sing the document in its entirety, because I'm that guy.Acapella or choral?
Here is a memo from ADOT:
https://www.azdot.gov/docs/default-source/local-public-agency/memo_ia-05.pdf?sfvrsn=2
ADOT has confirmed they have no plans to re-adopt Clearview, however, local agencies within the state are allowed to resume its use. It appears that the City of Chandler has resumed its use at least on its non-signalized blades; not sure on its illuminated blades on its signalized intersections. Mesa and Gilbert though continue to use FHWA based on some recent installations I have seen.
"Sings design" :-D
I’m in Utah right now and have seen a total of zero Clearview signs.
I’m in Utah right now and have seen a total of zero Clearview signs.
Only used on the Legacy Parkway (Hwy 67), as far as I know.
So, I drove by this yesterday, and I noticed that MDOT left some space on the exit signage for Konterra Dr, anticipating future ramp construction, perhaps? Are they going to use Clearview for the new exit number/letter now that it's been deprecated?
https://goo.gl/maps/wKwUZyYjiM32
The above begs the question whether or not PennDOT has quietly reinstated Clearview. These may be just one-offers.
I'm not sure anyone cares about street blades, but Fife, Washington recently installed a new signal, and the street blades use Clearview. This city had formerly used Clearview, but all installations in the last four or five years have been in Highway Gothic.
Oh, and it's all caps too. Brilliant.
(https://i.imgur.com/WKnN7J1.jpg)
I'm just wondering, has the state of Texas (TxDOT or any of the toll agencies) ever given up on Clearview? I can't remember the last new NON-Clearview sign posted on any of the highways or freeways there.
As far as Phoenix goes, I have never seen a lighted street blade in the city of Phoenix that wasn't in Clearview.
I'm just wondering, has the state of Texas (TxDOT or any of the toll agencies) ever given up on Clearview? I can't remember the last new NON-Clearview sign posted on any of the highways or freeways there.No. As a matter of fact, TX (representatives actually) was the one that inserted legislation into an appropriations bill (that was passed & signed into law by the President) that reinstated the IA use of Clearview. At the time of this posting, & it was mentioned several posts back; TX, VA & KY are the only known state DOTs that officially (re)started using Clearview again.
Not looking too good for Pennsylvania. A recently-improved local intersection in Lebanon has Clearview overhead blades.Are those local streets in that intersection PennDOT-maintained roads? Even if such were, I have seen many fonts (besides Clearview & Highway Gothic) used on street blade signs... especially on ones mounted on traffic signal poles.
Not looking too good for Pennsylvania. A recently-improved local intersection in Lebanon has Clearview overhead blades.
Are those local streets in that intersection PennDOT-maintained roads? Even if such were, I have seen many fonts (besides Clearview & Highway Gothic) used on street blade signs... especially on ones mounted on traffic signal poles.
I don't think I ever stopped seeing Clearview on mast arm signs in PennDOT construction plans even when the plug was pulled on the IA.Actually, this replacement street-blade sign (from about a year ago) (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8916197,-75.2971193,3a,75y,62.61h,79.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPX_ChbAVRH9OUPTA3ivstg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is certainly not Clearview; looks to be Series D. 2012 GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8915824,-75.297128,3a,75y,24.35h,72.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUzQqGFaD4Fqppm_CflHBxw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) showing the older Clearview sign.
Last night was another four-weekly run of my PennDOT ECMS downloader, and it pulled in more material than usual--4.34 GB spread across 22 projects, about twice the usual aggregate filesize and project count for a typical month. This was because of major projects for I-78 in Berks and Lehigh Counties (ECMS 10466), I-84 in Wayne and Pike Counties (ECMS 76861), and US 1 Roosevelt Expressway in greater Philadelphia (ECMS 83736). There was also a fair amount of traffic signal work, including mast arm signs.After thumbing through those, what I find interesting is that some street blade signs are still in all-caps. Most if not all newer street blade signs I've seen erected are in mixed-case regardless of the font used/selected.
I am sharing this month's tranche (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j_cM4E1u9wkCZZLxWDzvEZUEpr9f5MhL/view?usp=sharing) of the pattern-accurate signing sheets I typically collect for PennDOT (sign panel detail sheets, sign elevation sheets, and detour map sheets) to give a clearer and more precise picture of where the agency is with regard to Clearview. The big three projects all have permanent signing with Series E Modified, while a lot of the mast arm signs are Clearview, as are a few isolated large panel sign replacements.
Last night was another four-weekly run of my PennDOT ECMS downloader, and it pulled in more material than usual--4.34 GB spread across 22 projects, about twice the usual aggregate filesize and project count for a typical month. This was because of major projects for I-78 in Berks and Lehigh Counties (ECMS 10466), I-84 in Wayne and Pike Counties (ECMS 76861), and US 1 Roosevelt Expressway in greater Philadelphia (ECMS 83736). There was also a fair amount of traffic signal work, including mast arm signs.
I am sharing this month's tranche (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j_cM4E1u9wkCZZLxWDzvEZUEpr9f5MhL/view?usp=sharing) of the pattern-accurate signing sheets I typically collect for PennDOT (sign panel detail sheets, sign elevation sheets, and detour map sheets) to give a clearer and more precise picture of where the agency is with regard to Clearview. The big three projects all have permanent signing with Series E Modified, while a lot of the mast arm signs are Clearview, as are a few isolated large panel sign replacements.
How do you get all this?
Even more interesting if not odd item: granted, such signage is only temporary; but those orange signs for the I-76 closure detour in Philly are mostly in Clearview... even the numerals in the I-76 & I-95 shields. Such was never allowed during both the current & previous IA periods.
Side bar & note to PennDOT: Get rid of those short, squatty US shields (for the US 1 & US 13 signage) & use the standard FHWA ones.
For a few years it seemed that ADOT, Maricopa County DOT, the various cities in the Phoenix area, and even Tucson and Pima County DOT all jumped on the Clearview bandwagon. Today, I can't think of any new Clearview installations other than the street blades at traffic signals in the city of Phoenix. As far as Phoenix goes, I have never seen a lighted street blade in the city of Phoenix that wasn't in Clearview.
The purpose of the report was to conduct a comprehensive review of the research on the Clearview alternative font, document the safety and cost implications of the decision to terminate approval of Clearview font, and fully address the comments submitted in response to the FHWA's subsequent Request for Information on this subject. The report also examines the complexities of implementing and maintaining alternative lettering styles in addition to the FHWA Standard Alphabets that are now required for use in traffic control device applications.
FHWA's recently submitted report to Congress on highway sign fonts has been made publicly available: "Highway Sign Fonts" (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5rptcongress/ia5rptcongress.pdf) [3.3MB]QuoteThe purpose of the report was to conduct a comprehensive review of the research on the Clearview alternative font, document the safety and cost implications of the decision to terminate approval of Clearview font, and fully address the comments submitted in response to the FHWA's subsequent Request for Information on this subject. The report also examines the complexities of implementing and maintaining alternative lettering styles in addition to the FHWA Standard Alphabets that are now required for use in traffic control device applications.
FHWA's recently submitted report to Congress on highway sign fonts has been made publicly available: "Highway Sign Fonts" (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5rptcongress/ia5rptcongress.pdf) [3.3MB]QuoteThe purpose of the report was to conduct a comprehensive review of the research on the Clearview alternative font, document the safety and cost implications of the decision to terminate approval of Clearview font, and fully address the comments submitted in response to the FHWA's subsequent Request for Information on this subject. The report also examines the complexities of implementing and maintaining alternative lettering styles in addition to the FHWA Standard Alphabets that are now required for use in traffic control device applications.
While there were no demonstrated deficiencies with the Standard Alphabets, the developers worked to
advance a new letter style with improved legibility. The stated goal was to rely exclusively on
modifications to the new letter forms (shapes) and stroke width. However, when this process failed to
compete with the legibility and recognition of the Standard Alphabets, the developer then turned to a
different characteristic of legibility: the size and height of the letters themselves. Ultimately, the
developers could not achieve comparable legibility to the Standard Alphabets until the size of the letters
was increased 12 percent larger than the corresponding Standard Alphabet letters.
With the FHWA's recent review and the new Congress coming in, I don't see the interim approval lasting much longer. ADOT probably made the right decision on not to use it again when the interim approval was reinstated.
With the FHWA's recent review and the new Congress coming in, I don't see the interim approval lasting much longer. ADOT probably made the right decision on not to use it again when the interim approval was reinstated.
Besides Arizona and (seemingly at least) PennDOT and the PTC, which other states/agencies that used Clearview previously have opted out even after it was reinstated?
With the FHWA's recent review and the new Congress coming in, I don't see the interim approval lasting much longer. ADOT probably made the right decision on not to use it again when the interim approval was reinstated.
With the FHWA's recent review and the new Congress coming in, I don't see the interim approval lasting much longer. ADOT probably made the right decision on not to use it again when the interim approval was reinstated.
Besides Arizona and (seemingly at least) PennDOT and the PTC, which other states/agencies that used Clearview previously have opted out even after it was reinstated?
Why do you think the new Congress will care, or won't care?
With the FHWA's recent review and the new Congress coming in, I don't see the interim approval lasting much longer. ADOT probably made the right decision on not to use it again when the interim approval was reinstated.
Besides Arizona and (seemingly at least) PennDOT and the PTC, which other states/agencies that used Clearview previously have opted out even after it was reinstated?
Why do you think the new Congress will care, or won't care?
The push to reinstate Clearview was led by Sam Johnson, who will be retiring from his seat. With Sam Johnson retiring and Democrats in control of the House, I don't expect there will be any major push for the FHWA to adopt Clearview.
But who's to stay that Johnson's successor won't also be interested in pushing TTI's agenda? Or that the Democrats will be eager to revoke Clearview? Don't they have more pressing topics, like Trump's tax returns? :-D
Bad news (for most of us at least): I just spoke with the PennDOT District 8 senior project manager about signage on the I-83 East Shore Section 1 project and he confirmed that PennDOT has returned to Clearview, this project included. I have no idea about the Turnpike Commission.
Actually it makes sense if - and only if - they have to invest in the replacement. E.g. buy new software to use instead of purchased one.Bad news (for most of us at least): I just spoke with the PennDOT District 8 senior project manager about signage on the I-83 East Shore Section 1 project and he confirmed that PennDOT has returned to Clearview, this project included. I have no idea about the Turnpike Commission.
If PennDOT, or their contractors/consultants, have invested in the font, it makes good economic sense to continue to use it.
Actually it makes sense if - and only if - they have to invest in the replacement. E.g. buy new software to use instead of purchased one.Bad news (for most of us at least): I just spoke with the PennDOT District 8 senior project manager about signage on the I-83 East Shore Section 1 project and he confirmed that PennDOT has returned to Clearview, this project included. I have no idea about the Turnpike Commission.
If PennDOT, or their contractors/consultants, have invested in the font, it makes good economic sense to continue to use it.
My understanding is that there is no additional cost in returning to FHWA fonts.
Financially, once cost is sunk - further decisions should not take that into account. Psychologically it makes sense; financially getting subprime result only because "we paid for that" when there is no additional costs involved is plain stupid.Actually it makes sense if - and only if - they have to invest in the replacement. E.g. buy new software to use instead of purchased one.Bad news (for most of us at least): I just spoke with the PennDOT District 8 senior project manager about signage on the I-83 East Shore Section 1 project and he confirmed that PennDOT has returned to Clearview, this project included. I have no idea about the Turnpike Commission.
If PennDOT, or their contractors/consultants, have invested in the font, it makes good economic sense to continue to use it.
My understanding is that there is no additional cost in returning to FHWA fonts.
No, but they have already paid for the Clearview font (vs. the FWHA font being free) so they might as well get a return on their investment. It's like me being forced to use SharePoint for web development -- they paid a pretty penny for it so they're going to get as much use out of it as possible, even it it's not as good as other options.
Plus, Pennsylvania was one of the leading early advocates of Clearview, so they have a vested interest in using it.
My understanding is that there is no additional cost in returning to FHWA fonts.No, but they have already paid for the Clearview font (vs. the FWHA font being free) so they might as well get a return on their investment.
Many people around here hate Clearview... That's fine, we're all entitled to have our opinions.
But they should also realize there are many who think it's superior to the traditional highway font. It's the reason it exists in the first place.
I think at some point, with several large states using it, including Texas, it might be time to just accept it's existence.
With Clearview's "second life" and the apparent birth of a new signs with it popping up, I sort of hope it's allowed to coexist with Gothic across the land.
Some provinces in Canada are using Clearview while others are not; I don't think it's a problem there and I don't think it'll be a problem in the US either.
Pixel 2
FHWA's recently submitted report to Congress on highway sign fonts has been made publicly available: "Highway Sign Fonts" (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5rptcongress/ia5rptcongress.pdf) [3.3MB]
Many people around here hate Clearview... That's fine, we're all entitled to have our opinions.Except it's been shown that Clearview isn't superior, at least not in an apples-to-apples comparison. The original study compared brand-new, fully reflective Clearview signs to diapilated FHWA signs that should have been replaced decades ago. Of course it looked better in those conditions. It wasn't a fair test.
But they should also realize there are many who think it's superior to the traditional highway font. It's the reason it exists in the first place.
I think at some point, with several large states using it, including Texas, it might be time to just accept it's existence.
With Clearview's "second life" and the apparent birth of a new signs with it popping up, I sort of hope it's allowed to coexist with Gothic across the land.
Some provinces in Canada are using Clearview while others are not; I don't think it's a problem there and I don't think it'll be a problem in the US either.
Pixel 2
Not to mention that it looks absolutely hideous in many jurisdictions, PA among them.
It's certainly far easier to mess up than Highway Gothic, which is a red flag in and of itself.
Far easier to mess up than Highway Gothic? News flash: any typeface can look absolutely hideous if the person working with type does stupid things with it when setting it into a sign design or other graphics composition. Some of the comments maligning Clearview in defense of Series Gothic absurdly seem to imply lettering in Clearview is always fatally prone to graphical design errors while Series Gothic is somehow immune from the same issues for magical reasons that are never explained. The whole thing deserves a giant amount of "what-about-ism" leveled on multiple fronts in traffic sign design and commercial sign design in general.Honestly, the ugly FHWA signs I've seen tend to be because of errors on the individual signs. The ugly Clearview signs I've seen seem to be consistent across a jurisdiction - for example, the Thruway Clearview signs all look ugly, and almost all of them (barring an early test case or two on an older style) look ugly in the exact same way (and their new FHWA signs look good even though the font is the only thing that's really changed). In particular, text on Clearview signs seems to look simultaneously look overly large and thin at the same time, especially the numbers.
My own personal background: I have worked in the commercial sign industry over 20 years and a degree in graphic design and illustration on top of that. I know how to work with type better than most people and am all too familiar with the boundaries of where you can use certain kinds of type versus others. I am good at what I do, but at the same time I am routinely disgusted by the terrible work of so many others working in my industry. Poorly designed signs and poorly maintained signs are the top two motivating factors for communities drafting very restrictive anti-signs ordinances. Lots of people in this forum get disgusted at the sight of Clearview. My own hatred is reserved for Arial. It's a typeface I like about the least out of neutral sans serif type families. But my hatred for Arial is really more about all the idiots working in sign companies who can't resist the urge to squeeze and stretch Arial out of its normal proportions. So I associate Arial with most bad commercial sign design. It's near the top of the font menu, making it the go-to default font for hack designers.
I have seen both Series Gothic and Clearview used both properly and improperly. In all of the examples of improper use that I've seen none of it has ever been the fault of the typeface itself. The real problem is people who either don't know what they're doing or more likely don't care what they're doing when designing a sign. Okahoma's DOT often does shoddy work when fabricating large highway signs. I've seen them goof up both Series Gothic and Clearview in really unexpected ways -like a single word on a sign panel having characters of different sizes. It's like they had a mixed bag box full of die cut vinyl letters waiting to peel and stick on a sign panel one letter at a time. Or they try to cram a sign message with letters that are too big into a sign panel that is too small. Because they're being cheap. TX DOT usually does a decent job with its big green signs, but they're often guilty of cramming lettering into panels not really wide enough for the legend. White space is pretty important in graphic design. But someone trims the size of the sign panel to save money.
It's obvious many road geeks have a sentimental attachment to Series Gothic. I personally wouldn't use it for anything else other than a traffic sign layout. To me it's a fairly crude typeface compared to so many other sans serif type families. If I wanted the "flavor" of Highway Gothic incorporated into a commercial sign I would much rather use Interstate from Font Bureau. But even Interstate has kind of fallen out of fashion due to over-use. I'm not sure if it will even gain a resurgence of sorts since Font Bureau made it available to sync via Adobe Fonts for no extra charge.
Far easier to mess up than Highway Gothic? News flash: any typeface can look absolutely hideous if the person working with type does stupid things with it when setting it into a sign design or other graphics composition. Some of the comments maligning Clearview in defense of Series Gothic absurdly seem to imply lettering in Clearview is always fatally prone to graphical design errors while Series Gothic is somehow immune from the same issues for magical reasons that are never explained. The whole thing deserves a giant amount of "what-about-ism" leveled on multiple fronts in traffic sign design and commercial sign design in general.Honestly, the ugly FHWA signs I've seen tend to be because of errors on the individual signs.
My own personal background: I have worked in the commercial sign industry over 20 years and a degree in graphic design and illustration on top of that. I know how to work with type better than most people and am all too familiar with the boundaries of where you can use certain kinds of type versus others. I am good at what I do, but at the same time I am routinely disgusted by the terrible work of so many others working in my industry. Poorly designed signs and poorly maintained signs are the top two motivating factors for communities drafting very restrictive anti-signs ordinances. Lots of people in this forum get disgusted at the sight of Clearview. My own hatred is reserved for Arial. It's a typeface I like about the least out of neutral sans serif type families. But my hatred for Arial is really more about all the idiots working in sign companies who can't resist the urge to squeeze and stretch Arial out of its normal proportions. So I associate Arial with most bad commercial sign design. It's near the top of the font menu, making it the go-to default font for hack designers.
I have seen both Series Gothic and Clearview used both properly and improperly. In all of the examples of improper use that I've seen none of it has ever been the fault of the typeface itself. The real problem is people who either don't know what they're doing or more likely don't care what they're doing when designing a sign. Okahoma's DOT often does shoddy work when fabricating large highway signs. I've seen them goof up both Series Gothic and Clearview in really unexpected ways -like a single word on a sign panel having characters of different sizes. It's like they had a mixed bag box full of die cut vinyl letters waiting to peel and stick on a sign panel one letter at a time. Or they try to cram a sign message with letters that are too big into a sign panel that is too small. Because they're being cheap. TX DOT usually does a decent job with its big green signs, but they're often guilty of cramming lettering into panels not really wide enough for the legend. White space is pretty important in graphic design. But someone trims the size of the sign panel to save money.
It's obvious many road geeks have a sentimental attachment to Series Gothic. I personally wouldn't use it for anything else other than a traffic sign layout. To me it's a fairly crude typeface compared to so many other sans serif type families. If I wanted the "flavor" of Highway Gothic incorporated into a commercial sign I would much rather use Interstate from Font Bureau. But even Interstate has kind of fallen out of fashion due to over-use. I'm not sure if it will even gain a resurgence of sorts since Font Bureau made it available to sync via Adobe Fonts for no extra charge.
It's obvious many road geeks have a sentimental attachment to Series Gothic. I personally wouldn't use it for anything else other than a traffic sign layout. To me it's a fairly crude typeface compared to so many other sans serif type families.
I guess what I'm confused about is this idea that the Clearview studies were all flawed (except the FHWA one). Did the FHWA conclusively prove that the prior studies were rigged in Clearview's favor? Did anyone from Penn State, MIT, Texas A&M or TTI ever respond to that allegation?I remember an MIT study, where IHMO less than impressive results, which I would interpret as "similar, maybe a little bit better, may be a bit worse" was concluded with "significantly improved, especially for certain age group" when entire difference was in one person reading the sign from a few feet larger distance. That shifted the average by a hair - and allowed to make a brave conclusion. But it looked more like guy learned how the experiment was set up and did things better on second try.
It's been my observation (just an opinion) that a lot, not all, but a lot of the opposition to Clearview around here is based on nostalgia.
Something else I was wondering is why was the American (Gothic) font chosen in the first place? Was it found to be the best available option or did it sort of just happen to be the choice of the people in charge at the time and was never really questioned?
Has the FHWA ever taken the time to review other fonts used around the world to see if they would be better, like what's used in the UK, for example?
I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something about the FHWA Series family that just feels official. Over-saturation due to how many road signs there are? Age of the typeface? Some combination of the two? In any case, I'm still of the camp "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
I guess what I'm confused about is this idea that the Clearview studies were all flawed (except the FHWA one). Did the FHWA conclusively prove that the prior studies were rigged in Clearview's favor? Did anyone from Penn State, MIT, Texas A&M or TTI ever respond to that allegation?IIRC, it was a later (2014(?)) study from Texas A&M that alleged that the earlier findings that supported use of the Clearview font was based on inaccurately comparing older-worn signs in Highway Gothic to new Clearview signs; when the study should've compared new signs featuring each font.
Something else I was wondering is why was the American (Gothic) font chosen in the first place?American Gothic lol? :rofl:
The E/Modified weight was originally intended to hold reflective buttons. The typeface overall is too bold to make its lowercase characters properly legible. The negative spaces in those letters are too small. E/Modified still remains as the typeface of choice for big green signs due to style and nostalgia even though Series E is really more legible.That, in essence, was the reasoning why the IA only allowed the Clearview font to be used in certain applications. However, many agencies (mis)applied such carte-blanche and in every direction.
I believe Clearview is more legible when compared to lettering of the same size set in the corresponding Series Gothic weight. But some of that difference has to do with Clearview's lowercase letters being larger and more open. I think the back and forth nonsense about granting Clearview "interim approval" then taking it away and later restoring it is all politics with various deciders just picking a typeface based on their own subjective bias.Quote from: DaBigEI can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something about the FHWA Series family that just feels official. Over-saturation due to how many road signs there are? Age of the typeface? Some combination of the two? In any case, I'm still of the camp "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
The effect of a typeface looking "official" is partly in the eye of the beholder and partly in the manner in how cleanly it is composed into a layout.
To me, no other typeface beats the "official" look than Helvetica (or its 80's revival Helvetica Neue). Helvetica was a tent pole of the Swiss school of typography and graphic design that took the design world by storm in the 1960's. There is a very good documentary about the typeface and its history. The popularity of Helvetica had started to wane in the late 1970's. Adobe gave Helvetica a boost in the early 1980's when they invented Postscript. Helvetica was one of the four default typefaces bundled into each Postscript interpreter. Helvetica was there when the desktop publishing revolution took off with the original Mac and Aldus PageMaker, the first page layout program built on Postscript technology.
Over the past 30 years Arial has arguably superseded Helvetica as the most "official" of official-looking fonts due to sheer availability on Windows-based computers and in Microsoft products. We also can't forget its name begins with the letter "A," putting it near the top of the font menu. Some designers are just too lazy to bother scrolling a little farther down a font menu list for a better choice. I hate how Arial looks. It looks similar to Helvetica but with lots of strange differences. Arial was created by Monotype for Microsoft, just so Microsoft wouldn't have to pay Linotype to license Helvetica.
"Highway Gothic" has plenty of its own flaws. They're really easy to see when compared directly to the far cleaner looking Interstate type family. Most of the weights of Series Gothic had no lowercase characters for the longest time; they were very bare-bones all caps fonts. When the lowercase characters were finally added they were not particularly well executed. The E/Modified weight was originally intended to hold reflective buttons. The typeface overall is too bold to make its lowercase characters properly legible. The negative spaces in those letters are too small. E/Modified still remains as the typeface of choice for big green signs due to style and nostalgia even though Series E is really more legible.
I think one of the reasons many agencies "mis-applied" the use of Clearview was because of the rule adopted last decade forbidding the use of all caps legends in many applications -like street name signs for instance. Clearview was designed from the outset with a complete basic character set. Most weights have "highway gothic" never had lowercase characters. Not every agency updated to "Series 2000" fonts, which included lowercase characters in more of the fonts. They were stuck with all caps versions.Oh I wouldn't necessarily say that agencies were stuck in all-caps when using highway Gothic. Prior to the Series 2000 fonts; there were some FHWA-variations out there that were not Series E or E-modified.
I wish E Modified would have been ditched as soon as the buttons disappeared for similar legibility rationale. It's one of the reasons I disagree with the Clearview push, since I think modifications could have been made to the FHWA series. One thing I do like about Clearview is how it made the difference between a capital 'I' and a lowercase 'l' nearly impossible to mistake. Yes, the FHWA Series does have a clip taken out of the upper left corner of the 'l', but it's too subtle.Actually, and pointing toward NJ/NJDOT again some of their early post-button-copy BGS appeared to have used Series E lettering w/E-modified spacing (the earlier-mentioned Texas A&M study called this Enhanced E-modified).
Since you're in the biz, what do you think should be done? Re-purpose some other existing typeface, fix FHWA Series' flaws, or create a new scientifically-based typeface? Personally, I wouldn't mind the last option, if and only if we could keep politics and private profits out of the system.
Sort of tangential question - but how much would it cost to bring FHWA series up to speed?Quote from: DaBigESince you're in the biz, what do you think should be done? Re-purpose some other existing typeface, fix FHWA Series' flaws, or create a new scientifically-based typeface? Personally, I wouldn't mind the last option, if and only if we could keep politics and private profits out of the system.
Just like I won't do graphic design or illustration work for free just for the "honor" of being published no professional type designer in his right mind should be willing to properly design a new type family for traffic sign use "open source" and all free of charge. It takes a hell of a lot of time and effort to create a new typeface, even without all the extra steps of testing and research that went into Clearview. Any new effort is going to cost a bunch of money. Somebody somewhere has to be willing to pay for the time, labor (and materials) involved in that typeface's production -and any testing that follows.
I don't have as big a problem with Clearview's numbers as others in this forum. But I do prefer Series Gothic numerals in highway route markers, even if some of them are a bit crude looking. Font Bureau's Interstate family provides a pretty road map of what could be done to clean up the glyphs. I think if the old Series Gothic typeface is to be maintained on highway signs it needs a proper, radical update in OpenType format. The existing characters need to be re-drawn, cleaning up all the odd little crooked bits that make the current version uglier than it needs to be. Then the character set needs to be expanded. First it needs a set of punctuation marks (whether they're allowed in the US or not). The typeface also needs a full set of accents and accented letters (regardless if they're allowed in the US or not). Series Gothic needs a proper set of OTF-enabled fractions. Clearview has a complete fraction set; unfortunately the fractions are taller than the capital M-height. Many agencies have had to make manual adjustments. Finally Series Gothic needs a full set of native small capital letters. Last decade the rule was established that cardinal direction words like "East" or "West" had to have large cap & small cap treatment. Currently highway sign designers have to type out words like "west" in all caps and then enlarge the first letter. That approach is GARBAGE. I really hate when I see that crap in commercial sign design (zero excuse for the practice there). The bigger first letter is out of balance with the other letters since its line strokes are proportionately thicker. There are hundreds of professional foundry quality OpenType fonts out there that have built in native small capitals and even many alternates to those small cap letters. The typeface Bookmania has over 3000 glyphs per font. It's staggering what went into that type family. I'm not expecting the fonts used on our highway signs to be quite that elaborate, but the fonts shouldn't be so embarrassingly out of date crude either.
Quote from: DaBigESince you're in the biz, what do you think should be done? Re-purpose some other existing typeface, fix FHWA Series' flaws, or create a new scientifically-based typeface? Personally, I wouldn't mind the last option, if and only if we could keep politics and private profits out of the system.
Just like I won't do graphic design or illustration work for free just for the "honor" of being published no professional type designer in his right mind should be willing to properly design a new type family for traffic sign use "open source" and all free of charge. It takes a hell of a lot of time and effort to create a new typeface, even without all the extra steps of testing and research that went into Clearview. Any new effort is going to cost a bunch of money. Somebody somewhere has to be willing to pay for the time, labor (and materials) involved in that typeface's production -and any testing that follows.
I don't have as big a problem with Clearview's numbers as others in this forum. But I do prefer Series Gothic numerals in highway route markers, even if some of them are a bit crude looking. Font Bureau's Interstate family provides a pretty road map of what could be done to clean up the glyphs. I think if the old Series Gothic typeface is to be maintained on highway signs it needs a proper, radical update in OpenType format. The existing characters need to be re-drawn, cleaning up all the odd little crooked bits that make the current version uglier than it needs to be. Then the character set needs to be expanded. First it needs a set of punctuation marks (whether they're allowed in the US or not). The typeface also needs a full set of accents and accented letters (regardless if they're allowed in the US or not). Series Gothic needs a proper set of OTF-enabled fractions. Clearview has a complete fraction set; unfortunately the fractions are taller than the capital M-height. Many agencies have had to make manual adjustments. Finally Series Gothic needs a full set of native small capital letters. Last decade the rule was established that cardinal direction words like "East" or "West" had to have large cap & small cap treatment. Currently highway sign designers have to type out words like "west" in all caps and then enlarge the first letter. That approach is GARBAGE. I really hate when I see that crap in commercial sign design (zero excuse for the practice there). The bigger first letter is out of balance with the other letters since its line strokes are proportionately thicker. There are hundreds of professional foundry quality OpenType fonts out there that have built in native small capitals and even many alternates to those small cap letters. The typeface Bookmania has over 3000 glyphs per font. It's staggering what went into that type family. I'm not expecting the fonts used on our highway signs to be quite that elaborate, but the fonts shouldn't be so embarrassingly out of date crude either.
I never intended anyone to do the work for free, rather, it should be a project taken on (RE: paid for) by FHWA and/or TRB. I have no issue paying someone to do the work; I just have issues of a company profiting from something that everyone has to pay to be fully Federally-compliant (somewhat similar to what the RRFB system went through, albeit the RRFB was with patenting).
People routinely dump on Clearview Highway, but how many of them have bothered to check if Terminal Design in Brooklyn is some big bad giant corporation? It's really just a small business run by James Montalbano. It's nothing big and sinister. Does everyone expect that guy to work for nothing? Last time I checked he lives and/or works in Brooklyn. It's not cheap to live there, especially now since the whole damn borough has gone through gentrification and rounds of speculative real estate price gouging.
People routinely dump on Clearview Highway, but how many of them have bothered to check if Terminal Design in Brooklyn is some big bad giant corporation? It's really just a small business run by James Montalbano. It's nothing big and sinister.Regardless of actual business size, I would say any business which successfully lobbies to have federal laws change to favor their product is big and evil. Even if it is just a single nice guy who runs operations from his basement.
For reasons beyond subjective preference, I'm against Clearview because I don't like the idea of governments being beholden to pay a company for a license to use a highway sign font. That's where price gouging and government waste come in.
Most type designers don't get paid in advance for their work. Unless they're working full time on the staff of a company like Adobe or Linotype they're effectively self-employed. They only get paid based on how well their font files sell.
Over the past 30 years Arial has arguably superseded Helvetica as the most "official" of official-looking fonts due to sheer availability on Windows-based computers and in Microsoft products. We also can't forget its name begins with the letter "A," putting it near the top of the font menu. Some designers are just too lazy to bother scrolling a little farther down a font menu list for a better choice. I hate how Arial looks. It looks similar to Helvetica but with lots of strange differences. Arial was created by Monotype for Microsoft, just so Microsoft wouldn't have to pay Linotype to license Helvetica.
"Highway Gothic" has plenty of its own flaws. They're really easy to see when compared directly to the far cleaner looking Interstate type family.
"Highway Gothic" has plenty of its own flaws. [...] When the lowercase characters were finally added they were not particularly well executed. The E/Modified weight was originally intended to hold reflective buttons.
E/Modified still remains as the typeface of choice for big green signs due to style and nostalgia even though Series E is really more legible.
How much would it cost to properly re-fresh the look and flesh-out the inadequacies of Series Gothic? The ballpark estimate would start at around $50,000 to $100,000. That's just for a type designer to spend the hundreds of hours needed to carefully redraw Series B thru F and expand the character sets. We're talking at least 450 or so glyphs per font file just to cover the Latin alphabet. Adding Greek and Cyrillic alphabets can double the glyph count. It's common for "pro" level OTF font files to have 700-1000 glyphs (if not a lot more than that). Drawing the characters is one thing. Building proper spacing tables into the font files is another. A single font file can have hundreds or even thousands of kerning pairs. The type designer may do the OpenType scripting work himself (to allow OTF functions like alternate characters, fractions, small caps, etc) or he may job it out to someone who specializes in that scripting. This is all just to arrive at working, finished font files.
[...]
Then there's the matter of sign design software. As far as I can tell none of the traffic sign design specific software currently in use supports the extended features and character sets of OpenType. Even commercial sign design applications like SignLab and SAi Flexi don't fully support OpenType. The thing is OpenType technology was first developed in the mid-1990's and has been commercially available for about 20 years. I primarily use CorelDRAW 2018 and Adobe Illustrator CC for my sign design work. Those applications are far more sophisticated in their type handling capability. My artwork gets ported into other industry specific applications to send to vinyl cutters/plotters, routing tables and large format printers.
Anyway, not only does the Series Gothic typeface need to step into the 21st century, the dated software the sign designers are using needs to step into the 21st century as well.
If any sort of typeface designed for roadways were to become public-domain (and therefore licence-free), wouldn't the work on the typeface have to be paid up-front? Perhaps the design team given permanent positions within the FHWA (if they so chose)?
As far as I can tell, Clearview works like every other non-free font, where the designers are paid according to how many licences are given out (right?). But because the font is used on road signs, the typeface really should be public domain, so no licencing crap. Ergo, up-front payment is the only option.
I'm not seeing your point. I don't get paid in advance for my engineering projects; surgeons don't get paid in advance of an appendectomy. One would think they would jump at the chance at contract work, as for the most part, it's a guaranteed paycheck.
If any sort of typeface designed for roadways were to become public-domain (and therefore licence-free), wouldn't the work on the typeface have to be paid up-front? Perhaps the design team given permanent positions within the FHWA (if they so chose)?
You have posted variants of this several times, but I have never been able to pin you down on why exactly the FHWA fonts need all of those glyphs. One could argue that French and Spanish diacritics are necessary, but it's hard to see how anything else would be a good use of funds, particularly since the US doesn't share a land border with any country that uses Cyrillic or Greek script. Additionally, most of the Unicode spec that lacks coverage is things like advanced mathematical symbols, obscure currency symbols, and emoji, all of which make sense for a general-purpose typeface to include, but have no traffic-control value.
Interestingly, current court precedent is that while typefaces are copyrightable as works of software, and their names are subject to trademark protection, glyphs are not protected at all, because they aren't original enough (the courts find that an "A" is just an "A" no matter how you draw it, and you can't copyright an "A"). This is why you can find shoddy copies of typefaces like Optima that have been renamed to things like "Oklahoma" or "Optimum".
I imagine if FHWA were to decide to update the FHWA fonts, it would go something like this:
1. The FHWA would release a Request for Proposals (RFP) detailing the issue, the stated objectives of the project, and a desired timeframe/budget for completion.
2. Contractors would respond to the RFP with detailed proposals giving an overview of what they'd do; qualification details for their firm and any subcontractor(s) as well as staff working on the project, including resumes and summaries of prior related work; and a detailed proposed schedule and budget.
3. The FHWA would review the proposals, potentially interview firms, and decide who to award the contract to.
4. The contractor would work on the project, billing the FHWA as the work progresses.
5. A final product would be delivered to the FHWA and the contract would be closed out.
Quote from: DaBigEI'm not seeing your point. I don't get paid in advance for my engineering projects; surgeons don't get paid in advance of an appendectomy. One would think they would jump at the chance at contract work, as for the most part, it's a guaranteed paycheck.
When you do an enginnering project you expect to get paid a specific amount of money for that work. Designing type on an independent basis doesn't work that way. Designing typefaces on a freelance basis is no different in principal from a rock band recording a music CD and self-distributing copies of it. If the music isn't good enough it won't sell many copies. The band makes little if any money. The same thing goes on in the type design field. An independent typeface designer only gets paid when people actually buy his fonts. If only a few people buy his fonts he won't make much money.
Working for a big company like Adobe can deliver a steady paycheck. But the pay will be only so good. Some of the best typeface designers can do better working independently. Sometimes it's in their best interest to do so.
Tobias Frere-Jones designed dozens of great typeface families working with Font Bureau in the 1990's and later at HTF. He designed popular typefaces like Interstate and Gotham. He had an acrimonious falling out with Jonathan Hoefler at HTF. Frere-Jones thought he was a 50/50 partner in the type foundry, but it turned out Hoefler was pocketing most of the money made by the firm and regarded Frere-Jones as just a mere employee. Frere-Jones filed a $20 million law suit against Hoefler and started his own independent firm.
You're still not getting it. See the post I quoted from vdeane. If a typeface designer wants work in FHWA/engineering world, you play by our rules. Don't like the work? Don't submit an RFP. Sorry to be harsh, but with the type of project we're talking about here, whether you freelance or not doesn't matter. "Freelance engineers" (how new consulting firms get started) know and accept this. Where the best engineers work is no different than your typeface designer statement -- some work for DOTs, others work for consulting firms, and others still work completely on their own.
Realistically, expecting getting paid for the work is more than reasonable, nobody arguing with that.QuoteYou're still not getting it. See the post I quoted from vdeane. If a typeface designer wants work in FHWA/engineering world, you play by our rules. Don't like the work? Don't submit an RFP. Sorry to be harsh, but with the type of project we're talking about here, whether you freelance or not doesn't matter. "Freelance engineers" (how new consulting firms get started) know and accept this. Where the best engineers work is no different than your typeface designer statement -- some work for DOTs, others work for consulting firms, and others still work completely on their own.
That work process list vdeane posted still involves the typeface designer getting paid. If a professional typeface designer is asked to submit a proposal to do something like re-build and expand Series Gothic he'll provide examples of his work and the price and other terms he wants. The client can negotiate those terms with the designer. If they reach an agreement a contract is signed. Actual work on the typeface does not start until then. The designer sure as hell isn't going to produce a finished typeface for a government agency and only hope to get paid on the back end, especially if he is literally spending years working on the project.
If the client tries to push the designer around, offering only so much money and adding insults like "play by our rules" cuz we're doing you a favor to let you work in our industry he can always tell the client to go piss up a rope and find some other sucker to do the work. Not all typeface designers are equal. A select few are very talented and great at what they do. Plenty of others aren't as good. The great ones are going to command a higher price.
QuoteYou're still not getting it. See the post I quoted from vdeane. If a typeface designer wants work in FHWA/engineering world, you play by our rules. Don't like the work? Don't submit an RFP. Sorry to be harsh, but with the type of project we're talking about here, whether you freelance or not doesn't matter. "Freelance engineers" (how new consulting firms get started) know and accept this. Where the best engineers work is no different than your typeface designer statement -- some work for DOTs, others work for consulting firms, and others still work completely on their own.
That work process list vdeane posted still involves the typeface designer getting paid. If a professional typeface designer is asked to submit a proposal to do something like re-build and expand Series Gothic he'll provide examples of his work and the price and other terms he wants. The client can negotiate those terms with the designer. If they reach an agreement a contract is signed. Actual work on the typeface does not start until then. The designer sure as hell isn't going to produce a finished typeface for a government agency and only hope to get paid on the back end, especially if he is literally spending years working on the project.
If the client tries to push the designer around, offering only so much money and adding insults like "play by our rules" cuz we're doing you a favor to let you work in our industry he can always tell the client to go piss up a rope and find some other sucker to do the work. Not all typeface designers are equal. A select few are very talented and great at what they do. Plenty of others aren't as good. The great ones are going to command a higher price.
I don't think FHWA is going to commission a type designer to develop a replacement for the FHWA alphabet series in this or any near decade, although there is certainly precedent internationally for highway agencies paying type designers to develop typefaces for traffic sign use. Here is why I think so:But again, FHWA series are technically outdated, no question about that.
But again, FHWA series are technically outdated, no question about that.
Updating the typeset to a modern standard, as opposed to development from scratch, can be seen as a fairly technical and non-controversial thing to do.
I am talking more about FHWA design issues from modern font perspective - small caps, diacritic marks and accents, fractions etc. Those are not ClearView scale job, this is a purely technical job: no improvements please, just make sure things are properly scaled and positioned.But again, FHWA series are technically outdated, no question about that.
They are dated (uppercase glyphs for Series B-F dating from 1948, Series E Modified mixed-case from 1950). But the real issue is opportunity for functional improvement, which for the reasons I outlined above, is almost certainly very limited.Updating the typeset to a modern standard, as opposed to development from scratch, can be seen as a fairly technical and non-controversial thing to do.
Not now, not after the whole Clearview fracas. That argument did indeed carry weight in the mid-1990's and that is how we got Clearview. At this point FHWA is quite entitled to say "Fool me once . . ."
I am talking more about FHWA design issues from modern font perspective - small caps, diacritic marks and accents, fractions etc. Those are not ClearView scale job, this is a purely technical job: no improvements please, just make sure things are properly scaled and positioned.But again, FHWA series are technically outdated, no question about that.
They are dated (uppercase glyphs for Series B-F dating from 1948, Series E Modified mixed-case from 1950). But the real issue is opportunity for functional improvement, which for the reasons I outlined above, is almost certainly very limited.Updating the typeset to a modern standard, as opposed to development from scratch, can be seen as a fairly technical and non-controversial thing to do.
Not now, not after the whole Clearview fracas. That argument did indeed carry weight in the mid-1990's and that is how we got Clearview. At this point FHWA is quite entitled to say "Fool me once . . ."
I am talking more about FHWA design issues from modern font perspective - small caps, diacritic marks and accents, fractions etc. Those are not ClearView scale job, this is a purely technical job: no improvements please, just make sure things are properly scaled and positioned.
and all this talk of large amounts of dollars of unpaid labor, I'm not sure if I agree with.
there were estimates how much FHWA existing font refurbish would cost. for exampleand all this talk of large amounts of dollars of unpaid labor, I'm not sure if I agree with.
What talk? No one has suggested the work be done for free.
The ballpark estimate would start at around $50,000 to $100,000.Cost wise, this is very roughly a month of work for a small team, or 2-4 months of a single person (once all overheads are included, not just paycheck). Which doesn't sound way out of proportion for the task, IMHO.
there were estimates how much FHWA existing font refurbish would cost. for exampleand all this talk of large amounts of dollars of unpaid labor, I'm not sure if I agree with.
What talk? No one has suggested the work be done for free.
there were estimates how much FHWA existing font refurbish would cost. for exampleand all this talk of large amounts of dollars of unpaid labor, I'm not sure if I agree with.
What talk? No one has suggested the work be done for free.The ballpark estimate would start at around $50,000 to $100,000.Cost wise, this is very roughly a month of work for a small team, or 2-4 months of a single person (once all overheads are included, not just paycheck). Which doesn't sound way out of proportion for the task, IMHO.
Looks like in Arizona, Glendale has not re-adopted Clearview (their use of Clearview was short-lived, possibly even experimental). They just posted a photo of the sign of the new name of their section of Bethany Home Road near State Farm Stadium, Cardinals Way and it is in FHWA.
The only cities in the Phoenix area that I know that are using Clearview are Phoenix and Chandler, the former having never stopped using it. I know Mesa, Gilbert, and Queen Creek have not re-adopted it even though they have used it before. No idea about Scottsdale or Peoria.
Looks like in Arizona, Glendale has not re-adopted Clearview (their use of Clearview was short-lived, possibly even experimental). They just posted a photo of the sign of the new name of their section of Bethany Home Road near State Farm Stadium, Cardinals Way and it is in FHWA.
The only cities in the Phoenix area that I know that are using Clearview are Phoenix and Chandler, the former having never stopped using it. I know Mesa, Gilbert, and Queen Creek have not re-adopted it even though they have used it before. No idea about Scottsdale or Peoria.
In the west valley, El Mirage, Buckeye, Avondale, Surprise, and Tolleson all used some Clearview signage in the past.
Here's a link for the new "Cardinals Way" sign in Glendale:
http://ktar.com/story/2455508/glendale-unveils-street-named-after-arizona-cardinals/ (http://ktar.com/story/2455508/glendale-unveils-street-named-after-arizona-cardinals/)
Looks like in Arizona, Glendale has not re-adopted Clearview (their use of Clearview was short-lived, possibly even experimental). They just posted a photo of the sign of the new name of their section of Bethany Home Road near State Farm Stadium, Cardinals Way and it is in FHWA.
The only cities in the Phoenix area that I know that are using Clearview are Phoenix and Chandler, the former having never stopped using it. I know Mesa, Gilbert, and Queen Creek have not re-adopted it even though they have used it before. No idea about Scottsdale or Peoria.
In the west valley, El Mirage, Buckeye, Avondale, Surprise, and Tolleson all used some Clearview signage in the past.
Here's a link for the new "Cardinals Way" sign in Glendale:
http://ktar.com/story/2455508/glendale-unveils-street-named-after-arizona-cardinals/
The font on that sign's not Clearview. Such looks to be Series B for the street-name text.Looks like in Arizona, Glendale has not re-adopted Clearview (their use of Clearview was short-lived, possibly even experimental). They just posted a photo of the sign of the new name of their section of Bethany Home Road near State Farm Stadium, Cardinals Way and it is in FHWA.
The only cities in the Phoenix area that I know that are using Clearview are Phoenix and Chandler, the former having never stopped using it. I know Mesa, Gilbert, and Queen Creek have not re-adopted it even though they have used it before. No idea about Scottsdale or Peoria.
In the west valley, El Mirage, Buckeye, Avondale, Surprise, and Tolleson all used some Clearview signage in the past.
Here's a link for the new "Cardinals Way" sign in Glendale:
http://ktar.com/story/2455508/glendale-unveils-street-named-after-arizona-cardinals/
Highway Gothic on highway signs, clearview on street signs. So it depends where.
While driving along I-95 in northern MD two weeks ago, I noticed that some of the new signs from the latest sign replacement contract are now erected. Such use Clearview, but only for the control cities (per the IA). In some instances, these new signs are actually replacing older signs that were all-Clearview except for the route shield numerals.
Not 100% sure if these new Clearview signs was the result of MD reinstating the use of Clearview or if the design plans for such predated the now-temporary suspension for the Clearview font.
The new signs going up on I-395 in Virginia all use Gothic, presumably because the HO/T lane project was approved during the period when the FHWA tried to ban Clearview. I’m pretty sure, based on a document I found online, that after Clearview was re-authorized, VDOT made it the standard again, so I wonder how soon it might be when they want to replace the signs. They were pretty aggressive about replacing signs with Clearview versions last time around, after all.IIRC, when the IA was temporarily revoked, Clearview signs that were already erected were allowed to remain throughout their service life (barring damage, message revisions, etc.). One would assume that similar would be the case for the recent Highway Gothic signs that were erected.
The new signs going up on I-395 in Virginia all use Gothic, presumably because the HO/T lane project was approved during the period when the FHWA tried to ban Clearview. I’m pretty sure, based on a document I found online, that after Clearview was re-authorized, VDOT made it the standard again, so I wonder how soon it might be when they want to replace the signs. They were pretty aggressive about replacing signs with Clearview versions last time around, after all.IIRC, when the IA was temporarily revoked, Clearview signs that were already erected were allowed to remain throughout their service life (barring damage, message revisions, etc.). One would assume that similar would be the case for the recent Highway Gothic signs that were erected.
I believe that VDOT now only uses the Clearview font per the IA. Prior installs used the font beyond the IA parameters.
From a practical taxpayer/toll-payer standpoint I feel like that would be a waste of money, but from a driver's standpoint I find Clearview to be substantially easier to read at a distance than Gothic (recognizing, of course, that I don't really need to read any of the signs on I-395 other than the toll rates and any signs advising of road or lane closures!).For mixed-case lettering on dark backgrounds per the IA; I agree when such is compared to the wider-stroked E-Modified. OTOH, compared to Series E (be it standard or Enhanced (E letters w/E-Mod spacing)... such could be open for debate. A follow-up to the earlier Texas A&M study, that triggered the temporary revocation of Clearview, on the Enhanced E font application should be in order IMHO
Misuse of type on highway signs is not exclusive to just one type family. That's the fault of the sign designer. Not the typeface.It does seem like it happens more often and/or looks worse when it does on Clearview signs, though.
One stupid error I still see from time to time (both in Clearview and Series Gothic) is the practice of setting a cap letter at a certain height but then scaling the lowercase characters down to 75% of their normal size. It's a misunderstanding of FHWA regulation verbiage about highway sign fonts (the x-height of lowercase characters has to be at least 75% the M-height of uppercase characters). Clearview, unaltered more than complies with that spec while Series Gothic almost complies. It is not necessary for a sign designer to select the lowercase characters of a message and shrink them out of their normal native proportions. Street name signs all over my town are afflicted with that idiocy. I think the city of Lawton has standardized this practice because it allows them to use the old, narrow street name blades meant for uppercase only type. Modern street name signs using mixed case lettering have to be taller to allow for the descenders of lowercase letters.
I've seen plenty of big green signs along Interstate highways in Oklahoma copying that lowercase sizing goof. I've seen them in Pennsylvania too.
Lots of highway signs have bad letter spacing. I swear here in Oklahoma ODOT must have their sign fabricators peeling and sticking letters onto big green signs one reflective cut vinyl letter at a time. The quality of vinyl they've been using lately is garbage too. They're using the high intensity prismatic sheeting on the backgrounds, but basic "engineer's grade" white reflective vinyl for the lettering and borders. The stuff doesn't last outdoors for more than a couple or so years before it starts cracking and peeling.
Misuse of type on highway signs is not exclusive to just one type family. That's the fault of the sign designer. Not the typeface.Yes and no.
It does seem like it happens more often and/or looks worse when it does on Clearview signs, though.
No in the fact that the Clearview font was created for the purpose of addressing readability issues associated with the Series E-Modified Highway Gothic font, post-button-copy... particularly the halo-effect on the lower-case lettering. The wider-stroked E-Modified font was designed to accommodate button reflectors (aka button-copy). Modern reflectivity technology for sign lettering (except for those from the NYSTA) eliminated the need of providing button reflectors for said-lettering/numerals. As a result, the demand for button-copy lettering/numerals for all FHWA fonts came to a halt & production was disontinued. IIRC, the newest button-copy signs presently out in the field date back to the early/mid-90s.
Yet is has nothing to do with goofball design errors currently made on highway signs. Or even errors that occurred in the past.I don't believe that anybody, myself included was saying that all goofball designs errors are the result of a font itself.
A hack "designer" can artificially squeeze any highway sign font in the computer to force it to fit a given space. No typeface is magically immune that garbage. Any font can be badly kerned. Letters can be applied to a sign panel crooked, regardless of what typeface was used. No typeface is immune to poor composition. I've seen plenty of old button copy Series Gothic signs that looked horribly atrocious.I've seen some poor sign layouts dating back to the 70s as well.
The above is one reason why design/engineering firms are supposed to be required to conduct Quality Assurance checks on all of their design plans and specifications (aka construction documents) prior to such going to procurement for bidding.
Even if the standards are properly outlined in the construction documents; fabrication errors can still be made even after the submitted shop drawings are reviewed & approved. The resident engineer on site is supposed to identify any irregularities of the signs panels/messages prior to such being erected.
I wasn't talking about reflective vinyl lettering, and neither were you, at least for most of your post. Clearview seems to be misused more often than the FHWA fonts and looks worse when it doesn't than an equivalent misuse of the FHWA fonts. That's why the Thruway Clearview signs are so atrocious (some are so bad I want to throw up) while their modern FHWA signs look fine, despite being otherwise identical (down to non-reflective lettering that the Thruway stubbornly still uses).Quote from: vdeaneIt does seem like it happens more often and/or looks worse when it does on Clearview signs, though.
Reflective vinyl lettering is going to age at the same rate regardless if it is set in Series Gothic or Clearview. The only way the deterioration process would speed up at all is if the lettering was set in delicate thin strokes, like a fancy wedding script or something. But no one does that on highway signs.
As far as the hack designer manipulating SignCAD or equivalent is concerned; most sign plans not only include a graphic of the panel but also detailed spacing dimensions for each line, letter, numeral, route shield etc. The listed dimensions take precedence over the graphic especially if the latter appears not to scale. The criteria for said-dimensions are to be set per agency/DOT standards. Additionally, many agencies will go one step further and state what font width type should be used and for which application.
J.N. Winkler theorized that ODOT intentionally allows crappy signs to go through, in order to keep costs down for smaller signmaking businesses by avoiding making them redo work. If so, that's quite the sop to the private sector.
"comically wacky" (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4663616,-97.5000656,3a,20.2y,338.18h,101.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDdAOErz-N-QSvrKX9Zn7lw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
"comically wacky" (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4663616,-97.5000656,3a,20.2y,338.18h,101.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDdAOErz-N-QSvrKX9Zn7lw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
it reminds me of a ransom note.
Those gross TURNPIKE banners have been replaced by less grotesque ones in all-caps Clearview, fortunately.
J.N. Winkler theorized that ODOT intentionally allows crappy signs to go through, in order to keep costs down for smaller signmaking businesses by avoiding making them redo work. If so, that's quite the sop to the private sector.
As for that "comically wacky" look, how about this sign that graces one of the most-used exits to Oklahoma City's biggest tourism district? https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4663616,-97.5000656,3a,20.2y,338.18h,101.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDdAOErz-N-QSvrKX9Zn7lw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
"comically wacky" (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4663616,-97.5000656,3a,20.2y,338.18h,101.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDdAOErz-N-QSvrKX9Zn7lw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
it reminds me of a ransom note.
Reminds me of that old annoying SpongeBob meme:
(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Mocking-Spongebob.jpg)
sHeRIDaN AVe
I've seen an article say that clearview reduced the crashes compared to highway gothic by like i think 40% or something. So is it true that Highway Gothic is really better?
I think one of the reasons many agencies "mis-applied" the use of Clearview was because of the rule adopted last decade forbidding the use of all caps legends in many applications -like street name signs for instance. Clearview was designed from the outset with a complete basic character set. Most weights have "highway gothic" never had lowercase characters. Not every agency updated to "Series 2000" fonts, which included lowercase characters in more of the fonts. They were stuck with all caps versions. This figures in with municipalities adopting Clearview for their street name signs. Anyway, I think the design of lowercase characters in these Series 2000 fonts were not well done. I have several different flavors of "highway gothic" in my own collection; they all have much tighter default spacing than Clearview.
The above is one reason why design/engineering firms are supposed to be required to conduct Quality Assurance checks on all of their design plans and specifications (aka construction documents) prior to such going to procurement for bidding.
Even if the standards are properly outlined in the construction documents; fabrication errors can still be made even after the submitted shop drawings are reviewed & approved. The resident engineer on site is supposed to identify any irregularities of the signs panels/messages prior to such being erected.
The latter is where I most frequently see things go wrong. The plans are correct, but the fabricator screws up the installation. And, unfortunately, more often than not, signs don't take a high priority by the site engineer.
Last year, I had a project where both divided highway warning signs were wrong. One was installed upside-down, the other was backwards (European, if you will). In the second case, that missed QA by the sign shop, the installer, and the site engineer. Sadly, it took weeks for it to get corrected. Both were shown correctly on the project plans.
Dude, just read the thread.
Have seen that more than once in New Mexico. Simply a case of oversight. There was a grade separation project near my residence, and the yellow and black hash directionals at each end of the median were installed backwards, at both ends. Still that way, five plus years later.
I wouldn't read 1900 posts with a gun to my head.
Dude, just read the thread.
Well, skim. I wouldn't read 1900 posts with a gun to my head.
I'm seeing signs from 2017 (WYDOT usually puts a date code at the bottom left corner of all signs) that are not Clearview.It's worth noting that the above-80 EXIT sign shouldn't be in Clearview at all per the IA.
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit70-2017.jpg)
I think the newest sign I see along this stretch with CV is from 2014... (wait, I thought I had seen some from newer than that, but it's hard to remember to look at those little numbers every single time you pass a sign) So, did they buy a fixed length Clearview license and when it expired, they just went back to Good Ol' HG?
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit80-CV-2014.jpg)
Edit: Looking at my images above, I really, REALLY, am chuffed by that 70 Gore sign, and feel "meh" by that 80.
It's worth noting that the above-80 EXIT sign shouldn't be in Clearview at all per the IA.
It's worth noting that the above-80 EXIT sign shouldn't be in Clearview at all per the IA.
Hold on, really? I thought the IA allowed all instances of white-on-dark-background for Clearview. I mainly used the examples of the somewhat unique Wyoming gore signs because those are the easiest to take decent photos of, as they are closest to the road.
Q: Since Clearview is so much more legible than the old highway lettering, and it was based on using upper— and lower-case letters, should I now display all lettering on signs using upper- and lower-case letters as I've seen illustrated in some documents?
A: Mixed-case legends are restricted to place names and destinations; all other messages such as action and distance messages, cardinal directions, and auxiliary designations shall remain composed of all upper-case letters employing the the MUTCD criteria. Legends composed of all upper-case letters did not demonstrate a like improvement over the Standard Alphabets when displayed using Clearview. Accordingly, words composed of all upper-case letters continue to use the Standard Alphabets.
Q: Does this mean all letters, numerals, and characters of Clearview are significantly more legible?
A: Numerals and special characters have not been tested for legibility and concerns have been reported thereon in field applications. Therefore, numerals continue to be displayed on highway signs using the Standard Alphabets.
I say that agencies that use Clearview for all-uppercase legend are technically compliant in terms of the original 2004 IA memo.If this (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_clearview_font.htm) is the memo you're referring to; while it doesn't mention such outright (in retrospect, a big mistake IMHO), it's mentioned more than once that the comparisons between the two fonts involve mixed-case lettering. Nothing in the memo appears to be stated regarding all-caps and/or numerals.
The "Clearview FAQ" came out years after the fact, has unclear regulatory status, and has requirements as to line spacing that few (if any) agencies follow. I'm not dinging Clearview guide signs just because all-uppercase legend is in Clearview--the thing to avoid is using Clearview digits in shields or any Clearview in negative contrast.If what you're stating is your opinion, fine. However, the IA/FAQ clearly IMHO narrows down the scope/application for the Clearview font. The reasoning for the narrow scope/application, as mentioned multiple times in this thread, was due to the readability issues associated with the Series E-Modified font only. To my knowledge, there weren't any known readability issues associated with all-caps and/or numeral applications.
Maybe the developers of the font should have removed numerals from the font before they sold it.Agree 100%. :thumbsup:
If this (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_clearview_font.htm) is the memo you're referring to; while it doesn't mention such outright (in retrospect, a big mistake IMHO), it's mentioned more than once that the comparisons between the two fonts involve mixed-case lettering. Nothing in the memo appears to be stated regarding all-caps and/or numerals.
The "Clearview FAQ" came out years after the fact, has unclear regulatory status, and has requirements as to line spacing that few (if any) agencies follow. I'm not dinging Clearview guide signs just because all-uppercase legend is in Clearview--the thing to avoid is using Clearview digits in shields or any Clearview in negative contrast.
If what you're stating is your opinion, fine. However, the IA/FAQ clearly IMHO narrows down the scope/application for the Clearview font.
The FAQ does contain language to that effect. What is not clear is whether agencies have to follow its prescriptions. Many did not and still do not.FWIW, the IA/FAQ uses the term Not Acceptable for examples of Clearview font applications that fall outside the scope of the IA. One would think that such a term = don't do such.
Another thing the FAQ IMHO completely overlooks, and this has been mentioned several times before in this thread, is the accepted letter heights. If the purpose of using the Clearview font for control city lettering vs. Series E-Modified is for readability reasons without resorting towards using larger letter heights; agencies taking it on themselves to use larger letters in Clearview, while compliant to the IA/FAQ, has resulted in unnecessarily gargantuan/more costly sign panels & larger gantries to support them (if overhead-mounted).
agencies taking it on themselves to use larger letters in Clearview, while compliant to the IA/FAQ, has resulted in unnecessarily gargantuan/more costly sign panels & larger gantries to support them (if overhead-mounted).Not to mention extremely ugly signs.
I would disagree. The MUTCD already covers the letter heights explicitly in the manual: Section 2D.06 (03); Table 2E-2, 2E-3, 2E-4, 2E-5. The way I interpreted the IA was that Clearview was meant to be an alternative font, not a license to alter letter heights and word spacing. If lateral space became an issue, then the R-series of Clearview could be employed. Font choice should have no impact on sign height/depth.
This is one case where 1 picture = 1000 words; okay two in this case for comparison purposes.Another thing the FAQ IMHO completely overlooks, and this has been mentioned several times before in this thread, is the accepted letter heights. If the purpose of using the Clearview font for control city lettering vs. Series E-Modified is for readability reasons without resorting towards using larger letter heights; agencies taking it on themselves to use larger letters in Clearview, while compliant to the IA/FAQ, has resulted in unnecessarily gargantuan/more costly sign panels & larger gantries to support them (if overhead-mounted).I would disagree. The MUTCD already covers the letter heights explicitly in the manual: Section 2D.06 (03); Table 2E-2, 2E-3, 2E-4, 2E-5. The way I interpreted the IA was that Clearview was meant to be an alternative font, not a license to alter letter heights and word spacing. If lateral space became an issue, then the R-series of Clearview could be employed. Font choice should have no impact on sign height/depth.
The distinction here is that the IA is a binding document, while the FAQ is not. It provides guidance toward what FHWA wants to happen, but it doesn't have the full force of either the IA or the MUTCD.
Dude, just read the thread.
Well, skim. I wouldn't read 1900 posts with a gun to my head.
However, I actually agree with Jakeroot that BC's signs look quite good, which I think is partly because it's a different country so I'm more forgiving to differences.I still don't like the look of BC's Clearview signs (or Nova Scotia's, for that matter), though that is an interesting point. I don't mind Québec's, which tend to look more foreign compared to other places in Canada because of how they handle exit numbers. That and the fact that they don't use Clearview numerals (which I've grown to dislike more and more over the years). BC's signs look a lot like US signs but with APL-style arrows (which I'm not exactly fond of either, though I prefer them to diagrammatics).
However, I actually agree with Jakeroot that BC's signs look quite good, which I think is partly because it's a different country so I'm more forgiving to differences.I still don't like the look of BC's Clearview signs (or Nova Scotia's, for that matter), though that is an interesting point. I don't mind Québec's, which tend to look more foreign compared to other places in Canada because of how they handle exit numbers. That and the fact that they don't use Clearview numerals (which I've grown to dislike more and more over the years). BC's signs look a lot like US signs but with APL-style arrows (which I'm not exactly fond of either, though I prefer them to diagrammatics).
EAST and MILE are in Em, not E. That's why they look funky. Space between Lee and Blvd looks to be 32 inches, where it should be 16. Looks like '1/2' is in Series D instead of E. And the overall legend is not very well balanced on the panel. Top margin is too big, bottom margin is too small, and too much space between the route shield and Lee Blvd.
Based on the exit tab, I presume that 7 EAST and Lee Blvd are separate exits. As such, there should be a partial width horizontal divider to separate the information.
In fairness to the designer, this kind of message is hard to work with because the exit tab legend is so wide while the primary destination legend is so narrow.
I am not going to ding any agency for failing to use true small caps (not a MUTCD requirement, while use of the actual approved typefaces is) or for using Series E Modified rather than Series E for the all-uppercase elements of the message. That is indeed Series D for both numerator and denominator in the fraction, however.
I do admit that the APL-style arrows aren't my cup of tea, though I could have sworn I saw a picture of BC signs in FHWA font that I thought were more aesthetically pleasing. As I mentioned, I'm pretty sure it's the numbers. I don't mind Clearview destination legends so long as they're properly proportioned (ie, not extra large like many states like to do).However, I actually agree with Jakeroot that BC's signs look quite good, which I think is partly because it's a different country so I'm more forgiving to differences.I still don't like the look of BC's Clearview signs (or Nova Scotia's, for that matter), though that is an interesting point. I don't mind Québec's, which tend to look more foreign compared to other places in Canada because of how they handle exit numbers. That and the fact that they don't use Clearview numerals (which I've grown to dislike more and more over the years). BC's signs look a lot like US signs but with APL-style arrows (which I'm not exactly fond of either, though I prefer them to diagrammatics).
Is it the typeface? Or the signs themselves?
BC uses some variation of the APL signage (either overhead or post-mounted) at virtually all freeway exits, and many non-freeway junctions as well, but they are to standards that are slightly more relaxed compared to US APL standards. Standards that I think the FHWA could take note of, if they haven't already. BC's APLs are much shorter than standard American APLs, much closer in size to regular down-arrow/no arrow signage).
It's the Goddamn signs. And the idiot hacks culpable for "designing" them -which includes the IDIOT bosses who tell the idiot "designers" what to do, according to IDIOT budget constraints.Never said FHWA was immune from issues (see: cRaiG cOunTY), but it does seem like Clearview is more likely to become ugly because of said issues than FHWA for some reason. With respect to the sign you posted, aesthetically it doesn't look terrible. I might not have even noticed anything was up had you not posted about it. Then again, I tend to evaluate more on aesthetics than technical minutiae. I'm not a font geek, just someone who wants the road signs she drives by to look nice.
Blaming a typeface for a bad sign layout is, in my humble opinion, a statement made by someone who doesn't know a damn thing about how to design a sign. There is zero, I mean absolutely zero anything inherently bad about making a traffic sign layout using Clearview Highway versus the old Series Gothic faces, other than very biased preferences of letter styles. I'll back my statement up with having designed signs very well for a living for close to 30 years.
In terms of advantages, Clearview has a significantly wider character range for one thing. That's something the old FHWA Series Gothic family lacks. Series Gothic is an extremely primitive, limited typeface. And if Terminal Design had gone farther (like it should have) they would have incorporated the additional perks found in the Clearview One family, such as a native Small Capitals character set. That would have foregone the Bull$#!+ fake small caps nonsense found on cardinal direction displays and other outlets of that sort.
A decent number of "road geeks" seem to believe that the old Series Gothic typeface is somehow immune from piss poor graphic design treatment. Well, I'm here to tell you no typeface is immune from abuse via no-talent hacks. I'll give you a good, recent install from ODOT right here:
(https://i.imgur.com/pbxkmO2.jpg)
This is a sign panel ODOT just replaced in response to storm damage. While the new panel is set in "glorious" FHWA Series Gothic, the layout really sucks. The type on the exit panel has been artificially squeezed to fit a confined space. That's something that makes me want to punch whatever computer jockey was involved in making that decision square right in the teeth. I have an intense hatred of fun house mirror distorted type. I don't give a hoot what typeface was used. Any of it sucks. Then there's the fake small caps "East" treatment (garbage). There's a Grand Canyon worth of word space between "Lee" and "Blvd". The kerning on "Duncan" is suspect. I don't know what's going on with the "1/2" element, but it looks wrong. The OK-7 shield looks like yet another new treatment of this highway marker. It actually has me wishing ODOT would go back to the numbers in the circle method. But since the whole thing is set in the beloved "Highway Gothic" any and all errors in layout are supposed to be forgiven, right?
:banghead:
(https://i.imgur.com/pbxkmO2.jpg)
Regarding the proprietary nature of Clearview, I recently saw something from FHWA regarding the use of patented devices. I can't remember the details, though. At first I thought it pertained to RRFBs, since there was an issue with them, but I wonder if the Clearview font didn't also have something to do with it?
As for Clearview, wouldn't that be copyright rather than a patent?
In terms of advantages, Clearview has a significantly wider character range for one thing. That's something the old FHWA Series Gothic family lacks. Series Gothic is an extremely primitive, limited typeface. And if Terminal Design had gone farther (like it should have) they would have incorporated the additional perks found in the Clearview One family, such as a native Small Capitals character set. That would have foregone the Bull$#!+ fake small caps nonsense found on cardinal direction displays and other outlets of that sort.
I still don't like the look of BC's Clearview signs (or Nova Scotia's, for that matter), though that is an interesting point. I don't mind Québec's, which tend to look more foreign compared to other places in Canada because of how they handle exit numbers. That and the fact that they don't use Clearview numerals (which I've grown to dislike more and more over the years). BC's signs look a lot like US signs but with APL-style arrows (which I'm not exactly fond of either, though I prefer them to diagrammatics).
Is it the typeface? Or the signs themselves?
BC uses some variation of the APL signage (either overhead or post-mounted) at virtually all freeway exits, and many non-freeway junctions as well, but they are to standards that are slightly more relaxed compared to US APL standards. Standards that I think the FHWA could take note of, if they haven't already. BC's APLs are much shorter than standard American APLs, much closer in size to regular down-arrow/no arrow signage).
It's the Goddamn signs. And the idiot hacks culpable for "designing" them -which includes the IDIOT bosses who tell the idiot "designers" what to do, according to IDIOT budget constraints.
Blaming a typeface for a bad sign layout is, in my humble opinion, a statement made by someone who doesn't know a damn thing about how to design a sign. There is zero, I mean absolutely zero anything inherently bad about making a traffic sign layout using Clearview Highway versus the old Series Gothic faces, other than very biased preferences of letter styles. I'll back my statement up with having designed signs very well for a living for close to 30 years.
In terms of advantages, Clearview has a significantly wider character range for one thing. That's something the old FHWA Series Gothic family lacks. Series Gothic is an extremely primitive, limited typeface. And if Terminal Design had gone farther (like it should have) they would have incorporated the additional perks found in the Clearview One family, such as a native Small Capitals character set. That would have foregone the Bull$#!+ fake small caps nonsense found on cardinal direction displays and other outlets of that sort.
A decent number of "road geeks" seem to believe that the old Series Gothic typeface is somehow immune from piss poor graphic design treatment. Well, I'm here to tell you no typeface is immune from abuse via no-talent hacks. I'll give you a good, recent install from ODOT right here:
(https://i.imgur.com/pbxkmO2.jpg)
This is a sign panel ODOT just replaced in response to storm damage. While the new panel is set in "glorious" FHWA Series Gothic, the layout really sucks. The type on the exit panel has been artificially squeezed to fit a confined space. That's something that makes me want to punch whatever computer jockey was involved in making that decision square right in the teeth. I have an intense hatred of fun house mirror distorted type. I don't give a hoot what typeface was used. Any of it sucks. Then there's the fake small caps "East" treatment (garbage). There's a Grand Canyon worth of word space between "Lee" and "Blvd". The kerning on "Duncan" is suspect. I don't know what's going on with the "1/2" element, but it looks wrong. The OK-7 shield looks like yet another new treatment of this highway marker. It actually has me wishing ODOT would go back to the numbers in the circle method. But since the whole thing is set in the beloved "Highway Gothic" any and all errors in layout are supposed to be forgiven, right?
:banghead:
Quote(https://i.imgur.com/pbxkmO2.jpg)
There's nothing wrong with this sign. It conveys the message intended to be read by the motorist and looks fine. As long as it does its job, looks professional, and isn't an impetus for accidents at this location, it's fine.
When a motorist has to squint or can't comprehend a message because of the layout or lettering or anything, then we have a problem. There is nothing wrong with this sign.
There's nothing wrong with this sign. It conveys the message intended to be read by the motorist and looks fine. As long as it does its job, looks professional, and isn't an impetus for accidents at this location, it's fine.
When a motorist has to squint or can't comprehend a message because of the layout or lettering or anything, then we have a problem. There is nothing wrong with this sign.
It's true that Clearview certainly has the upper hand on font features, but as an engineer, the only thing I care about is how well the font does its job, and the job of any font used on a traffic sign is to accurately and quickly convey information to drivers. In that respect, Clearview has been shown to be, at best, the same as Highway Gothic, and even then this requires enlarging the lowercase letters. This alone should be reason for the FHWA to disallow the font.
I understand you are a graphic designer and such issues are important to you, but you seem to misunderstand that designing a sign is quite different from an engineering perspective compared to graphic design.
With respect to the example sign you posted and other bad signs from Oklahoma, it looks to me that most if not all of these errors are due to sloppy fabrication, which would be a fault of the sign manufacturer and not the designer, could be wrong though...
In the end nostalgia is by far the primary reason why Series Gothic hangs on and why there is such a hostile attitude toward Clearview or any other typeface that would challenge Series Gothic's place on green highway signs.
That 75% rule is probably something they should have only told to type foundries. I've seen way too many highway signs where the lowercase characters were decreased to 75% of their original height because that badly worded rule. We have street name signs all over my town infected with that stupidity (and they're set in Series Gothic).
One suspicion I do have that does involve fabrication is the possibility ODOT's sign department may be cutting out vinyl letters individually and having them applied to signs individually. I've seen sign panels here in Lawton where letters of different sizes were applied in the same word, even with some letters crooked. No commercial sign company does stupid nonsense like that. Peeling and sticking letters to a big green panel one character at a time can result in very wacky letter and word spacing. It's far better to plot out entire lines of copy, release tape the whole thing and apply it to the panel in one piece. Even if there is a lot of vinyl and release tape wasted to negative space.
Agreed with you on that. I have a really hard time believing that, even if the two fonts were equal in every measure (cost, ease of use), most wouldn't gravitate towards Highway Gothic on account of its age and "nostalgia" factor.
Quote from: stevesheI understand you are a graphic designer and such issues are important to you, but you seem to misunderstand that designing a sign is quite different from an engineering perspective compared to graphic design.
Creating typefaces for various kinds of graphic design use has far more intentions than just making letters that look pretty. Many typefaces are created for specific uses, from type-setting novels, performing well on digital screens or working well on signs. I'm certain that if Series Gothic was objectively tested against a wide variety of advanced OpenType sans serif families it would not win the contest. Neither would Clearview. In the end nostalgia is by far the primary reason why Series Gothic hangs on and why there is such a hostile attitude toward Clearview or any other typeface that would challenge Series Gothic's place on green highway signs.
At this point, a good chunk of my distaste for Clearview is borne from Meeker & Associates' corruption.
I, for one, would love to see the Tobias Frere-Jones'-developed Interstate typeface developed beyond Series E. It seems like a logical direction, assuming Clearview and/or any updated version of Clearview is on the way out. Obviously it would need to be adopted into public domain; not sure how Mr Frere-Jones would feel about that!
I guarantee that this is happening, because I have seen more than one panel where individual characters have been applied upside-down; these are hard-to-spot ones like X and H, where the asymmetry is on the wrong side (the strokes meeting below the midline on X and the crossbar closer to the bottom than the top on the H).
That being said, I imagine this practice does save a considerable amount in material cost. According to an Ohio DOT spreadsheet I found on Google, diamond-grade sheeting was $1.24 per square foot from 3M and $1.46 from Avery-Dennison in 2008. You might have access to more up-to-date pricing.
It's not just nostalgia, overhead costs of switching fonts is a far bigger reason, IMO. It costs time and money to convert all the existing standard details and templates. In theory, the user cost would also include retaining of designers on how to properly use the new font, but we all know too many will attempt to use it in a plug-and-play format. If there is no significant difference or fatal flaw in the existing fonts (drivers aren't crashing due to letter halation), no one is going to want to spend the money to convert something they don't have to.
As to the notion of "retraining designers," they must be using people with little if any design expertise or talent if they can't handle the differences between two type families. Considering I work with thousands of typefaces (including many subtle variations of the same typeface) and hundreds of ever changing branding programs in my work I really have zero sympathy over that issue. I see a LOT of design travesties happening on American highway signs simply because the people composing the sign layouts or bosses above them blatantly ignore the laws of geometry (hence most "neutered" Interstate shield signs sucking way way out loud).DOTs and similar agencies aren't hiring graphic designers to do sign plans. Nor are they using "branding programs". Around here, we use GuideSign, which is a CADD program for sign design, not a graphic designer program.
As to the notion of "retraining designers," they must be using people with little if any design expertise or talent if they can't handle the differences between two type families. Considering I work with thousands of typefaces (including many subtle variations of the same typeface) and hundreds of ever changing branding programs in my work I really have zero sympathy over that issue. I see a LOT of design travesties happening on American highway signs simply because the people composing the sign layouts or bosses above them blatantly ignore the laws of geometry (hence most "neutered" Interstate shield signs sucking way way out loud).DOTs and similar agencies aren't hiring graphic designers to do sign plans. Nor are they using "branding programs". Around here, we use GuideSign, which is a CADD program for sign design, not a graphic designer program.
DOTs and similar agencies aren't hiring graphic designers to do sign plans. Nor are they using "branding programs". Around here, we use GuideSign, which is a CADD program for sign design, not a graphic designer program.
If we want to get into the nit-picking on optical performance, if Clearview should be dis-allowed for highway sign use, then Series E/M needs to go as well. By the way, the lowercase letters in Clearview were originally designed with a larger x-height for lowercase characters. They're not supposed to be enlarged further by someone creating a sign layout. The larger x-height was done in part for Clearview to comply with MUTCD rules requiring lowercase letters to have an x-height at least 75% of the capital letter M-height. The lowercase characters in Series Gothic only barely comply with that rule if you measure the taller, round lowercase letters like "o." That 75% rule is probably something they should have only told to type foundries. I've seen way too many highway signs where the lowercase characters were decreased to 75% of their original height because that badly worded rule. We have street name signs all over my town infected with that stupidity (and they're set in Series Gothic).
In the end nostalgia is by far the primary reason why Series Gothic hangs on and why there is such a hostile attitude toward Clearview or any other typeface that would challenge Series Gothic's place on green highway signs.
Agreed with you on that. I have a really hard time believing that, even if the two fonts were equal in every measure (cost, ease of use), most wouldn't gravitate towards Highway Gothic on account of its age and "nostalgia" factor.
I, for one, would love to see the Tobias Frere-Jones'-developed Interstate typeface developed beyond Series E. It seems like a logical direction, assuming Clearview and/or any updated version of Clearview is on the way out. Obviously it would need to be adopted into public domain; not sure how Mr Frere-Jones would feel about that!
As to the notion of "retraining designers," they must be using people with little if any design expertise or talent if they can't handle the differences between two type families. Considering I work with thousands of typefaces (including many subtle variations of the same typeface) and hundreds of ever changing branding programs in my work I really have zero sympathy over that issue. I see a LOT of design travesties happening on American highway signs simply because the people composing the sign layouts or bosses above them blatantly ignore the laws of geometry (hence most "neutered" Interstate shield signs sucking way way out loud).
The stylized fact is that graphics designers and engineers responsible for handling traffic sign production are oil and water: different educational backgrounds, different sets of professional standards and imperatives, different reputational constraints, and even different ways of thinking. Graphics designers don't really want to carry out traffic sign design at the production level--they want the professional kudos of designing the system and veto power over specific designs that they think are bad. Engineers want a framework for designing signs that will gain a certain measure of popular acceptance (they aren't really looking to court favor in the type design world) and that they can modify in certain respects to meet engineering requirements as they define them.
As for the Clearview letters, the report I mentioned in my first post (link) specifically says that is not the case, it states that Clearview was first developed with lowercase letters with the same height as Highway Gothic, and then when they could not achieve the same legibility as Highway Gothic, the size (of all letters) was increased until the legibility was equal. The capitals were then reduced back down so it could be specified at the "same" size as Highway Gothic since capital letter heights are the ones used for this purpose. This is the reason why the ascenders in Clearview are taller than the capitals. That's pretty sneaky and misleading on the designers' part if you ask me.
As for the 75% rule, this refers to the nominal height of the lowercase letters, not the actual heights of each individual lowercase letter.
This is what I was trying to get at when talking about the differences between graphic design and engineering. You seem to be under the impression that graphic designers are the ones designing traffic signs since you expect them to have worked with multiple fonts. That is not the case. Engineers are the ones doing traffic sign design, since as they are ultimately engineering drawings, an engineer must do this work. So I guess, in fact, you are correct when you say they have no (graphic) "design expertise or talent", because they aren't graphic designers! The only fonts they will have ever worked with are the different series variations of Highway Gothic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I find the FHWA signs to be far more aesthetically pleasing here than the Clearview ones. At least the numbers in the interstate shield aren't Clearview. In BC, even route numbers use it.
In Appendix A1, FHWA proposes to retitle the section to “Congressional Actions” and add a new option to allow an alternative letter style for destination legends on freeway and expressway guide signs. For clarity in application, FHWA designates this letter style, commonly referred to as “Clearview 5-W,” as “Series E (modified)-Alternative.” In concert with this change, FHWA proposes a Standard provision to define the applicability and scope of this letter style because the design criteria differ from those of the Standard Alphabets. FHWA proposes these provisions to address the operational effect of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 that required FHWA to, “...reinstate Interim Approval IA—5, relating to the provisional use of an alternative lettering style on certain highway guide signs, as it existed before its termination, as announced in the Federal Register on January 25, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 4083).” FHWA requests comments on the proposed revisions to Appendix A1 as well as the proposal to add “Series E (modified)-Alternative” to Appendix A1.
FHWA granted Interim Approval (IA-5) to use Clearview 5-W in certain applications on September 2, 2004, based on early research that suggested improvements in sign legibility. FHWA rescinded this Interim Approval on January 25, 2016, after subsequent research and a more thorough review of the early research finding showed no discernable improvement. In addition, it became apparent that having a separate optional letter style with different design criteria caused confusion in sign design and layouts resulting in inappropriate and sometime ineffective signs. However, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2018 (section 125 of Division L) required FHWA to reinstate Interim Approval IA-5 for that fiscal year. In addition, the Joint Explanatory Statement House Report 115-237133 directed FHWA to conduct a comprehensive review of the research on this alternative font and report on the safety and cost implications of the decision while fully addressing the comments submitted by affected States during the December 13, 2016, Request for Information related to the alternative font. FHWA reviewed the comments submitted and conducted a comprehensive analysis of all research identified as being associated with the alternative font and submitted the Report on Highway Guide Sign Fonts to Congress with the findings of these reviews. As a result of this Congressional action, FHWA reinstated Interim Approval IA-5 on March 18, 2018. Though not required, Interim Approval IA-5 has been allowed to continue past the end of that fiscal year so that FHWA could request comments on potential inclusion of this alternative letter style as part of the MUTCD.
The public comment period starts on Monday, December 14.
^^^ So who wants to translate that into English?
^^^ So who wants to translate that into English?
I'll try: FHWA proposes to add Clearview 5-W (under a new name indicating it is an alternate to Series E Modified) to the MUTCD with Standard language tightly circumscribing allowable applications, but is secretly hoping that commenters will urge killing Clearview altogether.
Option:
Series E(modified)-Alternate may be used in place of Series E(modified) for the names of places, streets, and highways on freeway and expressway guide signs in accordance with the provisions of the following paragraph.
Standard:
The use of Series E(modified)-Alternate shall be limited to the display of names of places, streets, and highways on freeway and expressway guide signs. Words shall be composed of lower-case letters with initial upper-case letters. The design and spacing of the letters shall be as provided in the “Standard Highway Signs” publication (see Section 1A.11 of this Manual). The nominal loop height of the lower-case letters shall be 84 percent of the height of the initial upper-case letter. Interline spacing, measured from the baseline of the upper line of legend to the upper limit of the initial upper-case letter of the lower line of legend, shall be at least 96 percent of the initial upper-case letters (equivalent to 84 percent of the initial upper-case letter when measured from the baseline of the upper line of legend to the upper limit of the rising stems of the lower-case letters of the lower line of legend). Edge spacing shall be as provided in Section 2E.13 of this Manual. The size of the sign shall be suitably enlarged to accommodate the larger lower-case letters and interline spacing. When the name of a place, street, or highway contains numerals, the numerals shall be composed of the FHWA Standard Alphabet Series E(modified). Other lettering on the sign, such as for cardinal directions and distance or action messages, and all numerals or special characters, shall be composed of Series B, C, D, E, E(modified), or F of the FHWA Standard Alphabets as provided in this Manual. Series E(modified)-Alternate shall not be used for any application other than as provided in the two preceding paragraphs.
But what if Congress continues to mandate its inclusion as an acceptable option?
Given that the layout of a road sign is so rules-based, and is likely to be even more so under MUTCD 11e, it would be trivial for sign design software to have an autofit feature that automatically calculates proper interline spacing, margins, and panel size from given legend. The question is why, if such a feature exists, designers don't use it.
I doubt such an autofit feature exists in traffic sign software. And if the feature did exist chances are many users would disable it in order to compose layouts in the manner being dictated by various constraints, such as sign panel too small for its message. Artificially squeezing letters is one trick to get the text to fit the space. Another is tightening the letter spacing.
But what if Congress continues to mandate its inclusion as an acceptable option?
What if Congress mandates that KYTC sign all little green shrubs on US-31W?
In any event, the law that required its inclusion expired in FY 2018, and Congress has shown no interest in renewing it; I believe the member that inserted the language into the bill is no longer an active member of Congress. FHWA has kept the IA in place since then as a goodwill gesture.
I find it hard to believe that commercial sign design software like SignCAD and GuidSIGN doesn't have autofit. Pretty much all of the CorelDRAW scripts I have for making sign mockups are some variation of autofit--some to secure the proper space padding and others to draw panel borders around finished legend blocks.
Quote from: J N WinklerI find it hard to believe that commercial sign design software like SignCAD and GuidSIGN doesn't have autofit. Pretty much all of the CorelDRAW scripts I have for making sign mockups are some variation of autofit--some to secure the proper space padding and others to draw panel borders around finished legend blocks.
Such a feature is do-able, but it would only be worthwhile if implemented properly. For instance, the legends on traffic signs have to specifically sized and positioned according to the cap height of the letters, not the overall physical size of the type object. Letter size is often dictated by the sign type. Letters like "O," "S" or "g" overshoot the baseline and cap height line, affecting the overall physical size. Any kind of auto-enlarging box around a type object would need to orient its size and vertical alignment in relation to the legend according to the legend's cap height. If the feature doesn't work like that then the feature would be garbage.
An auto-fit feature would be most useful within SignCAD or GuidSign for traffic sign designs. Such an auto-fit feature might take a dump on itself with those neutered Interstate shields. I would see less value for such a feature within CorelDRAW, Illustrator or industry-specific sign design applications (Flexi, Gerber Omega, SignLab, etc).
My scripts don't parse text objects for descenders, which are the only real concern with the FHWA series.
It is my belief that GuidSIGN, SignCAD, etc. do already have autofit functionality, or at bare minimum the ability to draw panel edges around legend blocks according to certain constraints the designer can choose (such as panel height being in increments of 6 in or 12 in).
Differences in cap height and ascender/descender measurements are kind of academic in MUTCD-based design because all text sizes are specified in cap height. Interline spacing is specified as the distance from one baseline to the cap height line of the next line down, and is always equal to the x-height.
Clearview uses an 84% (21/25) x-height, and the rules for its use specify this is fine and doesn't need to be changed. The x-height is also supposed to be used for interline spacing, but this is usually ignored in favor of keeping the 3/4 spacing used with FHWA Series.
Which, to a large extent, is an indication that font size, rather than especially drawn symbols, is what drives 'increased visibility"Clearview uses an 84% (21/25) x-height, and the rules for its use specify this is fine and doesn't need to be changed. The x-height is also supposed to be used for interline spacing, but this is usually ignored in favor of keeping the 3/4 spacing used with FHWA Series.
FHWA's requirement that the higher x-height of Clearview be used in calculating interline spacing (which almost no agency follows) is itself another attempt to kill off the typeface by making it uneconomic to use.
Meanwhile, in Michigan...
https://www.facebook.com/MichiganDOT/posts/10158454297369927
Meanwhile, in Michigan...
https://www.facebook.com/MichiganDOT/posts/10158454297369927
Rabbit hole! I worked on a project in Michigan just off the Ann Street exit of US-131 back in 1987. We were setting up a new yard signal control on the CSX side. When I first arrived, I found the railroad signal maintainer performing regular maintenance, while the rest of the signal gang was trying to work around him. I noticed that the signal maintainer would drop the gates without first checking the traffic status. As the [corporate] signal inspector, I was required to ask him the rules. He said "Oh, this is not a busy street so we never check for traffic here" and all the guys laughed (probably at me). Less than two minutes later, he drops the gates again during another test and a westbound big rig on Ann Street slams on his brakes in an attempt to stop at the crossing. When I look back, I see the trailer bouncing across the tracks and huge fresh cattle bones flying everywhere. Like immediately, I grabbed my gloves and threw a fresh pack of gloves at the gang and told them to "Quit laughing and get to work". We had him back on the road in less than two minutes, and I was flagging traffic around him/across the crossing between bone throws. The trucker thanked us and went on his way laughing his head off.
"Clearview font ... increases night/weather visibility", ...
"Clearview font ... increases night/weather visibility", ...
I thought that was the whole point of rolling Clearview out in the first place. They wanted something more easily legible to elderly drivers.
"Clearview font ... increases night/weather visibility", ...
I thought that was the whole point of rolling Clearview out in the first place. They wanted something more easily legible to elderly drivers.
Yes, to make things more legible for elderly drivers, completely change the font they've been looking at for the past 75 years. That'll help.
I'd oppose requiring use of any fancy OTF features for sign design.
Currently FHWA just provides the glyphs they want to be used and allow the private sector to develop the actual TTF/OTF files. This means that typefaces are accessible not only to contractors but hobbyists as well; not once but twice people on this board have used the published glyphs to build their own FHWA Series implementation from scratch.
Meanwhile, in Michigan...
https://www.facebook.com/MichiganDOT/posts/10158454297369927Rabbit hole! I worked on a project in Michigan just off the Ann Street exit of US-131 back in 1987. We were setting up a new yard signal control on the CSX side. When I first arrived, I found the railroad signal maintainer performing regular maintenance, while the rest of the signal gang was trying to work around him. I noticed that the signal maintainer would drop the gates without first checking the traffic status. As the [corporate] signal inspector, I was required to ask him the rules. He said "Oh, this is not a busy street so we never check for traffic here" and all the guys laughed (probably at me). Less than two minutes later, he drops the gates again during another test and a westbound big rig on Ann Street slams on his brakes in an attempt to stop at the crossing. When I look back, I see the trailer bouncing across the tracks and huge fresh cattle bones flying everywhere. Like immediately, I grabbed my gloves and threw a fresh pack of gloves at the gang and told them to "Quit laughing and get to work". We had him back on the road in less than two minutes, and I was flagging traffic around him/across the crossing between bone throws. The trucker thanked us and went on his way laughing his head off.
Back to the topic, I thought that Clearview was intended to provide similar visibility as FHWA Gothic using less horizontal space. Given my experience in transportation safety certification, I can't fathom anyone concluding that "Clearview font reduces fatal and injury crashes and increases night/weather visibility", even if the studies show reasonable evidence.
"Clearview font ... increases night/weather visibility", ...Sorry, I mistakenly posted a direct quote from MDOT's Facebook page never thinking it would get detached from the rest of my post.
I thought that was the whole point of rolling Clearview out in the first place. They wanted something more easily legible to elderly drivers.
Yes, to make things more legible for elderly drivers, completely change the font they've been looking at for the past 75 years. That'll help.
There's no way any more than 1 in a thousand people could tell the two apart. We are talking minor differences in legibility.
The big impetus for the rollout of Clearview has been whacking 4 or 5 feet off the width of BGSs.
The big impetus for the rollout of Clearview has been whacking 4 or 5 feet off the width of BGSs.
Source?
This is the first time I recall having read that.
I really hate the Arial typeface with a passion. It's an ugly typeface on its own, but my hatred for it is also rooted in its chronic misuse in commercial sign design. It begins with "A" so it's near the top of the font list. As a result, many hack, wannabe sign designers use it constantly. And they artificially squeeze and stretch it to fit any space, regardless of the fact they likely have dozens of different sans serif faces at the ready, with native condensed, narrow, extended or wide widths that would look more professional. Nope. Just go with Arial.
The big impetus for the rollout of Clearview has been whacking 4 or 5 feet off the width of BGSs.
Source?
This is the first time I recall having read that.
I don't object to FHWA restricting Clearview usage to 5-W or 5-W-R on freeways and expressways, but I really think it should be paired with a similar requirement to use only Series E and Series E Modified in the same context.
I don't object to FHWA restricting Clearview usage to 5-W or 5-W-R on freeways and expressways, but I really think it should be paired with a similar requirement to use only Series E and Series E Modified in the same context.
Good point. If one is in favor of dropping Clearview because it's no improvement, then one should presumably also be in favor of dropping those standard series whose performance in the same applications would actually be worse.
The follow-on posts after your comment did catch me off-guard. After researching the differences between Clearview 5-W and Clearview 5-W-R, I am quite surprised that there was any notion that either of those fonts are comparable in width to FWHA Series E. I do think that there is an overabundance of use of Clearview 5-W-R when 5-W should have been applied. Just looking at the two biggest users of Clearview here in the Southeast, I’ve noticed that both Virginia and Georgia have replaced older signs with narrow ones — not just the border width is narrowed but also the text. The first time I saw the “new” Clearview signs on I-95 for (then) Exit 9 and Exit 10 (now exits 42 and 49) for Darien, I was shocked at how narrow that name appears on the sign compared to the old signs.
In Virginia the width of almost all of BGSs have been reduced significantly. Some of that can be explained as VDOT has moved away from pre-cut blanks. VDOT specifically allows the use of Clearview 5-W-R to narrow the width of signs for safety reasons. It’s my impression that they use it a lot, and the text is narrower than the original (not sure if it was predominantly FWHA Series E or Series E Modified). And folks here on this thread have commented about narrow Clearview (with narrow kerning) on signs in Georgia several times (it also appears that Georgia uses narrow kerning with FHWA Series C/D/E and perhaps others). It doesn’t surprise me that TxDOT mandates the use of Clearview 5-W-R instead of 5-W.
This is all only an issue because Meeker & Associates sold Clearview as a panacea for improved sign legibility. Come to find out that the studies they cited for this were bunk (because they were comparing 20" Clearview against 16" FHWA Series) and when independent researchers studied it, they kept finding situations in which Clearview legibility was the same or worse. Each of those situations was then fenced off by a restriction by FHWA on Clearview use (first in the Clearview circular, and now by the proposed 2020 MUTCD language).
The follow-on posts after your comment did catch me off-guard. After researching the differences between Clearview 5-W and Clearview 5-W-R, I am quite surprised that there was any notion that either of those fonts are comparable in width to FWHA Series E. I do think that there is an overabundance of use of Clearview 5-W-R when 5-W should have been applied. Just looking at the two biggest users of Clearview here in the Southeast, I’ve noticed that both Virginia and Georgia have replaced older signs with narrow ones — not just the border width is narrowed but also the text. The first time I saw the “new” Clearview signs on I-95 for (then) Exit 9 and Exit 10 (now exits 42 and 49) for Darien, I was shocked at how narrow that name appears on the sign compared to the old signs.
In Virginia the width of almost all of BGSs have been reduced significantly. Some of that can be explained as VDOT has moved away from pre-cut blanks. VDOT specifically allows the use of Clearview 5-W-R to narrow the width of signs for safety reasons. It’s my impression that they use it a lot, and the text is narrower than the original (not sure if it was predominantly FWHA Series E or Series E Modified). And folks here on this thread have commented about narrow Clearview (with narrow kerning) on signs in Georgia several times (it also appears that Georgia uses narrow kerning with FHWA Series C/D/E and perhaps others). It doesn’t surprise me that TxDOT mandates the use of Clearview 5-W-R instead of 5-W.
This is the first time I've ever read a post about Clearview being in GA! When did they first use it down there? Unless you're confusing it with SC, which also has lots of Clearview freeway signs itself, because throughout the past few decades I've seen Series D on the majority of GA's signs (although they've reverted back to E(M) in certain places, most of all Atlanta and its suburbs).
The follow-on posts after your comment did catch me off-guard. After researching the differences between Clearview 5-W and Clearview 5-W-R, I am quite surprised that there was any notion that either of those fonts are comparable in width to FWHA Series E. I do think that there is an overabundance of use of Clearview 5-W-R when 5-W should have been applied. Just looking at the two biggest users of Clearview here in the Southeast, I’ve noticed that both Virginia and Georgia have replaced older signs with narrow ones — not just the border width is narrowed but also the text. The first time I saw the “new” Clearview signs on I-95 for (then) Exit 9 and Exit 10 (now exits 42 and 49) for Darien, I was shocked at how narrow that name appears on the sign compared to the old signs.
This is the first time I've ever read a post about Clearview being in GA! When did they first use it down there? Unless you're confusing it with SC, which also has lots of Clearview freeway signs itself, because throughout the past few decades I've seen Series D on the majority of GA's signs (although they've reverted back to E(M) in certain places, most of all Atlanta and its suburbs).
Folks often confused Georgia D with Clearview.
I don't have any pictures I've taken, but here's an unfortunately-grainy image from Google Street View from NB I-95 at I-16. It doesn't look quite like Series C or Series D to me.
http://maps.google.com/?ll=32.069884,-81.248059&spn=0.027929,0.066047&z=15&layer=c&cbll=32.069966,-81.248019&panoid=tgudlPnXjr5vaW6mru4TAw&cbp=12,42.22,,0,-24.44
Here's a picture of that same sign bridge from the AARoads' Gallery...
(http://www.southeastroads.com/georgia050/i-095_nb_exit_099a_04.jpg)
Here's my recreation of the signs in the photo above using the Roadgeek Series D fonts...
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/95-16_Ga.png)
I'd say I got it pretty close although I did have to tinker with the inter-character spacing a little bit.
the Georgia signs definitely use a thinner stroke ... and also, some glyphs are narrower. the "n" is especially narrow on the photo compared to the mockup.
I do not know whether this means Georgia deviates from FHWA standard, or if Roadgeek does.
I wonder exactly how many states have gone back to using the FHWA fonts after the original IA was rescinded? As I see it, Clearview continues to be used in many different places today.
I wonder exactly how many states have gone back to using the FHWA fonts after the original IA was rescinded? As I see it, Clearview continues to be used in many different places today.
ADOT has chosen not to use Clearview, but is using Enhanced E Modified for freeway signs, Series D for regular roads, and Series C for street blades.
I wonder exactly how many states have gone back to using the FHWA fonts after the original IA was rescinded? As I see it, Clearview continues to be used in many different places today.
I wonder exactly how many states have gone back to using the FHWA fonts after the original IA was rescinded? As I see it, Clearview continues to be used in many different places today.
PA switched back to Clearview right after it was reinstated.
I wonder exactly how many states have gone back to using the FHWA fonts after the original IA was rescinded? As I see it, Clearview continues to be used in many different places today.
PA switched back to Clearview right after it was reinstated.
Of course. Pennsylvania and Texas both would since it's their little pet.
Anyone know if any other states are using it these days? I seem to remember there was mention that Kentucky was planning on it previously in this thread.
I don't think South Carolina will drop it any time soon.
Anyone know if any other states are using it these days? I seem to remember there was mention that Kentucky was planning on it previously in this thread.
We had an earlier discussion as to whether Michigan DOT was going back to the FHWA Series. I thought they might be, based on the typefaces shown in one plans set, but a local observer expressed doubt that was the case, and indeed nearly every signing sheet I have extracted (up to March 2020) has shown legend in Clearview.
I have varied in how closely I have kept track of the various state DOTs involved, but I think it is pretty definite that North Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Ohio, Delaware, and Maryland--Clearview users all--have returned to the FHWA Series. Vermont is still using Clearview for destination legend on freeways; generic words on freeway signs appear in FHWA Series, as does all legend on conventional-road guide signs. For Virginia, Wyoming, and West Virginia, all of which also used Clearview at one point or another, I don't have enough signing sheets in hand to come to a clear conclusion.I don't think South Carolina will drop it any time soon.
I am not so sure about that. In May 2020 or thereabouts, SCDOT opened bids on a sign replacement covering I-77 in Lexington and Richland Counties. Series E Modified is used throughout.
I can confirm, OhioDOT hasn't (to my knowlege) put up new Clearview signage in a few years.Can confirm that too
I can confirm, OhioDOT hasn't (to my knowlege) put up new Clearview signage in a few years.Can confirm that too
Over the past few months, I've seen fresh installs for all BGS between Red Bank (exit 9) and Reagan (exit 14) on I-71, can't remember if Ridge/562 got replaced SB too, but NB is still using the button copy. They're all in the FHWA font, opposed to the Clearview I've seen on sign installations 5 years ago.
A side game:
If you live in a state that is religiously Clearveiw, what is the most recent FHWA installation you can think of?
I live in Texas who is madly in love with Clearveiw, but there are still signs at the I-35-US-290/SH-71 interchange that are in FHWA and that intersection was completed (and new sign installation with it) in 2006. In the Austin area at least, that's the newest signs I can think of that have FHWA font on them. Me thinks it's because they were ordered before the Clearveiw stuff happened and were sitting in the warehouse that long.
A side game:
If you live in a state that is religiously Clearveiw, what is the most recent FHWA installation you can think of?
I live in Texas who is madly in love with Clearveiw, but there are still signs at the I-35-US-290/SH-71 interchange that are in FHWA and that intersection was completed (and new sign installation with it) in 2006. In the Austin area at least, that's the newest signs I can think of that have FHWA font on them. Me thinks it's because they were ordered before the Clearveiw stuff happened and were sitting in the warehouse that long.
I think ODOT a few years ago was trying to get rid of its clearview stock, so they were (at least in my area) replacing signs that didn't seem to need a replacement this early with clearview ones. Thankfully, that is over.I can confirm, OhioDOT hasn't (to my knowlege) put up new Clearview signage in a few years.Can confirm that too
Over the past few months, I've seen fresh installs for all BGS between Red Bank (exit 9) and Reagan (exit 14) on I-71, can't remember if Ridge/562 got replaced SB too, but NB is still using the button copy. They're all in the FHWA font, opposed to the Clearview I've seen on sign installations 5 years ago.
ODOT did put up "new" Clearview signs in Akron in the last year at the Main/Broadway project on I-76/77, including negative contrast full panels in Clearview for things like LANE ENDS 1/2 MILE (ugh) and Clearview in EXIT ONLY fields, but they were designed before the changeover. Projects like I-76 in Norton/Barberton ended up all FHWA, thank goodness.
I wonder exactly how many states have gone back to using the FHWA fonts after the original IA was rescinded? As I see it, Clearview continues to be used in many different places today.
ADOT has chosen not to use Clearview, but is using Enhanced E Modified for freeway signs, Series D for regular roads, and Series C for street blades.
Examples of EE(m) signs?
A side game:
If you live in a state that is religiously Clearveiw, what is the most recent FHWA installation you can think of?
I live in Texas who is madly in love with Clearveiw, but there are still signs at the I-35-US-290/SH-71 interchange that are in FHWA and that intersection was completed (and new sign installation with it) in 2006. In the Austin area at least, that's the newest signs I can think of that have FHWA font on them. Me thinks it's because they were ordered before the Clearveiw stuff happened and were sitting in the warehouse that long.
in Michigan, FHWA signs went up a few years ago as part of the reconstruction of I-75 near Pontiac. There also were several individual FHWA replacement signs in various locations in the past two or three years. I suspect Michigan very briefly switched back to FHWA and then back again to Clearview the instant it was reinstated, as J N Winkler noted above.
A few comments off the top of my head after watching:FWIW, FL's use of Clearview is limited to the CFX expressway system, while the other highways still use Gothic. Caltrans has put up new signs on I-5 in Orange County showing Clearview (and also on street signs in a few cities), but the old Gothic signs are still around, perhaps forever since the Golden State is notoriously behind all the other states when it comes to sign modernization. As for NC, I believe that the usage of Clearview is limited to select municipalities, as all the freeways are still signed in Gothic.
1. The map of which states use Clearview at 3:45 was... interesting. I didn't realize that Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, and California used Clearview. I don't know what Meeker and Associates considered "selective", but one thing is for sure: WisDOT does NOT use Clearview. At all. (Yes, I do know about some of the signs around Madison)
I was on US 52 between the Ashland bridge and OH 7 last weekend, and noticed that all the old button copy signage had been replaced with FHWA. Did Ohio not re-embrace Clearview?
I was on US 52 between the Ashland bridge and OH 7 last weekend, and noticed that all the old button copy signage had been replaced with FHWA. Did Ohio not re-embrace Clearview?ODOT switched back to FHWA at around 2018ish. The clearview signage from before then remained, but I guess they’re done with it for new signage.
Examples of EE(m) signs?
I took a photo of this one on Wednesday. I snapped the photo quickly when I realized it was EE(m).
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/IMG_5268.JPG)
I wonder exactly how many states have gone back to using the FHWA fonts after the original IA was rescinded? As I see it, Clearview continues to be used in many different places today.
ADOT has chosen not to use Clearview, but is using Enhanced E Modified for freeway signs, Series D for regular roads, and Series C for street blades.
I noticed the new EE(m) signs along I-10 during my recent trip to Tucson (our relocation is at the end of March) and it looks really good. Honestly, when it comes to Clearview, Arizona and Texas are the only two states (in my experience, and I’ve been in all 50 states) that seem to do Clearview well. I have no issue with the way either state uses Clearview. Michigan and Illinois (outside of Chicago) also do quite well with Clearview.
But the EE(m) signs in Arizona look fantastic. Are other states adopting Enhanced E Modified?
Here's some bad Arizona Clearview for you. It's rare but it does / did exist. It was typically when ADOT tried to put Clearview on mileage distances:
This has to be one of the worst (if not the worst) signs I've ever seen Arizona install: https://goo.gl/maps/FYWfe8EAEEajXHpS6
This has to be one of the worst (if not the worst) signs I've ever seen Arizona install: https://goo.gl/maps/FYWfe8EAEEajXHpS6
If that's bad for Arizona, you guys have it good!
If they increased the leading between lines 1 and 2, that would make it better IMO.
This has to be one of the worst (if not the worst) signs I've ever seen Arizona install: https://goo.gl/maps/FYWfe8EAEEajXHpS6
If that's bad for Arizona, you guys have it good!
If they increased the leading between lines 1 and 2, that would make it better IMO.
Unless you want to exit at Bell Road or Princess Drive, because those exits are ?? miles away.
Unless you want to exit at Bell Road or Princess Drive, because those exits are ?? miles away.
Part of the problem with that sign is it doesn't really differentiate between the fact that there are actually 2 exists.
The first exit is for Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd and Bell Rd, the second exit is for Pima Road and Princess Drive.
This has to be one of the worst (if not the worst) signs I've ever seen Arizona install: https://goo.gl/maps/FYWfe8EAEEajXHpS6
If that's bad for Arizona, you guys have it good!
If they increased the leading between lines 1 and 2, that would make it better IMO.
Unless you want to exit at Bell Road or Princess Drive, because those exits are ?? miles away.
Part of the problem with that sign is it doesn't really differentiate between the fact that there are actually 2 exists.
The first exit is for Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd and Bell Rd, the second exit is for Pima Road and Princess Drive.
Unless you want to exit at Bell Road or Princess Drive, because those exits are ?? miles away.Part of the problem with that sign is it doesn't really differentiate between the fact that there are actually 2 exists.
The first exit is for Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd and Bell Rd, the second exit is for Pima Road and Princess Drive.
I wasn't totally sure where the distance was supposed to go when there are multiple streets for a single exit. I figured it was to the right of the bottom-most street. So in the sign, the first street was 1/2 mile away, and the next three streets are 2 miles away. But I didn't look at the freeway to figure it out on my own.
To be fair, WSDOT isn't a big user of distance signs, so I don't really know how they work. Should they be centered to the right of the streets when there are multiple lines?
Nevertheless, the distance sign is not an issue because of Clearview. So why it's in this thread, I don't know.
@ztonyg - Those kinds of signs actually don't look that bad. Yes, they use Clearview incorrectly, but at least the text looks good. There's no weird kerning, no 3/4ths error, no stretching or compressing. Arizona has more than a few signs that look worse than your examples.
Those kinds of signs using all Clearview were par-for-the-course in several states for a while and still are in Texas and Michigan.
Regardless, when done correctly, EEM for the win!
There's an EE(m) / Clearview mix: https://goo.gl/maps/s3gydMAjtCxeiJ1X7
I've driven quite a bit in California, a very big user of distance signs, so I can say with confidence that it should be centered between the two lines, as shown in the picture below. I would agree that this has nothing to do with Clearview, however. It does look like the fraction might not be formatted correctly, though, which could possibly be blamed on Clearview if so, but I'm not sure.
I've driven quite a bit in California, a very big user of distance signs, so I can say with confidence that it should be centered between the two lines, as shown in the picture below. I would agree that this has nothing to do with Clearview, however. It does look like the fraction might not be formatted correctly, though, which could possibly be blamed on Clearview if so, but I'm not sure.
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_002_02.jpg)
Indeed, Texas has done that for a long time and it really cleans up things when there are more than one line of text for one exit on such a sign.I've driven quite a bit in California, a very big user of distance signs, so I can say with confidence that it should be centered between the two lines, as shown in the picture below. I would agree that this has nothing to do with Clearview, however. It does look like the fraction might not be formatted correctly, though, which could possibly be blamed on Clearview if so, but I'm not sure.
I think pretty much every jurisdiction adheres to the rule that when an exit label spans two lines on an interchange sequence sign, the distance to that exit is centered vertically on those two lines. However, some agencies (like TxDOT) use part- or full-width ruled lines to separate multiline labels and thus further reduce ambiguity.
As Kphoger and others have noted, this FLW Blvd./Bell Rd./Princess Rd./Pima Dr. interchange sequence sign is a design fail.
The fraction doesn't look right to my eye either. I suspect overlarge numerals.
Indeed, Texas has done that for a long time and it really cleans up things when there are more than one line of text for one exit on such a sign.I've driven quite a bit in California, a very big user of distance signs, so I can say with confidence that it should be centered between the two lines, as shown in the picture below. I would agree that this has nothing to do with Clearview, however. It does look like the fraction might not be formatted correctly, though, which could possibly be blamed on Clearview if so, but I'm not sure.
I think pretty much every jurisdiction adheres to the rule that when an exit label spans two lines on an interchange sequence sign, the distance to that exit is centered vertically on those two lines. However, some agencies (like TxDOT) use part- or full-width ruled lines to separate multiline labels and thus further reduce ambiguity.
As Kphoger and others have noted, this FLW Blvd./Bell Rd./Princess Rd./Pima Dr. interchange sequence sign is a design fail.
The fraction doesn't look right to my eye either. I suspect overlarge numerals.
e.g., (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/tx/us_54/edist.jpg)
My photo from 2001 on Steve's US 54 Texas page (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/tx/us_54/).
The terrible distance sign in Arizona would be equally bad in FHWA lettering as it is in Clearview; no typeface can save the layout there. Needs some dividing lines or something!
My guess would be that all three of those roads exit on the same lane from the mainline, and that it is a C/D lane. This guess may be wrong, but it's what makes the most sense to me for why the Exit Only plaque exists on there.Indeed, Texas has done that for a long time and it really cleans up things when there are more than one line of text for one exit on such a sign.I've driven quite a bit in California, a very big user of distance signs, so I can say with confidence that it should be centered between the two lines, as shown in the picture below. I would agree that this has nothing to do with Clearview, however. It does look like the fraction might not be formatted correctly, though, which could possibly be blamed on Clearview if so, but I'm not sure.
I think pretty much every jurisdiction adheres to the rule that when an exit label spans two lines on an interchange sequence sign, the distance to that exit is centered vertically on those two lines. However, some agencies (like TxDOT) use part- or full-width ruled lines to separate multiline labels and thus further reduce ambiguity.
As Kphoger and others have noted, this FLW Blvd./Bell Rd./Princess Rd./Pima Dr. interchange sequence sign is a design fail.
The fraction doesn't look right to my eye either. I suspect overlarge numerals.
e.g., (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/tx/us_54/edist.jpg)
My photo from 2001 on Steve's US 54 Texas page (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/tx/us_54/).
The terrible distance sign in Arizona would be equally bad in FHWA lettering as it is in Clearview; no typeface can save the layout there. Needs some dividing lines or something!
Not to get too OT but that terrible distance sign in Arizona replaced a weird hybrid distance sign / EXIT ONLY sign: https://goo.gl/maps/25ay31KpiD99t3Kw6
I've driven quite a bit in California, a very big user of distance signs, so I can say with confidence that it should be centered between the two lines, as shown in the picture below. I would agree that this has nothing to do with Clearview, however. It does look like the fraction might not be formatted correctly, though, which could possibly be blamed on Clearview if so, but I'm not sure.
Yeah, the fraction isn't perfect. But not sure I'd blame Clearview there either.
I think pretty much every jurisdiction adheres to the rule that when an exit label spans two lines on an interchange sequence sign, the distance to that exit is centered vertically on those two lines. However, some agencies (like TxDOT) use part- or full-width ruled lines to separate multiline labels and thus further reduce ambiguity.
As Kphoger and others have noted, this FLW Blvd./Bell Rd./Princess Rd./Pima Dr. interchange sequence sign is a design fail.
The fraction doesn't look right to my eye either. I suspect overlarge numerals.
Friendly reminder for everyone to post their thoughts on Clearview in a comment to FHWA on the new proposed MUTCD before 11:59 PM EST tomorrow! (Especially those of you that voted for the first option in the thread's poll :bigass:)
Link: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FHWA-2020-0001-0001
As a reminder, the proposed MUTCD limits Clearview usage to solely the destination text on Freeway and Expressway Guide Signs (aka BGSs).
The Vox video on the two highway typefaces was interesting.
I like it that they interviewed Tobias Frere-Jones for the docu-short. He is a bona fide expert on typography and one of the more talented type designers working today. IMHO, Gotham was the first highly successful typeface of the 21st century.
But there were other things they left out of the article. Frere-Jones pointed out a lot of the blunt quirks of "Highway Gothic" (aka Series Gothic). They didn't really get into how Frere-Jones cleaned up many of the letter forms in the Interstate type family he first designed thru Font Bureau. Just recently Font Bureau ended their short relationship with the Adobe Fonts service for Creative Cloud, pulling popular type families such as Interstate. But then Frere-Jones put Interstate back into the Adobe Fonts service via his own independent type foundry. A few other type designers have done the same thing.
Here is a bigger issue: the Highway Gothic vs Clearview Battle is 17 years old -and that's just going from when Clearview Highway earned interim approval. The typeface had been in development for years prior to that.
A lot has happened with type technology in the past 17 years. The OpenType format was a brand new thing when Clearview (which used older TrueType) was released. The OpenType format allows for much larger character sets. More recently the OpenType Variable standard debuted and now Variable Fonts are growing in popularity. Many of the best selling commercial fonts on the market offer variable versions in addition to standard "single instance" font files. OpenType SVG is an even newer standard.
Meanwhile the two existing highway sign typefaces are badly outdated, technologically speaking. The character sets of the various versions of Highway Gothic are minimal at best. Most industry-specific sign making applications are badly outdated with their type handling capabilities as well. That software isn't fundamentally any better in terms of type handling than a 30 year old copy of CorelDRAW. I work in the sign industry, but I do most of my vector-based design work within Adobe Illustrator CC and CorelDRAW 2021. Using "CAS" apps like Flexi is like stepping in a time machine back to the mid 1990's. I won't use a design application that isn't fully OpenType-aware.
These days when graphics people buy commercial type it is expected the typefaces offer a number of modern OTF-oriented features in greatly expanded character sets. One type family I bought recently, Coco Sharp by Zetafonts, has over 2000 glyphs per font file. Variable fonts is another item that raises the standards bar even higher. The last few type families I have purchased for work have all included variable fonts in the package. OTF Var fonts that include variable weight and width axes are more desirable. Coco Sharp is fairly unique; it's the first variable font I've seen to include a variable x-height axis (along with a weight axis).
That sort of gets back to the Clearview thing and why the legibility study was arguably flawed. Clearview obviously has a larger x-height than Series Gothic. If you set the same line of lettering in Clearview and Series Gothic, both with the same cap letter height, the line set in Clearview will take up more length on a sign panel. That doesn't let Series Gothic off the hook however; it still has lots of tight counters and tight bends that do harm legibility.
I think if the folks behind Clearview want the typeface to get full approval they need to go back to work on the designs and improve it further. That also means properly expanding the character set to include things like native small capitals, or fixing the fraction sets so they match cap letter heights. I don't know if they need to go as far as making a variable version of Clearview Highway. On the other hand, I can't see anyone going out of their way to buy Clearview Highway's "commercial" sister, Clearview One. Not with what else is in the commercial fonts marketplace. If they want commercial sales and popularity of Clearview One to improve they need to update it accordingly.
Would commenting to the FHWA actually do anything? Because it's Congress that mandated FHWA to reinstate Clearview in the first place. So FHWA would just say their hands are tied.
However, some agencies (like TxDOT) use part- or full-width ruled lines to separate multiline labels and thus further reduce ambiguity.
Would commenting to the FHWA actually do anything? Because it's Congress that mandated FHWA to reinstate Clearview in the first place. So FHWA would just say their hands are tied.
That Congressional mandate expired–it was only in place for one fiscal year, if I remember correctly–and has not been renewed. Removing Clearview from the proposed MUTCD would be status quo. The proposed MUTCD change basically makes Clearview book-legal without an IA, but also restricts its usage far more than the Clearview circular ever has (which I think is a little odd, even as an Series EEM partisan; I don't see anything inherently wrong with Texas's use of it on conventional-road guide signage, which would be banned by the proposed Clearview rules).
However, some agencies (like TxDOT) use part- or full-width ruled lines to separate multiline labels and thus further reduce ambiguity.
Yes, for an example of a comparable but vastly superior sign in Texas, see here (https://goo.gl/maps/pe16cjuw8UgFE2Ua8).
Edit: Also, speaking of fonts, is this freaking Segoe UI on these right here, also nearby?!
https://goo.gl/maps/Yv23RJd1DcanDqRc6
Coincidentally, the sign you linked is next to this monstrosity though. Four street names... gross!
https://goo.gl/maps/m81eqC9cu33xLz6L9
Would commenting to the FHWA actually do anything? Because it's Congress that mandated FHWA to reinstate Clearview in the first place. So FHWA would just say their hands are tied.
That Congressional mandate expired–it was only in place for one fiscal year, if I remember correctly–and has not been renewed. Removing Clearview from the proposed MUTCD would be status quo. The proposed MUTCD change basically makes Clearview book-legal without an IA, but also restricts its usage far more than the Clearview circular ever has (which I think is a little odd, even as an Series EEM partisan; I don't see anything inherently wrong with Texas's use of it on conventional-road guide signage, which would be banned by the proposed Clearview rules).
https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/
North Carolina DOES NOT use Clearview.
2017 I think, give or take a year. Definitely not earlier than that, as I remember a sign replacement spree on OH 126 with new Clearview ones (along with adding exit numbers) in 2015.
- Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.
https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/
North Carolina DOES NOT use Clearview.
That whole page probably needs to be updated. I don't remember NCDOT ever using Clearview.
A few things I also noticed could be changed:
- Arizona stopped using Clearview.
- To say that Wisconsin uses Clearview is inaccurate. There are a few signs around Madison, but that's basically it for the entire state.
- ISTHA definitely has dropped Clearview, and IDOT likely has dropped Clearview.
- Oklahoma may have stopped using Clearview if the latest signs on I-44 are any indication.
- Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.
2017 I think, give or take a year. Definitely not earlier than that, as I remember a sign replacement spree on OH 126 with new Clearview ones (along with adding exit numbers) in 2015.
- Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.
https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/
North Carolina DOES NOT use Clearview.
That whole page probably needs to be updated. I don't remember NCDOT ever using Clearview.
A few things I also noticed could be changed:
- Arizona stopped using Clearview.
- To say that Wisconsin uses Clearview is inaccurate. There are a few signs around Madison, but that's basically it for the entire state.
- ISTHA definitely has dropped Clearview, and IDOT likely has dropped Clearview.
- Oklahoma may have stopped using Clearview if the latest signs on I-44 are any indication.
- Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.
Oklahoma has stopped using it. A recent-ish (2019) signage project on US 69 from TX to McAlester and ongoing project on resigning I-35 from TX to Murray County is proving this out. They look to both be using Series E(M). (I think)
https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/
North Carolina DOES NOT use Clearview.
That whole page probably needs to be updated. I don't remember NCDOT ever using Clearview.
A few things I also noticed could be changed:
- Arizona stopped using Clearview.
- To say that Wisconsin uses Clearview is inaccurate. There are a few signs around Madison, but that's basically it for the entire state.
- ISTHA definitely has dropped Clearview, and IDOT likely has dropped Clearview.
- Oklahoma may have stopped using Clearview if the latest signs on I-44 are any indication.
- Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.
I had not updated that page in several years. Did not even realize that the maps Signgeek made no longer displayed...
So fixed those and updated the list after reviewing the recent posts in this thread.
https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/
North Carolina DOES NOT use Clearview.
That whole page probably needs to be updated. I don't remember NCDOT ever using Clearview.
A few things I also noticed could be changed:
- Arizona stopped using Clearview.
- To say that Wisconsin uses Clearview is inaccurate. There are a few signs around Madison, but that's basically it for the entire state.
- ISTHA definitely has dropped Clearview, and IDOT likely has dropped Clearview.
- Oklahoma may have stopped using Clearview if the latest signs on I-44 are any indication.
- Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.
But, these are in clearview.2017 I think, give or take a year. Definitely not earlier than that, as I remember a sign replacement spree on OH 126 with new Clearview ones (along with adding exit numbers) in 2015.
- Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.
Yea, and it was installed sometime in late 2016 or early 2017 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9769203,-83.1292291,3a,34.4y,146.89h,94.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIwaYthxc10Is4TJQ8Y6mnQ!2e0!5s20170901T000000!7i13312!8i6656), which matches the year range I've given. Not sure what you're trying to say there.But, these are in clearview.2017 I think, give or take a year. Definitely not earlier than that, as I remember a sign replacement spree on OH 126 with new Clearview ones (along with adding exit numbers) in 2015.
- Ohio's newest signs I believe no longer use Clearview. I'm not sure exactly when they stopped though.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9765366,-83.1294352,3a,49.1y,96.42h,96.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2No6zw1ftK-8erutedW-1g!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7722431,-73.8728842,3a,75y,110.44h,98.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa_A_49g40kQuk21BhdC14w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7722431,-73.8728842,3a,75y,110.44h,98.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa_A_49g40kQuk21BhdC14w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1)
Clearview, in LGA NY? :hmmm:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7722431,-73.8728842,3a,75y,110.44h,98.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa_A_49g40kQuk21BhdC14w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7722431,-73.8728842,3a,75y,110.44h,98.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa_A_49g40kQuk21BhdC14w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1)
Clearview, in LGA NY? :hmmm:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7722431,-73.8728842,3a,75y,110.44h,98.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa_A_49g40kQuk21BhdC14w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7722431,-73.8728842,3a,75y,110.44h,98.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa_A_49g40kQuk21BhdC14w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1)
Clearview, in LGA NY? :hmmm:
That's Frutiger. Not every font on a sign that isn't FHWA Series is Clearview.
I know this has been talked about, but my recent trip to Niagara Falls shocked me as to how much Clearview was being used in New York.
Does Maryland not use Clearview anymore? These were installed in 2018 or 2019.
Hmm. The Maryland DOT highway agencies appear to be singing from separate songbooks. From a Maryland Transportation Authority contract advertised sometime after September 2020:I-95 from the 895 split/merge northeastward has usually been visually distinct from other Maryland Interstates, owing to its former toll road status.
(https://i.imgur.com/GTAY8OJ.png)
What's with the overlay?
I've also seen other newer Clearview signs in Kentucky but it's not consistent - but never a mix like what I've seen here.
What's with the overlay?
Just saw this post--I think the overlay may be for a future direct connection to the express lanes, but this is only a guess.I've also seen other newer Clearview signs in Kentucky but it's not consistent - but never a mix like what I've seen here.
Since we now have free access to the KyTC planroom (still have to "buy" the plans but the charge for downloads is $0), I'm planning to set up ongoing collection in the near future. Over the years I've managed to cobble together 389 pattern-accurate KyTC sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets from various sources, and they suggest two different approaches to Clearview dominate in Kentucky--(1) Clearview for all positive-contrast legend and (2) Clearview for primary destination legend only. However, I suspect KyTC does relatively little of its freeway/expressway signing through the types of contracts that actually include sign sketches in the plans or proposal book.
I was surprised the all of the old US 25/25E signs remained up - some of those date back several decades with their center tabs and what appears to be tacked on lettering (similar to what West Virginia used until more recently). Those old signs are so much more durable than what's being put out today with all of the vinyl lettering.
It would appear that UDOT has in fact used Clearview font beyond the Legacy Parkway:
(https://i.imgur.com/YSxGGNu.jpg)
That hospital sign sure looks like Clearview to me. There are a few others just like it along 186 in the area; poking around on street view, it looks like they went up somewhere in the 2015-2017 time frame.
Also worth noting that "University Childrens" actually refers to two separate hospitals, the University of Utah and Primary Children's. Sign design could maybe be worked on some.
Among the states that used Clearview but no longer do:WI experimented with it and stopped a long time ago.
AZ, IL, IA, OH, OK and WY
...and I suspect that more will follow.
Is this clearview?Only the street name, not the font on the sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8442583,-86.480322,3a,50.4y,320.48h,95.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8zVLn8a-Jdr4P9ONBYLIQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8442583,-86.480322,3a,50.4y,320.48h,95.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8zVLn8a-Jdr4P9ONBYLIQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Among the states that used Clearview but no longer do:
AZ, IL, IA, OH, OK and WY
...and I suspect that more will follow.
Among the states that used Clearview but no longer do:
AZ, IL, IA, OH, OK and WY
...and I suspect that more will follow.
Why do you say that?
(Seriously, what's going on with them??)
I don't like that some states went back to using Clearview, but if they use it as it was originally intended and design signs that look professional, then I don't mind them. I would gladly take a nice-looking Clearview sign than compressed and stretched Highway Gothic like we've seen recently from ISTHA. (Seriously, what's going on with them??)I've seen plenty of nice Clearview signs. (Alaska has quite a few). It's pretty much what you said: if the proportions are right, it's fine. A lot of it looking bad was because it was new, it wasn't what we were used to. But it also would have mixed font usage, or all caps (Clearview is intended to be mixed case). I used to like it, then hated it, then went back to liking it. It's totally fine with me as long as it's done right.
I don't like that some states went back to using Clearview, but if they use it as it was originally intended and design signs that look professional, then I don't mind them. I would gladly take a nice-looking Clearview sign than compressed and stretched Highway Gothic like we've seen recently from ISTHA. (Seriously, what's going on with them??)
I don't like that some states went back to using Clearview, but if they use it as it was originally intended and design signs that look professional, then I don't mind them. I would gladly take a nice-looking Clearview sign than compressed and stretched Highway Gothic like we've seen recently from ISTHA. (Seriously, what's going on with them??)I've seen plenty of nice Clearview signs. (Alaska has quite a few). It's pretty much what you said: if the proportions are right, it's fine. A lot of it looking bad was because it was new, it wasn't what we were used to. But it also would have mixed font usage, or all caps (Clearview is intended to be mixed case). I used to like it, then hated it, then went back to liking it. It's totally fine with me as long as it's done right.
I prefer the standard font because with a Clearview sign that complies with standards, it is still larger than a similar "Highway Gothic" sign with the same legibility, and since taxpayer funding is often involved in paying for signage, it is good to reduce that cost as much as possible.
I don't think Clearview costs money per sign but rather obtaining the font costs money. But yeah, using the free Highway Gothic can save money that way too.
Michigan signed a lot of route markers using Clearview numerals. I wouldn't be so quick to praise their implementation of Clearview.
I prefer the standard font because with a Clearview sign that complies with standards, it is still larger than a similar "Highway Gothic" sign with the same legibility, and since taxpayer funding is often involved in paying for signage, it is good to reduce that cost as much as possible.
I thought Clearview was a one-time license?
Most "highway gothic" fonts have very minimal character sets.
Meh. I never have a problem with any of them but E(M), which has wonky spacing tables in the original specs that both Roadgeek fonts accurately replicate. Any time I do anything in E(M), I just kern the characters by eye until they look right. It usually takes all of five minutes to do.
Meh. I never have a problem with any of them but E(M), which has wonky spacing tables in the original specs that both Roadgeek fonts accurately replicate. Any time I do anything in E(M), I just kern the characters by eye until they look right. It usually takes all of five minutes to do.
As far as licensing goes, I actually bought the $700 license or so many years ago. I've, um, shared it a few times. If anyone does want the "official" font, I can provide it. Totally unofficially, of course. Although I've seen replicas online that look the same. Granted, this is just personal use. Very different from actual commercial/DOT usage.
I remember downloading an early version of the Roadgeek knock-off of Clearview Highway. It was pretty rough looking (auto-traced maybe?) compared to the real Clearview typeface. I don't know if it has been improved since then.
$500 or $800 is expensive for a graphic designer with a road sign fetish. The same cost is small for a state highway agency, turnpike authority, municipal government or even many commercial sign companies.Is that $500-800 for a site license or per each user?
AIUI, the Roadgeek versions of both the FHWA series and Clearview originated as auto-traces to sidestep copyright restrictions. However, for the FHWA series, the traces were produced by rasterizing the embedded vector images of the letter glyphs in the alphabets section of Standard Highway Signs at very high resolution, so there are few redundant points and they can be seen only at high magnification. When FHWA published the Clearview supplement, the glyphs were embedded as fairly low-resolution rasters, so there were no vectors to rasterize and then trace, and there is a fair amount of roughness that is visible without zooming in.
This said, I use Roadgeek Clearview despite having access to better renderings because letter heights are consistent throughout the font family (i.e., at my working font size of 24 point in CorelDraw, uppercase X is the same height for all fonts). I do have to use a separate file to assemble Clearview legend blocks because line height is different for Roadgeek Clearview (I don't know if this issue comes from the fonts themselves or CorelDraw) and not all lowercase letters are trimmed to capital letter height.